Tetyana Obukhanych – another anti-vaccine appeal to false authority

One of their favorite pseudoscientists of the anti-vaccine religion is Tetyana Obukhanych, someone who appears to have great credentials. Unfortunately, once you dig below the surface her claims, there is no credible evidence in support. 

One of the most irritating problems I have with the anti-vaccine movement is their over-reliance on false authorities – they overrate publications (often in worthless predatory journals) or commentary from someone who appears to have all of the credentials to be a part of the discussion on vaccines, but really isn’t close to being a real vaccine scientist.

Nevertheless, credentials don’t matter – an “authority” on vaccines must follow the evidence that vaccines are safe and effective unless those “authorities” can provide robust, peer-reviewed, published evidence that vaccines aren’t. False authorities, like Tetyana Obukhanych, almost never do.

For example, Christopher Shaw and Lucija Tomljenovic, two researchers in the Department of Ophthalmology at the University of British Columbia, have, for all intents and purposes, sterling credentials in medicine and science. However, they publish nonsense research (usually filled with the weakest of epidemiology trying to show a population-level correlation between vaccines and adverse events) in low ranked scientific journals.

Following in the footsteps of Shaw, Tomljenovic, James Lyons-Weiler, and Christopher Exley, let’s take a look at the background and education of the anti-vaccine hero, Tetyana Obukhanych.

Who is Tetyana Obukhanych?

tetyana obukhanych
This is Tetyana Obukhanych.

Typically, those who use the appeal to false authority logical fallacy show an over-reliance on the credentials of the false authority. Many people who reject the scientific consensus about anything in science, rely upon false authorities because they lack any evidence supporting their claims. We see this in evolution, climate change, and dozens of other fields of settled science.  And trust me, they all use the same tactics, trying to create a debate where none exists.

So let’s see what Tetyana’s background is. And we need to critically examine those credentials, especially if the anti-vaccine zealots are going to use her as an authority figure.

  • Obukhanych received a Ph.D. in immunology from Rockefeller University in New York City in 2006. Her thesis was entitled Immunologic Memory to Polysaccharide AntigensIronically, her research showed how vaccines work. Yes, she provided us with strong evidence on the effectiveness of vaccines.
  • I want something to be perfectly clear – despite having a doctorate in “immunology,” that does not make her an immunologist, which is a clinical specialty. Only an MD, with five or more years of residency and post-residency training, is considered an “immunologist.” Obukhanych is not competent or trained to clinically diagnose any immune disease.
  • Although a lot of pro-vaccine websites state that she was a postdoctoral researcher (post-doc) at Harvard, and Obukhanych states she was a post-doc there on her website, I can find little corroboration of it. If she were a post-doc at Harvard, she failed to publish even one study while there. Post-docs often, but not always, are the first step to getting a permanent academic position – obviously, she did not, since she left Harvard (if she was even there). On the other hand, Harvard Medical School is decidedly pro-vaccine
  • Obukhanych was once a post-doc in the Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Science at the Stanford University School of Medicine.  However, she is no longer a researcher, post-doctoral fellow, or faculty member at Stanford University School of Medicine. Many times, when anti-vaxxers invoke her name, they claim she is a Stanford researcher (which, of course, is the Harvard of the West, or Harvard is the Stanford of the East, depending on your point of view). 
  • I cannot determine what her current position is, other than making fairly unscientific and uneducated opinions about vaccines. As far as I can tell, she is unemployed, at least in the field of immunology. On her website, she claims that “​During my post-doctoral years, I realized that the so-called ‘academic freedom’ of the mainstream research establishment has been subjugated to a pharmaceutically-driven mainstream paradigm. Built on fear and misunderstanding of our relationship with Mother Nature, the mainstream paradigm capitalizes on manmade chronic disease created as a collateral damage in our never-ending war on viruses and ‘germs.’ At the end of my post-doctoral training, I made the decision to leave the mainstream establishment, whose value system, priorities, and directions I could no longer embrace.” Pure, unfiltered pseudoscience – she couldn’t get any other position, because she never published real research in anything even slightly related to her field of study. 
  • Her research consists of precisely eight published articles. Two of them (here and here), very small clinical trials, examined amino acid relationships to autism spectrum disorder. Neither of these two articles even mention vaccines, so don’t invent some trope where Obukhanych published an article linking vaccines to autism – we know that there is no link. None.
  • Other than one article, Obukhanych was never the first or last author. In most papers, the first author is generally the individual who did the bulk of the research work. In that one paper, she concluded that “As the generation and regulation of immunologic memory are central to vaccination, our findings help explain the mode of action of the few existing polysaccharide vaccines and provide a rationale for a wider application of polysaccharide-based strategies in vaccination.” Yes, that was a pro-vaccine paper.
  • Ironically, of the eight articles that have her name as a co-author, some of them actually supported the use of vaccines (see one, two, three).
  • Sure, she possibly assisted in some interesting research in the immune response, but as far as I can tell, it wasn’t much more than doing assays, something a basic research technologist could do.
  • There is nothing in her background that indicates she has compiled robust and scientifically important evidence about vaccines. Pro-science (and pro-vaccination,) people like myself, are unimpressed with credentials because the ONLY thing that matters is the quality and quantity of published, peer-reviewed evidence. Paul Offit knows more in his left pinky finger than I do about vaccines, but it’s the mountain of evidence that he’s published in high quality, peer-reviewed, biomedical journals over twenty or more years.
  • She was interviewed for an antivaccine article in the lunatic website, whale.to, an anti-semitic, hate-filled, conspiracy-laden website run by a pig farmer. It’s really hard to get beyond this point.
  • She thinks homeopathy works. Yeah, once someone buys into that pseudoscience, it’s hard to take them seriously on any topic.

I cannot find anything in her background, writing, or peer-reviewed publications that would indicate that her credentials supported her being thrust upon the world as a vaccine expert. Again, only evidence matters, not the credentials.

tetyana obukhanych
Self-published Kindle book from Tetyana Obukhanych, Vaccine Illusion.

Tetyana Obukhanych’s book

Obukhanych also wrote a book, Vaccine Illusion: How Vaccination Compromises Our Natural Immunity and What We Can Do To Regain Our Health, which is a self-published (on Kindle) screed about vaccines. In other words, it’s a book that’s so unworthy of respect, that she couldn’t find a real science book publisher to take it on. But I digress.

