The constitutionality of mandatory vaccinations

If you’re a regular reader of this blog, or are just generally aware of current issues regarding vaccinations, you know that Governor Jerry Brown of California signed SB 277 into law. The law removes so-called “personal belief exemptions” for vaccinating children before they enter schools.

Personal belief exemptions were used (and frequently abused) by parents in California to exempt their children from vaccinations using religious beliefs (hardly any mainstream religion is opposed to vaccinations) or the “I don’t like vaccines” belief statement. So many California children were not fully vaccinated, especially when they were clustered in certain areas of the state, lead to several outbreaks of measles, whooping cough and other infectious diseases.

Thus, the California Senate, led by Senator and Dr. Richard Pan, voted for SB 277, which sailed through the California Senate and Assembly, subsequently becoming law. It’s sole purpose was to protect the children of California, the country’s most populous and wealthiest state, from ravages of diseases that were once on the verge of extinction.

Despite the overwhelming support from the legislature and citizens of the state, some groups remain steadfastly opposed. One trope being pushed is doubts about the constitutionality of mandatory vaccinations for children.

Even a group of lawyers wrote a letter to the California legislature, “Statement of Lawyers Opposed to California SB 277,” that tries to deny the constitutionality of mandatory vaccinations for children. The letter concludes:


[infobox icon=”quote-left”]…we strongly urge you to decline the temptation to tamper with California’s legislative scheme that works to achieve public health objectives while protecting the rights of individuals to make conscientious medical decisions regarding their own health.

Please take the responsible course by rejecting SB 277 and avoiding the legal, educational, and health decision-making chaos that would follow from enactment of this legislation.[/infobox]

The letter is signed by over 150 attorneys, but appeared to be written by one Robert F. Kennedy, Jr, a famous attorney with a long history of playing “fast and loose” with the science regarding vaccines. Last month, this blog’s good friend, Dorit Rubinstein Reiss, who spends most of her time (as far as I can tell) writing about legal issues with vaccines, replied to Kennedy’s letter with real science, real constitutional law, and real facts.

June 7, 2015

Assembly Health Committee

Dear Chairman Bonita, Dear Members of the Health Committee,

RE: SB 277: Response to “Statements of Lawyers Opposed to California SB 277”

I am a Professor of Law at UC Hastings College of the Law. I am writing this letter in response to the “Statement of Lawyers Opposed to California SB 277”. Contrary to the claims in that letter, SB277 is well within our constitutional bounds, does not violate the right to informed consent, and is supported by solid reasons of public policy.

Constitutional Framework Related to Vaccine Requirements:


Our federal jurisprudence has consistently given legislatures extensive leeway to require vaccination. Our system values individual freedoms and parental rights; but neither is absolute. Individual freedoms can be limited to protect the rights of others, and parental rights can be limited when parental choices harm children. The reason states have such dramatic leeway to require vaccination is that immunizing children is at the intersection of those two interests: because the risks of vaccinating are dramatically smaller than the risks of not vaccinating, and because vaccinating affects not just the child but others, the courts defer to the legislature’s balancing of these interests.

This was most clearly stated in a classic paragraph in the Supreme Court’s decision in Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158, 166-67 (1944), explaining that a parent:

cannot claim freedom from compulsory vaccination for the child more than for himself on religious grounds. The right to practice religion freely does not include liberty to expose the community or the child to communicable disease or the latter to ill health or death.

That view has been upheld by every state and federal court that ruled on the subject, most recently in the 2nd circuit’s decision in Phillips v. City of New York, 775 F.3d 538 (2d Cir. 2015). States may compel vaccination – generally, or as a precondition to attending school. No exemption is required.

A much more detailed discussion of this can be found here.

The Need for SB277:


Like several other states, California has been generous in allowing parents to get out of the general legal requirement to vaccinate before sending a child to school. Over the past ten years, exemption rates have risen dramatically. While still low overall, in some schools and areas they are very high. We are now starting to see the consequences. This year and last, we have seen more measles cases than any time since the 1990s. We are also seeing a widespread pertussis epidemic. While the reasons for that go beyond not vaccinating, studies show that communities with lower immunization rates see more outbreaks of pertussis:

Saad B. Omer, et al., Nonmedical Exemptions to School Immunization Requirements: Secular Trends and Association of State Policies With Pertussis Incidence, 296 JAMA 1757(2006).

Saad B. Omer, et al., Geographic Clustering of Nonmedical Exemptions to School Immunization Requirements and Associations With Geographic Clustering of Pertussis, 168 AMERICAN JOURNAL OF EPIDEMIOLOGY 1389(2008).

Aamer Imdad, et al., Religious Exemptions for Immunization and Risk of Pertussis in New York State, 2000–2011, PEDIATRICS (2013). More information can be found here (pdf).

These outbreaks, while still limited, are a wake-up call, warning us that immunization rates are not high enough. The responsible thing for California to do in response to this warning call is to legislate to increase immunization rates. That’s what SB277 does.

Since the legislature has dramatic leeway it could choose among three options:

Allowing the minority that opposes vaccines to continue to deny their children protection from disease, increasing the risk of outbreaks in the community.

Tighten school immunization requirements, close the loophole that allows easy opt-outs, and make our schools safer.

Remove the choice: require parents to vaccinate. That is within the state’s constitutional powers, but it’s a powerful intrusion into parental rights, something our system hesitates to do.

SB277 chooses the middle ground: preserve parental choice, allow parents to continue not to vaccinate but limit their ability to impose the risk they choose for their own children on that child’s classmates, daycare mates, and the rest of the community. It’s a reasonable measure.

It does not violate parents’ rights to informed consent, a private law right that governs the relationship between the parent and their child’s doctor: absent a court order, the doctor may not vaccinate a child without parental consent. A doctor that does can be liable in torts for battery or negligence. A parent can choose to leave the child unvaccinated.

But that choice may have consequences. Just like a parent can choose not to give a child ADHD medication but may be liable if that child, as a result, attacks another, or an adult with epilepsy may choose not to take medication to control seizures, but may find herself denied a driver license because of that choice. We respect individual and parental choice; that doesn’t mean giving the one making the choice blanket license to endanger others.

California’s Right to Education:


California’s courts have interpreted Article IX to the constitution as acknowledging a fundamental right to education. Serrano v. Priest, 5 Cal.3d 584 (Cal, 1971). But SB277 does not violate that right. First, the fundamental interest in education was acknowledged in context of suspect classifications – wealth, race. It was never used to limit ability of state to regulate for public health or school safety. A safe and healthy environment is a compelling interest and a precondition to education. In one case, Williams v. State, 1999, Serrano v. Priest was used to attack, among other things, schools that provided unsafe and unhealthy facilities. Williams settled – it never set a precedent, but there is no case in which courts struck down a health or safety regulation in the name of a right to education.

Further, the right to education also covers those who cannot be vaccinated, who can benefit from a medical exemption. Low immunization rates make it impossible for these children to attend schools. The parents who choose not to vaccinate have a choice; the parents of these children do not. Between those two groups, it’s those with no choice that have the stronger claim to a right to access, and SB277 – leaving intact the medical exemption – protects their right to access.

Finally, note that SB277 offers a range of alternative schooling options, both private and public. If parents are so unwilling to protect their child from disease that they prefer to either home school or enroll their child in independent study, that is their choice, just as if they are unwilling to accept state curriculum they can choose to homeschool. We don’t change the curriculum to protect parents from choosing homeschooling, and we shouldn’t remove a reasonable health and safety requirement – vaccination – because some parents are so unwilling to follow it they would choose to home school or independent study.

