Appeal to false authority – who is Tetyana Obukhanych

Appeal to false authority – who is Tetyana Obukhanych

There are so many annoying issues about the antivaccination cult, that most of us can’t even keep up with it. 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. One of their favorite feints against real evidence is to push people, like Tetyana Obukhanych, who appear to have great credentials, but once you dig below the surface, not much is there.

One of the most irritating problems I have with the antivaccination movement  is their over-reliance on false authorities, where they trumpet the publications or commentary from someone who appears to have all of the credentials to be a part of the discussion on vaccines, but really doesn’t. Here’s the thing – it simply does not matter who the authority is or isn’t, all that matters is the evidence.

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 population level correlation between vaccines and adverse events) in low ranked scientific journals.

Now the anti-vaccine world has a new 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. Dr. Obukhanych does have a Ph.D. in immunology from Rockefeller University, according to her own biography, and once was on a research team at the Stanford University School of Medicine.

But let’s take a more scientifically skeptical analysis of her credentials, especially if the antivaccination forces are going to use her as an authority figure.

  • As far as I can tell, Obukhanych is no longer a researcher, post-doctoral fellow, or faculty member at Stanford University School of Medicine. Since she is no longer there, it is hard to tell what her position was, but I assume that it was a post-doctoral fellow (usually called a post doc), one of the stepping stones for a research career.
  • She seems to have also been a post-doc at Harvard, hence, the typical “Appeal to Authority claim that she’s Harvard trained.” I’m pretty sure that Harvard does not confer divine status on science, one has to provide real evidence.
  • 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 not in any academic program anywhere.
  • Her research consists of precisely eight published articles–only one of these articles had her as the first author, and none as the corresponding author. The first author generally does all the work, but the last author (generally known as the corresponding author) is the one who is the primary author, the one who directed and developed the research strategy. Usually, a top rated post-doc would be last author at the later stages of his or her career as a post-doc. She wasn’t. I’m beginning to think she was really nothing more than a highly educated lab tech – she wasn’t trusted to direct research.
  • Ironically, of the eight articles that has her name as a co-author, three of them actually supported the use of vaccines (see one, two, three).
  • Furthermore, none of Obukhanych’s research had anything to do with vaccines. 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 from him and hundreds of other researchers that matter to anyone in science-based medicine world of vaccines.
  • She was interviewed for an antivaccine article in the lunatic website,, an anti-semitic, hate-filled, conspiracy laden website run by a pig farmer. It’s really hard to get beyond this point.

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
Tetyana Obukhanych’s self-published Kindle book, 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 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.

This 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 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 antivaccination cult’s promoting Obukhanych’s credentials is laughable at best, and probably disingenuous at worst.

Obukhanych picking cherries at her favorite orchard of pseudoscience.

What is Obukhanych saying now?

Now it gets real. Obukhanych has decided, of course, to oppose California’s SB277, the proposed legislation that eliminates vaccine personal belief exemptions for children entering schools. But she tries to do it from the perspective that she’s an “immunologist” (I think we can dismiss that claim right away).

On an antiscience (and of course, antivaccine) 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 troubling data 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 because 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. Irrelevant. 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.
  • The 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 is 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. 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 from 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 because 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?


Conclusion, the TL;DR version

  • The antivaccination 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 and to add current research. I also wanted to include some further examples of anti-vaccine activists using her bad science as an appeal to authority.


Key citations

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!
  • Pingback: NeuroLogica Blog » More Anti-Vaccine Pseudoscience()

  • Pingback: למה אני לא מחסן – הפרכה מפורטת | אוכל, מחשבים וביוטכנולוגיה()

  • Pingback: Scientific consensus – collective opinion of scientists()

  • Pingback: Anti-vaccine nurses and midwives 17 – Elizabeth Gregg: Queensland | reasonable hank()

  • Pingback: Vaccine open-mindedness – confessions of a science nerd()

  • Pingback: Google search terms – pseudoscience examples()

  • Joe Mitchell

    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.

    • John Knight

      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

      • 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.

    • 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.

      • Liz Swarthout

        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.

        • 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.

          • Liz Swarthout

            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.

  • Sabretruthtiger

    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.

  • Pingback: Many Doctors, Scientists Resist Party Line on Vaccines Despite Personal Attacks | iDSENT()

  • Pingback: | iDSENT()

  • Diddly doo

    “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?

    • Diddly doo

      “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.

      • 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.

        • John Knight

          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.

          • Prove it moron.

            I don’t lie dumbass. I use evidence. You use logical fallacies, lies, misinformation and pure, unfiltered ignorance.

            What a maroon.

        • Liz Swarthout

          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.

  • Fred Pauser

    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.

    • John Knight

      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.

      • 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.

  • rosross

    It is going to be even more irritating when those who question the vax-max madness are proven right.