As Harriet Hall, MD (if you’re into credentials) wrote a few months ago, “I am not an immunologist, but it doesn’t take any particular expertise to spot the defects in Obukhanych’s arguments.” Hall also points to a comment in the Amazon review of Obukhanych’s that is justifiably a “withering critique:”

I am also a fellow immunologist (ed. a real clinical immunologist) that studied vaccines, and a mother of two, and I was eager to read this book because I was hoping that a scientist will provide an honest balanced narration of the history, efficacy and future challenges of vaccine programs, and raise some real questions that is worthy of thoughts. However this book can make Fox News and MSNBC News seem fair and balanced.

Obukhanych’s book starts with such a ridiculous and laughable definition of immunology, that I’m no longer doubting her current credentials, but the quality of her education. She writes that immunology is:

…a science that studies an artificial process of immunization – i.e., the immune system’s response to injected foreign matter. Immunology does not attempt to study and therefore cannot provide understanding of natural diseases and immunity that follows them.

Is she serious? The immune system’s response to foreign substances (let’s call them what they are, antigens) is the whole point of immunology. It is the whole reason this field of science exists. According to Harvard University Medical School, Department of Immunology, because the anti-vaxxers love to claim that she is “Harvard trained”:

The science of Immunology encompasses the study of the development, anatomy functions and malfunctions of the immune system, all of which are of fundamental importance to the understanding of human disease. The immune system is made up of many types of molecules and cells that are distributed in every tissue of the body, as well as specialized lymphoid organs, which act in a coordinated manner to prevent or eliminate microbial infections, to suppress the growth of tumors, and to initiate repair of damaged tissues. The immune system normally recognizes and responds to foreign molecules or damaged self, but not healthy host cells and tissues.

In other words, Obukhanych claims to be an immunologist, but cannot even get the basic definition of her field, immunology, correct. The anti-vaccine religion’s promotion of Obukhanych’s credentials is laughable at best, and probably disingenuous at worst.

Obukhanych picking cherries at her favorite orchard of pseudoscience.

What did Obukhanych say about mandatory vaccinations?

Now it gets real. Obukhanych had decided, of course, to oppose California’s SB277, the proposed legislation that eliminates vaccine personal belief exemptions for children entering schools. But she tried to do it from the perspective that she’s an “immunologist” – though she was trained in immunology, she denies a lot of the science in immunology, so I propose that she is not an immunologist anymore.

On an anti-science (and of course, anti-vaccine) website, that has one of the lowest Web of Trust ratings I’ve ever seen, published a lengthy and rambling open letter from Obukhanych to California legislators, including Senator Richard Pan, MD, who has pushed SB277 through the California Senate.

Basically, the letter attempts to obfuscate and confuse the reader through a long, at times incoherent, discourse about vaccines, using her “credentials” as an “immunologist.” No offense to any California legislators, but I’m guessing that most legislators would lose interest after the first couple of paragraphs.

The letter is filled with cherry-picked research, sometimes quote mining right out of the cherry-picked publication. It’s like a double logical fallacy.

For example, Obukhanych refers to a study that discusses a major measles outbreak in Quebec, Canada. Although her point is unclear, what she misses is the key data. That is, the highest risk for contracting measles in Quebec were unvaccinated children.

Although there is some data that shows that some children who have had two doses of the measles vaccine caught the disease, that’s how science works. Maybe we need three doses. Maybe someone needs to work on an improved measles vaccine. But this study, which showed being unvaccinated was much more dangerous for the children than being vaccinated, did not provide us with evidence that vaccines are worthless. Far from it.

What else does Tetyana Obukhanych say?

Honestly, it would take 10,000 words of writing to criticize everything Obukhanych wrote in that “open letter.” It’s so filled with disinformation, ignorance and outright lies, you’d get bored with my analysis and I’d be sad.

But she makes six broad claims that need to be refuted, and refuted hard, because that may be the only thing anyone reads. So here are Obukhanych’s six assertions about vaccines (her exact comments are in italics, I’ve edited out her longer screeds because she continues to repeat the first claim) :

  • IPV (inactivated poliovirus vaccine) cannot prevent transmission of poliovirus. Wrong. Sweden eliminated wild-type polio with IPV. Wild poliovirus has been non-existent in the USA for at least two decades. Yes, because of vaccinations. The only reason we continue to vaccinate is that it’s not been eliminated everywhere, so a traveler might inadvertently carry it back to the USA.
  • Tetanus is not a contagious disease but rather acquired from deep-puncture wounds contaminated with C. tetani spores. Vaccinating for tetanus (via the DTaP combination vaccine) cannot alter the safety of public spaces; it is intended to render personal protection only. Although she is technically correct, it is an irrelevant point. Tetanus is a deadly infection, and it is true that the tetanus vaccine is not really to prevent infection from the bacteria, but against the toxin the bacteria produces. Recently, a child in Canada, who was not vaccinated, has contracted the deadly disease. The tetanus vaccine won’t prevent a tetanus epidemic, because any amateur immunologist knows the vaccine has another purposed – prevent harm and death to children and adults by making the immune system destroy the tetanus toxin. Does Obukhanych not understand this basic principle of public health, let alone immunology?
  • While intended to prevent the disease-causing effects of the diphtheria toxin, the diphtheria toxoid vaccine (also contained in the DTaP vaccine) is not designed to prevent colonization and transmission of C. diphtheriae. Vaccinating for diphtheria cannot alter the safety of public spaces; it is likewise intended for personal protection only. Using the same logic Obukhanych makes about tetanus, except for one important point – the diphtheria toxoid creates a colonization advantage for the bacterium, so the vaccine actually prevents the infection (unlike the tetanus vaccine) by C. diphtheriae.
  • Acellular pertussis (aP) vaccine (the final element of the DTaP combined vaccine), now in use in the USA, replaced the whole-cell pertussis vaccine in the late 1990s, which was followed by an unprecedented resurgence of whooping cough. An experiment with deliberate pertussis infection in primates revealed that the aP vaccine is not capable of preventing colonization and transmission of B. pertussis. Once again, Obukhanych goes full cherry-picking but does it badly. This article has been discussed often across the internet, and it is clear that we have to improve the pertussis component of the vaccine. But the authors themselves conclude that the current version does not cause pertussis and that the length and severity of the infection are substantially lower in children who are vaccinated.  
  • The FDA has issued a warning regarding this crucial finding. Yes, but it wasn’t a warning to stop using the vaccine, but it just stated that everyone should be aware that the immunization schedule or the vaccine itself needs to be revised. Really, Obukhanych should win the award for best cherry picking ever.
  • Among numerous types of H. influenzae, the Hib vaccine covers only type b. Despite its sole intention to reduce symptomatic and asymptomatic (disease-less) Hib carriage, the introduction of the Hib vaccine has inadvertently shifted strain dominance towards other types of H. influenzae (types a through f). These types have been causing invasive disease of high severity and increasing incidence in adults in the era of Hib vaccination of children. This is one of the most egregious examples of the Nirvana Fallacy I’ve read in a while – Tetyana Obukhanych thinks that if the Hib vaccine isn’t perfect, it must be junk. But the fact remains that Hib was the leading cause of bacterial meningitis among children under 5 years old in the United States until the introduction of the vaccine. Before the introduction of the Hib vaccine, about 20,000 children in the United States under 5 years old contracted Hib disease each year, and about 3%–6% of them died. Since the use of the Hib vaccine began, the number of cases of invasive Hib disease has decreased by more than 99%. I am appalled that a so-called immunologist would say something so ignorant and so irresponsible by claiming that because the vaccine does not prevent other subtypes of H. influenzae, it shouldn’t be an important reason to vaccinate. Obukhanych should be embarrassed to have made such a junk science statement.
  • Hepatitis B is a blood-borne virus. It does not spread in a community setting, especially among children who are unlikely to engage in high-risk behaviors, such as needle sharing or sex. Vaccinating children for hepatitis B cannot significantly alter the safety of public spaces. Further, school admission is not prohibited for children who are chronic hepatitis B carriers. To prohibit school admission for those who are simply unvaccinated – and do not even carry hepatitis B – would constitute unreasonable and illogical discrimination. This is further misinformation from Obukhanych. Yes, hepatitis B is a blood-borne viral infection, and it mostly is transmitted by sexual activity or drug addicts sharing needles, but it is not the only way. The infection can pass from an infected mother. The infection can pass from an infected person through casual blood transfer (say a cut). But the reason we vaccinate newborn infants is that 90% of babies who contract the virus end up with a chronic, lifetime disease. For adults, only 2-6% adults end up with a chronic disease after infection. In fact, because of the hepatitis vaccination of newborns, the hepatitis B infection rate has dropped by 82% since the early 1990’s. In what world is that not important and critical step to improving the health of babies? And the hepatitis B vaccine prevents cancer