(Editor’s note: Dr. Reiss has recently published an article that discusses this point in more detail.)

Vaccine Injuries:


As a final point, the opponents to SB277 highlight the existence of the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (NVICP) as a reason to reject SB277. That, too, is unfounded. Nothing is without risk; a child can choke when eating, and we still feed children. We have seatbelt laws even though seatbelts come with a small risk. This is just as true of vaccines: vaccines carry a small risk. Very rarely, they can cause serious harm; but not vaccinating is much more likely to do so.

NVICP was created both to protect manufacturers and to provide those that may have been injured by vaccines an easier forum of compensation. Its requirements for showing causation are less demanding than those of the regular courts. In spite of this low standard, the tiny numbers of cases compensated show how rare vaccine injuries are. Between 2006-2013, over 2 billion doses of vaccines were distributed in the United States;  in that time, less than 1700 vaccine injury cases were compensated, most through settlement, where no show of causation is required. Much less than one per million cases compensated (pdf).

That is less than the number of deaths per year from one preventable disease, influenza, alone.

Saying that this small risk is a reason to allow parents to send unvaccinated children to school and risk others is problematic.

In short, SB277 is a constitutional and reasonable measure to make our schools safer from disease. I urge you to support it.

Best wishes,

Dorit Rubinstein Reiss

Professor of Law , University of California Hastings College of the Law (San Francisco, CA),


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: So let’s watch Vaxxed – Part 3 – autisticagainstantivaxxers()

  • Pingback: The constitutionality of mandatory vaccinations – autisticagainstantivaxxers()

  • Pingback: Other Useful Information | Constitutionality of Mandatory Vaccinations()

  • Michael Zaman

    This is an easy case. California has always exercised its power over the health and safety of its students. There is no state power more compelling than protectiong the life of citizens, especially the young and vulnerable. As this article makes clear, the State has not interfered with the parent’s Constitutional right to raise their children as they please. It is still the parent’s decision concerning the vaccine and education. It is actually a very responsible and reasonable statute as sooner than later other states will model.

  • Diddly doo

    Business as usual, all that medical peer reviewed tosh you guys call ‘evidence’. No point debating the vaccine issue if all you can do is quote ‘normal business practice’. it isn’t even a conspiracy anymore – it’s part of medical peer reviewed research.

    It’s kind of funny that you keep wondering why so many people are turning away from vaccination

  • Diddly doo

    “Nothing is without risk; a child can choke when eating, and we still
    feed children. We have seatbelt laws even though seatbelts come with a
    small risk. This is just as true of vaccines: vaccines carry a small
    risk. Very rarely, they can cause serious harm; but not vaccinating is
    much more likely to do so.” Septic rantor

    There is so much medical anecdote here it’s quite heartening to pull it all to bits. We have to eat or we die, we don’t have to vaccinate to stay alive. The only studies you can quote to support this stupid meme is in medical peer reviewed studies and they are paid for by the people who make the vaccines.

    Whooping cough vaccine is notoriously useless and regularly occurs in well vaccinated populations.

    Flu vaccine is even more useless, this year it was announced to be 3% effective! LOL

    The child who recently died in Berlin from Measles was vaccinated with the MMR 10 days before he died. The doctor is now being sued by his parents.

    I love the idea you think those opposed to vaccines are uneducated Lawrence, I have an honors degree in science. It’s you lot who just believe anything written in a medical peer reviewed journal, the kind of study you can pay for any result you want.

    • Sandy Perlmutter

      From the article on flu vaccine: “”Throughout the last decade, there has generally been a good match between the strains of flu in the vaccine and those that subsequently circulate, so it’s crucial that these results do not discourage people in at-risk groups from having flu vaccination now, or in the future.”” LOL Yer Ass. Each year the flu vaccine has to be created from whatever strains are out there in April/May in time for September/October, and it is pretty difficult. But most years it works better than last year. Would you prefer lots of debilitating one to two week periods in bed, and getting flu from your nurses when you are in hospital?

      Re: “whooping cough vaccine is notoriously useless”:

      In my view, “useless” is a different concept from “effective in many people for some years”. We could go back to the original vaccine, but then you “believers” would complain about the side effects. None of this is easy. But there is no such thing as a benign state of nature.

    • You’re pushing your pseudoscience everywhere, and not a real piece of peer-reviewed evidence anywhere.

  • Pingback: Index of articles by Dorit Rubinstein Reiss – Skeptical Raptor()

  • Lawrence McNamara

    Since anti-vaxers are fairly uneducated as far as history goes – they fail to realize just how long vaccine mandates have existed in this country….going all the way back to the first one passed by the Commonwealth of Virginia in 1792 that set fines for not getting inoculated from Smallpox.

    I don’t believe any Court, either State or Federal, has ever found a vaccine mandate to be unconstitutional either – these anti-vaxers live in their own little bubble.

    • Dorit Reiss

      No vaccine mandate was declared unconstitutional, to my knowledge. Some courts struck down specific religious exemption provisions. Or limited ability to enforce them. In one case – Daly, from MA – and in others too – courts struck down exemptions while leaving immunization mandates intact (without the exemption).

      • Andrew Lazarus

        Isn’t this also what happened in Mississippi?

        • Katia

          Yes, the MS Supreme Court said that allowing religious but not personal exemptions discriminated against the non-religious in Brown vs Stone, 1979.

    • Sia

      History, maths, geography, logic. The list goes on.

  • jre

    As ever, Prof. Reiss makes a lucid argument, grounded in reality and motivated by humane values. Well done!

    • My blog was getting lonely without one of her lucid arguments.

      • Diddly doo

        Well perhaps you should do something new Septic Rantor – all this anti crap is old hat, let’s see some real scepticism instead on blind faith believe in flu vaccine woo and the like.

        • Ah. The old ad hominem personal attack. Of course, I’m impressed by that.

          • Diddly doo

            What else would we expect from a data stat technician who spend 30 years learning how not to think?

            • Hey, if it’s so easy, why don’t you get a degree and blow the lid off the whole conspiracy? You’ll be famous! See you in 30 years.

            • Diddly doo

              Degrees are easy. There is no conspiracy, you must be paranoid. Assholes have existed in business for eons. If it’s good for market share to shit the pants out of the public with a swine flu scam or a statin scam, some ass will go for it. It is just a pity you have spent so long learning how to do this kind of ‘work’ and all you can do now is cherry pick crap and post it with a couple of other ‘has beens’.

              How about a straw dog or an applepeal to a motion? Give us some more septic verse.

            • Degrees are easy? Really? So how many do you have, and of what relevance are they to this conversation? Because you really come across as more of the kind of person who is bitter about never having gotten one.

            • Diddly doo

              Nice smokescreen, appeals to emotion, ad hom, it’s all there. What isn’t is a discourse on the critique of the piss poor nature of medical research and why you accept PR as evidence.

              Bad Pharma – Ben Goldacre – septic turned sceptic

              Ben Goldacre puts the $600bn global pharmaceutical industry under the microscope. What he reveals is a fascinating, terrifying mess. ***Now updated with the latest government responses to the book***

              Doctors and patients need good scientific
              evidence to make informed decisions. But instead, companies run bad trials on their own drugs, which distort and exaggerate the benefits by design. When these trials produce unflattering results, the data is
              simply buried. All of this is perfectly legal. In fact, even government regulators withhold vitally important data from the people who need it most. Doctors and patient groups have stood by too, and failed to
              protect us. Instead, they take money and favours, in a world so
              fractured that medics and nurses are now educated by the drugs industry.

