Antivaccine nonsense Medicine Pseudoscience Skepticism/critical thinking

Vaccines didn’t cause the obesity epidemic, RFK Jr.’s lies not withstanding

Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. published an article claiming that vaccines and glyphosate are responsible for the obesity epidemic. Too bad he cited the work of longtime antivaccine cranks.

Those of us who have been following the antivaccine movement and the sorts of claims that its members are seldom surprised by what antivaxxers blame on vaccines. Basically, antivaxxers blame everything on vaccines: autism, autoimmune diseases, diabetes, sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS), cancer, and more diseases and health conditions than I can easily list here. We’ve discussed at one time or another nearly all of these claims and why they’re bogus. However, there’s one claim that I don’t recall having discussed here before. So I have to thank antivaccine leader Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. and his antivaccine group Children’s Health Defense for providing me with the opportunity to do so by publishing a post last month, “Weighing Down Childhood: Are Vaccines and Glyphosate Contributing to Childhood Obesity?” Here’s a hint: Betteridge’s law of headlines definitely applies here, no matter how much RFK Jr. and whoever wrote this pile of antivaccine pseudoscience wants to lead you to believe otherwise.

Naturally, the “Children’s Health Defense Team” starts out by confusing correlation with causation:

Over the past several decades, the experience of childhood has changed fundamentally for many American children. Impairing their ability to climb trees and run races, over a third are encumbered—at even the youngest ages—with runaway weight and associated sequelae like high blood pressure and, as the CDC has just reported, diabetes. As of 2015-16, about 13.7 million U.S. children and adolescents—roughly one in five (18.5%)—were obese, and another 17% were overweight. Even worse, a third of those classified as obese fell into the category of “extreme obesity.”

In the adolescent age group (12- to 19-year-olds), obesity prevalence—at 21%—has quadrupled since the 1980s, generating $14 billion in annual direct health expenses. Researchers are even more concerned, however, by the worsening picture in 2- to 5-year-olds. Studies show that early-onset weight gain has long-term risks; when children start kindergarten overweight, they are four times more likely to become obese by eighth grade as normal-weight kindergartners. In less than a decade (from 2007-08 to 2015-16), the prevalence of obesity and severe obesity in the 2- to 5-year age group rose from 10% to 14%. In the most recent two-year cycle, this sharp increase in preschool-age children—particularly boys, African Americans and Hispanics—prompted researchers to fret about the obesity epidemic having become “endemic.” At a societal level, experts warn that “The obesity epidemic threatens to shorten life expectancy . . . and bankrupt the health care system.”

Yes, the obesity epidemic is a major problem, contributing to increases in heart disease, type II diabetes, and a large number of other health problems. For reasons that remain unclear but appear to be due to a combination of increasing calorie intake and decreasing activity, beginning in the 1980s the prevalence of obesity, including extreme or morbid obesity, has skyrocketed. Particularly concerning is the increase in the prevalence of obesity among children because obese children tend to become obese adults, with all the health problems that obesity entails.

Of course, one thing that we’re quite sure is not behind the obesity epidemic is vaccines. Naturally, that means that the antivaccine propaganda crew at Children’s Health Defense will try to blame the childhood obesity epidemic on—you guessed it!—vaccines:

In multiple papers published over the last decade and a half, immunologist JB Classen has been making the case that “vaccine induced immune overload”—which he also refers to as “iatrogenic immune stimulation”—is a primary cause of the obesity epidemic and other inflammatory disease epidemics. Arguing that a “huge increase” in inflammation-associated disorders has followed on the heels of the “massive increase” in the childhood vaccine schedule, Classen points out that “The epidemic of obesity in US children has a statistically significant positive correlation with the number of vaccine doses recommended,” with similar trends evident for hypertension and metabolic syndrome.

I do so love antivaccine “logic”. The prevalence of obesity has increased dramatically since the late 1970s/early 1980s, and there are more vaccines on the CDC recommended childhood vaccine schedule now than there were 40 years ago. Ergo, it must be the vaccines! It’s exactly the same flawed logic that led antivaxxers to claim that the prevalence of autism, which has been increasing since the early 1990s, and its apparent correlation with expansion of the number of vaccines on the childhood schedule must mean that vaccines cause autism.