Tetyana Obukhanych’s motivation (update)

I have spent most of this article explaining what Obukhanych has said, and why she is scientifically and logically wrong. But many of us have wondered what has motivated a demonstrably well-educated immunologist to go so far off the rails. Well, I am not a psychologist, so I cannot begin to tell you why she would deny her scientific education.

Fortunately (or unfortunately), Tetyana Obukhanych has been a part of the Tour de Vaxxed, a bus tour across parts of America, so it’s clear that since she couldn’t make a powerful career in immunology, she had to pay the bills by jumping on the anti-vaccine gravy train.

In an article in the wonderful VaccinesWorkBlog, the author examined an interview where Obukhanych is questioned by one of the Vaxxed co-conspirators, Polly Tommy during the bus tour. The article goes into substantial detail about Obukhanych’s motivation to be a vaccine denier:

She claims that, at one point, she started seeing “things” that did not quite fit into theory. For example,  she noticed mice could be immune activated but they would not develop immunity to a pathogen, which told her that immune response does not necessarily equal immunity. At that point, she started paying attention to vaccine research, comparing immune response to efficacy. She believes some vaccines are only studied for immunogenicity and not efficacy.

When she went to get her green card, she looked closely at her own medical records. She recalls having measles as a child. She found out she had a MMR at age 1 and another one at age 5 but still got measles at age 12. This didn’t make sense to her. How could a person get measles after vaccination, she thought?

She then realized she had been “indoctrinated” into believing vaccines work but they clearly do not.  She started also looking into safety and efficacy studies for flu vaccine and research showing that flu vaccines do not work. She says she occasionally tried to bring this up with the senior research scientists but would routinely be told vaccines work and be quiet.

She also told a strange story about a department at Stanford where psychologists are charged with talking to parents of children with autism about vaccines. Tetyana found this odd because psychologist don’t know much about vaccines, except Marcella Piper-Terry. (Tetyana claims Marcella is a psychologist). Tetyana then decided she should be the one to talk to parents about vaccines, as an immunologist. So, she started meeting with parenting groups and it grew into her writing her self-published book.

I don’t know why any of this would cause her to deny all of her scientific training, and then cherry-pick whatever study helped her support her pre-conceived beliefs. And I’m rather suspicious she contracted the measles after vaccination since the disease is still quite rare (though coming back thanks to the anti-vaccine religion).

However, as a scientist, she should know that vaccines (or any medical procedure for that matter) are not 100% perfect. It is very possible that she may have contracted measles after the vaccination because the MMR vaccine does not confer perfect immunity to 100% of children vaccinated. A real scientist would grasp this concept in a second.

Nevertheless, the article on VaccinesWorkBlog goes into a lot more detail about Tetyana Obukhanych’s motivation to be what she is.

More criticism of Tetyana Obukhanych

Health Feedback, a website staffed by real clinicians and scientists who sort “fact from fiction” in health and medical claims, took Tetyana Obukhanych to task for this ridiculous claim:

Unvaccinated children pose no threat to anyone.

The reviewers said:

Incorrect: It is incorrect to say that unvaccinated children pose no threat to anybody. Having unvaccinated people within a community leads to diminished herd immunity, which increases the likelihood of disease transmission to others.
Cherry-picking: The claim relies on a personal anecdote and an open letter from a former scientist, while ignoring the vast amount of scientific literature that contradicts it.

That was perfect. And calling her a “former scientist” is both accurate and snarky. 

Finally, the made the following statement:

Vaccination is an effective way to protect oneself and others from many diseases. Deciding not to vaccinate makes it more likely for a person to contract a potentially serious and preventable disease, and makes it easier for a person to spread diseases to others, especially immunodeficient persons.

They took a lot fewer words than I to criticize her.

Conclusion, the TL;DR version

  • The anti-vaccination crowd loves the appeal to authority logical fallacy, jumping to advertise anyone with credentials that support their viewpoint without consideration of evidence–the only thing that matters in science
  • Tetyana Obukhanych is one of those so-called authority figures.
  • Tetyana Obukhanych has few, if any, serious credentials in the field of immunology, which is supposedly her background.
  • Tetyana Obukhanych has actually published three articles in peer-reviewed journals about the benefits of vaccination and the immune system.
  • Tetyana Obukhanych uses cherry-picking, strawman arguments, and outright lies and misinformation to obfuscate the discussion about vaccines.