              The result: patients are harmed in huge numbers.

              Ben Goldacre is Britain’s finest writer on the science behind medicine, and‘Bad Pharma’ is the book that finally prompted Parliament to ask why all trial results aren’t made publicly available – this edition has beenupdated with the latest news from the select committee hearings. Let the witty and indefatigable Goldacre show you how medicine went wrong, and what you can do to mend it.

              Cuntcrunch – you are not sarcastic you a part of a sad dying breed of lapdogs, nothing else to do but support a failing empire of failed academics and playground bullies.

            • Diddly doo

              There is no conspiracy, it is a failing business model.

            • capnkrunch

              Do you not understand what conspiracy means? Here’s the Merriam-Webster definitions of conspiracy and conspiracy theory, respectively:

              : a secret plan made by two or more people to do something that is harmful or illegal

              : a theory that explains an event or situation as the result of a secret plan by usually powerful people or groups

              Pretty much what you’re describing to a T.

            • Diddly doo

              Listen cupcake – I am not interested in your one dimensional definitions or weasel words. Medical peer reviewed research, by its own authors is a failing business model.
              So we have little evidence on the effectiveness of peer review, but we have considerable evidence on its defects. In addition to being poor at detecting gross defects and almost useless for detecting slow, expensive, profligate of academic time, highly subjective,
              something of a lottery, prone to bias, and easily abused.

              Stop using that nerdy septics cut and paste guide to wallpaper and start reading some papers outside your comfort zone. Ben Goldacre isn’t the point, he is a septic and yet has highlighted how crap EBM is and how poor the evidence for orthodox medicine is.

              I am not anti vaccine, I am anti shit evidence for fake efficacy!

            • capnkrunch

              I’d argue your definition of conspiracy is the one that’s too narrow. This screed:

              But instead, companies run bad trials on their own drugs, which distort and exaggerate the benefits by design. When these trials produce unflattering results, the data is
              simply buried. All of this is perfectly legal. In fact, even government regulators withhold vitally important data from the people who need it most. Doctors and patient groups have stood by too, and failed to
              protect us. Instead, they take money and favours, in a world so
              fractured that medics and nurses are now educated by the drugs industry.

              Fits into my (aka the dictionary’s, aka the actual) definition of conspiracy and not yours.

              So Ben Goldacre’s your boy, but only when he agrees with you? No one’s arguing that there aren’t issues, Ben Goldacre’s work makes that very clear. Vaccines are not one of them.

            • Diddly doo

              Cupcake, it is not scientific to decide that vaccines fall outside the issues. It is clear that medical peer reviewed research is seriously in disrepute. That is across the board, vaccines included. Particularly vaccines, because like in the last flu scamdemic the manufacturing companies managed to get their products underwritten to protect them from lawsuits if, and they did, the vaccines made people ill.

              Also because Roche lost the antiviral data no audit on efficacy was possible, the BMJ noted this. You have some weird meme going on if you think vaccines have no issue. Non believers can see that, it undermines any points you think you are making.

              Flu vaccines are particularly woo, no RCT has even proved contagion theory for flu viruses, the whole thing is woo on woo. I actually find it incredulous that you seem to support them as a relevant therapeutic – it’s LOL.

            • Diddly doo

              Goldacre is so, not my boy. I happened to notice he was rather down on Pharma and had a good point. Unfortunately he hasn’t spent a lot of time looking at vaccine research, which is obvious by his admission of vaccinating his kids. Why he did that is anyone’s guess.

            • Diddly doo

              “You seem to think that legislators, doctors, insurers, public health
              experts, scientists, just about everyone really (worldwide no less) is
              in the pocket of Big Pharma. That’s a conspiracy. Not only is the scale
              implausible but the it doesn’t even make sense.” fruitcakecrunch

              it is more implausible to comprehend why you believe that all those legislators, insurers, public health experts and scientists have some kind of altruistic collective love for others when their livelyhoods are balanced on cocktails sticks like pandemic flu, bombing the middle east and making sure we all have an Ipad. Remember ‘experts’ told us Saddam Hussein was 40 minutes away from chemical attacking the West. Experts told us we were all gonna die of swine flu. Experts told us that the world was at risk from ebola.

              None of those people are speaking out against fast food and legislating against it being advertised as food. These people still allow tobacco to be grown and sold and taxed.

              Even when those doctors go on strike, the death rate doesn’t go up, it often falls.

              You must be living in some fluffy world where politicians and ‘experts’ are all god like and saintly! LOL

              There is no conspiracy cupcake, it’s happening, well it is outside xbox world.

            • Sia

              You realize we have accounts of Egyptian priests who caught Polio?

              And why would a doctor be required to COOK a balanced meal? I’m hiring a chef for that.

              So you only have anecdotal evidence?

              And oh…really? Thing x correlates with thing y so thing x must cause thing y. Try again. At the very least, learn to debate properly.

              Ice-cream sales rose with Polio cases too.

              number of people who drowned by falling into a swimming-pool correlates with the number of films Nicolas Cage appeared in

              the per capita consumption of cheese correlates with the number of people who died by becoming tangled in their bedsheets?


            • Diddly doo

              Let’s put the septic manual away and have a discussion, either you are being intentionally silly or its just in your nature. You have to let go of this vaccine belief meme Sia, it is getting in the way of rational discussion. Tell me, have you any idea what the role of antibodies is in the health game or staying well?

            • Sia

              Once again, this is not a belief, meme or otherwise. And why do you think I have a manual?

              Antibodies are proteins which identify normal “self” cells vs foriegn invading cells. They work as part of the immune system to destroy abnormal or foreign cells. This not only protects against invading cells such as common cold or the flu but also against cancer or even heart disease.

              Then there is the second line of defense which is cell-mediated immune system. This is where our cells recognize the pathogen again. Known as “killer” or “helper” cells, these ones help our body produce a “memory” of past defense against disease pathogens.

              Of course, with things like Diptheria, there might not be time to get to the second line of defense.

            • Diddly doo

              Sigh – antibody levels and immunity is an old chestnut and cell mediated immunity is only 2% of our immune activity, are you in the dark ages or what?

            • Sia

              Diddly Doo, what do you mean by an “old chestnut”?

              And I did answer your question. And no, I’m not in the dark ages.

              You, however, seem to think that Spain in 1987 was in the dark ages.

            • Diddly doo

              98% of our immune response is fever, D and V, sweating – and most doctors spend most of their time trying to stop that rather than managing it to a successful conclusion!

            • Diddly doo

              “And why would a doctor be required to COOK a balanced meal? I’m hiring a chef for that.” sianide or maybe suicide, you choose.

              If I was a vet and had no idea how to feed a horse – you have beautifully explained why orthodox doctors are failing to address the chronic health disaster in the modern world.


              You analogies are as inept as your understanding of health!

              Do you really believe that without vaccines we would all be dead! Are you that paranoid?

            • Sia

              Oh dear, Diddly Doo. Projection, much?

              If you were a vet and had no idea of how a horse should be fed, you’d be a useless vet, yes. But do you know whose job it is to prepare the feed? A groom, not a vet.

              Should doctors be required to know what constitutes a balanced meal? Absolutely. Should they be required to cook it? Not really.

              Notice that Diddly Doo ignored the Polio comment completely?

              “Chronic health disaster”, meaning what, exactly? I’ll give you a hint: Neurodivergence alone (ADHD, Dyslexia, etc) is not enough to qualify as a chronic illness.