But who is “J.B. Classen”? I recall having heard of him before. An example is this mention of him on this blog in a post by John Snyder from over ten years ago. It turns out that J.B. Classen is John Bartholomew Classen, a well-known antivaccine activist who usually goes by the Bart Classen. According to Wikipedia, Dr. Classen received his MD from the University of Maryland, Baltimore in 1988 and also has an MBA from Columbia University. Unsurprisingly, he’s been quoted by Sharyl Attkisson, a reporter who’s become an antivaccine activist and conspiracy theorist in her own right. Classen’s website,, is pretty rudimentary but does proclaim:

The content of this site is not intended to be anti-immunization but instead to promote the concept that the goal of immunization is to promote health not eradicate infections. It is hoped that through the collection and dissemination of information about the chronic effects of vaccines, safer immunization practices will become available for those who choose to be immunized.

Ah, yes, the “I’m not ‘antivaccine’; I’m a pro-safe vaccine” gambit, beloved of antivaxxers going back at least to Jenny McCarthy 13 years ago. Naturally, after proclaiming himself a “vaccine safety advocate”, Dr. Classen then goes on to spout antivaccine misinformation:

There is growing evidence that immunization causes a large number of other chronic diseases including autism, diabetes, obesity, metabolic syndrome, autoimmune diseases, allergies, asthma, cancers, and Gulf War Syndrome. Data linking these diseases to vaccines includes human and animal data. In many cases, the increased risk of developing these diseases following immunization exceeds the risk of infectious complications prevented by immunization.

In other words, “I’m not antivaccine, but I believe that vaccines cause every disease under the sun and are riskier than infectious disease”. Actually, that’s the very definition of being antivaccine.

But what about the publications cited by Children’s Health Defense? One link is to a press release by Dr. Classen, who apparently has his own company, Classen Immunotherepeutics, Inc., which is described thusly:

Classen Immunotherapies, Inc. is a privately held research stage biopharmaceutical company devoted to discovering safer uses of vaccines, drugs, devices, chemicals and related products. Classen Immunotherapies discovered that common vaccines are one of the most important causes of diabetes in children and in highly immunized adults. Management believes that many drugs and chemicals also cause severe adverse events that have not yet been discovered. Epidemiology and other tools can be used to identify high risk situations where the use of a drug or other agent should be avoided. Examples of situations where use of a drug should be avoided include situations where serious adverse drug drug interactions are common and situations where serious adverse interactions between drugs and existing medical conditions are common.

Classen Immunotherapies believes that research to discover adverse events has been severely hampered because there has been little financial incentive to discover adverse events and little incentive for manufacturers to disclose adverse events. As a results many individuals have been unnecessarily injured by drug adverse events and drug adverse events are now one of the largest causes of morbidity and mortality in the United States. Classen Immunotherapies has developed and patented methods which create financial incentives for finding and disclosing adverse event information. These methods pertain to patenting the disclosure of adverse events.

Translation: “I’m not antivaccine. I just believe that vaccines cause all sorts of horrible things and run a company whose purpose is to show that.”

Back to the first citation, a press release. Since it’s a press release, I’ll ignore it and go straight to the paper that it’s announcing, a 2017 paper in the Journal of Endocrinology, Diabetes, and Obesity. The first thing I noticed is that the journal appears to be a predatory open access journal. The second thing I noticed is that this is a review article, not an original study. Let’s just say that it’s a very…selective…reading of the medical literature with respect to the obesity epidemic.

The reasoning behind the paper is basically this. Obesity is associated with inflammation, which can contribute to the production of glucocorticoids, which can cause obesity. Vaccines, according to Classen, cause “immune overload”. Unsurprisingly, the studies to which Classen links to support his claim that vaccines cause “immune overload” are all publications by—you guessed it!—Bart Classen. I was particularly amused by this paper that claims to have found that the incidence autism is correlated with the incidence of type I but not type II diabetes, his conclusion being that this indicates that vaccines cause autism and immune-mediated type I diabetes. No, seriously. I’m not making this up. Unsurprisingly, there’s no controlling for appropriate confounders, and the statistical analysis is rudimentary. In fact, Classen seems unduly impressed by observations that obesity is negatively correlated with type I diabetes as an indication that vaccines cause type I diabetes.