If you’re using Tetyana Obukhanych as your “source” for the anything antivaccination–don’t. She presents no scientific evidence. And that’s the only thing that matters.

Editor’s note: This article was originally published in June 2015. It has been revised and updated to include more comprehensive information, to improve readability, to copyedit, and to add current research. Also, I also included a significant overhaul of her academic and research background to include more of her actual scientific research into vaccines.

Key citations

Please help me out by sharing this article. Also, please comment below, whether it's positive or negative. Of course, if you find spelling errors, tell me!

There are two ways you can help support this blog. First, you can use Patreon by clicking on the link below. It allows you to set up a monthly donation, which will go a long way to supporting the Skeptical Raptor
Become a Patron!

Finally, you can also purchase anything on Amazon, and a small portion of each purchase goes to this website. Just click below, and shop for everything.

The Original Skeptical Raptor
Chief Executive Officer at SkepticalRaptor
Lifetime lover of science, especially biomedical research. Spent years in academics, business development, research, and traveling the world shilling for Big Pharma. I love sports, mostly college basketball and football, hockey, and baseball. I enjoy great food and intelligent conversation. And a delicious morning coffee!

117 Replies to “Tetyana Obukhanych – another anti-vaccine appeal to false authority”

  1. I find it ironic that someone throws around logical fallacies whilst using them. Instead of attacking the person presenting the claims and trying to discredit them, try to attack their claims using logic. If convicted murderer Charles Manson made a claim that killing people is wrong, would you dismiss his claim because he has killed? Logic 101.

    1. Of course, these “reason” blogs just complain, are negative and only use name calling and bully techniques. This article just shows the fear of hysterical pro vaxxers who do not even read the pharma vaccine inserts that states everything that anti-vaxxers claim. The actual pharma companies support the anti-vax movement through their warning in the inserts of the side effects. How ironic

      1. Jackass. Here’s how it works. All the fucking evidence is on my side. You have none. I get to mock your intellect and stupidity all I want using every personal attack available to me.

        If you had one stitch of evidence, then maybe we could have a civil “debate.” But you’re simply an ignorant little dumbass. And I get to call you that.

        Bring evidence or STFU. Right now, you’re definitely on the STFU side.

        What a maroon.

    2. I hate repeat myself, but you vaccine deniers are not exactly up there on intellect.

      Jackass. Here’s how it works. All the fucking evidence is on my side. You have none. I get to mock your intellect and stupidity all I want using every personal attack available to me.

      If you had one stitch of evidence, then maybe we could have a civil “debate.” But you’re simply an ignorant little dumbass. And I get to call you that.

      Bring evidence or STFU. Right now, you’re definitely on the STFU side.

      What a maroon.

      1. It’s pointless to present you with evidence when you dismiss even the most credible doctor or study that doesn’t fit into your current belief system as quackery. You are incapable of expanding your narrow mind. I was once for vaccination. Most of us were. And most of us believe SAFE and EFFECTIVE vaccines should be an available CHOICE for people who want to go that route. But I reviewed studies and listened to doctors from both sides, and what I found was a lot more bias (and corruption) on your side.

        1. Wrong. You actually failed to read this article that she isn’t even slightly credible.

          Vaccines are already safe and effective. Capitalizing to point out your lack of evidence to the contrary and your personal ignorance is kind of funny.

          Finally, you show off your lack of critical thinking skills by trying to show a false equivalence–that the bad science is equal in quality and quantity to the good science. And thinking Tetyana Obukhanych is credible only underlines your lack of intellectual rigor in this conversation.

          1. Well that’s convenient for you and your agenda that you think I’m the problem. Sadly for you, the comments on this blog seem to indicate otherwise. So do you not agree with the governments own stance on vaccines? The National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act specifically states that vaccines in the present state of human knowledge are quite uncapable of being safe. Do you know something the government doesn’t? Also, tests for efficacy rely soley on antibody response, and antibodies are only one part of a complex immune system. To my knowledge there are no studies proving antibodies equal immunity. If you can prove me wrong on this, please show me the study.

            You have absolutely no proof that the science against vaccines is bad science.

  2. You’re obviously an establishment shill. You have provided ZERO evidence to back up your assertions. Your assessment of the journals and research as ‘low rated’ is completely baseless.
    You’re wrong

    The pro-vaccination, criminal, totalitarian crowd are the ones that resort to appeal to authority as their PRIMARY ARGUMENT. The very argument of peer review itself is an appeal to authority, despite the fact that there is mountains of peer reviewed research proving the assertions of so-called ‘anti-vaxxers.’.

    Let me guess, you believe in Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming too despite all the evidence supporting the skeptics.

  3. Pingback: | iDSENT
  4. “If only they would provide evidence published in high quality, peer
    reviewed journals (yes, a high standard, but if we’re talking about
    public health, a high standard is required), the fake debate would move
    into a real scientific discussion.” Septic Rantor

    I thought I would read this article first and then comment, but this statement hit me in the face like a marshmallow cock. We all know that medical peer review is in serious disrepute, we don’t mean the odd glitch, but from the Lancet, BMJ and NEJM all the ex editors are saying that at least 50 % of what is published is total crap. The other funny part about this opening gambit is that the authors you diss like Jefferson of the Cochraine collaboration on the fallacy of flu vaccine and this author here Tetyana Obukhanych have done exactly what you asked, reviewed all the published peer reviewed data on the subject and found a vaccine is bullshit.!!!!

    What exactly are you trying to do, apart from diss people because they have trashed your religious believe in vaccination?

    1. “Dr. Obukhanych does have a Ph.D. in immunology from Rockefeller University and once was on a research team at the Stanford University School of Medicine.” Septic Rantor

      Here we go, instead of discussing her paper you start with some kind of tabloid character assassination, how bloody boring. She has higher credentials than you, we detect just a tinsy winsy bit of the green eyed monster creeping in here already. Also she is a girl and that must bite for a redneck, women can do more than relieve tension.

      1. Yes, she has higher credentials than me, if by credentials we mean ability to lie out her ass. So, in that case, sure.

        But because you are incapable of reading, you failed to understand that credentials don’t matter. Just evidence. And she has none. She’s inventing stuff, and she’s being called on it for doing so.

        1. Oh c’mon Raptor. Your techniques are weak and pathetic. When you say some one is lying, we automatically think IT IS YOU who is lying! These techniques only back fire on you because the anti vax movement is totally snow balling. Why? Because your kind is dis credited.