            • Diddly doo

              I ignored the polio comment because most normal people know that is a septic history re write.

              It is obvious that doctors have no idea about food, they often tell patients with chronic diseases that they can eat what they like.

              ADHD isn’t a disease, nor is dyslexia – only an idiot would think that they are.

              Are you an aromatherapist? or a scientologist?

            • Sia

              Diddly Doo, wrong and wrong and wrong and wrong.

              The DAILY Mail? Really? Most anti-vaxxers think of autism as mercury poisoning, which is idiotic because of the symptoms not being the least bit similar.



              Have fun.

            • Diddly doo

              I love your ‘septic how to research’ manual. So basically anything that disagrees with Paul Offit on vaccination is wrong! The septic forum isn’t much better, reads like an L Ron Hubbard tech book on the origins of science. I see you also have that mercury septic meme too. coming to the conclusion that these septic sites are really just trawling for the arguments against the medical approach to everything so you can then construct marketing arguments to fool the press into writing adverts!

              What is it like being a scientologist?

            • Sia

              It’s more like anything that disagrees with “the vast mountains of scientific evidence is wrong.” Ignore Paul Offit, if you like. That leaves us with Tenpenny et al who have written for conspiracy blogs which is easy versus….every other major health organisation in the world which has shown with compelling evidence that vaccines are safe and effective which is hard.

              And that is not my manual.

            • Diddly doo

              There are far more people than Tenpenny who have reviewed the so call ‘evidence’ for vaccine efficacy and found it wanting. There is definitely mountains of vaccine PR that are unbalanced and ignore major disasters. Every time a doctor speaks truthfully about vaccine failure the only discourse that takes place on blogs like this is ‘debunk’ and ad hom attacks. None of you seem capable of anything else.

            • Sia

              Nope and nope.

            • Diddly doo

              So what is your interest in the vaccine debate? and how is it informed?

            • Sia

              “Do you really believe that without vaccines we would all be dead! Are you that paranoid?”

              Of course not. VPDS have never had a 100% mortality rate.

            • capnkrunch

              What’s unscientific is unilaterally ignoring every shred of evidence due to it being tainted by Big Pharma money. You seem to think that legislators, doctors, insurers, public health experts, scientists, just about everyone really (worldwide no less) is in the pocket of Big Pharma. That’s a conspiracy. Not only is the scale implausible but the it doesn’t even make sense. There’s far more money to be made by hospitalizations resulting from VPD’s than from vaccines.

              It’s not just trials funded by Big Phrama that we have showing vaccine safety and efficacy. There’s decades of epidemiological studies and post market surveillance. There’s publically funded studies from different countries. There’s even examples of removing vaccines when the risk/benefit is deemed too great: smallpox, oral polia, rotavirus.

              Unfortunately he hasn’t spent a lot of time looking at vaccine research, which is obvious by his admission of vaccinating his kids.

              Ha. And you have? I’d guess that Ben Goldacre takes shits that know more about vaccines than you.

            • Diddly doo

              Hey cupcake. You’ve been working on that essay, well done. All the peer reviewed medical journals are the ones worrying about trials being biased by funding, reporting that isn’t a conspiracy. You are the one obsessed by a conspiracy, I have not used the word. It is good business practice to shit the population into thinking they will die with,say a flu pandemic. Are you the only one who thinks the media are bastions of purity and beauty. Again it isn’t a conspiracy – it’s a business model, if you can’t see that maybe you need to get out more. Like fast food, take out all the nutrition with processing and sell it. The punter has to eat 10 to get what nutrition is there, fall out is weight gain and more gastric bands.

              Have you seen those amazing programmes with US doctors scratching their heads with half ton people, wondering where to operate!

              Remember, as inquiries have shown. The whole of the West went to war in the middle East and destabilized world security because a few nasty politicians decided that it would be good for market share.

              There are centuries of epidemiological studies that demonstrate that simple hygiene, good water and public sanitation rid us of the so called infectious diseases. Post market surveillance isn’t real evidence, who on earth taught you that! LOL

              You have got to put that septic manual on ‘how to write a cutting edge essay using the following memes’. It is cramping your style and making you look like a high school bully or at least really immature.

            • Sia

              Because sanitation was god-awful in the 1950s.

            • Diddly doo

              “What’s unscientific is unilaterally ignoring every shred of evidence due to it being tainted by Big Pharma money.” cockcrutch

              Well you stuffed your teddy sling in the first grunt – big boy. If I had kids they would not be vaccinated, why on earth would anyone want to do something so stupid?

              “There’s decades of epidemiological studies and post market surveillance.” Cockroach

              What exactly is your obsession with post market surveillance? I mean WTF has that got to do with any kind of real evidence? If you want people to take you seriously, stop posting shit.

            • Holy fuck, you’re stupid. What’s wrong? Did all your journal submissions get rejected? I’m sure they’d love to read your material over at mecola or some other pseudoscience propaganda site.

            • Diddly doo

              Past boy, you are a first class arse. I can only assume you are one of those suicidal alcoholic doctors that have realised all you have done for years is poison people. Get some counseling and man up.

            • Sia

              Go take a toxicology 101 course, please.

            • Diddly doo

              Sia, the toxic one here is Pasta boy, he is obviously a disgruntled lab technician who must have worked for Burger King. I know you are trying hard to convert me to septicism, he is just making me laugh!

            • Sia

              Fascinating accusation, Diddly Doo.

              What research have you done on Pasta Boy? What is his toxicity profile? What is his efficacy, toxicity and pharmokinetic and pharmacodynamics information? What is his oral bioavailability and what is his half-life? What is his dose-ranging information? What is his efficacy and safety profile? What is his effiacy, effectiveness and safety profile? What result did you get from post-marketing surveillance of Pasta Boy?

            • Diddly doo

              He must have a degree in polemics, he’s gotta be a medic of some sort – he hasn’t mentioned food once.

            • Sia

              So what you’re saying is that you don’t understand the difference between layman theory and scientific theory.

              So you don’t even understand what you’re against.

            • Diddly doo

              Hi Sia later, nice to see you have been thinking really hard to come up with some classic septic memeogram. I’ve never seen that one before, well done!

              Well there is no difference between layman theory an medical science theory, thanks for making that clear. You need to make it clear that what you are trying to describe is ‘medical science’ which isn’t the same as science per se because there are many belief systems within medical science that have no actual relationship with science as we know it.

              Vaccination is a good example of woo science, all the studies are carefully constructed mini stories of complete cotton wool science, they even have one every year call ‘flu vaccine’ which is about as useful as a paper umbrella for preventing flu.

            • Sia

              Hahahaha. So you don’t realise that flu viruses mutate at an alarming rate. and you don’t understand that there absolutely is a difference between layman theory and scientific theory.

              Nor do you understand the difference between ‘totally cotton wool’ and ‘junk science’ nor do you understand the difference between stable viruses and flu viruses.

              In other words, you don’t even understand what you’re against. How precious.

            • Diddly doo

              So you believe in flu vaccine then! That is funny!

            • Sia

              Belief is irrelevant.

            • Diddly doo

              You believe that medical peer review is the truth!

              No one can apologise for your lack of understanding, I am sorry to be a bearer of bad news but the burning of the peer review bible is happening from within.

            • Sia

              Oh dear, Diddly Doo.

              Does peer review have its faults? Yes. Is it a perfect system? No.

              It’s particularly bad at spotting fraud,for example.

              Peer review is much like democracy, it’s the worst form of governing a country/ finding out the truth apart from every other form of same.