Another part of Classen’s argument seems to be that vaccines can cause the release of cytokines associated with obesity and the metabolic syndrome. (Metabolic syndrome is a cluster of conditions that occur together, including increased blood pressure, high blood sugar, excess body fat around the waist, and abnormal cholesterol or triglyceride levels, and frequently can lead to type II diabetes, among other conditions.) Of course, in metabolic syndrome, those cytokines are chronically elevated. Classen’s argument isn’t even coherent. On the one hand, he’s saying that autism is associated with type I but not type II diabetes (and not obesity), indicating that both are caused by vaccines. On the other hand, he’s saying that vaccines activate inflammatory cytokines leading to obesity.

Conveniently enough, Classen has an explanation:

Classen’s numerous publications focus not just on obesity but also on other immune-mediated conditions such as diabetes (types 1 and 2) and metabolic syndrome. As a result of his analyses, he makes the crucial observation that the “clinical manifestation of disease depends on one’s physiologic response to inflammation.” Stated another way, he proposes that vaccine-induced immune overload may lead to different outcomes in different individuals—explaining the many parallel childhood epidemics we are observing.

In other words, vaccines cause whatever disease Classen wants to believe they cause because everyone’s different and they can do different things in different people.

Of course, if it isn’t vaccines, it has to be glyphosate, the pesticide in RoundUp, because antivaccine views frequently co-localize in the same people as antivaccine views:

As one of the most widely used chemicals in the world, glyphosate (the active ingredient in Roundup) deserves particular attention. MIT researcher Stephanie Seneff and coauthor Anthony Samsel acknowledge the likely contribution of other environmental toxins but argue that glyphosate is the most significant “because it is pervasive and it is often handled carelessly due to its perceived nontoxicity.” Seneff and Samsel link glyphosate to three key biological disruptions—gut dysbiosis, impaired sulfate transport and suppression of a biologically important family of enzymes—all of which can explain the epidemics of obesity as well as numerous other chronic conditions. Insidiously, glyphosate also disrupts the body’s ability to detoxify other environmental toxins, leading to “synergistic enhancement of toxicity.” In addition, Seneff has pointed out elsewhere that glyphosate “has made its way into several widely used vaccines,” and especially the measles-mumps-rubella (MMR) vaccine.

You might remember Stephanie Seneff. She’s a computer scientist at MIT who thinks that gives her sufficient expertise in epidemiology to do studies in it. Among her wilder claims is that glyphosate, GMOs, and other modern lifestyle factors are responsible for the recent increase in concussions. She’s long been claiming that glyphosate causes autism. Perhaps my favorite claim of hers is that by 2025 half of all children will be autistic. Truly, Seneff is a master of inappropriately confusing correlation with causation.

To be honest, I’m rather amused. This is the best that Children’s Health Defense can come up with in terms of evidence, the ramblings of two antivaccine cranks who do horrible science that’s in conflict with what we do know? (There is no good evidence linking vaccines to obesity, for instance.) RFK, Jr. really is scraping the bottom of the barrel.

By Orac

Orac is the nom de blog of a humble surgeon/scientist who has an ego just big enough to delude himself that someone, somewhere might actually give a rodent's posterior about his copious verbal meanderings, but just barely small enough to admit to himself that few probably will. That surgeon is otherwise known as David Gorski.

That this particular surgeon has chosen his nom de blog based on a rather cranky and arrogant computer shaped like a clear box of blinking lights that he originally encountered when he became a fan of a 35 year old British SF television show whose special effects were renowned for their BBC/Doctor Who-style low budget look, but whose stories nonetheless resulted in some of the best, most innovative science fiction ever televised, should tell you nearly all that you need to know about Orac. (That, and the length of the preceding sentence.)

DISCLAIMER:: The various written meanderings here are the opinions of Orac and Orac alone, written on his own time. They should never be construed as representing the opinions of any other person or entity, especially Orac's cancer center, department of surgery, medical school, or university. Also note that Orac is nonpartisan; he is more than willing to criticize the statements of anyone, regardless of of political leanings, if that anyone advocates pseudoscience or quackery. Finally, medical commentary is not to be construed in any way as medical advice.