        2. You make absolutely no sense and you never provide real, hardcore evidence. And trust me, I read what you wrote. You’re all meaningless rhetoric.

  5. The blog writer defends the Hepatitis B vaccination (usually given on the first day of birth). He wrote:
    ” In fact, because of the hepatitis vaccination of newborns, the hepatitis B infection rate has dropped by 82% since the early 1990’s.”
    How does he know whether the rate dropped due to less use of infected needles among addicts or other possible reasons?

    In some countries the pregnant woman is tested for Hep B and if clear, her infant is NOT vaccinated against it. In the US the infant is vaccinated against Hep B as a matter of course. It is foolish to vaccinate without first testing because (as even the CDC admits) vaccines carry risks of their own.

    1. Really Raptor? Then why do babies need the BOOSTER SHOT if it is so effective? I am glad to see the anti-vax movement snow balling and exposing these fake lying websites and the immoral moderator who runs it. What a fake Skeptical Raptor is. LMAO.

      1. It’s hard for me to understand your IQ28 babbling. What did you say? Oh, yeah something about boosters.

        Science works by finding more data over time. Your ignorance works on “I have a conclusion based on nothing and you can’t change my mind. I’m just a pathetic liar.”

        Get it? Got it? Good.

    1. Pro-vaxxers are irritated because they are hysterical parrots who spread fear and false information. They do not even read the pharma vaccine inserts that actually prove the claims of the anti-vax movement. Just read the inserts!!!

  6. This is not a good sceptical response at all. This person doesn’t even know that the fallacy he claims is being perpetrated here as “Appeal to false authority” does not exist. Obviously this person either never had or simply failed his logic class. The actual philosophical concept is “Appeal to authority” period. Philosophers rightfully claim that any argumentation that uses and appeal to authority as a premises for a conclusion is insufficient and fallacious. Therefore when this person later claims Dr. Paul Offit as a “real” authority simply because he agrees with Offit’s conclusions, also presumably because Offit holds an office of high authority, he is actually creating a circular argument. This “sceptic” makes some interesting counterpoints that suggest that Dr. Obukhanych may have skewed her claims, but he fails to address her main point – which is that current vaccination science and the current state of public health do not warrant a draconian law to deny education to a tiny minority of people who are usually at least partially vaccinated. She doesn’t even go into the obvious and well documented risk of injury that exist with childhood vaccinations, and she doesn’t even address the legal precedent being set here to trample on the people’s rights to informed consent. You want 100% vax rates – then come clean about the dangers, and put your scientists to work on mitigating them. Instead everyone is brushing thousands of injured or killed children under the rug and calling their suffering parents crazy.

    1. Ad hominem argument. Strawman argument. And general ignorance.

      NO one wants 100% vax rates, because 1-2% of kids cannot be vaccinated for for whatever reason.

      No, Offit is an authority because he has invested thousands of days in research. Because his vaccines have saved over 250,000 lives a year. And because Tetayana is a liar who has 0 evidence for her outlandish lies.

      So, you can babble on with your lies, but please bring peer-reviewed papers. Otherwise, no one cares what you say. It’s just lies.

      1. You are a shill without any moral fiber. As far as peer reviewed papers, there are dozens that make valid arguments in regards to vaccine efficacy that you should review. You can stay ignorant if you wish it and yell at the top of your lungs asking people to prove you wrong or you can do some more research and open your mind. Your choice. The one generally ignorant is you. You are obviously unaware of the lack of information that most practicing pediatricians have about the dangers of vaccines, often because they listen to a voice like Offit and are satisfied. Go to VAERS and download the reports of injuries, seizures and deaths. You can’t claim safety when the reports are not even investigated after they are logged. And if there is risk, you must allow for informed consent. Unless you believe that the Nuremberg trials mean nothing, and governments have the right to force medical procedures on people “for the good of society” even if it means people WILL be injured or killed. Just a statistic for you – the VAERS database contains reports of 4,263 deaths since 1990, with 2,402 deaths to infants, and 1,279 of those infants died within 5 days of an injection – 223 of them died on the same day. And this is only the cases being reported into the database.
        And as for your comment about “NO one wants 100% vax rates” you are 100% incorrect. The 5 vaccine manufacturers that completely control the market want it. That’s why Senator Pan from California has received campaign contributions and perks from the vaccine industry, and that’s why he pushed the bill onto a state that already had 98% vax rates. The Personal Belief Exemptions only totalled 2% of the population. So ask yourself why a draconian law when the current system was highly successful at encouraging parents to vax? The reason is MORE vaccines are coming. 200+ in the pipeline. Read about the 21st century cures act being made ready for congress.

        1. You cherry pick. I hope you’re using those cherries for good purposes.

          You bring no evidence in any form. There are NO verifiable deaths from vaccines in 30 or more years. So, you lie, and that’s an indicator of YOUR moral fiber. Good luck with that.

          1. You are lying shamelessly. The vaccine court has compensated vaccine deaths, for 250K each. Show some respect to the victims and their families and stop being a clown.

          2. You are either a paid propagandist (which I highly doubt because you suck) or you are experiencing cognitive dissonance. Cognitive dissonance is the mental stress or discomfort experienced by an individual when confronted by new information that conflicts with existing beliefs, ideas, or values. This is causing you to attempt to deny everything you are reading.

            There is NO DOUBT that vaccines cause serious adverse reactions in SOME people. You can visit http://vaers.hhs.gov/data/index to download all the adverse event reports and see for yourself. There is a total of 4263 DEATH reports, which include reports of death happening on the same day the vaccine was delivered 447 times. VAERS site states that nothing in the reports constitutes proof of vaccine caused injury but nothing in the reports can rule it out either. It remains at best, an open question. Yet, the federal vaccine court http://www.hrsa.gov/vaccinecompensation/index.html has awared over 3 billion dollars to families of vaccine injured individuals, mostly children, including compensation $250,000 for every death linked to a vaccine. They have also paid out to families whose children were neurologically injured and diagnosed autistic.