              Systematic reviews are usually written by a small group of people who are experts in the field. What they do is comb through every single paper they can find on the subject of interest, and run them through a bunch of quality control checks, for example:
              – if an experiment was just plain crappy it gets thrown out
              – if an experiment looked at too few subjects it gets thrown out
              – if an experiment didn’t look at certain important factors it gets thrown out.
              – if a study didn’t meet international ethics standards for clinical trials it gets thrown out (e.g. kidnapping babies and stabbing them in the head or something)
              – etc.

              The reason for throwing out the crappy studies is what was discussed in the Lancet editorial.

              They then take all the good studies left behind in the pile, process the data in a way such that they can compare apples to apples instead of apples to oranges, and draw a conclusion based on the big pile of good-quality studies. The conclusion we draw from this is stronger than the individual papers because we’re looking at a much bigger group of people, and a bunch of different sites, so we can say whether or not the vaccine works in every place in the world it’s been tested in, not just in one hospital.

              So for instance here’s a systematic review on childhood immunizations that concluded that serious adverse events are “extremely rare”. Safety of vaccines used for routine immunization of U.S. children: a systematic review.

              Here’s a systematic review, from THE LANCET from which you are taking that out-of-context quote, on the HPV (cervical cancer) vaccine.
              Population-level impact and herd effects following human papillomavirus vaccination programmes: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

              EXPLANATION #2: 95% TIMES 50% IS 95% OF 50%.
              Let’s say for argument’s sake that half of published papers on experiments/studies ARE indeed useless. This does NOT mean that the conclusions get flipped around.

              For example if a study finds that, I don’t know, office workers between the ages of 18-35 like white coffee and this is later found to be a crap study, that does NOT mean we can conclude that office workers between the ages of 18-35 like black coffee. It just means we have NO IDEA what kind of coffee office workers age 18-35 like.

              So let’s say 95% of all papers ever published on clinical trials of vaccines now on the market show that they work, and are safe (positive), and 5% found that a vaccine either didn’t work or caused an unacceptable rate of serious adverse events (negative).

              Let’s say it turns out that half of all of the vaccine papers are crap.

              This DOES NOT MEAN that we now only have 47.5% of papers showing positive effects and the majority 52.5% showing negative effects.

              It just means that half of the papers don’t say anything meaningful either way.

              The remaining good-quality papers are still 95% positive, 5% negative.

              This is basically a simplified way of explaining the purpose of what systematic reviewers do, as described in Explanation #1. They throw away the crappy ones because we can’t conclude anything from the crappy ones.

              Hope this makes sense.

            • Diddly doo

              “Systematic reviews are usually written by a small group of people who
              are experts in the field. What they do is comb through every single
              paper they can find on the subject of interest, and run them through a
              bunch of quality control checks,”

              So this is fine, until we find a group of experts like Cochraine that challenge the meme that vaccines work and save lives. Then another kind of ‘check and balance’ comes in called the ‘septic attack’

              The Cochraine review on flu vaccine was pretty damning. The other flaw in your long explanation is that there is no point reviewing lots of flawed studies that are funding biased, it won’t make the outcome more truthful.

              The same rules of RCT are not applied to vaccines, it makes most of their conclusions supposition at best.

              To conclude, a systematic review of crap isn’t going to help anyone determine the truth. It is more likely to affirm the false meme and to that end it’s the issue.

              The ‘quality’ of medical peer reviewed evidence is not better than clinical obs, or experience. To base a therapeutic on artificial isolated studies with no real philosophy is total woo.

            • Sia

              Just because you don’t understand it and don’t understand why certain rules don’t apply doesn’t mean that it’s nonsense or crap or woo.

              The flu vaccine in some years is a good match. The flu vaccine in other years is a bad match. When it’s a good match, it’s 90-95% effective. When it’s not, it’s not.

              Of course, this damns the flu vaccine at most.

              Sigh. Vaccines are prophylaxis, not therapeutic.

              Ah yes, the “argument” that the safety and efficacy of vaccines have never been proven because they have not been subjected to a controlled randomized double blind study against a placebo.

              This “argument” is designed to impress those with a minimal knowledge of statistics. In other words, it is designed to impress those who know enough statistics to realize that anecdotes are not a substitute for scientific studies and are familiar with the concept that a controlled randomized double blind study against a placebo is the “gold standard” in some areas of drug research.

              Unfortunately, they don’t know enough to realize that controlled randomized double blind studies are unethical in certain circumstances, including the testing of vaccines. So what is presented on vaccine rejection websites as a startling and inexplicable refusal of scientists to test vaccines is actually the inevitable result of complying with ethical rules for scientific investigations.

              There are many situations in which controlled randomized double blind studies are unethical. Consider infant carseats:

              Do carseats minimize the risk of injury and death of infants?

              There never been a controlled randomized double blind study of carseats. Why not? Because it is unethical to randomize some infants to be unbelted in cars simply so we can check how many will be injured and die.

              Does that mean we don’t know if carseats reduce the risk of injury and death? Of course not. There are a myriad of statistical investigations that allow us to determine whether carseats reduce injury and death, including large scale population studies, retrospective cohort studies and many others.

              So the fact that there are no controlled randomized double blind studies of vaccines is a red herring. It works only on those who don’t understand science and statistics. On them, of course, it works very well.

            • Diddly doo

              “The flu vaccine in some years is a good match. The flu vaccine in other
              years is a bad match. When it’s a good match, it’s 90-95% effective.
              When it’s not, it’s not.” Sia later

              fantastic bullshit. It is a lottery, if it was homeopathy using stats like that you would be up in arms. You gotta be a believer to swallow that.

              “Unfortunately, they don’t know enough to realize that controlled
              randomized double blind studies are unethical in certain circumstances,
              including the testing of vaccines.” the old ethical gambit

              This is nonsense , it assumes the vaccine works ie protects when it hasn’t even been tested. How this weasel got past an ethics committee, only Paul Offiit would know.

              The only reason they don’t do them is because it would prove that vaccines are bullshit. The car seat analogy is another septic weasel, you can test car seats with dummies. You are quite prepared to test an untested vaccine on a baby because you believe it protects, now explain how that is ethical!!!!!

            • Sia

              Sigh. For a start, there are some older vaccines that have been tested using double-blind placebo-controlled trials.

              Homeopathy violates basic physic principles so we don’t actually need to test it to know it doesn’t work. But it’s been tested anyway and has been failing randomized controlled trials since the 1800s. It doesn’t even make sense on a logical level, much less anything else.

              Water can remember a drop of onion juice but ‘forgets’ all the pee and poop it’s had in it? Were homeopathy real, there would be more cholera outbreaks.

              And yes, you can use dummies to test carseats. You can also use animals to test vaccines. Also, most clinical trials are conducted on volunteers.

              The only parents who have proven themselves willing to test an unproven vaccine on the babies are those who volunteered their babies for a clinical trial.

              The flu vaccine is not just a lottery. Evolution is a constant arms race. There are more than 4 strains of flu.

              Flu viruses constantly change and mutate. Sometimes these mutations result in viruses that move from animals to humans.

              Antigenic drift refers to changes to the flu virus that happen slowly over time. This causes the changes to the seasonal flu that require us to get vaccinated against the flu each year.
              Antigenic shift results when two different flu strains combine and infect the same cell. This mutation is what allows flu viruses to move from animals to humans.

              Flu viruses are constantly changing and mutating. These changes can happen slowly over time or suddenly.