To contact Orac: [email protected]

49 replies on “Vaccines didn’t cause the obesity epidemic, RFK Jr.’s lies not withstanding”

to promote the concept that the goal of immunization is to promote health not eradicate infections.

Those are not mutually exclusive objectives.
Just ask rinderpest and smallpox (and at least in western countries, polio).

Seneff has pointed out elsewhere that glyphosate “has made its way into several widely used vaccines,”

I’ll be curious to compare our level of exposure to glyphosate from everyday sources, to that of the supposed level in vaccines. I wouldn’t be surprised the quantities of ingested glyphosate are a few orders of magnitude more important. It’s like complaining about the alcohol in your cough syrup while ignoring the booze you are guzzling.
I feel the antivaxers are going to jump on this, telling us about the difference between stuff ingested and stuff injected “directly” into the bloodstream.
Nope. Among the claimed bad effects are gut disbiosis, obesity, and a few other troubles of the intestinal tract. I cannot see how direct exposure from ingested food could be ignored.
tl:dr: as you said, no matter what, it’s always the vaccines.


“It’s like complaining about the alcohol in your cough syrup while ignoring the booze you are guzzling.”

I’ve heard that argument a bit too often, with substances a bit less innocuous than cough syrup. Making a fuss about the way some substances alter driving abilities while pumping depressive mothers full of benzos and putting them back in the driving seat… That’s OK because benzos are medication, therefore Good, and any remarks on the matter are met with the same kind of arguments you just made.

The point you made is correct. But that specific argument tends to be overused to extents I find much more than disrespectful.

Who is “pumping depressive mothers full of benzos…”? What is a “depressive mother” anyway?

“Benzo’s” are generally used for anxiety, not depression–for starters. You also speak very flippantly about depression, which is surely not limited to women, be they mothers or not.

Noone is likely to champion long-term use of benzodiazepines, but they have their place in medicine when used appropriately. Lots of men, some of whom are fathers, use them as well.

When I was talking of depressive mothers, I was referring to examples I knew of personally. Moms having a hard time constantly adapting to their new life as their husbands were working in a big swiss company that was keen on moving people around the world all the time. They ended up indeed full of benzos, driving their Land Rover like crazy in our so-sweet so-calm swiss villages.

For the sexist twist, I must say I do find alcoolism to be much more heart-breaking in women than men, and that impression does carry over to benzos. But data shows that there is a very significant asymmetry when it comes to benzodiazepines between men and women in my country, which also prescribes them too easily. So my stereotype is grounded in fact, whatever you may think about it.

But aside from the sexist twist, the point I was raising is the level of denial: benzos are medication, therefore nothing bad can be said about them. Doctors are always right, therefore benzos are good, and if we started admitting that driving under their influence isn’t good, then we’re simply a scientologist in hiding.

To be fair, things have started to change a bit. Since 2017, it is now officially “not advised” (cough, cough, cough…) to drive under their influence. Doesn’t change the massive double standard we’ve witnessed against other substances, where doctors (yes, doctors…) were claiming that pot stays so long in your organism that you cannot drive for up to one month after a joint. Seriously… Now it seems they’ve backed down to 13 hours, but in the end, they just say anything they feel like spouting.

But 11 million people out of 67 who are on benzos? That’s not considered a serious issue in any serious way on the road…

And the rationale does tend to be this, at least in public discourse: “It’s like complaining about the alcohol in your cough syrup while ignoring the booze you are guzzling.” Not buying this kind of pro-medication slant. If I drink booze, it’s indeed my business. If I’m forced on benzos, then there is a moral hazard issue, no matter what doctors may believe. Period.

I think the OKNeoAC response is the proper one here:

Why should anyone go on your bad trip?

@ Narad

That’s precisely my point: people should not go on my bad trip.

That’s why I’m bitching whenever something seems wrong to me: to put postsigns in the right place as to a few things that are going wrong in the medical mentality. Thank you for allowing me to make that point explicit.

By the way, did we agree not to talk to one another? Or didn’t we?

” If I’m forced on benzos,…”

Who is being “forced” to take “benzos”? Your counter-argument falls as flat as the original. Nothing but anecdotes and conspiracies.