            Just in 2014 alone, 635 seizures were reported into VAERS, 325 of them for children 6 and younger. Manufacturer’s vaccine inserts warn against all of the adverse effects that you find in VAERS and instruct the medical professionals that are administering the vaccine to have someone on staff who can deal with anaphylactic shock. There can be absolutely no doubt that serious adverse reactions to vaccines occur and are expected. To read the package inserts, go here: http://www.immunize.org/packageinserts/pi_hepatitisb.asp

            To further your education, here is 101 studies linking autism to vaccine injury: http://www.scribd.com/doc/220807175/86-Research-Papers-Supporting-the-Vaccine-Autism-Link and here is another page to 100 studies: http://adventuresinautism.blogspot.com/2007/06/no-evidence-of-any-link.html?m=1

            I am sure by now you have heard of the CDC whistle blower, Dr. Thompson, who has come forward and admitted that he and his colleagues at the CDC destroyed evidence of autism occurring at a 300% greater frequency in African American children if they received the MMR vaccine before 3 years of age. If you haven’t heard of that, then you really are ignorant of the subject matter.

            I can send you dozens of well evidenced arguments and information making it clear that a mandatory vaccine policy is absolutely immoral at this time, particularly because many in the government and vaccine industry have taken the position of total denial of any adverse effects. This is a total lie and you are helping to contribute to it with your uninformed spouting. I implore you to grow a pair and start treating this matter with more serious responsibility.

        1. You apparently fail to understand what a skeptic is. A true scientific skeptic weighs ALL evidence giving precedence to higher quality and quantity. You think all evidence is equivalent. I don’t. That makes me a real skeptic and you a tad bit ignorant.

            1. You seem pretty sure about something you can’t know much about, for a skeptic.

          1. Yeah like oh yeah, weighs all evidence that doesn’t question vaccination – are you having a laugh! You are a paper tiger, a legend in your own lunchtime.

            So why did you leave out half the evidence in Angelica and measles ie she had had measles and recovered and then was giving the MMR. In the MMR insert sheet it warns against giving the MMR to kids that have already had measles because of the risk of SSPE. Also there was no need to give it, she was naturally immune. considering the chances of getting SSPE and dying are about 1 in 100,000 in those who have had measles, it is likely that giving her the MMR was a factor.

            To skew this in your article and imply that people who don’t vaccinate are responsible for Angelica is piss poor. Your article should have warned parents not to give the MMR if you child has already had measles.

            You are no any kind of sceptic, you are a septic.

      2. “No, Offit is an authority because he has invested thousands of days in
        research. Because his vaccines have saved over 250,000 lives a year. And
        because Tetayana is a liar who has 0 evidence for her outlandish lies.” Septic bonker

        LOL. I hurt from laughing – Paul Offit is an authority cos he’s invested thousands of days in what – investment! is that all you have and some cooked up number, is that like the 10,000 vaccines Paul said kids can have!!!!! if I was religious I would say ‘oh god’ but I am not. You are an A class hypocrite. Keep writing stuff like this, it will help millions avoid vaccination like the plague, you are priceless. LOL

  7. Awesome rebuttal of her ridiculous claims! Just one small note to make (nothing huge): Epidemiologically speaking, HepB doesn’t generally get transferred through IV or sexually contact. By and large, the majority of infections are due to transfer from mother to baby (vertical transmission). Which isn’t to say that it CAN’T be spread by IV or sexual contact, but the transfer rates via these routes tend to be much lower for Hep B. That being said, for anyone in health fields who get a needle stick, or for anyone else who DOES end up engaging in sexual contact or IV sharing with an infected person, the rates of transmission of Hep are remarkably low if you’ve been vaccinated previously. So… Hep B vax is a phenomenal thing, because like you said, Hepatitis B infection tends to be a lifelong disease with a poor long term prognosis.

    1. Yes, that’s a valid point. However, the mother generally gets the disease from IV or sexual contact. I think that’s the point.

      I have received the HepB vaccine, and I am definitely not a sexual deviant nor am I an IV drug user. I do it because I’m in contact with blood borne pathogens in some of the things I do in real life. Of course, I’ve had the yellow fever and anthrax vaccines (both quite painful) because of my belief in keeping money in Big Pharma. Or was it because I used to travel to crazy parts of the world? Oh well.

      But thanks for your points. Please comment whenever you want. I enjoy good science advice.

  8. You’re not a skeptic, “Skeptical Raptor.” You’re a cynic. And you also don’t even understand the basic premise of science … because if you did, you wouldn’t have just embarrassed yourself in this crap hole you call a blog. But your infantile responses are, at their very least, reassuring. Why? Because every time you press a key on that sticky keyboard of yours and attempt to sound even remotely cognizant of what is actually happening in the world, you reinforce my suspicions about all you “pro-vaccine” pariahs out there. Enjoy your own self-made “Vaccine Illusion”, while you continue to wet your pants over another one of your internet field trips to “Science Land.”
    “Weeeeeeeeeee! Science Land. Love peer review pa-prs! Vaccines goooood.”

    1. And for that you use a cite from a news network? That garbage again?

      You can look up my cites on that article. I’m not digging around for them again. No one has ever contracted measles from a recently vaccinated individual.

      There have been about 5 such cases of chickenpox in 55 MILLION doses of cpx vaccine.

      There are few cases of flu transmitted by Flu Mist, none outside of day care centers where hygiene is not stellar.

      1. There are few cases of flu transmitted by Flu Mist, none outside of day care centers where hygiene is not stellar.” Katlitter

        That’s interesting, 40 years of research by the British failed to even establish the flu contagen theory. The most they could get to catch the flu was 3/32. So you must be onto something there, or is that another medical anecdote. Oh look there is a pandemic of flu, quick, buy this……………..

          1. Ahaaaaaaaa. A germ paranoia aaaaaaah. If the British government couldn’t make anyone catch a cold in lab conditions explain that.

            This is even funnier. Apparently a professor says you cant catch a cold from saliva, only mucous!


            You can also isolate most pathogens from handrails on the Subway, how come we are all not dying?

            Lots of germ myths for you to ponder over, can’t wait for the reply.
            Do you have a flu jab every year?

          2. Diddly doo is nothing but a spammer. Obviously unemployed. Probably literally does live in his parent’s basement. And obviously lacking any education beyond 3rd grade. So his being a germ theory denier is not shocking. 🙂

  9. Ever hear of the fallacist’s fallacy? Yeah… that’s you, “skeptical raptor.”

    Fallacist’s Fallacy:
    Argument from fallacy is the formal fallacy of analyzing an argument and inferring that, since it contains a fallacy, its conclusion must be false. It is also called: argument to logic, fallacy fallacy, and bad reasons fallacy. In fact, the presence of a formal fallacy in a deductive argument does not imply anything about the argument’s premises or its conclusion.


    The “Your logical fallacy is…” game is an exercise that should really be relegated back to the Debate 101 class room where it belongs. It remains a useful device for the purpose of honing one’s basic debate skills, however it does not serve as a legitimate argument in and of itself.

  10. First of all, the name calling needs to stop (anti-vaccine, anti-science, vaccination cult, false authority). Pro-science does not mean pro-vaccination, nor does anti-vaccination mean anti-science. In fact, I am pro-science, but anti-vaccination. It is smart and highly educated people that are reading research and SEEING their loved ones being affected or even dying after being vaccinated.
    People who believe that vaccines are harmful, do so because their child WAS INDEED HARMED or KILLED BY vaccine(s). There is high quality SCIENCE to backup their beliefs. Then there are people who oppose vaccinations because it is against their religion. Religious freedom is granted by the constitution. Period. End of discussion.

    No one is anti-science. It is exactly because of science (truly independent third party studies…and not studies paid for or done by the pharmaceutical industry), that individuals can see that vaccines can have bad side effects, including death.
    No Two people are the same. Even with vaccination, there is NOT one-shot-fits-all.

    The Pharmaceutical industry is quick to try to discredit and or minimize true authority on vaccination [good example is Skeptical Raptor’s blog post (he/she worked for the pharmaceutical industry)].
    For example, Dr. Wakefield. You can still google Dr. Wakefield and find articles that he is a “false authority” whose study was retracted (from the Lancet), false, not done correctly, not true, etc. But what did not make the news was that he was vindicated and the Lancet admitted (though not publicly) that they should not have retracted his studies.

    Skeptical Raptor distracts you when talking about Tetyana Obukhanych’s book being self published. The issue is Not about self publishing.

    Tetyana Obukhanych correctly describes how immunology is defined here in the US. Immunology should be defined the way Harvard University Medical School, Department of Immunology defines it; but, unfortunately in the real world that is not how the Pharmaceutical Industry defines it.

    Research is NOT “cherry picked” just because it doesn’t agree with Skeptical Raptor’s pro-vaccination stance.
    The Tetanus issue that Tetyana Obukhanych talks about is NOT Irrelevant just because Skeptical Raptor says so (who by the way has no degree in immunoglobulin and WORKED FOR A PHARMACEUTICAL COMPANY).

            1. That depends solely upon how “immunology” was misspelled. Truly stupid assumption.

            2. Well he believes in vaccination, anything is possible in that dimension.

        1. it was the gastroenterologist that was taken down at the same time, completely re instated and all charges dropped. It won’t be long before the whole affair is brought to light again.

      1. You can be pro-science and anti-vaccine. In fact, there is a myriad of scientific proof that vaccines (especially the adjuvants) showing harm to animals and humans. This true science (not the FAKE science that pharmaceuticals pander) is what educates enough parents to become “anti-vaccine” (as you call it)

          1. I just imagine something out of the lord of the rings, pissed on hemlock gaggling on their own puke. What kind of scientist are you – or are you a warlock?

        1. No you cannot be both. Anti-vaccine is simply denial of the vast majority of the scientific evidence that states that vaccines are safe and effective. It is not “true science.” Your failure to understand what constitutes science is amusing and alarming. Science is a method to answer questions about the natural universe. All you provide is cherry picked unscientific crap which does not contradict the scientific consensus.

          Here’s a suggestion. I you think you’re right, then get off your lazy ass, get a Ph.D., do real research. Publish it in real journals. And then convince other scientists that your methods, analysis, and conclusions are supported by such evidence. Until then, you’re just a biased, ignorant mouthpiece of the science deniers. Something to show your pride, I’m sure.

          1. “The problem with peer review is that we have good evidence on its deficiencies and poor evidence on its benefits. We know that it is expensive, slow, prone to bias, open to abuse, possibly anti-innovatory, and unable to detect fraud. We also know that the published papers that emerge from the process are often grossly deficient.” BMJ 1997;315:759 (Published 27 September 1997)

          2. From a recent article about Richard Horton, current editor in chief of the Lancet:

            “Dr. Horton recently published a statement declaring that a lot of published research is in fact unreliable at best, if not completely false.

            ‘The case against science is straightforward: much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue. Afflicted by studies with small sample sizes, tiny effects, invalid exploratory analyses, and flagrant conflicts of interest, together with an obsession for pursuing fashionable trends of dubious importance, science has taken a turn towards darkness.'”

            Science is never EVER settled. For you to not understand this, especially in this day and age, is incomprehensible The roots of science are entwined with philosophy and the objective was once truth; today, science couples itself with industry and the objective is profit. And somehow it doesn’t dawn on you that this can distort our view of science?

            And then there’s the whistleblower from the CDC who just brought to light that thousands of pages of research linking vaccines to autism, especially among blacks, were intentionally destroyed.

            What it all comes down to is that you certainly do not have a clear or complete picture of this situation, although you pretend that you do. This is the very definition of “false authority.” You are simply shilling for the industry, nothing more. In light of evidence that contradicts your published claims you obviously can’t be objective. That is NOT science. You can’t even wrap your head around what the word even means.

          3. “Here’s a suggestion. I you think you’re right, then get off your lazy
            ass, get a Ph.D., do real research. Publish it in real journals. And
            then convince other scientists that your methods, analysis, and
            conclusions are supported by such evidence. Until then, you’re just a
            biased, ignorant mouthpiece of the science deniers. Something to show
            your pride, I’m sure.” Septic rantor
            All the people you diss about vaccination critique have done exactly this. What happens next is some twat like you is given the task to diss them with wallpaper. How scientific is that?

      2. Why not, you brought god into it, why can’t one see that suppressing these events leads to bigger and worse problems. Managed well, all the so called infectious diseases of kids should lead to no sequalae.

    1. And because you can’t read or bother to read anything else I’ve written, I’m very skeptical of one-off peer-reviewed articles. But that probably exceeds your minimal intellectual capabilities. Sad really.

      1. I guess you haven’t read any of the information out that many peer reviewed articles are not the whole truth and nothing but the truth.



        “Ivan Oransky and Adam Marcus, the co-editors of Retraction Watch, a blog that tracks research integrity and first reported the BioMed Central retractions, have counted a total of 170 retractions in the past few years across several journals because of fake peer reviews.”

    2. Skeptical Raptor (whoever that is) isn’t really a true skeptic, but is rather only selectively “skeptical” of medical consensus skeptics. So, a “skeptic” of skeptics, if you will… better known as a BELIEVER in consensus (but skeptical has more of a science-y critical think-y ring to it). =)

        1. Do you know the difference between science and dogma? Science constantly questions itself and easily changes its conclusions based on evidence. I don’t have an opinion on vaccines, but I do know that blind faith in peer reviewed articles is no different than blind faith in anti-vaccine figures. Everything we know about any scientific subject could be proved wrong tomorrow. For example, for decades we’ve known for a fact that there has never been water on Mars and low fat diets are crucial to maintaining proper weight. Just in the last couple of years we have learned that there most certainly was water on Mars and dietary fat and obesity may have very little to do with each other. Basically what I’m saying is: don’t belittle people for questioning science. The entire premise of science is to question it.

          1. No, you’re wrong. You’re trying to make science into some sort of religion. Science asks questions, and then we create a set of experiments to answer that question, analyze the results with statistics, publish the results for further skeptical analysis then repeat. You THINK that there’s blind faith in peer reviewed articles, but I and everyone in real science reviews each article with critical thinking skills. If someone presented evidence that ANY vaccine did what this delusional “researcher” says, we’d be openminded. You’re a close-minded science denier. You ignore all evidence to spout off that YOU are right and everyone else is wrong. That’s just pure ignorance.

            And your strawman arguments about Mars and dietary fat? WTF are you talking about? We knew there was water on Mars for maybe 100 years. Just because you were ignorant of that knowledge, doesn’t mean the rest of us were. And your oversimplification of dietary fat and obesity? Really? You think we discovered that last year? And did you know how complex the physiology is regarding obesity?

            The evidence supporting the effectiveness and safety of vaccines is overwhelming. It is at the level of science that confirms gravity, evolution, climate change, and many others. Just because you buy into the Appeal to Ignorance, that is, there must be some piece of evidence that “proves” you right out there, we just haven’t found it–that doesn’t mean you’re right. It means you’re a fool.

            1. Wow. As I said, I don’t have an opinion on this matter. But one thing is for sure: thank science I’m not a humorless douche that condescends to people on the internet. Here’s an idea: take your bad attitude and personal insults and go sulk in the corner. I’m sorry you are a miserable asshole, maybe science will come up with a cure for that.

            2. “No, you’re wrong. You’re trying to make science into some sort of
              religion. Science asks questions, and then we create a set of
              experiments to answer that question, analyze the results with
              statistics, publish the results for further skeptical analysis then
              repeat.” Septic shock

              Baaaahaaaa, this is so funny. You create sets of experiments that leave out all the important questions and answers and analyze with statistics! For Pete’s sake – what the hell do you think this is beyond applied manure!

  11. Just a minor point. Obukhanych didn’t do an interview for whale .to, but instead for Catherine J. Frompovic, who’s website is just as woofull, but leaves out the racism. Scudamore is a classic for hoovering up all the detritus on the internet and putting it on his website.

      1. lol @ “whatever”
        Who cares about facts when you’re trying to discredit someone? Not “skeptical raptor,” that’s for sure! lol

  12. Odd that she didn’t mention the 2015 measles outbreak in Quebec. Must be because a member of a religious group that refuses to vaccinate brought the disease back from Disney and then shared it generously within their unvaccinated community.

    1. Oh verna, not that myth again. The CDC’s official statement on that ‘out break’ was
      “An unknown woman, who may have had measles, probably stayed at Disney – whereabouts now unknown”. No mention of religion there, is suppose that sounded more sexy, it’s like Chinese whispers

      It’s just another Disney story, forget it.

      1. Myth? I suppose Canada is a myth then, too. Health officials in Canada traced the initial case to two families that had just returned from Disney, and the measles type matched the outbreak that started in California. There were 159 total cases in Canada, and all but 2 cases were in people who did not vaccinate due to religious reasons. Let me repeat that. 159 total cases, and 157 not vaccinated. That is actually larger that the US outbreak, and clearly illustrates how a very contagious disease can be transmitted thousands of miles away by travellers, and then spread in an unvaccinated and vulnerable population.

        1. Diddly doo spams this website, so answering him may not necessarily be effective. Besides, it appears he’s a germ theory denier, thinking that diseases are not transmitted from person to person.

          Importantly, your evidence of what happened in Canada clearly debunks his myth.

          1. Agreed. Diddly doo is probably too far down his rabbit hole to ever see daylight, but I wanted to get out an update of the Canadian side of the outbreak.

        2. Verna, the CDC’s initial statement was as I stated. I don’t giving a marshmallow cock what Canadian health officials spun onto it. Point is no fatalities. Interesting spine though

          “In one exchange, a Disneyland official wanted the state to make it clear the park was not responsible for the outbreak.”

          Lots of myths spread when fake pandemics are announced, it is good for selling vaccines, you shouldn’t be taken in by the spin, but I suppose you must be a vaccine believer and anything goes there, even raising people like Mr Offit to sainthood status and he is still with us. The pope would be proud of you, well done. Hail Mary.

  13. Another thing about the Hib vaccine that antivaxxers always neglect to mention is that since it has become widely used primary sinus infections in young children are almost unheard of. Since bacterial sinus infection are the number 1 reason people get an antibiotic prescription this leads to a reduction in antibiotic resistant bacteria.

    1. She’s also wrong about serotype replacement which has not occurred in children. There has been an increase in HiA in the elderly but it isn’t a serious pathogen and also could be a function of increased surveillance of Hi disease after the introduction of the Hib vaccine. Obukhanych is just another anti-vaxx crank because she can’t hack it in the legitimate realm of science.

  14. I think the existence of people like Obukhanych serve as constant reminders of the lowest tier of physicians and scientists who try to make their living on the anti-vaxx train. Good take-down.

    1. Oh, I really wanted to pass this up, but I couldn’t.

      “What do you call the lowest ranked medical school graduate?


      Applies equally as well to various PhDs, IMHO.

      Somewhat OT, lately I’ve been reading the breadcrumbs of S. Seneff, an even less-qualified researcher on vaccine science. Originally I was trying to find out if there was something in her biography to explain how she jumped from being a relatively respected AI researcher to being a largely discredited proponent of woo-of-the-week, torturer of bad data sets. I still haven’t come across anything to indicate why she went down the rabbit hole when she did. If anyone else knows, please speak out. I found this blogspot series of posts, oddly from NZ, particularly interesting.

      BTW, the reviews section on Amazon for Vaccine Illusion is well worth following (if somewhat exhausting), just for the lols.

      1. I just went over there to read them (and add some comments). It was very depressing. People order this book because they believe in the anti-vax thing, and then they write reviews about how brilliant it is.

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