              Antigenic drift is when these changes happen slowly over time. These changes happen often enough that your immune system can’t recognize the flu virus from year to year. That is why you need to get a new flu vaccine each year. The flu vaccine protects you against that season’s three or four most common flu virus strains.

              Antigenic shift is when changes happen suddenly. This occurs when two different flu strains infect the same cell and combine. This may create a new flu subtype. Because people have little or no immunity to the new subtype, it can cause a very severe flu epidemic or pandemic.

            • Thanks for real science. But you know, you used 2 syllable science.words. It might go over his head.

            • Sia

              True. Perhaps I should have posted a meme instead?

              And of course, our brave interlocutor has completely missed the fact that the IPV is safer but less effective and the OPV is more effective but less safe – these are relative to each other. Both are vastly safer than oooh….Polio.

              Which of course means that ‘pro safe vaccine’ advocacy as anti-vax websites define it is completely counterproductive.

              And what’s the betting the next retort is ‘polio was renamed as Guillan Barre syndrome’? Which of course, doesn’t hold up to even clinical observation (Polio is asymmetrical, Guillan Barre is symmetrical) let alone anything else?

            • Diddly doo

              Gosh Sia, you must have a blister doing all that Offit cut and paste, well done. I particularly like this weasel sentence/;

              “Antigenic drift is when these changes happen slowly over time. These
              changes happen often enough that your immune system can’t recognize the
              flu virus from year to year. That is why you need to get a new flu
              vaccine each year. The flu vaccine protects you against that season’s
              three or four most
              common flu virus strains.”

              This is a common vaccine link sentence designed to discombobulate the logic drive whilst simultaneously insert a logic gene in the acceptance DNA pathway. Designed to sound eminently plausible but is dependent on the receiver having a logic stacked belief system in vaccine efficacy.

              I am not interested in homeopathy, the point there was that claims for vaccines seem to be remarkably similar.

              Your essay is all well and good, but it answers a different critique. I didn’t query how they worked according to a wizard, I pointed out that systematic reviews of claims for flu vaccine efficacy demonstrated that flu vaccines as a ‘preventative’ were implausible at best – that’s Cochraine’s own description, not mine.

              How can the insert on Flulaval which is a current flu vaccine – say ‘There have been no controlled trials trials that adequately demonstrate a decrease in influeza disease after vaccination with Flulaval”

              Explain that without using the Offit psuedoscienceanecdotememe “we all know vaccines save lives”

            • Sia

              And I pointed out the difference between homeopathy and flu vaccine. It is not implausible when there is a plausible mechanism. Vaccines don’t violate the laws of biology, homeopathy does violate the laws of physics. There is a relevant distinction between the two.

              The flu vaccine is good at preventing the strains of flu it protects against. If there is a different strain than of course it doesn’t protect against those. Nor does it necessarily protect against flu-like viruses.

              DTaP is completely useless at protecting against Measles, Mumps and Rubella. That doesn’t make the Dtap ineffective even though it is completely ineffective wrt to Measles and the like.

              All that this proves is that we need a better flu vaccine. Which…..we both knew already since we’d done our research.

              Did you read this fascinating article in the guardian?


            • Diddly doo

              Fascinating idea, sell the concept of a flu vaccine that covers all bases and then make it compulsory.DTap is completely useless at protecting against anything, especially what it was designed for. Why do you keep posting irrelevant smokescreens?

              All you are proving is that you are a vaccine believer, nothing more, nothing less.

            • Sia

              Au contriare , Diddly Doo. Our conversation proves that you can only spout nonsense.

              So 1)You’re against the flu vaccine because it isn’t effective and 2)You’re also against efforts to make it more effective. So you just like railing about it.

              It’s not an irrelevant smokescreen when the distinction is relevant. DTaP is not completely useless. It’s less useful than the DTP, of course. DTP has more side effects though.

              I’m curious as to why you think anyone is interested in making it compulsory.

            • Diddly doo

              I am against vaccination because it diverts help and funding against the real causes of disease. Vaccination is a political diversion. It only survives because of this.

              They have already made flu vaccine compulsory in California for health care workers and teachers etc. Watch what happens there.

            • Sia

              And Diddly Doo, what do you think the real causes of disease are?

            • Diddly doo

              On a big scale, poor politics, wars, religious strife, poor infrastructure, poor sanitation, poor food, food logistics, poor water supply, bad weather, no sun, continual bad news neurosis. On a small scale, bad circulation, bad personal hygiene, atrophic diet, bad social skills, poor parenting, negative relationships, poor routine, too many parties, not enough sleep.

              That will do for starters, it is not an exhaustive list by any means.

            • Sia

              [quote]Poor politics[/quote] Politics does need improving, yes.

              [quote]wars and religious strife[/quote]

              Probably true, probably related to cortisol’s effects on immune system.

              [quote]poor sanitation, poor food, food logistics[/quote]

              Hmm….food logistics, sure. What massive improvement in sanitation, food and hygiene occurred between 1910 and 1920 though? And of course, there is strong evidence that better sanitation contributed to polio epidemics.

              [quote]poor water supply[/quote] Sure. Water supply could be improved.

              [quote] bad weather, no sun, continual bad news neurosis.[/quote]

              “No sun”, so the poles should have the highest rate of diseases, relative to population.

              [quote] On a small scale, bad circulation, bad personal hygiene, [quote]

              Bad circulation sounds more like it would be an effect of heart problems than a cause of health problems. Bad personal hygiene would certainly contribute, yes.

              Mary Mallone, for example. She claimed that there was no scientific proof that washing hands would help prevent disease (when there was!) and that being forced to wash her hands before handling food was an infringement of her rights.

              [quote]atrophic diet[/quote]

              Most of us could eat better, yes.

              [quote]bad social skills[/quote]

              Please explain this one. After all, Autism has nothing to do with disease.

              [quote] poor parenting, negative relationships, [/quote]

              [quote]poor routine[/quote]

              Define ‘poor routine’

              [quote]too many parties[/quote]

              What is the maximum number of parties?

              [quote]not enough sleep.[/quote]

              Yeah, sleep will contribute to your lack of immunity too.

            • Diddly doo

              Ok, now we are talking, it is more interesting than what was happening. We should pick a disease process now and see what medicine has to offer with its medical peer review and what say a more contextual view of health and disease might discourse.

              Let us take arthritis, maybe rhumatoid – the medical view of this condition is

              In summary, there is no cure and the only treatment is symptomatic for pain relief ie painkillers, steroid injections and immune suppressants, the latter of which are extremely toxic like TNFI meds that turn off the body’s ability to necrotise tumors.

              Eventually the option is joint replacement and a grim prognosis for a long active life.

              I have known quite a few people with RA who have changed their diets, which has improved their bowel function and improved their symptoms enough to not need to take medication. Why don’t doctors suggest this?

            • Sia

              Okay, Diddly Doo. Let’s keep an eye on California.

            • Diddly doo

              You will need more than one eye, thanks to medical care there and lack of eating education from experts over 30% of Californian kids are obese! If you couple that with compulsory vaccination it’s not going to go very well.

            • Sia

              Agreed. I’m opposed to compulsory vaccination. Can you point me in the direction of such a law so I can voice my objections?

            • Diddly doo
            • Sia

              Again, it isn’t belief.

            • Diddly doo

              You are a vaccine believer, not a very good one at that.

            • Sia


            • Diddly doo

              So you are not a believer in vaccination?

            • Sia

              Belief is irrelevant.

            • Diddly doo

              You are a belief denier, well I suppose you have to be, you are a vaccine believer.