@ brainmatterz

Anecdotes and conspiracies. Yeah. Right.

You haven’t rebutted my claim of an asymmetry of consumption of benzodiazepines. I gave you the reference to factual claims by my government. My government is also a conspiracy theorist?

When it comes to being coerced onto medications, no, this is not a conspiracy. This does happen, whether you deny it or not. And I see it way too often to my taste. Met one such case just today at lunch. And I do claim that it is indeed being forced. You know, threats and the like. Outpatient coercive treatment. Stuff like that. Notoriously hard to get solid statistics on the extent to which coercion is employed in medical settings, but claiming that this is a conspiracy theory is flat denial of reality. Sorry. Go check your eyesight.

@ brainmatterz

Here you go.

From the “Results” section of the paper:

“Coercion in its various guises is embedded in mental healthcare.”

Just my point.

“There is very little research in this area.”

Just my point.

“And the absence of systematic and routinely collected data is a major barrier to research.”

Just my point.

“As well as understanding the nature of coercion and attempts to address this problem.”

Of course! “Understanding” is a conspiracy theory and “attempting to address this problem” would be yielding in to a conspiracy theory!

“Examples of good practice in this area are limited.”

Really? Seems we’re going down a rabbit hole here…

“And there is hardly any evidence pertaining to the generalisability or sustainability of individual programmes.”

Oh well! We know it works because claiming otherwise would be a conspiracy theory.

Conclusion: S. P. Sashidharan, Roberto Mezzina and Dainius Puras are conspiracy theorists. Thank you for explaining that to me, brainmatterz! I’d never have figured it out without you!

Date of the article: 09 July 2019. Publisher: Cambridge University Press. Seems OK. The method was an overview of the literature from 1980 to 2018. Now that we have such a study done, concluding that research doesn’t care that much investigating that topic, it’s your turn: provide me with more papers from reputable sources (as Chris would say) that would offset that impression.

Please rebut me. If you can’t, you can redirect your conspiracy theory accusations to the following email address: [email protected]. I’m sure he’d be delighted to learn that he’s a conspiracy theorist for having published that review of the literature. Be my guest. Or crawl back under your rock.

From the “Results” section of the paper abstract

FTFY. You haven’t read the whole thing, have you? I’m just starting, but it’s rather more nuanced than you make out.

“In Europe,vast differences in involuntary admissions were noted by Salize and Dressing (2004) and a further review confirmed a thirty-fold difference in rates of compulsory admission in European countries, from 6/100 000/year in Portugal to 218/100 000 in Finland, with a median of 74/100 000 (De Stefano and Ducci, 2008).

By the way, did we agree not to talk to one another? Or didn’t we?

I don’t recall any such agreement, although I’m trying to minimize my replies.

@ Narad

Look, I’ve taken many lines to handle the Borsolino effect for merely three lines of feces thrown at me. Not sure it’s worth more of it. I’d advise cutting the discussion unless you have serious criticism.

It’s “nuanced” because it’s a review of the literature. Duh.

And bitching on the word “abstract” is quite pedantic.

Going to sleep. Do work on the rebuttal. I’ll check it tomorrow if I find it worth it urinating lines on the topic.

Bottom line: I’ve mentioned twice the fact that my government claims facts supporting my “sexist twist”. brainmatterz hasn’t backed out of her accusation of being a conspiracy theorist on this point. I’ve also provided support for my claims on coercion, and I’m accused of not portraying the full “nuance” of it? Seriously… of course coercion is different from country to country. The main point is that it does exist and that it is not a conspiracy theory to claim that it exists. Debunk that last sentence, which is the main claim that when asserted brings accusation of being a conspiracy theorist. All the rest is irrelevant decorum. Not interested in that in the scope of my interaction with brainmatterz.

@ Narad

“I don’t recall any such agreement”

Me neither. Though I do recall having made an offer. Twice, I think.

@ Narad

Brandolini’s law. Not Borsolino effect. Little precision in order for you to avoid making fun of a simple mistake the same way you did with the abstract/paper distinction without a difference.

(Just wish I could write less than I do need in order to counter every small accusation that may come my way simply to defend myself from the accusation of being a conspiracy theorist… How annoying three simple lines can be…)

Little precision in order for you to avoid making fun of a simple mistake the same way you did with the abstract/paper distinction without a difference.