    • John Knight

      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!!!

      • We have science. You have lies.

        Boom. We win again. Science rules, stupidity drools. My fully vaccinated daughter told me that once. 🙂

        • hyperzombie

          I think the scientific term is “Science is rubber, you’re glue”

  • zulov

    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.

    • 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.

      • zulov

        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.

        • 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.

          • mmma

            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.

          • zulov

            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 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 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:

            To further your education, here is 101 studies linking autism to vaccine injury: and here is another page to 100 studies:

            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.

          • Diddly doo

            You marshmallow cock

      • boris krokar

        “Ad hominem argument. Strawman argument. And general ignorance.” – its a template. Can you do better? Skeptic at all?

        • 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.

          • boris krokar

            This is not the answer to my question.

            • Because you’re not very intelligent. You’re just a fucking dumbass.

            • boris krokar

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

          • Diddly doo

            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.

      • Diddly doo

        “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

  • ted

    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.

    • 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.

  • Pingback: Bufale un tanto al chilo Immunologa smaschera l'inganno dei vaccini? - Bufale un tanto al chilo()

  • response 88888

    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.”

    • LeiTung

      Cool story, bro. Did you have an actual point, or did you come here to expel your diarrhea of the mouth and then flutter away?

      • They don’t have evidence, so they have to resort to ad hominem attacks. I’m used to it. It’s amusing.

        • Diddly doo

          No you don’t, you have a shallow anecdotal opinion.

      • Diddly doo

        I think he made his point well, were as you didn’t really make a point at all!

  • Pingback: Informatore del Farmaco, Disinformatori della Vaccinazione | infofarmaco()

  • Bruce Shannahoff

    If you develop government policies to protect the immuno-compromised and don’t have a policy to isolate the recently vaccinated, then you are not addressing the problem and are either ignorant of science or lying to sell vaccines.

    • Katia

      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.

      • Diddly doo

        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……………..

        • Katia

          Oh, my god, a germ theory denier!

          • Diddly doo

            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?

          • 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. 🙂

            • smut clyde

              No, he lives in the Hope Osteopathic Clinic, Essex.

  • pr3ciousroy

    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.

    • No she’s wrong on the evidence–apparently, you failed to read that. Really, you’re going to use logical fallacies on me? LOL

  • Mercedes Heredia

    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).

    • Jason Ljunggren

      where is the link that says Dr.wakefield was vindicated?

      • Well, unless it’s from Natural News, I don’t think there is anything that Dr. Wakefield was vindicated. But it’s funny.

        And degrees in immunoglobulin? That’s a new one.

        • Mercedes Heredia

          Immunology autocorrected to immunoglobulin.

          • Just shows that you’re not able to discuss science. No autocorrect would switch “immunology” to “Immunoglobulin.”

            • Destiny

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

            • Diddly doo

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

        • Diddly doo

          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.

    • Katia

      You cannot be pro-science and anti-vaccine, unless you just want “God’s will” to happen to you/your kids.

      • Mercedes Heredia

        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)

        • Katia

          LOL! It’s all anti-science.

          • pr3ciousroy

            LOL! Keep telling yourself that.

          • Diddly doo

            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?

        • 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.

          • pr3ciousroy

            “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)

          • Destiny

            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.

          • Diddly doo

            “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?

      • Diddly doo

        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.

  • Brian Hey

    As a skeptical blog you don’t seem to skeptical about peer reviewed journals.
    Have you seen this TED Talk

    • Because TED actually speaks factually about science. No, show me a peer reviewed paper, and lets talk.

    • 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.

    • pr3ciousroy

      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). =)

      • Ad hominem argument. Good one.

        • Manna

          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.

          • 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.

            • Manna

              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.

            • Manna

              I’m guessing you got picked on a lot as a child. It shows. Good luck.

            • Diddly doo

              “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!

        • Diddly doo

          I think he gets off on being dominated, I feel sick

  • Chris Preston

    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.

    • Whatever. None of my work gets quoted by except in the context that I’m a member of the Jewish Big Pharma kill white people conspiracy.

      • pr3ciousroy

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

      • Mike Adams

        I knew it!!!!

      • Diddly doo

        Oh Zionist, that explains a lot

    • Diddly doo

      Chris stop sucking on that pipe

  • Verna Lang

    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.

    • Diddly doo

      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.

      • Verna Lang

        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.

        • 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.

          • Verna Lang

            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.

        • Diddly doo

          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.

  • Sullivan ThePoop

    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.

    • Science Mom

      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.

      • Diddly doo

        Classic. New vaccine, more disease, must be better surveillance. What’s next?

  • Science Mom

    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.

    • kfunk937

      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.

      • Sandy Perlmutter

        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.

      • Daniel Becker

        All it takes to become “discredited” is to disagree with the powers that be.

    • Diddly doo

      Interesting pile