            • Sia

              Once again, this is not belief.

            • Diddly doo

              Uh – touched a nerve here, run out of words have we. I want to know what you believe in – or do you believe in nothing? I suppose if you have been brainwashed into not being able to use the ‘B’ word it must be hard.

              Well – ‘do you believe’ that medical peer review is the truth? Or is there no truth or untruth in medical science? Is it a world of disproof ie you can only disprove something – come on, open up a bit – show me that your world is great and worth joining.

              If you have no belief in vaccination – what do you have?

            • Sia

              Belief has no place in science. Evidence does.

            • Diddly doo

              Well considering the state of medical peer reviewed evidence Sia looks like you haven’t got much really.

            • Sia

              No, I’m not a believer, where this is concerned.

            • Sia

              No, Diddly Doo.

            • Diddly doo

              it is not ethical or honest to test an untested vaccine on a baby.

            • Sia

              Okay, Diddly Doo, let me make it real simple for you:

              1)The flu vaccine is 90%-95% effective at preventing flu strains it’s used for.
              2)There is an incubation period.
              3)If you get the flu shot and still get the flu, it means one of three things:

              a)You picked up the flu before the vaccine
              b)you picked up a different strain than what was in the vaccine
              c)you’re falling in the 5-10% of the time where it doesn’t.

              Of course, there is also possibility d)you didn’t have the flu, you just had a bad cold.

            • Diddly doo

              Lots of get out of jail clauses there. So do you have a flu vaccine each year Sia?

            • Sia

              You do not understand what a review is.

              Reviewing the studies will either 1)replicate the findings or 2)fail to replicate the findings.

              If 1), it does make the findings more truthful. If 2), it doesn’t.

            • Diddly doo

              A review can also find that the original study was biased, corrupt, irrelevant to the question, politically motivated………….. So what

              You didn’t seem, again, to understand the critique – because you have the pseudoscience vaccine meme.

            • Sia

              Of course it can, Diddly. And you’ve just proven the value of review! Well done!

            • Diddly doo

              Oh I forgot the caveat “except when it is critical of vaccination”

            • Sia

              It is critical of the flu vaccine. That’s all. The flu vaccine needs improving, yes.

            • Sia

              You mean like the Andrew Wakefield study, where he was found to have been paid by lawyers. But before that, his results were throughly studied and turns out they were bullshit.

            • Diddly doo

              I am not interested in Andrew Wakefield. When a vaccine fails and a review of the existing evidence is done to placate people, we are not going to get to the truth. If the people doing the studies have a vested interest in a positive outcome.

            • Goldacre clearly stated in like the first page of his book that vaccines were not part of the Big Pharma conspiracy.

              My issue with Goldacre is that he focused on psychotropic drugs, which tend to have some major issues. Be that as it may, he makes a lot of valid points.

            • Sia

              From the very same authors, “The most important question with peer review is not whether to abandon it, but how to improve it.”

            • Diddly doo

              Of course. I can’t wait until they remove industry funded bias and all those vaccine believer meme ‘experts’ that keep coming up with weasel ways to cover up vaccine woo.

              Glad you are on board Sia, it took time, but well done, we have found common ground – shall we go for a coffee sometime?

            • Sia

              1)That’s what independent systematic reviews are for. Not the same as peer review. It’s also why the rules about declaring COIs exist.

              2)It detects about a quarter of errors, according to your very source.

              3)Predatory journals charge too.

              4) As for the inconsistency, there’s more explanations available than ‘peer review is useless’

              Reviewer A: `I found this paper an extremely muddled paper with a large number of deficits’

              Reviewer B: `It is written in a clear style and would be understood by any reader’.

              It could well be that Reviewer A is noting that there are a large number of deficits. It could be that that it is mostly a technicality. It could be that Reviewer B is noticing that they aren’t significant errors.

              Reviewer A may not have as much education in the relevant area as Reviewer B does. This may be a manifestation of the Dunning-Kreuger effect.

            • Diddly doo

              “Reviewer A may not have as much education in the relevant area as Reviewer B does.”

              Depends on what you mean by ‘education’ Sia, you are going to lose your job if you don’t produce a positive report – usually suffices.

              All this is doing is opening up a bigger and bigger hole. medical peer review and the systematic reviews of medical peer review still throw up unsolved problems. How do we remove political and funding bias from the conclusions, particularly with regard to vaccinations.

              How can it be ethical to not do RCT’s with real placebos on children when the vaccine itself has never been tested to prevent any disease?

            • Sia

              1)They are tested against placebos. It’s called clinical trial phase 1 and clinical phase 2 trials. The ‘crash test’ dummies if you will.

              2)It is still unethical to randomise some infants to be in carseats and not others.

              3)Polio Pioneers. That was a RCT with ‘real’ placebos.

              4)Have the Cochrane reviewers lost their jobs?

              5)The RAND Corporation. This was an independent review of 166 independent controlled studies in order to directly compare: vaccines vs placebo injection vs no vaccination.

              Result: once again, the research is definitive: vaccines don’t cause autism, and the potentially costs of vaccines’ mild side-effects are clearly smaller than those of the lethal diseases that can spread if we don’t vaccinate all children.

            • Diddly doo

              are tested against placebos. It’s called clinical trial phase 1 and
              clinical phase 2 trials. The ‘crash test’ dummies if you will.

              2)It is still unethical to randomise some infants to be in carseats and not others.” Sia the septic meme

              They test untested vaccines on kids – that’s vaccine ethics
              You can’t use a crash dummy to test a vaccine, it’s not a living body. Well I suppose people like Paul Offit don’t care about that.

              None of the Cochraine reviewers lost their jobs, that is an odd question – they reviewed the claims by the NHS for flu jab efficacy and found no evidence to support the claims. The top claim was that flu jab halves winter death. Cochraine found that as 10% of winter deaths were caused by flu like, not even real flu, if the flu jab was to halve winter deaths it would have to have an impact on road traffic accidents! They found for the other 9 claims that the evidence for efficacy over 96 seasons of data was ‘implausible’ at best.

              It is unfortunate that you believe a pack of lies and septic memes, but that is what septics do!

            • Sia

              Rubbish, Diddly Doo. ‘ ‘ is quite a common phrasing for ‘this is a figure of speech’ Pre-clinical trials (“crash test dummies” ANALOGY, mostly animal testing), sometimes clinical trial phase 0, clinical trial phase i (testing on people), clinical trial ii (testing on people), clinical trial phase iii, clinical trial phase iv, clinical trial phase v.

              Well, Diddly Doo, you did claim that anyone who questioned the safety and efficiency of vaccines lost their jobs. Will you be retracting that claim now?

            • Diddly doo

              Well no. They have been pilloried by that small group of septic pseudo scientists who believe vaccine theory has some kind of religious quality, made their jobs unpleasant. But that is the nature of the truth, so many would rather be orthodox than right and you are one of those lap dogs. woof

            • Sia

              You realize that gravity is a theory too, right? And no, we do not believe that vaccine theory has some kind of religous quality.

              Religion ignores contradicting evidence. Science doesn’t.

            • Diddly doo

              “Religion ignores contradicting evidence. Science doesn’t.”

              This site spends most of it’s time ignoring the contradicting evidence about vaccine failure using the ‘debunk’ meme. So that means vaccination is a religion – thank you for making that clear.

              We are getting somewhere at last.

            • Sia

              Rubbish. Ignoring it means ignoring it. Quality-checking is something different.

            • Diddly doo

              What is quality checking about Septic rantor? LOL

            • Diddly doo

              Why is septic rantor any different to Tenpenny?

            • Sia

              Try again, Diddly Doo. I’d rather be right. I am right. I don’t care about orthodoxy or not.

            • Diddly doo

              So how do you determine that you are right?

            • Sia

              Because the vaccine itself HAS been tested to prevent diseases. It is UNETHICAL to randomly assign some people to be unprotected.

            • Diddly doo

              uH, the vaccine being tested to see if it works has already been tested? That is nonsense. Antibody response is not a correlate to ‘prevents disease’ it is an assumption which is not supported by evidence. That is not a precursor that means the vaccine has already been tested and shown to prevent disease.

            • Your first line in the post was “degrees are easy.” My response was not a smokescreen, but a direct response to that claim – since everything you spew on here has that assumption at it’s foundation – that you believe that degrees are easy. “Hell, anyone can get one, so those who actually earned them have no credibility above my Google U Doctorate.” So, my question stands. The rest is all a bunch of headline grabbing propaganda. As I stated in one of my first comments to you, the system may not be perfect, but it remains very effective at weeding out the bullshit from the real science. You’re too blinded by your fucking anger at who-knows-what, and your raging paranoia to separate truth from conspiracy. It clouds every thought you have.

            • Diddly doo


              Pasta boy, try and drop the expletives, it is somewhat undermining your misinformed position. This ‘properganda’, again, is from the medical peer reviewed world, yet another whistleblower pointing out that EBM is broken biased Bullshit akin to PR.

              Evidence-based medicine (EBM) was announced in the early 1990s as a ‘newparadigm’ for improving patient care. Yet there is currently little evidence that EBM has achieved its aim.

              Since its introduction, health care costs have increased while there remains a lack of high-quality evidence suggesting EBM has resulted in substantial population-level health gains. In this paper we suggest that EBM’s potential for improving patients’ health care has been thwarted by bias in the choice of hypotheses tested, manipulation of study design and selective publication.

              Evidence for these flaws is clearest in industry-funded studies. We argue EBM’s indiscriminate acceptance of industry-generated ‘evidence’ is akin to letting politicians count their own votes. Given that most intervention studies are industry funded, this is a serious problem for the overall evidence base.

              Clinical decisions based on such evidence are likely to be misinformed, with patients given less effective, harmful or more expensive treatments. More investment in independent research is urgently required. Independent bodies, informed democratically, need to set research priorities. We also propose that evidence rating schemes are formally modified so research with conflict of interest bias is explicitly downgraded in value.

            • capnkrunch

              There is no conspiracy, it’s just that the pharmaceutical manufacturers, doctors, academia, and policy makers all make back room deals to lie about vaccine efficacy and safety for profit while also covering up infirmation to the contrary and discrediting (or killing) anyone who disagrees. No conspiracy here.

        • “flu vaccine woo?”

          “garbage published in peer reviewed medical journals?”

          Good thing you’re putting that “honors degree in science” (whatever the fuck that is) to good use.

          • Diddly doo

            Hi Pasta boy

            You need to come up to speed with what the editors of medical peer review think about what is published.
            If the ex editor of the British Medical Journal thinks medical peer review is mostly nonsense and you are quoting nonsense I see more than egg on your face. If you don’t like people pointing out that, you should go back to your x box.
            Why most research findings are false, the title says it all. The summary in this paper tells us why:
            “There is increasing concern that most current published research
            findings are false. The probability that a research claim is true may
            depend on study power and bias”

          • Diddly doo

            Well the garbage in peer reviewed medical journals is everywhere. Look what the editor of the Lancet has said:
            So that is two of the world’s peer reviewed medical journals that have now said this.
            Are you still a believer?

            • Diddly doo

              Dr. Marcia Angell, a physician and
              longtime Editor in Chief of the New England Medical Journal (NEMJ),
              which is considered to another one of the most prestigious peer-reviewed
              medical journals in the world, makes her view of the subject quite
              “It is simply no longer possible
              to believe much of the clinical research that is published, or to rely
              on the judgment of trusted physicians or authoritative medical
              guidelines. I take no pleasure in this conclusion, which I reached
              slowly and reluctantly over my two decades as an editor of the New
              England Journal of Medicine”

            • Diddly doo

              Crash bang wallop – it’s that belief system collapse – press that ad hom button and eject!!!!!!!!!!!!

        • CharlieB1972

          Woo? As compared to what anti-vaxxers believe?

          1. In the Good Old Days before vaccines, we all got the diseases and they were at most a minor annoyance and at best a fun little vacation at school. However, these days, the unvaccinated don’t spread the diseases.

          2. The diseases are harmless except when someone’s vaccine doesn’t work. Then they’re bad.

          3. The diseases are harmless except when spread by “shedding”. Then they’re bad.

          4. Sanitation caused the eradication of smallpox and the decline in many other diseases. This means that there are numerous different types of sanitation, because smallpox was wiped out in 1977, polio wasn’t on the brink of eradication until recently, measles still kills nearly 150,000 a year in spite of being in serious worldwide decline, and the flu viruses are doing quite well.

          5. Polio isn’t on the brink of being wiped out. It’s just been renamed Guillen-Barre syndrome.

          6. ADHD, Alzheimer’s, arthritis, autism, cancer, diabetes, and epilepsy are just a few of the things caused by vaccines.

          7. Autism is caused by the mercury in vaccines, no wait, the aluminum, no wait, the DNA from aborted fetuses!

          8. God made our immune systems perfect.

          9. Not allowing kids to attend public schools without vaccinations is just like what Hitler did to the Jews.

          10. When people die of vaccine-preventable diseases in Western countries, it’s the survival of the fittest.

          • Diddly doo

            Lots of medical anecdotes there Charlie. We all know mortality from infectious diseases was way in decline before vaccination came in.
            Polio has been renamed Bill Gates variant polio after the total failure of Polio plus in India. 150,000 malnourished people die from measles or like the child in Berlin if they are on immunosuppressants and have just had the MMR 10 days before they die.
            So how many people die of vaccine preventable diseases then in Western countries these days or is that another appeal to emotion?

    • Rhonda Chavez

      Direct working part time512.69$/day::: @1md3.


      http://www.BestworldMedia lncom point.More/Best/jobs…


    • Diddly doo

      Prof. Reiss has only reiterated the garbage published in peer reviewed medical journals, I suppose that is a result, but it is hardly scientific.
      You need to get out of the plastic marketing bubble and look at some reality.
      Reiss isn’t a scientist – she is a pap quoter and you want to base policy on that!

      • Sandy Perlmutter

        What exactly do you have against peer reviewed medical journals? Peer review is the only way that articles published in medical journals can be held to a standard of research quality. By the way it is not only medical journals that use peer review; just about all scientific publications use it. Then of course there are all those NON-scientific publications that use blather from “believers”, speaking of pap.

        This is a quote from the comments to the article referenced:

        “My first point is – and PLOS ONE exemplifies this very well – that who is the Editor and who are the Peer Reviewer matters: generalising for reasons of debate is dangerous.

        My second point, follows from the above, and relates to alternatives. One issue that I feel we see more of and which is corrupting science, is the venues where you can pay-and-publish (with a varying degree of “peer review”). Scrapping the requirement for peer review, is likely to make things worse in this respect.”

        Yes, there is a lot of pap being published. The original Wakefield paper is a prime example. Fortunately, there is review beyond peer review. When a paper is published, it is up to the scientific community to try to reproduce the results. Rhetoric doesn’t count.