“Without a difference”? You might as well fold in press releases to the mental batter.

Anyway, here you go (PDF), as ✲KOFF✲ they say.

@ Narad

I still do not see what the “difference” is. Make your point explicit.

I still do not see what the “difference” is. Make your point explicit.

If you don’t understand the difference between *argumentum ad abstractum” and trying to construct something from the full text (and chasing down the references), it’s Macbeth time.

@ Narad

Whether brainmatterz swallows only the abstract or the whole paper, I do not give a damn, as long as abstract or paper gets swallowed. When that is done, I expect a retraction of her claim of a conspiracy theory.

Whatever you may think of the content of that paper or that abstract is perfectly irrelevant.

Thanks for playing.

In the immortal words of Lynn Throckmorton, I love to see the Masons squirm.

@ Narad

“In the immortal words of Lynn Throckmorton, I love to see the Masons squirm.”

Reference needed. I have no idea what you’re talking about.

And no, I won’t apologize for quoting an abstract just because you subsequently feel liking quoting other parts of the paper that have no relevance to either 1. the claims I made quoting the abstract, or 2. brainmatterz’s claims towards me.

An abstract is supposed to be a fair summary of the paper. If you feel the abstract is misleading, first explain why, and then please do redirect your complaints to the authors. I do not feel obliged to be lenient towards your sleazy nondescript insinuations.

Should we continue this ridiculous food fight? Or simply agree not to talk to one another? Your choice. I’m fine both ways.

It seems to me that in order to acquire Gulf War Syndrome one must have taken part in the Gulf War or some similar conflict. And children do not walk to school so much or play outside. And there is a boggling amount of sweet stuff available. All convenience foods are loaded with sugar, as are supermarket breakfast cereals.

I do not believe that there are necessarily more cases of autism, only that the condition is now recognised.

Oh, Mr Kennedy.

I wasn’t aware that vaccines contained calories? And giant amounts of fat? Seems that vaccines also cause denial.

If Classen’s theories were correct, older generations that were fortunate to avoid “immune system overload” from vaccines and came down with vaccine-preventable diseases should be models of slender health.

That doesn’t seem to have happened.

If only Bart had a PhD he could join Tetyana Obukhanych in the Crank Immunologist Hall of Shame.

@Dangerous Bacon – it sure didn’t work for me, but that was probably the evil smallpox vaccine I had.

My first thoughts were like Bacon’s.
I’m surprised, looking at the map, that anti-vaxxers don’t have a theory to explain the differences in rates of obesity in different regions. Less vaccines in the NE and West Coast?
Obviously, many different variables are associated with obesity that may explain the states’ differences ( including poverty and educational levels). In addition, children live different lives than they did decades ago: less physical activity, more time spent with devices/ television, more parents working increased hours and providing fast foods instead of healthier meals.

I was shocked when viewing videos of Woodstock that most of the attendees were quite slim. Looking at old movies or television shows is less enlightening because thinner performers are frequently chosen despite the era ( with some exceptions) so if you look at images of political events, protests ( civil rights, anti-war) and concerts in the 1960s-1970s, you will see what I mean.
Also, as a fashionista, I can’t help but notice how larger sizes are more available and visible ( as they well should be). The average size adults wear has increased measurably.

I’m surprised, looking at the map, that anti-vaxxers don’t have a theory to explain the differences in rates of obesity in different regions.

It’s the chemtrails, of course. When you live in flyover country, you obviously get more of them, with all these planes, well, flying over.

Try going to Canada, especially a urban area like Toronto. It’s pretty obvious that there’s something different.

I can’t recall the name but I once heard an expert at a book signing say there are no food deserts in Toronto because anyone can take a truck to the pier and buy produce and take it back to their mom and pop grocery.

Christine Rose, Toronto does have food deserts, unfortunately. There was a research paper from 2010 that found that 51% of people in Toronto did not live within 1km of a grocery store.

Heh. Yeah. I’ve run into a couple of country chemtrail paranoiacs. Those people will drive you right up the wall if you let them.

@JP All you need is a bottle of Windex. You spray it at the chemtrails, and they disappear. I’m sure it works; I saw it on YouTube.

Ha. I’ll have to try that next time. Sounds like more fun than trying to explain “they’re CONtrails” over and over.

Even his correlation doesn’t quite work. The only vaccine added to the childhood schedule after 2006 is routine influenza vaccine in 2007-2008, which has low uptake, including in children – and I suspect would not correlate with the children in which obesity is high.

Another correlation fail: The childhood obesity rate in the US is over 20%. The rate is 5 to 9% in Denmark, France, Ireland, Latvia and Norway. I don’t think there’s a significant difference in immunization schedules in these other countries.
“Fiercely pro-vaccine” my ass.

@ TBruce – The Danish schedule is QUITE different from the U.S. They don’t even start the jabs til the babes are three months old! No hep B given on day 1 for newborns like they do here in the U.S. Hmm? No annual influenza either.

How are they surviving? Their children are vulnerable! <<<Snark

I didn’t even look at the other countries…yet.

Whether that has anything to do with obesity rates, who knows? But why the stark difference between schedules?

The easy to follow and concise Danish schedule

The much more extensive U.S. schedule for comparison

Denmark also has higher taxes and a functional public healthcare system. So families can actually afford to get their kids medical care, which would include more attention to weigh issues.

Although I hate to EVER correct Orac in any way:

in the paragraph about glyphosate
” because anti-vaccine views frequently co-localize in the same people as anti-vaccine views”
Regulars can figure out what he means but scoffers may not be able to fathom it.

Interestingly, Stecula et al ( Annenberg Center, U Penn) with 2500 Ss, found that people who got information about vaccination from social media were more likely to be mis-informed than those who got information from more traditional sources like television and newspapers. About 20% were mis-informed about vaccines.
So RFK jr has located his niche.

I’m pretty sure Dr Classen wasn’t the valedictorian of his medical school. For example:

Some of his publications were cited exactly zero times. Little hint for you there Dr C from a veteran of P&T committee work: the number of times your work is cited can be valuable to a credible academic career. I know, I know, you don’t care, although wouldn’t you prefer that people not laugh at your so-called efforts? Give it a try; aim for a single publication with triple-digit citing by peers. Not so easy, is it?
The word therapy can be defined as a treatment intended to relieve or heal a disorder. Your company, which has the word “therapies” in its name, has developed zero therapies and has none in a pipeline. While I agree that “therapies” does sound better than Vaccine Disinformation, your use of the word has as much precision as the number of times some of your publications aren’t cited by peers. As we Orac minions like to say here: “I don’t think therapies means what you think it means.”
You know, if all the other credible scientists studying childhood obesity (CO) use ANOVA to determine risks for developing the disease it’s OK if you did too. That wouldn’t be cheating or copying someone else’s answers. Yes, you’re correct that it’s more challenging than your current habit of assuming that it’s always the vaccines. I know this may shock you but here goes: there are a number of risks for developing CO (birth weight, parents weight, calorie intake, time in exercise, etc), which is why all the other cool kids are choosing ANOVA to determine what is truly a risk factor. Wouldn’t you rather determine if the difference among those risks is greater than what would be expected by chance? Doesn’t that sound like more fun than simply subjectively filling in the Bradford-Hill criteria table with the word “yes” in crayon?

Hey, thanks for that link. I guess that old adage is true: you can tell a lot about a person’s character by the patents they troll.

That said, I’m shocked, shocked to find that Dr C would include the phrase “the act of reading published scientific literature and using it to create vaccination schedules that minimize immune disorders” in one of his patents…

I only looked at a few of the cases he’s brought (I hate G—le Scholar), but there’s a lot to assimilate. I get the impression that this is really not working out as Classen hoped (one of the three patents was revoked upon review by the PTO, IIRC); see, e.g., here (PDF).

Has <a href=”>this come up yet? Stressful day, so the usual excuses.

The first thing I noticed is that the journal appears to be a predatory open access journal.

JSciMedCentral a.k.a. Jacobs Publishers are low-life scamming OMICS wannabees running their grift out of Hyderabad, so this is a case where appearances are not misleading.
Fortunately Jeffrey Beall’s pungent assessment of their quality was archived in the Wayback Machine.

Comments are closed.


Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading