Categories
Antivaccine nonsense Medicine Popular culture Pseudoscience

When “old school” antivaxxers meet the “new school” antivaxxers

An old school “vaccines cause autism” antivaxxer hosted new COVID-19 antivaxxers at an antivax conference last month. Although one new antivaxxer, Geert Vanden Bossche, was discomfited and pushed back against old antivax tropes, the rest joined Del Bigtree in spewing longstanding antivax tropes.

After the COVID-19 pandemic hit and by the end of 2020, a generation of new vaccines against the disease based on a long-studied but never before widely utilized technology was rolled out in the form of mRNA-based vaccines by Pfizer and Moderna, a new generation of antivaxxers has arisen to dominate the antivaccine movement. Like most antivaxxers who view themselves as scientific and reasonable, these antivaxxers really, truly, honestly believe that they are not “antivaccine.” Back in the old days, antivaxxers would claim that they are “not antivaccine” but one or more of excuses such as “I’m pro-safe vaccine” or “I’m against mandates/for ‘freedom.'” New antivaxxers, while spewing the same old antivax tropes repurposed for COVID-19 vaccines (and not realizing that they are old), think of themselves as “not antivaccine” but just highly skeptical of the new COVID-19 vaccines. It turns out, though, that the longer these “new school” antivaxxers preach their pseudoscience and intermingle with longtime antivaxxers, the more they start sounding just like the old school antivaxxers they once dismissed. This principle was on display a couple of weeks ago at a panel held during an antivax conference held in Bath, England called the Better Way Conference.

Before I discuss the panel in question, let me first reiterate that, just as it was for “old school” antivaxxers, it is delusion on the part of “new school” antivaxxers that they are “not antivaccine,” because they have been spewing the hoariest antivaccine tropes, just repurposed for and applied to COVID-19 vaccines, including false claims that these new vaccines:

I know that I’ve bored some of you by recounting how everything old is new again with respect to vaccines and that there is no “new” antivax trope that isn’t a new version of an old trope that can be directly traced to the hoariest of hoary antivax misinformation from decades ago, but it needs to be repeated. It also needs to be understood in the context of the Better Way Conference. Unfortunately, the grift is strong, and I can’t find a way to get access to the livestream of the entire conference without paying. Fortunately, antivaxxer Del Bigtree couldn’t help but include relevant clips in a segment of a recent episode of his video podcast The Highwire With Del Bigtree. Here’s the segment:

Segment: Del Debates Geert, The Highwire, May 26, 2022.

This was, of course, just one segment from a weekend conference, but it is very informative. I would have liked to viewed the entire “hour-long debate” touted by Bigtree, but we’ll have to settle for the segments that he chose to include o his show, because I’m not paying £49 (even with the discount) to access the livestream of the whole conference. First, though, let’s look at who’s on the panel. Besides Del Bigtree, who was the MC of the entire conference and moderator of this panel, there was Robert “inventor of mRNA vaccines—not” Malone, Geert Vanden Bossche, Bret Weinstein, Tess Lawrie, Maajid Nawaaz, Jessica Rose (I think), and some other people whom I can’t identify, both on stage and by video conferencing. I note that Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. was also in attendance at the conference but apparently not on this panel. Truly, this was, as it has been stated, the Davos of COVID conspiracy theorists.

Antivaxxers vs. science

Bigtree introduced his segment with that hoariest of hoary anti-science tropes, that the conference was about nothing more than “scientific debate,” touting how there was “disagreement” and that that was the “true essence” of science compared to (apparently) a supposed lack of “debate” indicating something other than science. Of course, I’ve long pointed out how it’s not a “debate” when one side is Gish galloping with pseudoscientific misinformation and bad studies while the other side tries vainly to swat each curated piece of misinformation down. This panel doesn’t even really qualify as one of the pseudodebates that I eschew in which a real scientist is paired with a crank, all to make the crank look more credible. Basically, it boiled down to all cranks, with one of the cranks showing extreme discomfort as Del Bigtree and the other cranks made very clear what a bunch of cranks with whom he’d thrown his lot in.

In brief, what happened is that during his presentation Geert Vanden Bossche had stated that, while he thought that mRNA viruses were a selective force that was generating ever more transmissible variants of the SARS-CoV-2 virus (and that could generate more deadly variants), he thought that live attenuated vaccines could potentially be very important for producing and maintaining herd immunity. You might recall that I discussed why Vanden Bossche was wrong, specifically how letting the virus circulate widely was far more dangerous, from an evolutionary standpoint, strategy to generate variants than trying to minimize transmission and how the percentage of the population that had been vaccinated where various variants had arisen wasn’t large enough to produce significant selective pressure on the virus anyway. I also noted that Vanden Bossche’s claim that mass vaccination would lead to selective pressures to create a supervirus was a very old antivax trope, one that Andrew Wakefield himself had published a mere few months before the first cases of COVID-19 were multiplying in Wuhan, China. Wakefield had even said that the MMR vaccine could lead to a “mass extinction.”

Let’s just say that Vanden Bossche’s concession that vaccination might play some role going forward did not sit well with Bigtree. When the time came for the Q&A session after panelists’ talks, instead of simply asking the questions that were being beamed to his iPad from the audience, Bigtree decided to “go there.” What do I mean by “go there”? He went straight to old antivaccine talking points about the childhood vaccine schedule, including false claims that vaccines cause autism and that the current generation of children is the “sickest generation” (a favorite of Robert F. Kennedy Jr.) due mainly to the expansion of the vaccine schedule in the 1990s. He did it even though he knew he would be blindsiding panelists who had been “dancing around” the topic of the childhood vaccine schedule. In this, I think that Bigtree inadvertently did everyone a service, because he showed unequivocally that “new school” COVID-19 vaccine “skeptics” are really no different than old school antivaxxers. They are, in fact, antivaccine.

Bigtree started by asking the panel how many thought that vaccination has a place combatting the pandemic “in a better way moving forward.” Only half of the panel raised their hands, Malone, Vanden Bossche, and Weinstein. Next, Bigtree asked:

How many of you are aware that, since the increase of vaccinations, when we were giving ten vaccinations—I’ll use the United States of America stats—we were giving ten vaccines in the United States of America by the time you were 18 up until about 1986 when we took all liability away that the vaccine program increased to 54 vaccines

How many of you are aware that in that time we went from a chronic illness rate in the United States of America of 12% to a chronic illness rate of 54% and that data has been given to us since 2012? How many are aware of that increase in chronic illness?

Longtime readers and those who follow the antivaccine movement will immediately recognize these very old talking points. The first one is the claim that “all liability” was taken away from vaccine manufacturers through the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, which is just plain false. What the NCVIA did was to mandate that all vaccine injury claims first go through a special Vaccine Court, where complainants, win or lose, are reimbursed for reasonable legal expenses and expenses incurred preparing their case, which is way better than the case for regular civil litigation. Also, the evidentiary standard for the Vaccine Court is, as they say for civil litigation, “50% and a feather.” Moreover, the Vaccine Court has a list of “table injuries” (injuries known to be caused by vaccines based on science) for which compensation is basically automatic. In addition, complainants are free to utilize Federal Courts if they lose in Vaccine Court. To fund the system, there is a tax on every dose of vaccine sold in the US.

As I’ve often noted, antivaxxers hate the NCVIA and the Vaccine Court and frequently attack it based on misinformation and distorted information. Antivax lawyers hate the vaccine court, too. I’ve always strongly suspected that trial lawyers hate the Vaccine Court because they want to sue for big fat judgments of millions of dollars on contingency (from which they can extract one-third of the judgment as payment, of course), rather than simple reasonable hourly rates paid by the Vaccine Court, which, while reliable income for representing their clients—win or lose—do not provide the opportunity to win eye-watering court judgments and settlements.

The second trope is the exaggeration of the number of vaccines, which requires counting every dose of a series individually and counting combination vaccines as their component parts; e.g., the MMR vaccine would count as three vaccines each time it’s administered.

The third trope is a direct citation of RFK Jr.’s “sickest generation” trope, right down to the claim that 54% of children today suffer from a chronic illness of one sort or another, up from 12% in decades past. As I explained in detail, it’s a deceptive narrative that relies on cherry picked and carefully curated studies that ignore context and also the consequences of increased screening and widened definitions of many of the chronic illnesses cited.

Geert Vanden Bossche vs. the “old school” antivaxxers (sort of)

So how did the panel respond? To his credit, Geert Vanden Bossche looked very uncomfortable, as though for the first time he was realizing just what he had gotten himself into and being forced to face it. He responded first by stating that he didn’t like such “blunt statements,” how it was “more complicated than that,” and how Bigtree should be very careful about citing correlations as though they represent causation. Bigtree, seeing that Vanden Bossche had started to fall into his trap, was more than happy to conceded that he was “strictly stating correlations.” Bigtree included clips showing how only Vanden Bossche had pushed back against Bigtree’s attacks on the childhood vaccination schedule, although I can’t resist repeating again how Vanden Bossche remains apparently unaware that his claims about COVID-19 vaccines had echoed those of one of the big macher of the modern antivaccine movement himself, Andrew Wakefield, about the MMR vaccine.

Unfortunately, Vanden Bossche appears to have been the only panelist who even weakly pushed back against Bigtree’s old antivaccine narrative. The next clip showed Robert Malone emphasizing that, when he had raised his hand to agree that vaccination should be part of a “better way” going forward to tackle COVID-19, he was not defending our current childhood vaccination schedule, adding:

In raising my hand, I was not in any way endorsing our current vaccine schedule. For me as a vaccinologist who has often assumed—has integrated—a belief system that I was brought up in about the efficacy and utility of childhood vaccines, I had a moment of epiphany when I sat down with Candace Owens and we talked about what the temporal relationship has been with many of these classic pediatric diseases and their quenching in the population, which was more concurrent with implementation of modern public health and sanitation practices than it was with implementation of vaccines. And yet the industry has taught me and many of us that there was a causal relationship when in fact it was correlation, which is one of the big flaws we’ve seen again and again, conflating correlation with causation.

Candace Owens, it turns out, is a die-hard Donald Trump supporter and one of the new school antivaxxers who has completely embraced antivax conspiracies, old school and new school. More importantly, though, how many readers recognize the hoary old antivax trope that Malone repeated You know, the claim that it was sanitation, not vaccination, that eliminated childhood diseases? It should not surprise anyone that Malone has embraced it, given how deeply he has drunk the antivaccine Kool-Aid and peddled conspiracy theories over the last couple of years.

It’s an easy one to debunk. All you have to do is ask: Was sanitation in the US much different in 1960 than it was in 1970? Why then, did the incidence of measles plummet so dramatically during that decade? Simple. It was the introduction of the measles vaccine in 1963. Also, measles is a highly transmissible viral respiratory disease that is primarily transmitted through the air via respiration; improved sanitation would not be expected to have much of an effect on its spread. Similarly, what about polio? Was sanitation in the US so much better in 1960 than it was in 1950? So what happened in the 1950s? The Salk polio vaccine was introduced. The list goes on and on, for example the Haemophilus influenza type B vaccine introduced in the 1990s. The “sanitation, not vaccination” trope is a deeply ahistorical and unscientific bit of misdirection. No one is saying that sanitation was not important for bringing infectious diseases spread by water or feces under control, but the fact is that vaccination was a far greater contributor to the elimination of most childhood diseases than sanitation, particularly those transmitted by air through respiration.

Next up, Bret Weinstein:

Is it true that a great many vaccinations is bad for you over a lifetime and that we should treat this technology very sparingly, right, that we should be choosing very carefully which few things it makes sense to use it for and what to hold it in reserve for, rather than just imagining that if vaccines are good then more vaccines are better?

Regular readers, can you name that antivaxxer trope? It sounds to me like a variation of the “too many too soon” trope that was very commonly aimed at the childhood vaccination schedule to claim that “too many” vaccines were making our kids sick with autism, autoimmune diseases, etc., etc., etc. (Indeed, that line about “if vaccines are good then more vaccines are better” could have been directly lifted from any number of antivaccine websites 15 years ago.) It’s just not true, and we have known that it’s not true for a long time, no matter how long antivaxxers have been repeating it. Welcome, though, Bret Weinstein, to the antivax camp. I also noticed Malone nodding enthusiastically behind Weinstein. Vanden Bossche looked more and more fidgety and uncomfortable. Good. I want him to feel uncomfortable among the antivaxxers. Maybe it will lead him back from the brink, back from conspiracy theories and pseudoscience, although probably not.

Next up, Tess Lawrie. You might remember that she started out promoting ivermectin as a cure for COVID-19, but, as has been the case with so many ivermectin cultists, she’s now joined the antivaxxers:

My opinion is that our children are not suffering from infections. They’re suffering from chronic diseases, autoimmune diseases, autism, and depression. So it seems we might need to reevaluate health and now we need to look at those things that potentially might be affecting our children’s health.

Gee, are vaccines among those “other things”? Also, why are our children not primarily suffering from infections anymore? It couldn’t be due to vaccines preventing them from getting infections that used to kill so many children in previous centuries before they could grow up, would it? Lawrie has clearly gone antivax, too.

Another exchange occurred when Bigtree cited “retrospective vaccinated/unvaccinated studies” that supposedly show unvaccinated children to be much healthier, which led Vanden Bossche to interject that he was “having a tremendous problem here,” because “guys, guys, this is way more complicated than you’re discussing” and noting that if you are just considering safety issues you’re not “considering the impact of losing herd immunity.” And you know what? He was right! Again, referring to Tess Lawrie, the reason we’re not dealing with so many children with infections is because those infections are prevented by vaccines and the herd immunity they provide! He further noted that public health interventions not involving vaccines don’t work very well if there is asymptomatic spread, such as with COVID-19, the flu, and measles, concluding by asking how without vaccinations you can maintain herd immunity against these diseases without having the “next epidemic.”

Vanden Bossche then went on:

Can you calculate what the damage will be of that? You cannot. [Bigtree and Vanden Bossche briefly talk over each other.] I’m having a huge problem with taking these shortcuts, right, and with saying, “No injections.” OK, guys, then we are not going to vaccinate, and these diseases that we have kept under control for many years through herd immunity, lose that herd immunity, and have your epidemics to reestablish it every single time.

Vanden Bossche was partially correct. Before safe and effective vaccines, there was never any true “natural herd immunity” to any of the childhood diseases for which we routinely vaccinate. The reason was simple. Every year, millions of new susceptible children were born, and, of course, many, if not most, of them got the diseases. I don’t want to be too hard on Vanden Bossche, but on the other hand he did throw in his lot with antivaxxers and has been promoting a narrative about COVID-19 variants that echoes old antivax narratives about measles and, especially, pertussis. Personally, I can’t help but feel a fair amount of schadenfreude watching Vanden Bossche being forced to grapple with his cognitive dissonance over his COVID-19 antivaccine fear mongering and the consequences of it that led him to be on a panel with some major league antivax cranks, particularly Del Bigtree.

Bigtree then goes on to feature a Gish gallop of what I like to call “antivax greatest hits,” such as the claim that “vaccinated/unvaccinated” studies show a five-fold increased prevalence of neurologic disorders and a 40-fold increased prevalence of asthma among vaccinated children. Again, these are crappy studies done by crappy antivaxxers who might once have been scientists. They’re retrospective and almost always fail to control for obvious confounders (which is why they often get retracted). Such awful studies have, however, been a favorite go-to argument of antivaxxers going back as long as I’ve been paying attention to this topic, now more than two decades.

None of that stopped Bigtree from asking a hell of a hypothetical, namely that “if” we could get large vaccinated/unvaccinated studies done that showed that vaccines actually did cause autism, neurodevelopmental disorders, autoimmune disorders, and death, would the panelists reconsider their positions? I’ll actually give Vanden Bossche a little bit of credit for his response, in which he turned Bigtree’s question back on him and asked him if he’s willing to do an experiment where we stop vaccinating against childhood diseases that herd immunity from mass vaccination has long kept at bay. He even asked Bigtree point blank if he had any scientific rationale whatsoever to justify such an experiment? (Hint: Bigtree didn’t, doesn’t, and never will.) My only complaint is that I would have pointed out that clinical trials can’t be designed just on the basis of pure science. They have to be ethical. The concept of clinical equipoise, which is mandatory for a clinical trial, tells us that there has to be genuine uncertainty over which group, control or experimental, will do better. We know that stopping vaccination would harm the control group—or any group of children whom we stop vaccinating—which means that any trial of the sort that Bigtree apparently wants would be highly unethical right from the start.

Vanden Bossche then goes on:

Wait a minute. What you are talking about all the time, what I’m hearing here of course of concern, is the children and health issues in children, but if we talk about herd immunity, for God’s sake, it’s about the vulnerable people, the elderly, people with underlying diseases, etc. Are you willing to sacrifice those people?

As Vanden Bossche asked that question, Malone looked as though he was going to burst an aneurysm. I also can’t help but point out that, yes, Bigtree is more than willing to sacrifice such people. He said as much about them and COVID-19 two years ago on his show, about six months before the first COVID-19 vaccines started rolling out. At that time, he basically advocated locking up all the “vulnerable” to protect them while the rest of us “catch that cold” to reach “natural herd immunity,” During his rant, he engaged in a fair amount of victim blaming and shaming as well, which is why I’m going to quote him at length yet again even though I’ve cited this exact passage at least twice before. If Geert Vanden Bossche sees this post, I want him to read exactly what Bigtree has long been consistent about with respect to the medically vulnerable and COVID-19 and what antivaxxers have not infrequently also said.

Basically, COVID-19 antivaxxers and the Great Barrington Declaration supporters who advocate a “let ‘er rip” approach to COVID-19 to achieve “natural herd immunity” are profoundly judgmental and eugenicist:

What is the group that is really at risk? Let’s be honest about this and say something that might get me some trouble here, but let’s be honest. That group is very well known. It’s people over the age of 65—not just because you’re over the age of 65, but you’re sick with other diseases. You have heart disease. You have COPD. You have diabetes. You have issues, many of those issues coming from the fact that you didn’t treat your body very well while you were on this planet. And I want to talk about this for one minute as we close this down. That 0.26% are the most sick among us, and I have nothing against you. Go ahead and bubble wrap your house. Lock yourself in your basement. Go and do what’s necessary.

But here’s the problem. When you were my age, you were most likely eating food and fast food and Doritos and drinking Coca-Cola, which you’ll never find in my home. You were eating that all the time. You probably were drinking a lot of alcoholic beverages and really liked to party and enjoyed your cigarettes and said to yourself, “You know what? It’s more about the quality of my life right now. I don’t care if I live to be 100 years old. I want to enjoy my life right now. I like the finer things in life. I like good rich food. I like smoking a cigarette once in a while. I like to drink my drinks.” And you know what? Good on you! That’s the United States of America. No problem, that, some of my best friends think like that. It’s great, and they’re fun to hang out with. That’s perfectly OK.

But here’s what’s not OK. When you reach that point in your life where now your arteries are starting to clog up, your body is shutting down, and the alcohol is eating up your liver, and you have diabetes, or you have multiple COPD, you have asthma, you can’t breathe, all the cigarette smoking has finally caught up with you, you have heart disease because of the way you decided to live your life in the moment, here’s what you are now. You are pharmaceutical-dependent. You did that to yourself, not me. You decided that the moment mattered, and now you find yourself pharmaceutical-dependent, which is really what that 0.26% is, and that’s OK too. Thank God there’s drugs out there! There’s drugs that allow you to eat the Philly cheesesteak even though your body knows it hates it, but, go ahead, take the Prilosec. What difference does it make? Drug yourself! Drug yourself! Get through the day! Don’t exercise! Maybe just attach an electrode and see if a little electricity to the stomach will give you the abs you want.

Come on! Grow up! You made choices! And now that you’re pharmaceutically dependent, here’s what you don’t get to do. You don’t get to say I have to take a drug to protect you. That’s what this is. You don’t get to say I have to wear a mask and suck in my own CO2 to protect you. You don’t get to say I have to lock myself in a basement and destroy my career and take away my own ability to feed children because you are pharmaceutical dependent. You lived your life. You made your choice. And thank God we live in the United States of America so you don’t have to worry about grocery police standing outside a grocery store saying, “Really? You really need four liters of Coca-Cola? You really need four bags of Doritos or Chitos or Fritos or whatever the heck it is, little cupcakes with synthetic icing on them? You really need all that?” Because we could go there. We could go there. If we’re really going to get into each other’s schiznit, that’s what we could do.

Or could we live and let live? Eat all the Twinkies you want! Drink all the bourbon you want, and smoke as many cigarettes as you want, and when you find yourself pharmaceutical-dependent I will go ahead and say thank God the drug companies are there for you, but you do not get to make me pharmaceutical-dependent. You do not get to put me in the way of Heidi Larson, who wants to eradicate natural health and natural immunity and make us all pharmaceutical dependent.

Again, I know I’ve directly quoted that long passage a couple of times before (at least), but I deem it necessary to do so again.

To answer Vanden Bossche, yes, sacrificing “those people” is exactly what Bigtree has long advocated. And, yes, Dr. Vanden Bossche, I am rubbing your face in Bigtree’s words and longstanding antivaccine agitation and will continue to do so. These are the people with whom you’ve thrown in your lot. They are antivaxxers, through and through, and they’re more than happy to sacrifice the vulnerable, although they will hide their eugenicist tendencies behind the ridiculous call to “catch that cold” to save the vulnerable. If hearing old antivaccine narratives about childhood vaccines makes you so uncomfortable, perhaps you should rethink what you’ve done with the last two years of your life. Seriously, for your conscience’s sake, you should.

Listen to Yoda, antivaxxers should but won't.
Listen to Yoda, antivaxxers should (but won’t).

Once you go antivax, you rarely come back

I’ll conclude by noting one other thing. To achieve this, I’m going to quote Jedi master Yoda’s warning to Luke Skywalker during The Empire Strikes Back about the Dark Side of the Force:

“If once you start down the dark path, forever will it dominate your destiny. Consume you it will, as it did Obi-Wan’s apprentice.”

Although I find it hard to believe that there is anyone who doesn’t know this given the ubiquity of Star Wars in our culture, I will note that Obi-Wan’s apprentice was Anakin Skywalker, a Jedi who was corrupted by the Dark Side of the Force and became the evil Darth Vader.

I would argue that Vanden Bossche is currently well into the middle stages of being consumed by the antivaccine movement and rapidly moving into the later stages. He has repurposed an old antivax trope used by Andrew Wakefield about measles and the MMR to claim that vaccinating against COVID-19 will drive evolution of ever more deadly variants of COVID-19 that will cause “disaster,” but still has enough of his scientific conscience left to push back against old school antivax talking points, even though he clearly is not familiar enough with these old school tropes to do so effectively. He thinks he’s truly pro-vaccine (just skeptical of COVID-19 vaccines), but doesn’t realize that he’s parroting old antivax tropes in his “skepticism.” When blindsided by Bigtree and the other antivaxxers on the panel, he didn’t really know how to respond.

Antivaccine conspiracy theories and misinformation are a lot like the Dark Side of the Force in this, and antivaxxers who were once scientists are a lot like Jedi corrupted by the Dark Side. Once a formerly reputable scientist starts down the dark path of antivaccine pseudoscience, even if it’s to opportunistically dip his toe in the waters of “skepticism” about a single vaccine, forever will it dominate his destiny, as it is now doing for Vanden Bossche. Is it too late for Geert Vanden Bossche? Can he redeem himself, as Darth Vader did? Only he can tell us through his actions.

Sadly, I suspect that the way Vanden Bossche will resolve his very obvious cognitive dissonance over his increasingly antivaccine views as evidenced by his responses at the Better Way Conference panel will not be to reject his anti-COVID-19 vaccine tropes, but rather to cast off the last of his provaccine beliefs that he tried gamely to defend (weakly) at the Better Way Conference. If that happens, his journey to the Dark Side will be complete.

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]

291 replies on “When “old school” antivaxxers meet the “new school” antivaxxers”

A few things…

— re Old Skool vs New:
I notice that older anti-vax sites seem to be withering : AoA has very little new material, TMR has been silent, also Stop Mandatory Vaccination. These were largely run by parents, mostly mothers. The thriving sites are CHD and the Highwire, run by RFK jr and Del ( of CHD and ICAN, respectively).
That’s an interesting development led by ( supposedly) charismatic/ attractive men who initiate lawsuits. Their sites contain videos as well as appeals for donations- which they get.

— anti-vax content on NN and PRN is often replaced/ accompanied by “scathing” political commentary – it isn’t on top on their lists these days- Ukraine/ inflation/ corruption is.

— Isn’t Geert a veterinarian?
His reaction to Del here tells me that he didn’t research Del’s history as a know-nothing rabble rouser/ wanna-be talk show host/ fraud. He’s appeared several times with Del: didn’t he know what Del was selling? Would you show up on a shitshow run by a loon if you knew what he was up to?

— 54% of children have chronic conditions? I often note that I would probably be on that list now if I were a child: my experience with mild allergies ( mostly respiratory) was not ever really treated. My SO had a few rare asthma attacks as a child but no regular medication until age 50.

— Del blames illness on how patients eat/ drink/ behave/ think which puts him firmly in the same camp as Adams and Null. AS if to say, ” You did it to yourself” unlike these gurus who have lived perfectly for their entire lives ( only Mike reformed). This attitude prevails amongst many alties: that you can control destiny by behaving correctly. People who get serious illness are responsible for their problems. Their recitation of HOW to live correctly/ purely often sounds like a mantra or magical formula to ward off illness.

He’s appeared several times with Del: didn’t he know what Del was selling?

I rather suspect that Geert was not that interested in what Del was selling, so long as Del allowed Geert to sell what he wanted.

Having now discovered how far out the nutbaggers he has gotten into bed with are, Geert is embarrassed.

What has Geert been up to these days?

I find him appearing on anti-vax friendly venues ( Del, Loe Fisher etc) and on twitter, substack, in a documentary, at conferences etc. He used to lead a German vaccine development concern and worked at GAVI… but since?

( according to Jeff Rouner, Houston Press, June 2021/ Vincent Ianelli, Vaxopedia , also 6, 2021) He is not quite the expert he maintains : only certified in veterinarian virology, microbiology and animal hygiene, he hasn’t published studies since 1995.
Whilst he discourages mRNA vaccines for Covid, he might be working on one that utilises NK cells which he advocates.

Either that or he seeks a purely internet career… /s

You really are not aware that the typical modern lifestyle contributes to the most common diseases? You are not aware that smoking cigarettes contributes to cardiovascular disease and cancer? You are not aware that obesity can lead to T2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease, and cancer? You are not aware that lack of physical exercise and refined carbohydrates is a major factor in these very common diseases?

I really wonder how you could be unaware of all that?

How you could unaware of health advice given ? Problem is that people do not follow it. You yourself missed saturated fats and cholesterol.

Who in the world isn’t aware that lifestyle factors contribute towards overall health, longevity and specific illnesses/ conditions? These have been studied for decades. People are advised to NOT smoke or eat a diet low in nutritional value as well as getting sufficient exercise by SBM. Research shows that certain foods/ chemicals are harmful or helpful to general health or particular conditions ( e.g. CVD, cancer) and controlling weight is a very big issue in medical care. The Mediterranean diet is advocated as being healthier than fast food and other short cuts.

Alt med believers like those I mention attribute ALL outcomes to diet, exercise and other variables that are under the person’s control. Orac describes people who think they will never get sick because they ‘do everything right’ ( Bill Maher aka Superman) or advise against vaccines in general because people are not at any risk from these illnesses ( various alt med gurus) or that the illnesses are not dangerous.

Del Bigtree was so afraid of vaccines ( and the blood of vaccinated people) that he refused transfusions when he had a very low hemoglobin count ( so low that he couldn’t walk) until he got “pure” blood. Gary Null and Make Adams treated themselves ( when vitamin D poisoned and Covid exposed, respectively) with vitamin formulae or veterinary products/ supplements, respectively. AND they advise followers to avoid standard treatment for many other conditions through their “educational” broadcasts/ materials. In addition , they also sneer at people who get sick: Del quoted as saying basically that “they brought it on themselves”. Yet these dudes became unhealthy on their own programmes, living so-called healthy lives. ( the first two required professional care and the third has had Covid several times) yet they preach to followers who buy their products and line of BS.

It would be funny watching the old school AV crowd realize they’ve been outscammed by the new er ones thanks to the pandemic if it hadn’t meant so many people preventably died during this pandemic thanks to the newer one..

It always brings a tear to my eye when the bright and hopeful young generation rips the torch out of the grasping skeletal fingers of the old generation. (sniff!)

Sadly, you are correct. Old school antivaxxers are being outhustled by new school antivaxxers, who are now muscling in on their territory.

You’re right! AoA must be fuming as new stars steal the spotlight. TMR is mostly silent. Former rising stars like Louise Kuo and the Crazy Moms have sunk AFAIK.
Larger, slicker groups like ICAN and CHD allied with political groups, began suing governmental agencies/ corporations and include social media, videos and protests to engage followers. They also solicit money successfully to fund their activities.

Money is a big factor. CCDH describes the top ten which includes the aforementioned Del and RFK jr, Mercola, Adams, Tenpenny, Buttar, the Bollingers etc.
All-around contrarians/ scoffers like Adams, Null, Mercola include anti-vax as part of their total outlook and advert campaign selling supplements, foods, “education”.

Sorry: Del isn’t on the CCDH’s list, neither is Adams but the others are.
Del has been mentioned as a top earner because ICAN brings in lots of money.

Orac said, “I’ll actually give Vanden Bossche credit for turning Bigtree’s question back on him and asking him if he’s willing to do an experiment where we stop vaccinating against childhood diseases that we know that herd immunity from mass vaccination is keeping at bay. He even asked Bigtree point blank if he had any scientific rationale whatsoever to justify such an experiment? (Hint: Bigtree didn’t, doesn’t, and never will.)”
Ha!
Vanden Bossche faces the deadly immoral views of the death cult he is associating with… and is Shocked! Shocked that his associates are more than willing to have people die unnecessarily just to further their loopy agenda.
Shades of the German citizens forced to watch films of the fruits of the holocaust and breaking down crying and getting sick…

Maybe if the Covid-19 vaccines available in the US were actually safe and effective it would help persuade. Or maybe not changing the definition of vaccinations just before the roll-out or releasing safety documents without a court order being required or accepting liability for adverse reactions or not using force or having people with three and four doses inside of a year contract the diseases they are ‘vaccinated against’ or less of a ??? approach to VAERs reports or the magnitude thereof or not banning treatments to encourage vaccination or if so many of us didn’t know an injured vaccinated person.

Can’t be that many who ‘know an injured vaccinated person’. If it was that common, I’d know one too. Even if I extend out to rumours at work or across the family, friend and acquaintance network, nothing. Not a sausage. Working on that basis, the vaccines are safer than covid itself, I know directly of several people who had a really tough time with it. Seems like you’re applying certainty based on assumption and bias. They do say that, if all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.

It’s very weird that the people who created VAERS and spend all day studying it know less about it than you do.

Let them publish why the magnitude is where it is I’ll wait. What about the fraud in the Argentina Pfizer trials?

@john laAnd your probably source has “Is there evidence of fraud” in the title of the article.

Speaking as a registered nurse, I have seen many unvaccinated people die of Covid, but have never seen a vaccination reaction.

Because the vaccine can do no wrong ??? and all the VAERs reports are part of a vast anti-vax conspiracy. Duh!

No surprise. What is sad is that people like labarge and ginny are willing to spread lie after lie simply because they can’t understand or won’t take the time to understand the details.

@john labarge VAEERS reports are not part of conspiracy. They just not prove he causality.

Maybe you just don’t believe vaccines are safe?! Just my take.

No substantial evidence yet presented by you and especially nothing from those who are better capable of finding evidence with rigor it takes. Is my response too ad hominem for you? Just asking questions.

Anyway, I’m just a regular guy trying to support my family. So far, COVID vaccines work to decrease suffering and death by a huge pile of evidence. I’m convinced vaccination works based on a huge amount of study.

Run your experiment and compare those who have taken a COVID vaccine and those who haven’t. Others are studying this data. Not looking good for those who aren’t vaccinated.

Vaccinated against what? The current family of variant or the 2020 version? That alone Is a reason not get vaccinated. (All risk no reward.) Tons of risk of heart problems we know folks who had strokes/heart attacks right after their boosters.

Doubtful. Omicron is a less severe strain that isn’t even related to the original strain and stays in the upper respiratory tract. Again causation doesn’t only work to favor vaccines and doesn’t only need to be proved in the case of an adverse reaction (which it should be presumed because of proximity to the jab anyway). Pro-vaxxers are all causation through correlation and manipulated statistics when it favors the jab and all ???when it comes to adverse reactions. There is a mathematician that does a good job debunking the statistics supporting efficacy.

Omicron is a less severe strain that isn’t even related to the original strain and stays in the upper respiratory tract.

Do I even want to know where you picked up this particular drooling point? Here.

@john labaege There are many papers about boosters and omicron:
Du Y, Chen L, Shi Y. Booster COVID-19 vaccination against the SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant: a systematic review. Hum Vaccin Immunother. 2022 May 2:1-19. doi: 10.1080/21645515.2022.2062983. Epub ahead of print. PMID: 35499517.
Severity of omicron variant:
Nyberg T, Ferguson NM, Nash SG, Webster HH, Flaxman S, Andrews N, Hinsley W, Bernal JL, Kall M, Bhatt S, Blomquist P, Zaidi A, Volz E, Aziz NA, Harman K, Funk S, Abbott S; COVID-19 Genomics UK (COG-UK) consortium, Hope R, Charlett A, Chand M, Ghani AC, Seaman SR, Dabrera G, De Angelis D, Presanis AM, Thelwall S. Comparative analysis of the risks of hospitalisation and death associated with SARS-CoV-2 omicron (B.1.1.529) and delta (B.1.617.2) variants in England: a cohort study. Lancet. 2022 Apr 2;399(10332):1303-1312. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(22)00462-7. Epub 2022 Mar 16. PM
There are still deaths, unfortunately.

A. It feels like Del Bigtree waits until these people nail their trousers to the mast before trying to bring them full way in – and then doesn’t hesitate to attack his victims. After all, Vanden Bossche was on The Highwire multiple times. And attached himself to these people in multiple ways. It’s a little late for him to climb down.

B. This is a small point, but I think they also down count the vaccines in their early version. For example, in 1980 people would have been getting DTP, OPV, and MMR. OPV and DTP are each four doses for the primary series. Even if MMR is one dose, you don’t get to ten vaccines if you count each component of the combination separately. This is also, of course, ignoring the fact that it’s not just about doses. OPV has more risks than ipv and DTP is more reactogenic than DTaP.

tbf Nawaz has been promulgation covid conspiracies for a while, and while not to my knowledge ever speaking against the vaccines, he has call it variously a hoax, and/or a plan by China to bring down Western civilsation

Haven’t been following his activities lately, sounds like he may have made a Q-turn while I wasn’t looking. How unfortunate.

tbf Nawaz has been promulgation covid conspiracies for a while now from it being a hoax to China using it/creating it to try and bring down the West

To be honest. I didn’t even recall having encountered Nawaaz before I started writing this post. Was he reasonable before?

I knew him from his collaboration with Sam Harris on Islamic extremism and as founder of Quilliam, an anti-extremism think tank. He spent time in Egyptian prison where he “renounced his Islamist past, and called for a secular Islam.” Seemed reasonable then in pushing back against Islamism, but now in reading about what he’s been up to since, I see that he took a turn to the far right and does not sound like the same person.

I know of him from his collaboration with Sam Harris. He was imprisoned in Egypt for his Islamist activism, and while in prison, changed his ways, became an anti-Islamist activist and called for a secular Islam. Co-founder of Quilliam, an anti-extremist, anti-Islamism think tank. Much respect back then. Upon catching up, I see that he took a turn to the far right. What a shame. Tweets about the evils of Big Pharma. Okay, if you have issues with Big Phara, pursue those, but don’t hitch your wagon to anti-vax and Q interests if you want to remain credible.

Pardon the double post. Quite a bit of lag between posting and a post’s appearance. Thought maybe it was lost in the ether, so posted again with essentially same content.

No fan of Sam, eh? Best long-form interviewer in podcasting there is. Not happy about the pass he gave Joe Rogan, though.

Sam Harris, you say? That explains a lot.
He reaches a lot more people than you do with a pro-vaccine message, and in general, no better ambassador for critical thinking and rationality.

If you don’t mind the bigotry and Islamophobia that go along with it, I guess.

That’s the sort of superficial take on Sam I often hear from folks who don’t listen to him.

@ George

Granted, I have never listened to Harris’s podcast. But that’s because I’ve read things he’s written that are so arrogantly wrong I’ve concluded he’s not worth my time. If there’s “no better ambassador for critical thinking and rationality” then we’re really in trouble. His claim to wider fame, I think it’s fair to say, is his critique of Islam as inherently leading to Islamism, and then to Islamist terrorism, based on his reading of the Koran. He somehow feels himself qualified to make this broad condemnation despite the fact he has no expertise in religious studies, history, sociology, anthropology, etc. etc. He engages in absurd level of cherry-picking, and either ignoring or pooh-poohing contradictory evidence. But what really led me finally to dismiss him were his pathetic yet haughty dismissals of two scholars who do know what they’re writing about who published well-reasoned critiques of his screeds (not necessarily just the Islam stuff fwiw), well supported by evidence: historian T, J. Jackson Lears and literary scholar Terry Eagleton.

A good first step in critical thinking for ‘skeptics’ is to have an alarm bell go off and look deeper when someone claims the mantle of rationality and critical thinking. BTW, they’re not the same thing. Critical thinking is about interrogating the ‘confirmation biases’, the dominant ideologies, the semi-automatic habits of mind, of one’s own, and/or one’s group. It’s a particular kind of rationality, as ‘rationality’ can be selectively applied to critiques of ‘others’. For example, the critiques of homeopathy regularly offered by Orac are highly rational, but hardly qualify as critical thinking because they’re both easy and expected. They’re just, well, thinking… which is rare enough these days and valuable in that.

A corollary here: it’s possible to be rational at the point of attack, yet irrational in a wider context, e.g. why the rationality is being leveled, where it’s going, how it’s articulated to other forces… However rational some of Harris’s commentary may be, to me the whole project smells of a fan-boy (emphasis on the ‘boy’ as much as the ‘fan’) minor-key cult of personality, so I’ll look elsewhere for critical thought, thanks..

Yep. You’ve basically reiterated my issues with Sam Harris. Basically, he’s always struck me as a pseudo-intellectual who appears to those of a certain ideological bent to be way more of a “critical thinker” than he, in fact, is.

Nawaaz has always been pretty conservative. We just never saw it. (I would say you, but I got taken in by these people too—David Horowitz especially.)

Narad:
my homeboy**, Mehmet, would never eat scrapple – his local cuisine includes sushi, pad thai, Korean BBQ, shish kebab, empanadas, tandoori, Whole Foods deli and ultra thin crust pizza. Why scrapple? he isn’t from a scrapple-centric area.

** technically true as he lives down the road

Scrapple? Really longtime readers will know that jokes about scrapple were a staple that somehow entered the comment section of this blog way, way back in its very early days, like in 2005. I don’t know how scrapple entered the conversation or why it disappeared, and I don’t know how I feel about Dr. Oz’s political career in Pennsylvania bringing it back.?

I saw scrapple on the menu, asked the waitress what it was and she said you don’t want it. That’s as close as I have gotten to it.

So Geert’s background is veterinary science. A question for him and the other AVers: what is their stance on animal vaccination?

If you keep following their thought processes, if vaccines are bad for kids, wouldn’t they be bad for animals? Perhaps products from vaxxed livestock is not fit for human consumption? Perhaps they should skip vaccinating their pets?

I fear these fools might decide their companion animals don’t need rabies shots; the ramifications of enough people making that choice would not be pleasant.

If you keep following their thought processes, if vaccines are bad for kids, wouldn’t they be bad for animals?

Either way, Marek’s disease** remains the simpleton’s go-to when the urge to belch out something, anything about “leaky vaccines” comes around.

**Contains graphic images.

Don’t know about vaccines, but my mom, who is an antivaxxer (freaked out that my sister got the HPV shots, wanted to fake vax records for my little sister, hesitated about taking the COVID shots), really did not want our dog to be neutered. She said something to the effect of “It’s unnatural. It ruins their personality [and makes them soft?].”

“I had a moment of epiphany when I sat down with Candace Owens.”
Proving again that the English language can spawn a virtually infinite number of new sentences no one has uttered or thought before…

I bet it was something like “Damn, that woman is hot.” (Because let’s be fair, she is.)

Kill lots of people. This trope is based on the VAERS database and anecdotes, of course, just as the old trope was.

Forgive my ignorance or lack having caught any earlier explanations, but which researchers, besides the anti-vaxxer cottage industry, actually rely on the VAERS database as a basis for publishable, credible(?) articles other than as a reference to checking other sources of information or examining the validity of some reports? After all, that seems to be its main purpose. Are there such that come close to treating it as a primary source of valid data they same ways the antis do despite the warnings?

Do Google Scholar search with VAERS. Lots o published papers use it. They of course acount limitations.

Thank you for reminding me of Google Scholar, although I admit to not having used it very much, especially in areas where my ignorance could easily lead me astray. I’ve taken a bit of a look there and found out a bit that helps answer my question.

ACIP has published several papers on VAERS reports from COVID19 vaccines. They craftily managed to do that without mentioning the massive increase in VAERS reports from covid shots–by omitting any comparison of reports from COVID19 vaccines and other vaccines.

So if people read these ACIP reports they have no idea that twice as many deaths have been reported to VAERS from the COVID19 vaccines in the last 18 months, than from all other vaccines combined for the last 31 years.

You had your chance, Ginny, so kindly refrain from showing up in unrelated comments dragging the carcass of that escapade.

And fuck off, as well.

About massive increase:
a) Under EUA, side effect reporting is a lgal requirement
b) Morality amongs children is lower
I guess ACIP knows there things

Here’s the latest ACIP paper on VAERS reports, which someone posted here the other day in support of the claim that ACIP/CDC is transparent about the risks of COVID19 vaccination. As you can see, there is no mention of the massive increase in VAERS reports from covid shots. https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/acip/meetings/downloads/slides-2022-05-19/03-COVID-Shimabukuro-508.pdf

I wonder if there is anyone here who would claim that omitting all historical comparison data in a safety study of a new vaccine is a sound practice.

@ Ginny Stoner

VAERS is not a “safety study”, it is simply “suspects” reported. After a crime police often bring in multiple suspects to question. One may be guilty or ALL found not involved in the crime. CDC has teams who monitor VAERS and investigate reports of serious adverse events, quite simply, people attributing some adverse event to a vaccination. Often just logical fallacy of Post Hoc Ergo Prompter Hoc; that is, assuming because something follows something else, the previous is the cause; but many things precede other things and just because people remember/focus on one of them, doesn’t make it so. CDC teams access actual medical records and also look at comparative data. For instance, statistically around 2,300 heart attacks occur every day in U.S. CDC has data from both previous years and months previous to advent of vaccines. In addition, as opposed to people like you, CDC and others understand the immune system, understand mRNA and ribosomes, and understand how vaccines work. Finally, why so many reports? Simple, a combination of people NOT understanding that the evaluation and approval of the new mRNA vaccines was correct; e.g., animal studies, Phase 1, Phase 2, and Phase 3 studies and rise of many anti-vax websites encouraging people to report to VAERS. With lockdowns and other mitigations, this affected people’s attention, attributions, etc.

And you ignore that CDC has a real-time system connected to a number of HMOs that includes person’s age, gender, comorbidities, vaccine, vaccine lot number, dose, etc. The Vaccine Safety Datalink. And you ignore that nations around the world have their own vaccine monitoring systems.

Maybe at outset, people might question a particular vaccine’s safety; but I just did a search of PubMed, National Library of Medicine’s online database, used several different search terms and found around 800 publications of mRNA covid vaccine safety. Of course, some are reviews/editorials; but many actual analyses of data. And being fluent at several languages, I have bookmarked Swedish National Health Department, Canadian, CDC, WHO, etc.

You just keep showing your ignorance and making a fool of yourself. I suggest, instead of continuing as such, you actually try to learn about the immune system. Start with Lauren Sompayrac’s “How the Immune System Works (6th edition).

One last thing. Nations, including US, have had periods of mass hysteria. After WW1, we rounded up 10s of thousands of people and deported them, almost none guilty of anything. During 1950s, again, we persecuted many innocent people. And now, we have idiots like you attacking dedicated medical personnel, some even just faking submissions to VAERS. While it is illegal, I’ve not seen anyone prosecuted for this; but, maybe a few cases?

Joel, you acknowledge there are no analyses from the CDC, ACIP or the FDA on the massive increase in deaths and serious injuries reported to VAERS from the COVID19 vaccines, correct? And that they haven’t even publicly acknowledged the massive increase?

If you don’t agree, provide the link and I will take a look.

Ginny, there will never be a comment from the CDC or the FDA regarding…”massive increase in deaths and serious injuries reported to VAERS from the COVID19 vaccines, correct?” That is because you cannot use data from VAERS to determine this. Why do you have such a hard time understanding this??

Let me get this straight: You “cannot use data from VAERS to determine” there has been a massive increase in deaths and serious injuries reported to VAERS from the COVID19 vaccines?

So VAERS is a database with data that cannot be used, or even counted? Lol. Do you need some sleep or something?

BTW, ACIP has counted the COVID19 vax VAERS report data many times–they just haven’t compared it to data from other vaccines. Is that what you think can’t be done (which I did on my CVax Risk page)?

Okay maybe you are saying we also need vaccine data to do that. We have that data. I used it on my CVax Risk page, which apparently you didn’t look at.

Ginny,

Yes, you can use VAERS to identify “massive increase in deaths and serious injuries reported to VAERS from the COVID19 vaccines”.

But, this is a massive increase in reports – not actual “deaths and serious injuries”. I don’t know if you noticed this, but VAERS already has +100 report of deaths from the influenza vaccine (for 6 months), more that than most free 2020 years…

“VAERS already has +100 report of deaths from the influenza vaccine (for 6 months), more that than most free 2020 years…”

Interesting. Seems to be more than the usual amount of deaths happening all over these days.

Ginny, you are a living, breathing example of confirmation bias. Didn’t you lean about that during your ‘graduate training in research design and data analysis’? If not, you should definitely ask for your money back.

But yes, it ‘seems to be more than the usual amount of deaths happening all over these days’. Pandemics are a B*tch.
But the only thing you can learn from VAERS is that there is a lot of reporting happening. I don’t mean you personally, only people who learn from the evidence. I bet that you’ve never seen a data point that you couldn’t find a way to use it to support your conclusions…

To repeat umpteenth time:
a) Under EUA, reporting SAEs is a legal requirement.
b) If you speak about childhood vaccines, mortalility of children is only 2% of average mortality.
This explains massive increase of reports.

Ms. Stoner, thank you for so ably answering my question (” . . . Are there such that come close to treating it as a primary source of valid data they same ways the antis do despite the warnings? That should be “data the same ways.” My awkward typing skills struck again.) I see that your reading comprehension and demonstrated reasoning continue to be the exemplars we have come to expect.

@Joel A. Harrison

I’ve actually encouraged some people to report to VAERS. Usually it’s along the line of “I got one dose and had such horrible vomiting/fever/coughing” that I am unwilling to get a second dose. Given what we know about the vaccines I know it’s likely to be a coincidence, but I also think that it’s good practice to over report to VAERS, if only for the peace of mind of confused but well meaning people.

Should I have reported my vertigo the day after my booster? Neither the ER doctors or my regular doc could say if it was an AE or not.

The ER might have reported it and I wouldn’t want to put in a duplicate.

I had weeks of vertigo after the Moderna booster. And no, I didn’t report it either. I KNEW it was from the vaccine, since I NEVER get vertigo, and since I had other miserable side effects — all starting right after the vaccines. But why waste time seeing an MD who would probably swear it’s all coincidental or imaginary? If an MD says anything about the vaccines that isn’t glowingly positive, they will be accused of dangerously misinforming the public, and they could lose their license.

@Indie Rebel

I would hope that they would test you, and either tell you something else was wrong or that sometimes things just go away on their own. And if it was really intolerable, you should find a different doctor.

@Indie Rebel
Di Mauro P, La Mantia I, Cocuzza S, et al. Acute Vertigo After COVID-19 Vaccination: Case Series and Literature Review. Front Med (Lausanne). 2022;8:790931. Published 2022 Jan 6. doi:10.3389/fmed.2021.790931
So some doctors report vertigo.
Legal requirement covers serious side effects, this ia reason for your doctor’s confusion,

@Indie Rebel
I’ve never had vertigo either. And my doctor’s nurse had never had vertigo before she came down with it — and that was 5 years before my visit and not after any vaccine. (We both agreed we didn’t like it.)

I’m sorry you had weeks of vertigo. I got a prescription for meclizine and it was gone in a few days.

My doctor did say it could have been a sequel from the mild pneumonia I had a few weeks before, but wasn’t positive one way or the other.

@EmJay If it landed you in the ER, I would want it to be reported. I don’t know about double reporting though.

I knew the vertigo was from the vaccine, as I explained. I didn’t need a doctor to tell me that, or to argue and insist it was a coincidence. It gradually went away, as I figured it would. I won’t ever get that vaccine again.

“I knew the vertigo was from the vaccine.”

A rare instance of confirmation bias being correct. Of course, if you never checked with someone with knowledge, we’ll never know for sure about your case.

I wonder if there is anyone here who would claim that omitting all historical comparison data in a safety study of a new vaccine is a sound practice.

Like, “Gee whiz, that’s more than HPV and Prevenar combined! Jeepers!”

Yah, that would be really illuminating.

In other news….

Del BIgtree declares victory ( The Highwire, latest episode, 30 minutes in)** and asks for more donations. Lawsuits are coming!

His guest is Naomi Wolf ( Daily Clout CEO, also at PRN) whose 3000 volunteer ‘expert’ investigators, after studying released Pfizer documents, found much amiss ( 1:05 -1:32 minutes).
Babies are dying, kids’ CV events, death and menstrual problems, spike proteins all over the place! AND PFIZER KNEW! Wolf was deplatformed on Twitter for her misinformation about misinformation though BUT IT’S ALL TRUE! Del and Wolf discuss nanoparticles and other vaccine technology***. She admits to having “8th grade biology”. Lawsuits are coming!

** I skip around altie broadcasts because even I can’t stand too much of them
*** what a treat!

Yes, I heard something about it but couldn’t find her tweets. She must have been offed quickly.

HOWEVER I did find her FaceBook page and website, The Daily Clout, which are more than enough to illustrate precisely where her head is at- and it’s not a good place.

@ Julian Frost:

Pretty much so.
She appears on PRN, has a substack and The Daily Clout website: the second two earn her money through subscription. She also advertises her books.
This so-called liberal, feminist icon appears with Del, Null and Steve Bannon.
-btw- her writing is awful.

Granted, I have never listened to Harris’s podcast.

And you cherry pick what he has written to support your criticism and defense of Islam.

I’ll include you with Orac as among those quick to criticize those they don’t know.

Dishonest of you to leave out Sadmar’s next sentence.

But that’s because I’ve read things he’s written that are so arrogantly wrong I’ve concluded he’s not worth my time.

Nice cherry picking.

Okay, since you want to defend @sadmar, let’s discuss.

@ sadar has never listened to Harris. Has never heard him defend his arguments, apologize, reconsider, change his mind, or heard what he has to say on a wide range of topics to get a better sense of his morals, ethics, and what motivates him.

@sadar said “I’ve read things.” What things? In what context? What exactly? That’s the cherry picking I am talking about. Does any criticism of Islam qualify as those “things?” What is @sadar’s backstory? Devout Muslim defending the faith? What?

Harris is not an Islamic scholar, so apparently, that nullifies the work he has done over the course of more than 20 years to try and understand the influence and risks associated with Islam since 9/11. Appeal to authority, much?

Soothing one’s soul with ad hominem. Call someone a fanboy and feel so much better about an argument because the other person can be dismissed as being shallow or inferior.

None of this is any surprise, it’s social media after all. Folks pretending to know people and what motivates them based on snippets of information and their own biases. Far too many single-issue voters; you disagree with me on any one issue, and you might as well disagree with me on all issues. Orac often admonishes that context and full text matters, and it does, but apparently, that is sometimes lost on both him and his readers.

I first realized that Sam Harris was highly overrated years and years ago when I read The End of Faith, actually. Back then I was fascinated by the whole “new atheist” movement around the same time I read Richard Dawkins’ The God Delusion. That was what convinced me that he was all hat, no cattle, as they put it in Texas. Is that enough? Periodically, I read more articles by Sam Harris over the years when people like you told me how great they were. None of them did much to change my initial impression based on reading The End of Faith.

My prediction is that you will now do a full Jordan Peterson fanboy imitation and tell me that I can’t criticize Sam Harris or come to a conclusion about the utterly deep observations and analyses he makes of religion, science, and philosophy unless I’ve read his books, listened to his podcasts, and basically consumed massive quantities of his “thinking.” But why would I want to bother to do that—why would I ever think it worthwhile to do that?—if I’ve concluded from reading a whole book of his that he’s a stuffed shirt, a not-very-critical thinker, and an Islamophobe? The answer is simple. I wouldn’t.

There’s a thing called screening. I gave Harris a big chance 16 years ago when I read his book. He didn’t reward it. Why on earth would you think that I’d want to keep giving him more chances by reading more of his writing and listening to his podcast? So what if he’s provaccine?

Especially now that he’s joined the rest invoking “wokeness” as an all purpose epithet for politics he doesn’t like in a manner no different than the way it’s used by the GOP:

https://twitter.com/SamHarrisOrg/status/1475369713165221888

https://twitter.com/SamHarrisOrg/status/1322997543089827840

https://twitter.com/SamHarrisOrg/status/1283090616868454400

Here’s a good deconstruction:

https://www.salon.com/2020/08/16/sam-harris-and-donald-trump-theyre-completely-different–yet-very-much-alike/

Awesome! Tweets and the opinion of one other person. So I guess you have nothing to complain about when others, based on limited information, dismiss you as a narrow-minded, shallow, arrogant, repetitive bellend who knows a bit about medicine and epidemiology.

I think both you and Harris + guests have opinions worth listening to, although you are becoming less humble and more tedious, with every read.

And you cherry pick what he has written to support your criticism and defense of Islam.

Is this the guy with a proprietary brain rinse? I found an essay by that fellow about the meaning of the grand practice of following his meditation method. One target was “forgetting about yourself,” or something. Just another recipe for getting lost in bus stations.

@ Ginny Stoner

I’ve exchanged comments with you a while back. Nothing will change your position. Orac has written umpteen articles explaining VAERS. I explained it. You don’t understand how vaccines work nor the immune system. I’ll give you an analogy. Imagine all of a sudden a number of people show up at emergency departments, all with same symptoms. They treat them with a number of drugs and approaches, some die, and eventually some live because one of the treatments work. So, next time people with same symptoms show up, they immediately treat them with the treatments that worked and they survive. Our immune systems, B-cells that produce antibodies and T-cells have from genetic recombinations literally billions of slightly different recognitions of aspects of microbes, not entire microbes. When a new microbe enters our bodies, virus, bacteria, it takes several hours of circulating through body before they are recognized. Then once recognized takes about 10 days to produce clones/copies enough to deal with microbe. During this time we suffer from infection, some permanent problems, some die. However, once recognized, they also produce memory cells that can almost immediately recognize the same microbe the next time; but can also almost immediately rev up and produce masses of antibodies and t-cells, so fast and so many that in most cases the intruder is eliminated before we even are aware of it. Historically, there have been a number of approaches to vaccines; but each has the same goal, to alert the immune system to a microbe without causing significant harm. We have had killed viruses and bacteria, severely weakened, subunits, that is, just some aspects of the surface of the microbe that our immune systems will recognize. mRNA vaccines are just another approach to produce some aspect of surface of microbe that our immune system can recognized. As an analogy, historically, first letters involved handwritten on paper, then we had typewriters, then computers, but whether I receive a handwritten letter or an e-mail, the message is the same. So, if goal is to alert immune system to key aspect of microbe, mRNA is like e-mail, super fast; but creates the message needed. And not experimental. A search of PubMed found over 200,000 papers on mRNA going back to 1960s, so we know a hell of a lot about it. Another search found a number of papers on mRNA vaccines, one for SARS outbreak of 2003 tested on animals, phase 1 and phase 2. Couldn’t run phase 3 because pandemic ended. Also papers on how mRNA designed to prevent antibody-dependent enhancement. Look it up. And, as I already mentioned, mRNA covid vaccines went through all required phases for FDA approval. Main difference is FDA didn’t receive animal study, then take months to review, etc. Teams evaluated immediately, with same level of expertise.

From CDC: “Reports of death after COVID-19 vaccination are rare. FDA requires healthcare providers to report any death after COVID-19 vaccination to VAERS, even if it’s unclear whether the vaccine was the cause. Reports of adverse events to VAERS following vaccination, including deaths, do not necessarily mean that a vaccine caused a health problem. More than 587 million doses of COVID-19 vaccines were administered in the United States from December 14, 2020, through May 31, 2022. During this time, VAERS received 14,890 preliminary reports of death (0.0025%) among people who received a COVID-19 vaccine. CDC and FDA clinicians review reports of death to VAERS including death certificates, autopsy, and medical records.
Continued monitoring has identified nine deaths causally associated with J&J/Janssen COVID-19 vaccination. CDC and FDA continue to review reports of death following COVID-19 vaccination and update information as it becomes available.” CDC (2022 Jun 1). Selected Adverse Events Reported after COVID-19 Vaccination.

I realize that nothing will change your mind; but, hopefully, others following this blog, others with open minds, will understand. Again, why don’t you read the book I recommended???

By the way, I am in my late 70s, don’t own a TV, devote most of day to reading and I’ve always loved learning, so I found a number of free undergraduate courses online. I like to review what I know and learn if any newer developments, so found half dozen courses for immunology, microbiology, genetics, chemistry (had almost 60 years ago), and even courses on history of Islam. I realize you won’t bother; but one of the courses on immune system, 17 half hour episodes, by Bangladesh professor, Rabiul Haque, is quite good: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLvB-egSYa6BLIaa7Rq4kBZEZwKv-MQAE4

Another more in-depth immunology course of 35 one-hour lectures is excellent, except sometimes the microphone wasn’t working well and lots of static. Brianne Barker https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLoVQnmY70FDNm2UtLeBGicu3Pg0qh__Dg

And I could recommend some of the microbiology courses; but I realize you won’t bother. You are a prime example of the Dunning-Kruger Effect, namely, the less you know, the more certain you are.

Joel, you are correct that my mind will not change based on your nonstop verbose BS and childish insults. You won’t answer direct questions because even you can’t stomach the answer.

This is the question you wouldn’t answer: .

“Joel, you acknowledge there are no analyses from the CDC, ACIP or the FDA on the massive increase in deaths and serious injuries reported to VAERS from the COVID19 vaccines, correct? And that they haven’t even publicly acknowledged the massive increase?”

Answer it, chicken. Not with essay, but with a simple yes or no.

@ Ginny Stoner

Just how STUPID are you? I literally quoted from a CDC analysis of the VAERS reports. I’ll repeat:

“From CDC: “Reports of death after COVID-19 vaccination are rare. FDA requires healthcare providers to report any death after COVID-19 vaccination to VAERS, even if it’s unclear whether the vaccine was the cause. Reports of adverse events to VAERS following vaccination, including deaths, do not necessarily mean that a vaccine caused a health problem. More than 587 million doses of COVID-19 vaccines were administered in the United States from December 14, 2020, through May 31, 2022. During this time, VAERS received 14,890 preliminary reports of death (0.0025%) among people who received a COVID-19 vaccine. CDC and FDA clinicians review reports of death to VAERS including death certificates, autopsy, and medical records.
Continued monitoring has identified nine deaths causally associated with J&J/Janssen COVID-19 vaccination. CDC and FDA continue to review reports of death following COVID-19 vaccination and update information as it becomes available.” CDC (2022 Jun 1). Selected Adverse Events Reported after COVID-19 Vaccination. All you had to do is cut and paste the title in Google and you would have found the complete report. But MORON, here is the link: https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/safety/adverse-events.html

And it includes analyses of other severe adverse events reported in VAERS.

So, how in hell could I be acknowledging there “no analyses from the CDC, ACIP or the FDA on the massive increase in deaths and serious injuries reported to VAERS from the COVID19 vaccines, correct? And that they haven’t even publicly acknowledged the massive increase?” when the report lists 14,890 VAERS reports of deaths and discussing how they reviewed death certificates, autopsies, and medical records.

I’m sorry but you really are a DISHONEST ASSHOLE.

Answer it, chicken.

I have a strong sense that this is Gindo’s ground state lain bare.

Change your mind? God forbid!

It seems that people’s arguments only strengthen your beliefs…

Dear Joel:

Your groundbreaking quote is already contained and discussed on my CVax Risk page. You didn’t address any of the issues I raised about it there.

And you still didn’t answer the question, because you can’t stomach the answer–it would show you are knowingly participating in the coverup of the massive increase in deaths and serious injuries reported to VAERS from the COVID19 vaccines.

Dear David,

I would be glad to change my mind in response to valid arguments I haven’t already thought of and addressed already in my writing. I’m on a page where most people admittedly don’t even read the evidence I post–not surprisingly, that leads to a lot of false misconceptions that the arguments they raised were new or profound or decisive.

Dear Joel again,

I just can’t get over your answer–my entire CVax Risk page is based on the CDC quote you provided. I explicitly start with the CDC’s calculation of the risk that a COVID19 vaccine will result in a death report to VAERS, then I expand on the numbers with math–not opinion. https://www.virginiastoner.com/cvax-risk

See my comment above to David–a good example of how things go wrong when you don’t know what you’re critiquing.

I’m afraid I doubt this.

The increase in magnitude has been discussed here, and more formally elsewhere.

The CDC had been completely open about how VAERS works.

What you want is a particular restatement of existing information from a particular source, that has never heard of you.

If this oddly specific thing were to happen, you’d find a new thing to complain about. The statements of the CDC are limited; the number of things you can nitpick over are not.

You say the CDC has been “completely open” about VAERS–so provide a link to an analysis of the massive increase in VAERS reports from COVID19 vaccines, or even just an acknowledgment of it. No one has been able to provide one. Why is that?

Yes, VAERS is public data and the CDC and ACIP can’t deny it’s there, and they even disclose it to some degree. However, they can and do omit any mention of most of it–including any comparison of VAERS reports from covid shots to all other vaccines over the last 30 years. Why is that?

Because it’s damning information that would concern anyone with ordinary common sense.

More serious injuries and deaths have been reported to VAERS from the covid shots in the last 18 months than from all other vaccines combined for the last 31 years. Is that an insignificant issue to you? Did you, and your friends and family, know that fact before consenting to the vax?

This is the CDC’s statement on deaths reported to VAERS, which I’m sure is intended to overcome any allegations they are concealing the death risk, which would forfeit their immunity from liability under the PREP Act:

“More than 587 million doses of COVID-19 vaccines were administered in the United States from December 14, 2020, through May 31, 2022. During this time, VAERS received 14,890 preliminary reports of death (0.0025%) among people who received a COVID-19 vaccine.”

It’s all about what the CDC fails to mention–which is that twice as many deaths have been reported to VAERS from COVID19 vaccines in the last 18 months than from all other vaccines combined for the last 31 years.

And, of course, that relieves them from publishing any analyses of the reasons for the massive increase. But, yeah, the CDC has been ‘completely transparent.”

@Ginny Stoner

You haven’t addressed my point, which is that you will never be satisfied, even if someone at the CDC puts out a press release. You’ll find some flaw in it.

All the information you want is available to you. Yours is a made up problem.

More serious injuries and deaths have been reported to VAERS from the covid shots in the last 18 months than from all other vaccines combined for the last 31 years. Is that an insignificant issue to you?

That’s the seventh time you have belched out this haggis filling, Ginny. It’s comment spam at this point.

@Ginny Stoner
a) Under EUA, reporting is legally mandatory
b) If you speak about chilhood vaccines, mortality o children is 2% of average mortality.
CDC does know there things.

Side efect reporting i mandatory is legally require uner EUA. Perhaps thi eplains something.

Experiments cannot be done to find out whether any vaccines might contribute to chronic diseases. It would be unethical. So no one knows, and no one will ever know.

@ Indie Rebel

As usual you don’t know what you are talking about. A vaccine is just some variant of a microbe that doesn’t cause disease; but alerts the immune system. There have been follow-up studies and we know from over 50 years of such studies that if any serious adverse reactions are to occur they will be within less than two months; but, all the same, there have been follow-up studies for much longer. If one were to use your MORONIC approach, we would not use a lot of things; e.g. even vitamin supplements because we don’t have long term studies to see if vitamins not part of food could cause long term effects.

Given you believe in alternative medicine, alternative because NOT shown by scientific studies, you just keep displaying your STUPIDITY.

And a while back I totally proved you don’t understand science, immunology, etc.

Actually, excess cases of chronic diseases would be enough to cause alarm. Mechanism could be established later.

Interesting that Gorski quotes Star Wars. He has a bad case of what I call the “Star Wars syndrome” — the idea that your opponents in a controversy are on the “dark side,” while you are on the side of wisdom and light. Lots of people think this way, and most of the time they are wrong. In many, or most, controversies, both extremes are over-simplified and wrong, and the answer is some kind of complex compromise.

Gorski sees the good, wise, scientific pro-vaxxers on one side, and the stupid, cruel, unscientific anti-vaxxers on the other side. He has no idea that someone could criticize some vaccines, or the over-use of vaccines, without being an evil anti-vaxxer. He calls mRNA vaccine skeptics eugenicists, because they think it was a mistake to destroy millions of young lives in order to (supposedly) protect people who are sick with easily preventable lifestyle diseases.

We do not know, and we have no way to find out, if these genetically engineered covid vaccines might be detrimental to health. But medical professionals are not allowed to express any concerns, and that censorship alone should make us skeptical. But not Gorski. I have never ever seen him express the slightest concern or skepticism regarding any of the covid policies.

Silly antivaxxer. You try to claim that you’re reasonable and then you drop a bunch of exactly the antivax tropes that I regularly deconstruct. You demonstrate the accuracy of my criticisms better than anyone.

As usual, you assume everyone is either an extreme anti-vaxxer or an extreme pro-vaxxer. Typical Star Wars good/smart vs evil/stupid thinking. I am not an “anti-vaxxer,” not by any reasonable definition. I think some vaccines, and some prescription drugs, are over-used and harmful. I don’t have blind faith in the drug industry.

OK, I’ll bite. Which childhood vaccines do you consider safe and effective and therefore recommend for children without a definite medical contraindication?

Do you think there might be an even worse blog software available? I doubt it.

This is supposed to be a reply to Orac’s comment that does not have a reply button.

Which vaccines do I recommend for children? I am not a vaccine expert (and neither is Orac, by the way). I think risks vs benefits should be weighed, but they can’t be since controlled experiments on vaccines are “unethical.” However, natural comparisons could be done, since not all parents get their children vaccinated.

There are vaccines given to newborns who are not at risk for the disease, for example, and no one benefits except the drug companies.

As for the covid mRNA vaccines — early studies by the vaccine makers showed they were safe, of course. After that, there were no control groups, since that would be “unethical.” We do not know how children, or anyone, might be harmed by mRNA vaccines.

But natural comparisons could be done for these also, since not everyone chose to be vaccinated for covid. For example, hospitals could keep records for how many heart attack patients are vaccinated vs unvaccinated, how many vaccines, which vaccines, how many had covid infections, etc. Similarly for other diseases. Why isn’t that being done?

Thank you. By refusing to name even a single vaccine you consider safe and effective enough to generally recommend and pivoting to vague statements of risk/ benefit ratios and then repeating antivax tropes, you have demonstrated quite convincingly to me that you are, in fact, antivax.

“For example, hospitals could keep records for how many heart attack patients are vaccinated vs unvaccinated, how many vaccines, which vaccines, how many had covid infections, etc. Similarly for other diseases. Why isn’t that being done?”

Because there are approximately 10,000 confounding factors that would have to be accounted for in order to make any meaningful comparison at all. Like, you can’t compare a 60 year old guy with a family history of heart disease who smoked a pack a day for 30 years but did get vaccinated against COVID to a 23 year old track athlete with a congenital heart defect who hadn’t gotten vaccinated.

And then there’s the not-at-all small issue of consent. You need to get the consent of everyone who you enroll in a study like that so that you can access their full medical and family medical history.

What you are suggesting is to amass a HUGE amount of very sensitive, private data so that you can go fishing through it.

Why don’t you go take some classes on study design and try again?

There are vaccines given to newborns who are not at risk for the disease, for example, and no one benefits except the drug companies.

“I’m not antivaccine, I just spin the moldy oldies.”

However, natural comparisons could be done, since not all parents get their children vaccinated.

Time to plug and chug, unless you expect someone else to do that for you as well.

@Indie Rebel Falsifying clinical trials would be criminal. Besides of that, trials are double blinded. The investigator did not know who got the vaccine, who placebo. There were many follow up studies,not done by pharmaceutical companies.
Giving placebo when there is an effective treatment is indeed unethical. Follow up clinical trials should use best avaiable treatment as a comparison.

@ Indie Rebel

You write: “He calls mRNA vaccine skeptics eugenicists, because they think it was a mistake to destroy millions of young lives in order to (supposedly) protect people who are sick with easily preventable lifestyle diseases.”

Orac answers this; but I’ll just back him up, namely, there is absolutely NO credible scientific evidence that mRNA vaccines “destroy millions of young lives.” You are simply STUPID and DELUSIONAL. For others following this discussion, mRNA can’t enter the cell nucleus. The S-Spike protein created by the mRNA vaccine was designed so it couldn’t enter other cells because S-Spike protein is composed of two parts, one that attaches to cell and other that fuses with cell, thus allowing entry into the cell. The mRNA vaccine creates a “defective” Spike protein, can’t fuse with cell.

Keep making an utter fool of yourself.

Millions of lives were destroyed by lockdowns, millions of children were harmed by closing schools. I was not talking about the vaccines. The long term effects of the covid vaccines are still not known.

@Indie Rebel Lockdowns destroys lives ? Children here seems to be quite good shape after lockdowns,though parents did complain.

And wouldn’t children be harmed if their parents or loved ones would die, or suffer long term consequences from Covid? Or seeing loved ones strugling for breath in a hospital?

I never said VACCINES destroyed millions of young lives. I meant the lockdowns and school closings.

What about all the children who weren’t shot to death in school during the school closures? Those are clearly lives saved.

And what about when the schools were closed because all the adults working there were too sick to supervise children? Or do you think that the school building itself does the instruction and you can just dump children inside unsupervised?

I never said VACCINES destroyed millions of young lives. I meant the lockdowns and school closings.

Define “destroyed.”

And:

The long term effects of the covid vaccines are still not known.

FTFY, particularly for pediatric survivors.

@ Indie Rebel

You write: “We do not know, and we have no way to find out, if these genetically engineered covid vaccines might be detrimental to health.

They are NOT genetically engineered vaccines! ! ! mRNA does not enter the cell nucleus. mRNA does NOT affect genes. By analogy, it is simply a short-lived typed message telling the cell to produce one simple protein, the S-Spike protein which our immune systems can recognize. As usual, you display your IMMENSE IGNORANCE, don’t even understand basics of genetics.

“He has a bad case of what I call the “Star Wars syndrome””

Please elaborate upon how you have put this slogan to good use in the past.

He calls mRNA vaccine skeptics eugenicists, because they think it was a mistake to destroy millions of young lives in order to (supposedly) protect people who are sick with easily preventable lifestyle diseases.

Note that you can’t wriggle out of this one by turning around and saying that you were talking about “lockdowns” and not vaccines. Bonus points for adding the balls-out eugenicism while complaining that the label is mean or something.

That quote from Bigtree is fucking enraging. “It’s your fault you got sick, so don’t expect me to help you!” Sanctimonious victim-blaming trash.

@orac
I simply disagree with your characterization of him as an Islamophobe and bigot. I think people have an obligation to get to know someone as well as they can before they make accusations like that, otherwise, principle of charity applies. I am a big fan of Harris because of the way he interviews: lets guests speak, doesn’t try to score points or pretend to be the smartest guy in the room, pushes back when appropriate. Does not curry favor with any particular group to accumulate clicks or downloads, critics on both left and right. Wish there were more, less arrogant podcasters and bloggers like him.

I still have his book. I can cite relevant passages. Of course, the question is: Why would I want to go back and find them?

@ Indie Rebel

Actually, in your ignorant way, you are partially correct. Especially since WWII modern science has kept babies alive that would have died; e.g., very low birthweight, premature delivered babies kept in Neonatal Intensive Care Units, etc, kids with genetic predispositions making them more vulnerable. Such babies will often be much more susceptible to infectious diseases, so vaccines protect them, they live much longer, and, thus, suffer often from chronic diseases, not because of the vaccines; but because they were, for instance, very low birthweight babies, and the vaccines prolonged their lives.

We also have strong data that the toxins in fossil fuels cause over 100,000 premature deaths per year and even more chronic conditions; e.g., respiratory, cardiovascular, etc.

Yup, Harris is pretty hard on Islam, as in: There would be no Islamists or Islamism without it. There is also a version of Islam that does not seek to rule nations, and I have never read or heard anything Harris has said to condemn a secular Islam outside of his more general critiques of religion. Harris draws a bright line between a secular Islam and Islamism. I thought his early discussions with Nawaz outlined a constructive way forward for Islam. I wonder if the fact that Harris’ last interview with Nawaz was in 2017 means anything. Wouldn’t be surprised if Harris distanced himself after Nawaz’s turn to the right, or vice versa. In any case, a lot of what can be said about Islamists and Islamism can also be said about the alliance among evangelicals, the far right and fascism in the US, so we best not ignore lessons learned.

The real-world possibility of openly liberal Islam can be observed with the Ibn Rushd-Goethe Mosque in Germany. Seyran Ateş, the primary founder, now lives under round-the-clock police protection.

Ginny

I’m glad to hear your openness to changing your mind. I admit that I haven’t seen any of this in your writing, but I may yet be surprised. Good to know that there’s always hope.

BTW – you’re not presenting ‘evidence’ but arguments (or analysis, discussion, conclusions etc.). You may start with data (such as the number of reports), but your research is not evidence. And you calling it ‘math’, as if that makes is true, is a joke. Yes – the calculations are ‘math’, but the decision you make as to what numbers you choose to place in your equation is not math. I read your blog, and didn’t see any support for how you constructed your model, or how you decided what numbers to use. Not only do you have your own definition of ‘evidence’, but it seems that you’re your own judge when it comes to what arguments are valid.
Sometimes you need a lot of experience and expertise to know how much you don’t know…

No, I’m presenting facts (VAERS and vaccine data) and mathematical calculations based on that data. I use those calculations to estimate a huge possible range of vaccine risk. Read it–you might be surprised what you find.

You think the actual risk isn’t within that huge range? I don’t blame you for the wishful thinking. If you had any facts to back up any of your baseless criticisms of my work, you’d have presented it long ago.

You have no clue whatsoever what the risk of COVID19 vaccination is. Obviously it doesn’t stop you from shilling for the vax, and degrading everyone who tries to estimate the risk. The industry must be so proud of you for doing what the CDC, ACIP and the FDA don’t have the guts to do.

Ginny – it’s you that ‘have no clue whatsoever what the risk of COVID19 vaccination is’, in spite of your ‘mathematical calculations based on that data’. Your ‘facts’ don’t provide you with the answer you think it does, in spite of whatever you say (or how many times you say it). At best, this gives you a false sense of certainty.
.
The biggest problem is that you think that you actually think that you have anything more than a clue. Continued belief blinds you to the problems.

Criticism is not personal, in spite of what you feel. You feel that people don’t take you seriously, but so far have shown no ability to accept criticism, an important part of learning. And calling everyone who disagrees with your ‘mathematical calculations’ a shill is nothing but denial.

Okay…let me know if you come up with anything better as far as risk calculations go. I’ve never claimed mine were perfect or even ideal–it’s just more than the CDC or ACIP or FDA has done.

“One of the main objections people have to using VAERS data to estimate vaccine risk is that reports to VAERS don’t prove the vaccine caused the injury—which of course is a perfectly legitimate objection. All databases have certain limitations, and that is one of the main limitations of VAERS—along with the fact that only a “small fraction” of vaccine injuries are reported.”
https://www.virginiastoner.com/writing/2022/5/26/what-if-half-of-all-vaers-reports-are-false

In spite of your stating that your ‘risk calculations’ were not “perfect or even ideal”, you still succeed in overestimating your work. I think that part of your title sums it up best – your calculations are an exercise in ‘what if’. ‘What if’ may be useful as a class exercise, but not for much more.

Did you check numbers for myocarditis ? Or seriousness o th disease ?
ACIP will analyse when a signal is detected

I use those calculations to estimate a huge possible range of vaccine risk.

Giant “confidence intervals” are not generally a selling point, Gindo.

BTW David if you still aren’t clear about how I arrive at my numbers, you should probably start with something basic about calculating risk. The concept is simple and based on commonsense.

Vaccines administered divided by the number of vaccine injuries gives you the odds of a vaccine injury.

Vaccine injuries divided by the number of vaccines administered gives you the risk ratio.

That’s all there is to it–it’s not rocket science, but it does accurately depict at the very least the mathematical risk (the theoretical likelihood) that a vaccine will result in a VAERS report.

Again, if someone has done a better job of estimating risk, show me. You’ve got nothing. Surely you recognize the problem with that.

At this point, you’re just copying and pasting from comments that you’ve already made in the thread where you belong.

Vaccine injuries divided by the number of vaccines administered gives you the risk ratio.

No, Gindo. You need a comparison group to calculate a risk ratio. All you have done above is to erroneously assert that AR = 1 ∕ RR .

@NWO Stoner: “Vaccines administered divided by the number of vaccine injuries gives you the odds of a vaccine injury.”

True dat.

Except for the teeny tiny mistake where you got the denominator and numerator the wrong way around. But, details, details.

Now show us the part of your calculation where you actually verified that all of the VAERS reports you counted were actually genuine and valid. For someone who refuses to accept Big Pharma’s word for it that their products are remarkably safe, your vigorous skepticism flies straight out the door upon hearing what it is you want to hear. Almost as if you don’t really care about identifying what is True or False, only what makes you Special.

Doveryai, no proveryai, comrade. Confounders are an evil bitch, and not the only ones either.

So until you have verified all those VAERS reports do indeed identify genuine vaccine injuries (and haven’t been filed for any number of other reasons, from coincidental confusion to outright malice) the here is the corrected version of your original assertion:

The number of claimed vaccine injuries divided by the number of vaccines administered gives you the odds of a claimed vaccine injury.

And all your wheedling and whining does not change that fact.

Stop wasting my time with BS that’s either nonsense or has already been addressed and give examples.

I count 13 references on my CVax Risk page to the fact that reports to VAERS don’t prove the vaccine caused the injury. Once again, I am doing the best I can with the data available. You’ve got nothing better.

Give a specific example of a number you claim I got wrong, and what you claim the correct number should be.

Copy and paste a specific thing I said on my page that was incorrect or misleading, instead of nitpicking my wording in blog comments.

https://www.virginiastoner.com/cvax-risk

“Nitpicking”? You can’t even get the definitions of what you claim to have “calculated” straight, and you call pointing this out nitpicking?

“Once again, I am doing the best I can”

Your best sucks, but since you are clearly ignorant of the most basic concepts of statistics that isn’t surprising.

Use yourself say that VAERS data does not show causality and use it as if it does.

“I count 13 references on my CVax Risk page to the fact that reports to VAERS don’t prove the vaccine caused the injury.”

You recognize that and yet, by all the Gods and their mothers, you still use it for your calculations!?!

Truly, GIGO.

@NWO Bobblehead: “Once again, I am doing the best I can with the data available. You’ve got nothing better.”

Correction: I do have one thing: The understanding that you’ve got nothing at all.

Your data is shit; therefore all your conclusions are shit. Because they cannot be anything else. Garbage In, Garbage Out.

See, an actual scientist, upon realizing their data is shit, would stop. Right there. This is the correct conclusion; the only conclusion that has any value at all:

I don’t know.”

And they wouldn’t start again until they found good data (or an easier career choice). Acknowledging your data is shit and then ploughing on anyway doesn’t show you up as an Amateur, it shows you up as Not Even Wrong.

Now, I do not think you are so grossly incompetent/deluded that you do not understand this—it is a very simple principle—so stop making these pitiful excuses for losing your way as you have. You know what your goal is, and why. You hate vaccination, just because, and you wish to destroy it because that will make you Powerful. So, focus. OWN IT.

Take a lesson from your far-right brethren on the strength of being perfectly true to yourself. You only piss away your own potent energies on silly pretense. Unproductive fabrication only makes you look a cowardly spineless putz: that you aren’t trying to fool us; you’re trying to fool yourself.

But Why?

You already know your beliefs and you already know your objectives. That is all the knowledge you have ever needed; the only knowledge you ever will.

So stop diluting your brand pretending to be us. Just Be You. March loud, march proud, and burn everything you hate to the ground. Short, smart, and to the point. And—who’d a thunk it—perfectly, scientifically, honest too!!!

“Say what you like about the tenets of National Socialism, dude, at least it’s an Ethos.”

It is even less rocket science that VAERS data does not prove causality. Reports are legally required.

“Vaccine injuries divided by the number of vaccines administered gives you the risk ratio.”

Interesting, considering risk ratio is typically a comparison of risk for one group with that for another group. Is that what you’re trying to do here, or are you using the term in some other way?

By the way — don’t keep linking to your website. I realize you’re desperate for hits, but that design sucks and is a pain on the eyes. Or, if you do keep linking there: let your cat write more — it’s clearly far more intelligent than you are.

I’ve had several years of graduate training in research design and data analysis…so maybe I know a little more than you?

What I’m showing on my CVax Risk page is just basic math that the insurance industry uses all the time, and there’s no controversy about it.

Sure, there are virtually limitless ways to complicate it–but you don’t start with complicated. It’s a basic overview of the number of vaccine injuries compared to the number of vaccines administered. No reason for anger about it–except that the numbers are terrifying, and officially unexplained.

If you’ve read my work you’ll understand why the medical industry and its gov’t minions don’t do these kinds of calculations.

I’ve had several years of graduate training in research design and data analysis…so maybe I know a little more than you?

Priceless.

Have you heard about GIGO ? Most serious analysis of garbage gives you garbage.

“I’ve had several years of graduate training in research design and data analysis…so maybe I know a little more than you?”

Good for you. So you’ll already be familiar with the phrase “the proof is in the pudding,” puddinghead. In your case, you just narrowed our answer down to “rank incompetence” or “calculated malice.” Thanks for that. #GIGO

I’ve had several years of graduate training in research design and data analysis

It took you several years?

No wonder you are no good at it.

I am not a mathematician, so I may be missing something here.

Using only the number of VAERS reports and the number of vaccinations seems wrong, somehow. Same with using the reports of deaths in VAERS. You’re making the assumption that correlation equal causation in all instances.

That doesn’t seem logical or even commonsensical.

“BTW – you’re not presenting ‘evidence’ but arguments (or analysis, discussion, conclusions etc.).”

Not on the CVax Risk page–that page is devoted solely to data and math. I state no conclusions or opinions about what the massive increase in deaths and serious events reported to VAERS from the COVID19 vaccines means, as far as safety is concerned.

There’s plenty of argument on my blog for anyone who’s looking. Just don’t confuse data and math with “argument.”

Argument is done with statistics, too. You can use VAERS data as it is, and you could take background mortality into account. You chose the first one.

Ginny why do you bother with these idiots. Let’s just get rid of VAERS all together since we can’t draw any conclusions from it.

This blog’s software seems to have been specially designed to frustrate users and discourage them from replying to comments.

If you’re not able to figure out how to put a reply where it belongs, I submit that you have no business whatever playing amateur vaccinologist cum epidemiologist.

When there is no reply button on a comment no one can reply to it. This software sucks, in many ways. If you can’t see that, you have no business whatever posting comments anywhere about anything.

When there is no reply button on a comment no one can reply to it

No, one just has to use the reply button that produced the previous comment, Countess Lovelace, and include context as necessary.

No, it’s designed not to go more than 3 levels deep indenting comments, mainly because the lines then get so short that it’s hard to read. For you, just to shut you up for the moment, I’ve set it to 5 levels deep.

Complain much more, and I’ll install Disqus to manage the comments. Then you’ll really be sorry.?

Ok thank you for being considerate. It has other problems, but I won’t dare complain.

This blog software is antiquated as fuk… Yeah we can figure it out bud. Guess and test.

I mean would you like to be using a flip phone right now when you could have an iPhone 13?

That’s analogous.

It’s actually pretty funny,BUT It’s not Orac’s fault though… please for the love of god, don’t invoke disqus

“By refusing to name even a single vaccine you consider safe and effective enough to generally recommend and pivoting to vague statements of risk/ benefit ratios and then repeating antivax tropes, you have demonstrated quite convincingly to me that you are, in fact, antivax.”

I am antivax because I think there should be studies investigating possible harmfulness of the required vaccines? I am antivax because I think drug industry profits should not be the only factor in deciding which and how many vaccines to require? Because I don’t think all vaccines are good and more vaccines are better?

So what vaccines are ‘safe’, in your (un)expert opinion?

What would you call someone who can only say that we need ‘studies investigating possible harmfulness’, without acknowledging the results we do have from the studies that were conducted? Wanting (more) research into vaccines does not make you ‘anti-vax’. Ignoring the research we have does.
It’s not asking questions that make you an anti-vax’er – it’s not wanting the answer does.

@IndieRebel: You’re antivaxx because you can’t name a single vaccine you approve of. Funny how you turn it into “all vaccines are good”. You weren’t asked to say that all vaccines are good. You were asked “Which childhood vaccines do you consider safe and effective?” and you couldn’t name ONE.

Your argument seems to be “I’m not an antivaxxer, because if things were different, I would then approve of vaccines.” That’s a fallacious argument. You are currently an antivaxxer. Presenting hypothetical scenarios in which you wouldn’t be one does not change the fact that you are one now.

Tetanus – yes or no.
It’s very simple.

Do you think children should be protected from tetanus or not?

@ Indie Rebel

You write: “I am not a vaccine expert (and neither is Orac, by the way). I think risks vs benefits should be weighed, but they can’t be since controlled experiments on vaccines are “unethical.” However, natural comparisons could be done, since not all parents get their children vaccinated.”

Actually Orac has a PhD in immunology and has 60 peer-reviewed immunology research papers. Immunology is the basis of understanding vaccines. So, he is an expert and shows it with his extensive library of articles. And you really are a MORON. There have been umpteen “controlled experiments on vaccines.” The first was the Salk clinical trial for polio vaccine, 1954 – 1955. One arm had over 800,000 children in a placebo-controlled double-blinded randomized clinical trial. Only the researchers in Ann Arbor, Michigan, had the codes to know who was who and who got the placebo and who the vaccine.

Just for fun I did a search of PubMed using various combinations of search word, one (placebo randomized trials vaccines) resulted in 3,785 results. Others even higher. Of course, some were review articles, some editorials; but most were actual studies. And we also have cohort studies; that is, following those receiving vaccines and those not. And, as I’ve written, we have Vaccine Safety Datalink, other Vaccine safety projects, and all advanced democracies have their own versions.

You just keep MAKING A FOOL OF YOURSELF.

@ George

Nothing is more important now here in the US than countering the rise of fascism. Since it seems you may agree, I want to be collegial. My previous comment was intended to unpack a bit of why people you might expect to be sympathetic to Harris — atheists, “rationalists”, pro-science types — have issues with him. Why some of us aren’t particularly surprised that someone he “collaborated” with turned out to be a nutter, and don’t consider him, overall, as the champion of reason his little subculture considers him to be. i said I haven’t heard his podcast (I don’t listen to any podcasts regularly, fwiw…) because I can’t and don’t criticize THAT. Which is why I also allowed that some of his commentary may indeed be quite reasonable. If he conducts his podcast as you say he does, that’s all to the good — though that good might be undermined by hot-take Tweets deriding ‘wokeism’, which hardly qualify as deep-thinking.

More specifically, since I haven’t paid any attention to Harris for a good number of years, I don’t know what, if anything, he has to say about Trumpism, democracy, etc. But based on the piece from Salon Orac linked above, I wouldn’t be surprised if he’s not all that helpful. Speaking of the Salon article, perhaps you’d care to defend Harris’s opinion on race and IQ quoted therein, or cite instances where he’s gone on to “apologize, reconsider, change his mind” about that.

I don’t know if I’d label him an Islamaphobe exactly, but he’s at least Islamaphobe adjacent. Here’s a pro-tip: If you want to convince us that neither Harris nor you are Islamaphobic, and are rationalist critical thinkers instead, ranting like “What is @sadar’s backstory? Devout Muslim defending the faith? What?” is decidedly off-brand. [For what it’s worth, I’m an atheist, of largely German/British ancestry, raised in St. Louis Park, MN (look it up). ] Nor did I defend Islam, but rather observed that Harris’s critique of Islam was deeply flawed. These are not the same thing You might also note that my observation that Harris has a phalanx of fan-boys does not mean I applied that label to YOU, {any more than HRC’s observation that all sorts of deplorables supported Trump did not mean that anyone who supported Trump was therefore one of those deplorables). Failing to observe this basic formal logic principle is almost an “All men are Socrates!” faux pas. You accuse me of being ad hominem, despite the fact I didn’t say anything about you. Far from dismissing you “as being shallow or inferior”, I took the time to write a substantive response to your uncritical endorsement of Harris as “no better ambassador for critical thinking and rationality” — an assertion of mere opinion which at that point had no supporting case attached at all. IOW, my post was, you know, debate on the merits. One which, to be honest, I must point out you have failed to counter. No, just uttering “appeal to authority!” is not an argument. (I’m willing to explain this, if you like…) Here, though I must issue a correction: I mis-remembered the essay by Terry Eagleton; it’s about Richard Dawkins, not Harris, though some of no doubt crosses over. The Lears piece is a review essay of Harris’s books from The Nation in 2011. You might check it out, and pick a quarrel with it’s argument if you’re so inclined. My point is that in my own modest and fallible way, I did reference two substantive critiques of New Atheist thinking by eminent scholars in the humanities who know a lot more about religion than Harris does, which puts me two up on your defense of Harris, so I’m not buying your characterization of ad hominem dismissal.

Finally, if you aspire to critical thinking, you should really think twice about reproducing utterances like, “Harris is pretty hard on Islam, as in: There would be no Islamists or Islamism without it.” I mean, seriously? Just take any other subject, put it’s parallel terms in the same form, and count the peals of laughter. And if you can’t, on reflection, see the would-break-my-irony-meter-if-I-still-had-one issue with trying to defend Harris by objecting to “folks pretending to know people and what motivates them based on snippets of information and their own biases”… well that would just be depressing.

I haven’t paid any attention to Harris for a good number of years, I don’t know what, if anything, he has to say about Trumpism, democracy, etc.

That’s pretty much where the conversation ends.

@George, when people show themselves to be pig-ignorant, small-minded loudmouths, they very seldom change.
A few years ago, an ex-journalist and former ambassador named Jon Qwelane passed away. In the months and years leading up to his death, he was embroiled in a fight with the South African Human Rights Commission over a homophobic column he’d written about a decade prior.
From the mid-1980’s to the mid-1990’s, Qwelane was a columnist for The Saturday Star, later the Weekend Star. I used to read him regularly, and then I realised he was as prejudiced, biased, and narrowminded as the people he claimed to be fighting. I stopped reading him almost altogether, and the few times I read his column after that just confirmed my initial assessment. And he further confirmed it all those years later with his homophobic column and his refusal to back down at the SAHRC.
Harris is an ideologue who got stuff wrong, and who has showed no inclination to accept correction. Yes, sometimes people change. But usually there are signs. Harris hasn’t shown any signs of change.

@ Ginny Stoner

You write: “I explicitly start with the CDC’s calculation of the risk that a COVID19 vaccine will result in a death report to VAERS”

And you ignore everything Orac has written on VAERS (just type in search box above), what I have written, etc. VAERS is a “suspect” list. I bet you probably believe that every person brought in after a crime to police station is guilty. And I would hate to have you on a jury as you would assume person guilty and ignore defense. You do realize that juries often find accused NOT GUILTY??? You just refuse to understand the logical fallacy of Post Hoc Ergo Prompter Hoc. As CDC explains, they access medical records, autopsies, etc and found vaccine in almost all VAERS cases not cause of deaths. They can also compare with previous years and months; e.g., average number reported heart attacks. People die, often rather suddenly and sometimes unexpected; but, for instance, if an autopsy shows over 95% occluded main coronary arteries (atherosclerosis), history of heart attacks, etc. then they are an accident waiting to happen. Besides everything Orac has written, and comments by myself and others, a great articles is:

Tom T Shimabukuro et al. (2015 Aug 26). Safety monitoring in the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS). Vaccine. Vol.33(No.36). 4398-4405. Simply cut and paste title in Google search box.

And you ignore CDC’s Vaccine Safety Datalink, a valid system for evaluating vaccine safety, and that numerous other advanced nations have their own vaccine safety data systems. Do you really think medical doctors, epidemiologists, public health officials, etc. in all these other nations don’t care about the wellbeing of their children?

And, as David explains, your math is just wrong. Two problems with math: first, using wrong math, second, using wrong data. You do both.

Over the past 40 years I have read dozens of books on vaccines, literally thousands of articles, textbooks on immunology and microbiology (audited courses), 100s of articles on immunology and microbiology. You have NEVER indicated you understand even the basics of immunology. Without them, impossible to understand how vaccines work.

And Orac actually, besides being an excellent cancer surgeon, has a PhD in immunology and 60 peer-reviewed published research papers. So, given that immunology is the underlying science for vaccines, he knows what he is talking about. Though he know 100 times more than me about immunology, over the past 40 years, I have read several undergraduate textbooks, 100s of articles, attended seminars, even audited one undergraduate course and a shorter medical school course. So, I have a strong understanding of the basics of immunology. And, as I pointed out in a previous comment, I continue to refresh my knowledge by viewing free courses online, so far three on immunology.

I was volunteer in Moderna mRNA Covid vaccine clinical trial. However, before volunteering I devoted almost a month to re-reading chapters in textbooks, articles i have, plus did search of PubMed, downloaded over 50 recent papers on mRNA, mRNA vaccine research, etc and then volunteered.

Stop making a fool of yourself. Take a break and read the book I suggested: Lauren Sompayrac. “How the Immune System Works (6th Edition).” about 150 pages, inexpensive from amazon.com

And watch one of both of immunology courses I gave links to. Maybe, if you are NOT so ideologically biased/rigid, you will then understand how and why vaccines work; but i doubt you will because you don’t want to be proved wrong. Just one more blatant example of the Dunning-Kruger Effect.

Read carefully David’s last comment! ! !

Dear Joel,

All you have is tangential BS, and personal insults and derision. You’re ethically corrupt to the core, and you’re a complete bore.

All the wisdom you’ve acquired over the years..it shines through every time you call someone “stupid” or “idiotic.” Good job.

@ Ginny Stoner

Just wondering, is Stoner your real last name or a description of your highs on drugs?

I don’t call someone “stupid” or “idiot” the first time they post a comment; but when I explain clearly the flaws in their position and they continue, yep, “stupid”, “intellectually dishonest”, “idiot.”

Doesn’t surprise me. In 1957 there was a TV series entitled “The Court of Last Resort”, true stories of innocent people in prison. Since then I have followed the various Innocence Projects for over 60 years. What is frightening is just how much, how strongly, some jurists, police, prosecutors, despite overwhelming evidence of innocence, fight against releasing the innocent person, admitting they were wrong. So, your mentality of not admitting you are wrong isn’t unusual. You continue to rely on VAERS despite everything Orac (who has a PhD in immunology & 60 peer-reviewed publications, thus he does understand vaccines and vaccine research), myself, and others have written. You refuse to even consider learning immunology, thus, clear indication of your close-mindedness and no indication you even bother to check out the Vaccine Safety Datalink, which is one of the CDCs main sources for evaluating vaccine adverse events. You can check out the CDC various vaccine safety programs at:

https://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/index.html

I realize you won’t. As I wrote earlier, I would hate to have you on a jury, as you would consider a “suspect” automatically guilty.

And you display your ABSOLUTE STUPIDITY by claiming what I write Is “tangential” when it is directly to the point.

As for my being “ethically corrupt”. What in hell does that mean? Because I actually understand immunology? Because I actually understand how VAERS works? And as for ethics:

For over 40 years I had been whole blood donor, 3 – 4 times per year; but began going every four weeks to donate two units of “convalescent plasma”. Convalescent plasma is plasma with high antibody titers for specific infection. They used for hospitalized Covid patients. Of course, they first tested my antibody level and it was high. Later they found convalescent plasma doesn’t help, except if given at specific time and by then had other treatments, so, I decided to continue donating every four weeks, since a neighbor has cancer, decided to donate one unit plasma (general use with infected hospital patients) and one unit platelets (used with cancer patients) every four weeks, and every eight week, one unit red cells. Each unit can help up to three total strangers. It takes a bit longer that one hour, so I watch Netflix or PBS with earphones. I am in late 70s and intend to continue as long as possible. Just a bit tired for about two days, drink more water, etc.

So, what do you do to help others?

Early in the pandemic I phoned several food banks, offering to volunteer; but when I gave my age, they said too high a risk. I phoned several times over several months; but finally, since I don’t like driving, and they were some distance from my home, to not phone any more.

So, ignore everything I wrote above, except for: “YOU ARE AN EXTREMELY STUPID, INTELLECTUALLY DISHONEST PERSON”

All you have is tangential BS, and personal insults and derision. You’re ethically corrupt to the core, and you’re a complete bore.

I’ll bet Joel knows what a risk ratio is, Ginny.

You, on the other hand, are behaving like MJD with a case of the crack bugs, on top of the threadjacking.

Joel has awesome knowledge and experience which I enjoy greatly to propel me just a bit farther to my curious greatness, whatever that might be.

You, have no suitable information to propel anyone into some sort of better life. We keep asking you to tell the world of your great knowledge and you can’t.

Joel has heart and knowledge. Easy to see.

You have a failing PR campaign because you haven’t provided suitable evidence to speak against the current public health effort to keep people alive.Yadda yadda, you mimic. Your efforts clearly expect a juvenile response, but here, that don’t work.

You have no evidence. Clearly. A weakness easily seen.

Goodness and really cool. This train.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FKK_EQ4pj9A

I have no idea why presenting VAERS data in a friendly format is so controversial. It’s public data, and anyone can verify it if they want to.

I don’t make any claims on my CVax Risk page about what the numbers mean as far as vaccine safety. I’m not even telling people what the risk is–just providing a huge range where I estimate the risk lies, based on the data available.

Misdirection and personal attacks are the best options available when the facts aren’t on your side. The glaring fact remains that there has been a massive increase in deaths and serious injuries reported to VAERS from the COVID19 vaccines, which remains officially unexplained and even officially unacknowledged.

Like telling that length of a person is 100 cm +- 80 cm. No one would take seriously someone saying things like that. (This nhuge range estimate or you)

You’re ethically corrupt to the core, and you’re a complete bore.

“NWO Reporter”: Now in IMAX.

Ginny: you aren’t being treated as a serious contributor here because you aren’t. You’ve been told repeatedly that the Vaers items you’re treating as data really aren’t: they’re simply anecdotes, and even if they could be considered data they are in no way any type of valid probability sample. You either ignore that fact or don’t understand it.

You’ve had it explained repeatedly that the items there can’t be used for the things you’re trying to use them for, yet you ignore those explanations.

You failed miserably in both your calculation and explanation of the notion of risk ratio. My freshmen know better by the middle of the semester.

You continually make the mistake of believing “after the fact so because of the fact” in your analysis, and make other equally bad “pulled out of your ass” assumptions.

You seem to be posting these asinine, frothing at the mouth, diatribes about huge numbers of serious injuries from vaccines that you discover but nobody else does. You’re essentially accusing every doctor, technician, statistician, and nurse (probably others) of engaging in a world-wide coverup without providing any explanation of what the motivation for that might be or, more seriously, how the secrecy would be enforced.

In short — your comments and message are unsupported by anything resembling fact. You’re not alone — the same things are true for labarge, indierebel, mjd, and the rest of the scientifically illiterate clowns who push this crap.

Nonstop derision, insults and misdirection is all you have.

Ordinary people with no statistical training whatsoever usually understand the commonsense concept that the number of injuries the product causes matters in judging its safety. Apparently, you do not.

Either that, or you are participating in the coverup of the massive increase in deaths and serious injuries reported to VAERS from the COVID19 vaccines.

Either that, or you are participating in the coverup of the massive increase in deaths and serious injuries reported to VAERS from the COVID19 vaccines.

Yet more comment spam.

It seems that all arguments against are misdirections. Perhaps you should try to answer them.

ginny, I teach statistics and data science. I have a Ph.D.

understand the commonsense concept that the number of injuries the product causes matters in judging its safety. Apparently, you do not.

I understand that there is no evidence of a link between the VAERS reports and vaccination other than the temporal link. I know that after the fact does not mean because of the fact. It is you who are ignorant of those things. (Or are you simply dishonest?)?

Either that, or you are participating in the coverup of the massive increase in deaths and serious injuries reported to VAERS from the COVID19 vaccines.

Since there hasn’t been a massive increase in deaths and serious injuries from the COVID 19 vaccines I can hardly be involved in a coverup of such.

As others have said — you really are a sad piece of shit person.

@NWO nutter: “Ordinary people with no statistical training whatsoever usually understand the cOmMoNsEnSe concept that the number of injuries the product causes matters in judging its safety.”

FTFY. Still a non-sequiteur, as to-date you have presented no evidence of injuries, only claims of injuries. Claims which may or may not be valid—may or may not even be truthful—but which you have no need to verify as you already know better. Because you have TrAiNiNg, apparently.

Seriously, I am not kidding, the only evidence you have presented is that you’re a narcissistic nozzle inherently unable to be honest with yourself, never mind with anyone else! You’re so up yourself, you get to lick your own mucous membranes. From both sides!

This is why we are laughing at you: you possess all the self-awareness of a doorstop and everyone here sees this but you. You should’ve been a comedy writer; as it is, even the doorstop’s more productive than you.

I never took any “extreme umbrage” about the Star Wars references. It just happens to be something I have often observed — people who are dogmatically wedded to an ideology see their opponents as being on the dark side. And they believe that anyone who agrees even slightly with that “dark side” will be sucked into it completely.

@ Indie Rebel

You write: “people who are dogmatically wedded to an ideology see their opponents as being on the dark side.”

I guess in your mind the scientific method is just a dogmatic ideology. Well, for someone who claims there have been no experiments to determine effectiveness and safety of vaccines when there have been literally thousands, yep, such ignorance does represent the “dark side.”

I also remember you rejecting, refusing to read, anyone you consider an atheist who writes on evolution. Do you know/understand what genomic sequencing is? What the phylogenetic tree is? Well, one can be an atheist, a hindu, a buddhist, a moslem, a jew, a christian, and if the genomic sequencing carried out follows the rules of science, the result will be the same. Yep, you represent the “dark side.”

“I also remember you rejecting, refusing to read, anyone you consider an atheist who writes on evolution.”

You are lying or you have a bad memory. I NEVER refused to read atheists who write on evolution. I am VERY familiar with atheists’ ideas on evolution.

@ Indie Rebel

You may have read some atheists on evolution; but when I suggested several, you clearly stated you would NOT read them because they were atheists. I am NOT going to bother searching to find your exact quotes; but, as usual, you are EXTREMELY DISHONEST

References to Star Wars are not necessarily a sign of a true manichaean perspective. That’s because Lucas’s mythos is so infantile, so impossible to take dead seriously when mapped onto the real world, any reference to “The Dark Side” is tinged with at least a teaspoon of irony – a bit of winking (insolent, perhaps) hyperbole.

“You haven’t addressed my point, which is that you will never be satisfied, even if someone at the CDC puts out a press release.”

A flaw in a press release!? Never! I rely on those for all my vaccine indoctrination.

Your ‘point’ is irrelevant. Forget press releases–I don’t think there’s any actual evidence that would ever make you question the wisdom of vaccination. But that, too, is irrelevant.

Your ‘point’ was nothing more than a way for you to avoid addressing the evidence presented–which you did very well.

@ Ginny Stoner

You write: “Forget press releases–I don’t think there’s any actual evidence that would ever make you question the wisdom of vaccination.”

As I’ve explained umpteen times, a search of PubMed resulted in literally thousands of vaccine safety studies and as opposed to you, I understand the research methodology, the underlying immunology, etc. “Actual evidence?” You don’t have any; but you ignore ALL the strong evidence in favor of vaccines.

You really are NUTS!

Given what a sick world we live in, its sort of fun reading one example of it, YOU

Joel, with your knowledge, I wonder if I could ask you to evaluate the accuracy of something specific on my CVax Risk page–such as the major chart near the top under the section “CDC Statement on COVID19 vaccine risk…”

Setting aside for a moment all your other objections to the chart, do you agree the actual numbers and calculations are correct?

Christine Rose said “You haven’t addressed my point, which is that you will never be satisfied, even if someone at the CDC puts out a press release.”

Unsatisfied with a press release?! Never! I depend on those for my vaccine knowledge!

I didn’t address your ‘point’ because your opinion about my likelihood of satisfaction is irrelevant–either you can argue your case persuasively with facts and evidence, or you can’t.

Forget about press releases–I don’t think there are any facts or evidence I could show you that would cause you to waiver in your stance on the vax. But my opinion on it is irrelevant.

Vaccine safety is not my area of expertise. I would change my mind if experts were saying there is a problem. However I do have an idea how VAERS works.

Don’t feel bad – it’s obviously not Ginny’s ‘area of expertise’. The difference is that lack of expertise does not seem to bother her.

@ Ginny Stoner

As long as you refuse to accept that VAERs is NOT valid for determining causation and that CDC does investigate ALL VAERS reports of severe adverse reactions, it isn’t worth responding to you. You are totally wrong and refuse to admit it. Besides, you have NEVER indicated you even understand how vaccine work. If you did, you would understand why they involve extremely low risk for serious adverse events and why they protect us against full blown microbes.

However, I think you and other antivaccinationist may be on to something. Perhaps, we would be better off if vaccines had NEVER been developed. First, smallpox alone would have ensured that our current world population would be less than half of what it is. Thus, far fewer carbon emissions and global warming would NOT currently or in the foreseeable future be a problem. Of course, with so many deaths, at least some would have been scientists who developed technologies and precursors we use today, so, technologically/industrially we might be more like the 19th or even 18th centuries. Also, oceans would not be inundated with plastics, natural habitats mostly would still exist, so mankind would not be literally destroying the world as we know it. Unfortunately, those still alive would comprise many with infectious disease related disabilities; e.g., smallpox blindness, polio paralysis, and, perhaps, the discoverers of antibiotics would not have lived, so many more deaths. What do you think?

And MORON, the page at CDC that lists select vaccine safety outcomes, is not a press release; but a summary of what is known, including links to actual research studies, etc.

l

You still have no idea what the calculated risk of COVID19 vaccination is. Your outrage is misplaced–instead of attacking me for making a good-faith attempt at it, you should be attacking the CDC, ACIP and the FDA for not doing it at all.

You’re essentially saying you don’t care about the risk numbers. I’m sure the CDC, ACIP & FDA approve of that.

@ Ginny Stoner

You write: “Joel, with your knowledge, I wonder if I could ask you to evaluate the accuracy of something specific on my CVax Risk page–such as the major chart near the top under the section “CDC Statement on COVID19 vaccine risk…” Setting aside for a moment all your other objections to the chart, do you agree the actual numbers and calculations are correct?”

Yep, they are correct based on VAERS data and not any different than giving statistics on how many SUSPECTS brought in by police, SUSPECTS. You just refuse to accept what VAERS is and isn’t. I even gave an excellent article above; but no indication you bothered to read it.

And you refuse to answer as to what level of knowledge you have on immunology. But, of course, you know more than me and thousands of others like me, after all, we just wasted decades of our lives learning subjects such as microbiology, immunology, history of vaccine-preventable diseases, epidemiology, etc. What a waste of time when someone like you without any of the aforementioned think you know more than us. And even when flaws in your position pointed out, you ignore.

Joel, I have enough knowledge of immunology to know that vaccines are rarely even mentioned in immunology textbooks, because they by-pass the usual roots of immune system activation (usually mucus membranes).

What immunology textbooks that you know of contain significant information about vaccination?

@ Ginny Stoner

You write: “they by-pass the usual roots of immune system activation (usually mucus membranes).”

Every undergraduate immunology textbook I have goes through three levels of our immune system; First, physical barriers; e.g., skin, mucus membranes; two. innate immune system, include dendritic cells in mucus membranes, macrophages, neutrophils, etc (they send cytokines and chemokines to adaptive immune system to activate it). and Three. adaptive immune system. All of my 10 books devote most to innate and adaptive immune systems AND have a detailed chapter on vaccines that builds on the adaptive immune system. Since vaccines are just an application of innate and especially adaptive immunity, the chapter is more than adequate.

Again, I have a 10 undergraduate immunology textbooks:

Buxton (2009). Lippincotts Illustrated Q&A Review of Microbiology and Immunology

Coico (2015). Immunology – a short course (7th Ed)

Klenerman (2017). The Immune System – A Very Short Introduction

Levinson (2018). Review of Medical Microbiology and Immunology (15th Edition)

Murphy (2016). Janeway’s Immunobiology (9th Ed).

Parham (2021). The Immune System (5th Edition)

Punt (2019). Kuby Immunology (8th Edition)

Rittenhouse-Olson (2013). Contemporary Clinical Immunology and Serology

Strober (2009). Immunology – clinical case studies and disease pathophysiology

AND

Sompayrac. How the Immune System Works (6th Edition)

Bought most at used bookstores.

So, please name the immunology book or books that you claim to have read.

Your mentioning of mucus membranes just reinforces how ignorant you are, as if they are not just one small part of a complex system.

And, as I explained earlier, years ago audited undergraduate course, later audited medical school course and found FIVE free undergraduate immunology courses online and am just about finished with the third one.

And, as I explained many times, over past 40 years I have read probably 40 – 50 books on history of various vaccine-preventable diseases; e.g., 10 on smallpox, etc. thousands of articles, etc.

And you refuse to admit that you base you position completely on VAERS. Even your webpage you asked me to look at was all VAERS data. None from WHO, Sweden, UK, Denmark, Canada, Germany, etc.

Mucus membranes: microbes stick to it, cilia, small hair-like fibers, move it out, and besides Dendritic cells (part of innate immune system), IgA (dimeric adaptive immune cells).

Please give both names of immunology books you read and how much of book you actually read and how carefully. In my case, over years I have read each and every book I listed, usually devoted an hour per day, some chapters re-read several times or, sometimes, just sections.

Joel have you read Dissolving Illusions: Disease, vaccines and the forgotten history, by Dr. Humphries? If not, what historical disease mortality data (Note: NOT morbidity) are you relying on?

Why no morbidity ? People can suffer, as long as they not die ? Actually, the best measure is number of cases, because we are speaking about disease prevention.

The vaccine industry has a long and sordid history of introducing a vaccine only after a long declining trend in death from that disease (e.g., measles). Then they truncate the data to make it look the vaccine was responsible for a dramatic decline in death, when it’s really only the tail end of a long declining trend in death that began years earlier.

I can guarantee none of the books you listed talk about that. https://www.virginiastoner.com/writing/2019/3/11/lies-damn-lies-and-truncated-graphs

The vaccine industry has a long and sordid history of introducing a vaccine only after a long declining trend in death from that disease (e.g., measles).

You’re a real piece of shit, Gindo.

@ Ginny Stoner

First, yep, read Humphrey’s book. Absolute DISHONEST BULLSHIT. Second, measles deaths were declining in developed Western nations; but prior to introduction of vaccine, in US, approximately 50,000 children were hospitalized with measles, 500 died, and 1,000 developed long-term disabilities; e.g., blindness. Those hospitalized were saved by antibiotics for treating opportunistic secondary pneumonias. In addition, up to one million children suffered more than a week with measles; but in developing nations, 100s of thousands died. And polio was actually increasing in U.S. I personally have known several who were paralyzed as children and met a man in late 1980s who had been in iron lung since early 1950s. And prior to rubella vaccine, during a rubella epidemic sometime in 1960s several thousand fetus were seriously damaged and/or died. It was a high number. I’d have to do a search to find the exact; but may have been more than 10,000. Rubella is extremely mild for children; but devastating for pregnant women’s fetus.

Humphrey’s book is NOT an immunology textbook. You are a STUPID FRIGGIN ASSHOLE. You accept a book without the background to know if it is valid or not. So, now it is clear you even lied about reading an undergraduate immunology textbook.

As for the books I listed, nope they didn’t talk about rates of disease, just how immune system works and how vaccines work. So, ASSHOLE, your accusation is just as stupid as you are. If I read a medical textbook on staph infections, it would explain what causes them, signs and symptoms, and how to treat, not whether fewer nowadays or not.

You are ONE SICK ASSHOLE.

AND MY DESCRIPTION OF YOU IS VALID

I will say this for you, Joel–you are one of the rudest, crudest, tricksiest, most verbose and obnoxious bloviating profiles I’ve ever had the displeasure to deal with.

I’m not surprised you don’t see the problem with a long reading list that doesn’t include any books critical of vaccination.

It’s like the world’s simplest trolley problem, only Ginny gets a hot chubby by sending it down the line that has kids on it. Bitch would never pull that lever, because that would be admitting she was wrong. Narcs are never wrong; and the line of corpses behind them always someone else’s fault.

@Ginny Stoner You should try to answer Joel’s arguments. Forget his insults.Now we know where you get your immunology.

Mucus is of course not root of adaptive immune system activation. Lymph nodes are. They filter antigens and present them to B and T cells.
I doubt that you even undertand what mucus is.

@NWO Gibberer: “I have enough knowledge of immunology”

Just not enough to know the difference between “mucus” and “mucous membranes”. I’m afraid your watery delusion of competence impresses no-one here but yourself.

I have enough knowledge of immunology to know that vaccines are rarely even mentioned in immunology textbooks

Yes, Gindo, rather than surveying the available texts, just knows.

@ Ginny Stoner

Nope, I didn’t review the entire book; but if you actually read my review you will realize that she is so totally dishonest/wrong on polio, it says all one needs to know about her. And she also has been caught in lies about her homeopathy training, absurd pushing of vitamin C, See my comment below with link to RationalWiki article on her.

ASSHOLE that you are, you ignore my pointing out that her books is NOT an undergraduate text on immunology, etc.

There are a lot of sites designed to blackwash the reputation of anyone who opposes vaccination. What’s your point? That she’s a “STUPID FRIGGIN ASSHOLE” just like me?

Your mother must be so proud. Yikes.

Humphries shills homeopathy, you cratering divot. Her reputation is 100% secure, entirely self-inflicted.

Your mother must be so proud. Yikes.

I wouldn’t be in the least surprised if you had sacrificed yours on the icosahedral altar of your Virus-God.

@ Ginny Stoner

“There are a lot of sites designed to blackwash the reputation of anyone who opposes vaccination. What’s your point? That she’s a “STUPID FRIGGIN ASSHOLE” just like me? Your mother must be so proud. Yikes.”

Actually my mother was extremely proud of me. We had an extremely close relationship. In fact, when she was diagnosed with cancer, I left the job market and took care of her for 1 1/2 years. During that time when her friends visited, if I entered the room, despite in pain, she would smile, point to me, and say: “See him. He was smarter than me when he was 6 years old. He nagged me not to smoke.” She was dying of lung cancer. I never smoked, not a single cigarette. When my parents smoked, I would to into my bedroom with my dog and read.

And, yep Suzanne Humphries is a STUPID FRIGGIN ASSHOLE just like you.

Why don’t you read my paper on her? Probably beyond your intelligence to even understand.

And I repeat for the umpteenth time, you give NO indication you understand the basics of immunology. And, it isn’t a blackwash of an antivaccinationists to point out how dishonest they are, liars, when it is true, and to point out their absurd pushing of vitamin C. If you even had a basic understanding of human physiology, you would understand what homeostasis means. Simply, our bodies are designed for a narrow range of things, not too much and not too little. Vitamin C is a water soluble vitamin. Means what our bodies don’t use, goes out in vitamin C enriched urine. Only so much can be used by our bodies at any one time. So, megadoses do nothing. Just one example of her being nuts. Just because at one time she was good at her profession, doesn’t prove she didn’t go nuts.

And for the umpteenth time, this began with your citing VAERS stats, and despite everything Orac, myself, and others write, nothing can get you to accept that VAERS is NOT a valid source for vaccine causation, just suspicions and the CDC does thorough investigations. But, of course, they are all liars, researchers, doctors, public health officers, everyone in Sweden, Denmark, Germany, Canada, etc. all countries that have systems to monitor vaccine safety, all don’t care about their children. As I said: YOU ARE A STUPID FRIGGIN ASSHOLE.

@ Ginny Stoner

One simple question. First, just to be clear I have NEVER worked for the drug industry, do NOT have any pension except Social Security, and DO NOT own any pharmaceutical industry stocks, though I have a small 401k invested in a broad stock and bond fund, so, probably small percentage is drug company stocks; but certainly not even a small source of income. So, why would I, based on over 40 years of studying, learning, working in public health, why would I be for vaccines? Do you think I devoted more than 40 years just to hurt people? What do you think my motivation is? Or, maybe, just maybe, I really know what I am talking about! ! !

@ Ginny Stoner

You claim vaccines were developed after diseases were already on the downward slope. Found this about Rubella (German Measles):

“A woman who contracts rubella infection during pregnancy can pass the infection to the developing fetus. Such pregnancies are at risk of spontaneous abortion or premature birth. If the fetus survives, the child may suffer from many birth defects, including deafness, eye defects, cardiac defects, mental retardation, bone lesions, and other abnormalities. Together, the defects are known as Congenital Rubella Syndrome (CRS). Of children whose mothers are infected during their first trimester of pregnancy, studies suggest between 50% and 90% will suffer from CRS. . . Rubella is normally not a serious illness in children, and its symptoms are often mild. The chief danger of the disease is Congenital Rubella Syndrome.

From 1964-1965, before the development of a vaccine against the disease, a rubella epidemic swept the United States. During that short period, there were 12.5 million cases of rubella. Twenty thousand children were born with CRS: 11,000 were deaf, 3,500 blind, and 1,800 intellectually disabled. There were 2,100 neonatal deaths and more than 11,000 abortions – some spontaneously due to rubella infection in the mother, and others performed surgically after women were informed of the serious risks of rubella exposure during their pregnancy.”

20,000 children born with congenital rubella syndrome, 2,100 neonatal deaths . . .

Yep, for someone as callous and stupid as you, the above just a blip on the screen. The fact that currently since advent of vaccine congenital rubella syndrome has disappeared in U.S.

[The College of Physicians of Philadelphia. Rubella (German Measles). History of Vaccines. Available at: https://historyofvaccines.org/diseases/rubella-german-measles ]

Note. I found the above info in several books that i have as well.

So, you were wrong about measles, unless you consider 50,000 hospitalizations, 500 deaths, 1,000 permanent disabilities, etc. trivial. Wrong about polio which was actually increasing.

@ Ginny Stoner

You automatically reject any criticism of someone you choose to believe, without even reading them. Well, here is from RationalWiki, including reference list. Try to refute what it claims. You are incredibly stupid and close-minded.

Suzanne Humphries
From RationalWiki
Suzanne Humphries is a nephrologist (kidney doctor) who became a vocal
proponent of totally legitimate and validated science and remedies that have
been field tested to cure .. things. Humphries has been involved with the
International Medical Council on Vaccination, a front group for vaccine
hysteria, and is a signer of the organization’s anti-vax Project Steve petition.
She has written several blog posts and done several podcasts and interviews
insinuating that kidney failure is caused by vaccines.[1][2] Humphries uses this
purely anecdotal, unstudied, “feeling” of vaccines’ role in kidney disease to try
to justify why her complete lack of training in any relevant field of
epidemiology, immunology or vaccines doesn’t disqualify her as an “expert”
on the topic.
In 2010, Humphries announced she had embraced homeopathy, having
studied it for four years. Her level of homeopathic certification is unclear —
she is repeatedly referred to as being “at the end of her studies.”[3][4] As part
of Humphries’ embrace of homeopathy, she swallowed the kool-aid of a very
extreme version of vitalism and goes around the Internet claiming that
homeopathy works by fixing energy flows in the body.[3]. Humphries claims
that homeopathy is a “more advanced system” than evidence-based medicine;
she states that “allopathic” medicine tends to exacerbate the forces that drive
chronic illness.[3].
She recommends that people limit their medical care only to homeopaths,
chiropractors, and osteopaths. Despite this, she still appears to be working her
day job as a nephrologist at the Northeast Nephrology Clinic in Bangor,
Maine.
In 2015, Humphries claimed in a video [5] that “I did not complete my studies and never earned a degree. I am
not, and do not wish to be a homeopath”. This seems inconsistent with her prior statements [6] and her
attendance at the school of Homeopathy in the UK from 2008 until 2011.
A version of her CV from 2011[7] lists qualifications in Homeopathy and Thought field therapy. Later versions
of her CV exclude these qualifications.
On NaturalNews she has expressed frustration that her edits to this page keep getting reverted, and “they put
back their lies right away” and “at least half the information on there about me is completely falsified.”[8]
She has also attempted to combine anti-vax sentiment with poorly thought-out religious gobbledygook (i.e., lies
purportedly based on scripture) in an effort to convince somebody that the Bible and Koran are opposed to
vaccination. Pull the other leg, please.[9]
She promotes mystical powers of Vitamin C, calling it “the basis of life,”[10] and asserts it magically
“neutralizes any toxins in the blood.”[10] Additionally, she woefully misunderstands or willfully misrepresents
research to support her ideas. In an article on whooping cough, she states that lethargy in chronically ill people
is commonly due to Vitamin C deficiency, citing a paper on the antioxidative properties of Vitamin C in the
mitochondria as her only evidence. In the same article, she asserts Sudden Infant Death Syndrome is caused by
Vitamin C deficiency, yet her sole evidence is a paper which found carnitine supplementation prevented
mitochondrial abnormalities in rats with Vitamin C deficiency.[10]
References
Retrieved from “https://rationalwiki.org/w/index.php?title=Suzanne_Humphries&oldid=2449572”
Categories: Anti-vaccination movement Physicians Pissed at us Pseudoscience promoters Living people
This page was last modified on 16 May 2022, at 17:41.
Unless explicitly noted otherwise, all content licensed as indicated by RationalWiki:Copyrights.
For concerns on copyright infringement please see: RationalWiki:Copyright violations
1. Are Vaccines a Gift From God? (http://www.vaccinationcouncil.org/2010/12/05/are-vaccines-a-gift-from-god/), Suzanne
Humphries.
2. Interview on Natural News (http://naturalnews.tv/v.asp?v=BAE7F6323813CFAFB8338173FB11D429)
3. Allopathic Failure, Homeopathic Future (http://archive.today/sYVV3), Suzanne Humphries (Archived)
4. http://www.whale.to/a/suzanne_humphries.html
5. Vaccines-Honesty vs Policy – Part I. Is Dr. Humphries a quack homeopath? (https://www.youtube.com/watch?
v=cLrqmvjrIjI#t=2m30s)
6. Allopathic Failure, Homeopathic Future (http://archive.is/sYVV3)
7. Dr Suzanne Humphries – CV from 2011 (http://drsuzanne.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/CV.pdf)
8. It’s in the comments here (http://www.naturalnews.com/033823_quackbusters_James_Randi.html)
9. Wielding religion as a weapon against vaccines, (http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2012/08/28/wielding-religion-as-a-weaponagainst-
vaccines/) Respectful Insolence.
10. Vitamin C for Whooping Cough (http://www.vaccinationcouncil.org/2012/09/07/vitamin-c-for-whooping-cough-updated-editionsuzanne-
humphries-md)

@ Joel H. Harrison, PhD, MPH:

I found your review of Humphries’ book quite intriguing, informative and highly detailed. I’m glad you took the time to write it and SBM printed it. I often read SBM but apparemtly missed that one.
I can’t find the comment right now but Mme Stoner claims to have IIRC ‘a few years of graduate research design/ stat’ under her belt. She has a BA and an MA in Psych. Now you studied in this area as I did – does anyone study ONLY those topics whilst getting a degree which might take 2-3 years? Some universities only require one stat and one research methods for a degree. So she’s being misleading at best. Probably, she had a few courses at graduate level. I’ll be kind and not evaluate what I surmise about her educational achievements from reading her material.

As to graduate level courses in Research Design. I teach one. It is a semester long course. You wouldn’t do more than one, unless you failed it and had to do it again. Likewise graduate programs in the biological sciences will only have one stats course.

So I interpreted the claim of several years training to indicate Ginny had failed the courses more than once. Of course I could be being too favourable in my interpretation of Ginny’s comment and perhaps she was just lying.

@ Chris Preston

In my masters program, one experimental course, rats in Skinner boxes, maizes, and some cats. Next course, replicating various experiments with people;, e.g., perception, etc. and one course designing surveys. Then course in statistics, second course in ANOVA, Latin Squares, regression analyses, then separate course in non-parametric stats. No computer, just monromatics, sort of an adding machine where you put numbers in different sections, squared some, etc. And brief intro to Fortran. Social Psych research methods course included Campbell and Stanley’s Quasi-Experimental Design.

Later on I had courses in survival analyses, logistic regression, and structural equations (Lisrel). By that time we had computers; e.g., Vax 750 and 850 and primitive PCs. Learned Mini-Tab, SPSS, SAS, BMDP? Ah, 50 years ago.

However, even way back then I understood vaccines better than Ginny as I early on loved reading history of infectious diseases; e.g., smallpox, polio, etc. and, of course, the histories included how vaccines changed things for the better, much better.

While walking my dog remembered some of the experiments we did based on Martin Orne’s Demand Characteristics.

@ Denice Walter

If she actually had graduate courses, then she should at least understand the various types of validity (face, content, predictive, construct) and reliability. If she did, she would at least understand the problem with basing her position solely on VAERS. And she lists her MA as both social and personality psychology, so she should have learned about “personality” problems; e.g., defense mechanisms, etc. Besides everything else, I actually have an MS in biostatistics and epidemiology; but it was a long time ago. And my first MA was in Social Psychology, 1970, Carleton University, Ottawa, Canada. It included two semesters of research design, one semester of philosophy of science, four semesters of statistics, and one semester of psychometrics. Other course included social psychology, experimental social psychology, history of psychology (book by Boring and it was a boring book) and a few other courses. You might find my MA thesis an interesting read.

Oh, I just re-read a couple of other chapters in Humphries book. They were even worse, especially the one on smallpox. I personally own a dozen books on smallpox history, etc. and probably 500 articles.

Did you read my cut and paste of what RationalWiki wrote about Humphries? I also have and read her autobiography. A real nut case; but perfect role model for Ginny Stoner.

Stoner is in some ways far worse than others who post antivax comments because she has a blog which could influence people not to get vaccinated. Most others just post stupid comments here.

@ Joel A. Harrison, PhD, MPH:

Oh yes! I’ve read about her there and in other places as well as hearing her speak at woo-fraught outlets like PRN, etc.
Did you know that she appeared in so many anti-vax films that she has an IMDb entry?

I think that most here will “acknowledge the fact that, yes, it’s indeed true that more deaths and serious injuries have been reported to VAERS from the COVID19 vaccines in the last 18 months than from all other vaccines combined for the last 31 years”.

So, you can officially declare us to not be brainwashed. Please sign as a mental health expert and as an official of the court.

BTW – I learned something important – if you respond to criticism of your posts by calling people names, you might be brainwashed… And we can cite you (psychologist and lawyer) to support this conclusion.

The data is somewhere on this blog, as to how people actually responded–since I have posted about it a few times. Why don’t you copy & paste some responses where they acknowledged the massive increase in VAERS reports. To the best of my knowledge there are none from any of the regular commenters here.

There is a regular comment:
a) Reporting SAE is legally mandated under EUA
b) Momrtality of children 2% of average mortality,

You are brainwashe, eviently, if you notice:
a) SAE reporting is mandatory under EUA
b) Children mortality is 2% of average one (you are speaking about all vaccines).
I think you are the brainwashed one.

@ Ginny Stoner

Thanks for thanking me. Loved your post, a perfect example of just what a STUPID MORON you are. Again, you base it on VAERS. Did you really go to law school? Should we eliminate defense lawyers since based on your position on VAERS, all or most suspects are guilty? As for “brainwashing”; yep, actually understanding immunology, understanding microbiology, understanding, thus, how vaccines work, understanding epidemiology, literally hundreds of thousands of books, monographs, government reports, and peer-reviewed journal articles, brainwashed by them. Yep, doctors, epidemiologists, public works around the world are ALL brainwashed. You should read about brainwashing performed on captured American soldiers during Korean War, wasn’t so easy, and didn’t always last. Of course, you believe that modern science brain washes all of us.

Are public health workers brainwashed when they run campaigns against drinking and driving? Is anyone brainwashed who disagrees with you???

Yep, thanks for one more display of your absolute STUPID, INTELLECTUALLY DISHONEST, positions.

Bet you didn’t read my article on Susan Humphries. And you still haven’t given slightest evidence you understand even the most basics of immunology.

And you didn’t answer my question regarding why I support vaccines since I have NEVER worked for drug industry, NEVER received monies from them, and NEVER purchased their stocks. I just rely on over 40 years of education, training, etc. And in my 70s, I devote at least 3 – 4 hours per day to reading, currently, new undergraduate microbiology book, following several free immunology courses online, reading up on covid-19, especially its genomics. It has 14 open reading frames and around 30 proteins, a genome of 30,000 nucleotides, extremely large for a virus.

And there is an excellent book on vaccines, include detailed chapters on each current vaccine, including detailed info on adverse events, history of development of vaccines and each chapter has several thousand references:

Stanley A. Plotkin et al. (2018). Plotkin’s Vaccines (7th Edition). 1600 pages. You can go to Amazon.com, click on “Look Inside” scroll down and see Table of Contents. Reference lists are available free online, Too many, book would have been much thicker.

Doesn’t contain COVID-19 vaccine; but I’m confident next edition will.

“And you didn’t answer my question regarding why I support vaccines…”

My whole post was directed to answering that question. Read it, you’ll see.

It’s not the first time Ive wondered…tobor a uoy era.

@ Indie Rebel

You write: “I knew the vertigo was from the vaccine, as I explained. I didn’t need a doctor to tell me that, or to argue and insist it was a coincidence. It gradually went away, as I figured it would. I won’t ever get that vaccine again.”

I got the Shingrix vaccine. I knew from CDC reports that there was a risk of several unpleasant days, which I ended up experiencing; however, I remember my maternal grandparents, parents, and other family friends who actually experienced shingles, extremely painful and lasting several months. So, a couple unpleasant days vs months of pain.

There is NO way of knowing for sure if the vaccine caused your vertigo; but, for sake of argument, let’s say it did. Compare this with risk of hospitalization, even asymptomatic covid which has been found to still result in long covid, with asymptomatic transmission to someone else. Quite simply, again, I would accept a few days of vertigo vs the aforementioned.

So, maybe the vaccine caused your vertigo and maybe it didn’t (logical fallacy of Post Hoc Ergo Prompter Hoc) would you have preferred, for instance, to asymptomatically infect someone who ended up with long covid, hospitalized, or even dead?

Reasonable, intelligent people understand that one has to balance risk with benefits. Of course, doesn’t apply to you.

And you should have reported it to VAERS. CDC would have investigated and, if more such cases, listed it as small probability adverse event. I have NOTHING against this. For instance, they list myocarditis as a real low probability adverse events, based on investigating its report to VAERS.

@ Ginny Stoner

Years ago I attended public meetings discussing HIV and AIDS. One of the speakers was Christine Maggiore, who afterwards I sat down with and had a cup of coffee. She was a likable person. She gave me free copy of book she had written, basically claiming HIV doesn’t cause AIDS. I, of course, read the book. When she became pregnant doctors tried to get her to take anti-retrovirals, she refused, the child was born and died within days of clearly AIDS. They again tried to get her to take anti-retrovirals, she refused. She died, clearly from AIDS; but continued up to her death to deny she had AIDS. She is one of several people Robert F. Kennedy Jr talks about in his book “The Real Anthony Fauci”. Each one had HIV, each one died fairly young, each one with AIDS; but denying it was AIDS.

You continue to base your position on VAERS. You ignore that CDC investigates ALL reports to VAERS of serious adverse events. You ignore that advanced nations around the world have their own respective vaccine safety reporting and evaluating system. You have to believe that almost all doctors, epidemiologists, public health workers, etc. are lying or “brainwashed” to ignore what you choose to believe, that they don’t care about their respective nation’s children. You have made it clear that you have NEVER actually attempted to learn the basics of immunology.

I would be willing to be, as with Christine Maggiore, even if you became severely infected with Covid-19, even hospitalized, developed long covid or even developed it asymptomatically or if one or more family or close friends the aforementioned that, as with Christine Maggiore, even after losing a baby, even as she was dying, you would continue defending your unscientific, indefensible position.

No need to be polite, so I repeat: YOU ARE AN EXTREMELY STUPID, INTELLECTUALLY DISHONEST EXCUSE FOR A HUMAN BEING.

p.s. just started watching another free on internet undergraduate course in immunology. So far well done. If it continues, will add it to list I am creating of such courses to post in a comment. Of course, I know you won’t watch any of them; but others following this blog might be curious.

@ Ginny Stoner

You write: “And you didn’t answer my question regarding why I support vaccines…”

My whole post was directed to answering that question. Read it, you’ll see.”

Bull Shit; but additional proof that you are some combination of stupid and delusional.

Your position of vaccines is really no different from people who believe QAnon.

@ Ginny Stoner:

You write: “My whole post was directed to answering that question. Read it, you’ll see”

I did read it, carefully, and all you do is repeat over and over again “brainwashed.” You don’t refer to any credible sources. So, “brainwashed” in your idiosyncratic vocabulary means disagreeing with you, nothing more, nothing less.

You really are an IDIOT

Want to respond to Orac? Here's your chance. Leave a reply! Just make sure that you've read the Comment Policy (link located in the main menu in the upper right hand corner of the page) first if you're new here!

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: