An Open Letter to Megan Babb, MD

Dr. Babb,

I know you mean well. I know you believe you are “keeping little ones safe”.

But unfortunately you exemplify what’s wrong with our medical professionals today.

What you don’t realize (or worse, don’t want anyone to know you realize) is that by vaccinating little ones and big ones against B. pertussis in advance of the birth of an infant, you’re creating silent carriers of whooping cough who can infect that newborn baby with the wild-type pertussis bacterium.

What you don’t realize is that medical professionals who do not leave work for ten days after being vaccinated against pertussis are a reliable and consistent source of wild-type B. pertussis via asymptomatic transmission. You really should wear a mask. You do realize that whooping cough can kill, right?

What you don’ t know is that the 250 micrograms of aluminum in the HepB shot is causing respiratory distress and deaths in underweight and pre-term infants, and that the amounts of aluminum in vaccines were never determined using safe dosing research protocols that account for body weight. Even a 7.5 kg male infant receives 33.33 mcg/kg/day – far about the amounts considered safe by the FDA/CFR.

You obviously also don’t know that:

-No study of vaccinated vs. unvaccinated has been conducted, comparing the entire CDC schedule to no vaccines, nor to a schedule that spaces out vaccines

-Not all vaccines have been tested for association with autism (so how can CDC say “VACCINES are not associated with autism”?)

-Some studies have indeed found association of vaccines with autism.

-No study has ever been conducted that has shown that vaccination in the NICU is safe. See #nicuchallenge

-No study has every been conducted comparing vaccine schedule that space out vaccines compared to the CDC schedule, which contains multiple vaccine on the same day.

-Aluminum hydroxide, a component in many vaccines, is used to reliably and routinely produce rhinitis, allergies, asthma, food allergies, autoimmunity and autism in rats and mice.

Thimerosal suppresses the expression of the protein ERAP1, which is responsible for shortening proteins we need for a healthy immune system.

-People who receive thimerosal-containing flu vaccines are more likely to have increased non-influenza respiratory infections. I think that this is true because their ERAP1 proteins are not working.

-Cross-reactive antibodies are found in patients in case studies as a matter of routine after vaccination, including individuals who suddenly develop demyelinating syndromes and rheumatoid arthritis and a variety of other autoimmune disorders. Molecular mimicry is a known and accepted cause of autoimmune disorders involving pathogen proteins that match human proteins, via either active infection or delivered in vaccines.

-The IOM relied on four studies to conclude that vaccines do not cause autism – three of which were far too small (too few patients) to detect a differences in ASD rates if one did exist. This after they rejected 17/22 studies as being flawed. They also failed to consider the mechanistic (animal) studies because they didn’t have a free weekend.

-Dr. William Thompson of the CDC informed Dr. Brian Hooker that results showing an increased risk of autism due to on-time vaccination with the MMR vaccine were stripped from the presentation to the IOM. The study (Destefano et al., 2004) contained subgroup analysis results that showed no association, including Aftrican American females- but did not include the results Thompson told Hooker that his supervisors took out (African American males and so-called isolated autism subgroups). Hooker had waited for ten years for the CDC to produce the data under a FOIA request. You can hear Thompson make the reveal to Hooker on YouTube hereYou can hear Thompson make the reveal to Hooker on YouTube hereYou can hear Thompson make the reveal to Hooker on YouTube here).

There is much, much more I could fill you in on. Your open letter to Justin Timberlake is condescending to him and to parents everywhere. He knows more than you do about these issues. I can produce thousands of stories of children killed and maimed by vaccines. They all have been taped – first-hand testimony to the daily slaughter of individuals who cannot tolerate vaccines as well as others. Those stories are testimony that cannot ever be undone. Watch Vaxxed – and see some of them for yourself here.

And, Megan, parents exercising the right to choose or refuse via regulations that govern informed consent are not “confusing” anyone. They are actually clarifying for other parents that such rights exist, and are available to them. And for good reason.

I would hope that the medical community would join the burgeoning ranks of the vaccine injured in our mission to reduce vaccine injury. Vaccine Risk Denialism is harming and killing children and adults. And for what? The National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act (NCVIA) of 1986 not only indemnified you and other doctors from liability for vaccine injury – along with vaccine manufacturers. It also mandated that vaccines be made safer, and that the susceptible subgroups of patients most likely to suffer vaccine injury be identified.

You enjoy protection – so should the patients who are at risk of being harmed.

Where there is risk, there must be choice.

#TRUSTMEIMASCIENTIST

PS Ikea has recalled a dresser after 8 children were killed. Thousands – perhaps tens of thousands – have died after vaccination. Ikea is ethical. http://www.cnn.com/2017/11/21/health/ikea-dresser-recall-eighth-child-death/index.html

60 thoughts on “An Open Letter to Megan Babb, MD

  1. Trust me James, you are a condescending, white male using that status to verify that you are a “scientist” and more credible than Dr. Babb. I also noticed that you were to the “n size” of studies (when convenient) to support your statements and then use case studies (n=1) to as support your statements (when convenient) as well. I also do not see where you have listed relevant disclosures…ie do you recieve income from anti-vaccination sources?

    Sincerely,

    Dr. Howard

    PS. I diclose that I have no personal or financial conflicts that would lend bias to this reply.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Dr. Howard – Thank you for your input. You’ll have to supply a list of what you believe to be “anti-vaccine sources” for me to be able to answer your question re: COIs. Also, please note that I take “anti-vax”, “antivaccine” etc to be a bigoted slur, and ban people who use such terms.
      I can provide additional citations, in due course, for each of the points I have made in my letter. I note that you do not hold Dr. Babb to the same standard, who used an emotional appeal, not science, to make her point to Justin Timberlake. Also, if you currently or have in the past taken income from a company that generates revenue from any source from the sale, manufacture, or distribution of vaccines, you have a COI.

      Like

  2. Trust me James, your open letter to Dr. Babb is condescending at best and at worst, is a blatant use of white male superiority to support that your statements are “more scientific” and therefore more “correct”. Additionally, I was struck by your use of case studies to support your assertions (when convenient) and then notied that you questioned the n size of studies that were in opposition to your assertions. This is misleading to the public that do not understand such distinctions. Finally, I am concerned that I do not see where you have listed relevant disclosures…ie do you receive income from anti-vaccination sources or do you have a family member with Autism that you believe is related to on time vaccination schedules? These are relevant biases that the public should know about when reading your post.

    Sincerely,

    Dr. Howard

    PS. I disclose that I have no personal or financial conflicts that would bias my above response.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Male superiority? I don’t think so. I would have responded identically whether Dr. Babb was male, or female. I assure you Dr. Babb’s gender did not enter my mind while authoring my reply.

      The fact that I provide science-backed statements is a result of the fact that I am scientist. My use of the sign-off #TRUSTMEIMASCIENTIST is irony, a result of Dr. Babb’s use of the hashtag #TRUSTMEIMADOCTOR. Have a look around this blog, and http://envgencauses.com – there are plenty of research studies cited, because I rely on science, not policy propaganda.

      Like

    2. I don’t read this as condescending or giving medical advice. As an educated medical professional myself (nurse) I read this, and many of Dr. Lyons-Weiler’s pieces, as great information for one to take to an open-minded physician to get their input on, rather than believing the pharmaceutical-bought physicians.

      Liked by 1 person

  3. I stumbled on this and thought I’d take a read. What a disappointment. You’re trying to argue science without using science. Why aren’t you citing real studies showing safer outcomes with you’re medical recommendations- it’s because they don’t exist. SMH. You should not be able to declare yourself a scientist.

    Liked by 1 person

      1. So you are sort of like a reporter and not a scientist yourself in this role. Scientists do their work without bias and humbly and gratefully acknowledge when data shows their hypotheses are incorrect and change their thinking.

        Like

  4. Scientists like PhD aka “Dr.” Weiler use logic that appeals to folks who won’t wear seatbelts or put their children in car seats. Sometimes seatbelts/car seats cause injuries or entrap those they mean to protect in the unfortunate but unlikely event of a motor vehicle accident. I am a board certified pediatrician with over 25 years of experience who fully vaccinated her daughter who always wears her seat belt.
    https://vaccinesworkblog.wordpress.com/2016/07/14/james-lyons-weiler-and-the-hpv-ad-controversy/amp/

    Liked by 1 person

    1. There is a huge difference between vaccines and seatbelts. First, seatbelts injuries are truly rare. Vaccine injuries are captured by the passive VAERS system, which is estimated to receive only 1% to 10% of all adverse events from vaccines, serious or otherwise. There is no penalty for pediatricians who fail to report injuries. Second, pediatricians who tell their patients that seizures after vaccines are “normal” and offer no emergent care are irresponsible. No pediatrician would fail to treat a seatbelt injury. Both the under-reporting and the non-participation in post-injury treatement must change. Third, seatbelt wearers are not admonished for “putting others at risk” and told to wear seatbelts for “the greater good” to justify non-action by seatbelt manufacturers who are indemnified against liability for injuries (as Dr. Marlene Smith, and all peditricians are, and as vaccine manufacturers are)… and seatbelt manufacturers improve their products as a result of injuries to reduce liability instead of dodging responsibility and having taxpayers pay for their injuries via a compensation fund. This specious analogy does not apply.

      My sons are fully vaccinated and no pediatrician ever gave any me grief for spacing them out. I was, however lied to by my pediatrician’s office who told me that they were required by law to tell me that the HPV vaccine was “very safe” when they could not answer questions about specific risks associated with the HPV vaccine. When I repeated verbatim what was told to me, and inquired on the local, state, or federal legislation to which they were referencing, the individual denied saying it… 10 seconds after she said it. In any other industry, that would called fraud.

      Automobile manufacturers don’t kick their customers out of their store if they have questions about the safety of their seatbelt and car seat manufacturers don’t refuse to sell the car seeds to customers who have questions about the safety of car seats. I, and many other parents, find the AAP’s recommendation that pediatricians kick patients out of their practice and deny them access to health care unprofessional, and evidence of incompetence, for every person who provides medical care to others must be able to describe bothe risks and benefits to patients to comply with federal regulations governing informed consent. While it might help individual pediatricians and their practices with the percentage of vaccinated patients they report to receive bonuses from Blue Cross Blue Shield, as happens with vaccines, no such nonsense takes place over seatbelts, or car seats.

      Like

      1. Seatbelt injuries would seem rare to a non physician who does not take care of actual people. I have seen many. Some scary (ruptured aorta due to restraint only at waist was identified and fixed by doctors. Unrestrained driver died. Both 17 years old. The one alive now has 2 children and a happy life). Multiple chest wall injuries in seatbelt distribution. But ok, you know better. Because you’re a self described “scientist” with no clinical experience. Just the right qualifications to be to tell people “the truth”.

        Like

      1. I don’t know why you think you “took me to town”. I know you think you TRIED (but did not succeed). You made a few rather boring ad hominem attacks. Nevertheless, type replacement after HPV vaccination is still real, and your denial of it does not undo the science that confirmed it, including CDC’s own study that showed no net change in HPV infection rates after the vaccine came to market. The interested reader can find out more here: https://jameslyonsweiler.com/2016/06/29/high-risk-hpv-type-replacement-follows-hpv-vaccination/

        Like

  5. James,
    Clearly it is your goal here to attempt to bash a professional who is in good standing with that profession. You make a lot of claims of how you are just trying to help everyone through science however all you are trying to do is promote yourself. With that said, you are trying to promote yourself by bashing a good person. You are simply another internet “watchdog” as stated above who attempts to strike up conversation to get your name out there in the public. I will tell you that I am not a scientist. I am not a doctor, but I know that when it comes to morals and ethics, you are lacking in that department. I think you are a weak person who preys on others to publicize yourself. For that, you should be ashamed of who you are and what you do. It is a shame you get pleasure out of knocking other people on the internet.

    Like

    1. Law, first of all, if I am guilty of “bashing” Dr. Babb, she is guilty of “bashing” Justin Timberlake. Second, I’m sure you know the difference between a professional “hit-job” and a sincere disagreement of opinions based on facts. I presented facts that I’ve learned. If they make Dr. Babb look relatively uninformed, I cannot be held responsible for that. In fact, thousands of parents are appalled at the lack of knowledge about vaccine risk resident in pediatricians’ knowledge base.

      I used to teach experimental design and research ethics at the University of Pittsburgh. The rules of proper clinical research and clinical conduct apply is all settings. Vaccines have risks, and those risks must be communicated, under the law in the US, to the patients to allow them the opportunity to choose or refuse. The one-sided propaganda machine infuriates parents with vaccine injured children. I have a clear view of the morality of the issues involved because I’ve bothered to look at the science in detail.

      Like

      1. Justin Timberlake is a public figure who makes millions upon millions of dollars as that public figure. In that, he, along with all of the other public figures are open to criticism from the public. Just as I am in my profession. I have no problem taking criticism in my line of work. As a matter of fact, over the last few years, the criticism of my job has become a major issue on the media and now even in sports politics! But Dr. Babb is a professional and is a doctor. She has done her research, training, and has spent the time with patients which is more than you can say. Your lack of experience with patients, as well as your lack in current training in the medical field does not allow you to go after Dr. Babb as you have. She is not Justin Timberlake. That is obvious. Whatever infatuation you have with Justin Timberlake you have that makes you feel as if you need to “defend” his stance or the criticism he receives is on you. But the bottom line here as most people on this thread agree to, is that you sir, are out of line…

        Like

      2. I suppose you are entitled to your opinion, as uninformed as it may be. Be sure to check out my next post on The Biological Mechanisms of Vaccine Injury. You might figure out why a scientist might have something relevant to say about science.

        Like

      3. No thank you sir. I will not be following your posts, blogs, articles or anything in between… You do these things to create a podium to promote yourself and I will not, and encourage others not to follow your line of thinking or your “scientific research”.

        Like

  6. One wonders what motivates these “scientist watchdogs” who don’t see patients, take no responsibility for the decisions they make or the advice they give, and have no obligation to acknowledge studies they don’t care for. Not to mention no skin in the game other than perhaps losing profits from selling their books. Oh wait . . . never mind. There’s the motivation. Scientists should publish peer reviewed papers and not books if they have a point to prove.

    Like

    1. Hey lcroninmd, you don’t know my finances at all. Since learning about the CDC fraud, I’ve had to sell two properties to make ends meet – and believe me – I’m not getting rich of the book sales. But thanks for the plug.

      I’m in this to reduce human pain and suffering from all sources.

      Like

      1. There is a kid in my local hospital with mumps thanks to pseudoscientific nonsense like yours. Child of a vaccine denier. Maybe you could go round on that kiddo this morning. Tell the parents how you meant to ease their suffering.

        Like

  7. “Your open letter to Justin Timberlake is condescending to him and to parents everywhere. He knows more than you do about these issues.” This last statement in itself is condescending! And “Scientist” does not automatically give you a medical degree James. There’s a reason why diseases such as smallpox have been completely eradicated – it’s due to vaccines. Autism is on the rise because there are many more resources to detect autism than in the past. The link of autism to vaccinations has been debunked. Please stop spreading fake news.

    Like

  8. Lazy “science” , disrespectful fear mongering..
    With a splash of sexism.
    Rhetoric disguised as data.
    You forget that you are unleashing your brand of “science” into some of the finest minds in medicine.
    But at least the celebreties are on board.
    Good luck.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. You’re not addressing the topic, you’re trying to malign my character. That’s called an ad-hominem attack.
      There is no evidence of sexism in my heart, nor in my message. Your attempt to distract others from the message in the open letter has failed.

      Like

    1. Having focuse on regional synchonous climate change for my master’s thesis at Ohio State University, I would expect not. There is an extensive biography on this blog since seem so interested in me. Shall I also describe my breakfast, or shall we go back to topic of the post, which is misinformed pediatricians who spread bad info on vaccine risk?

      Like

  9. Another physician and scientist in support of all the true science behind what protection vaccines bring to our children. Having practiced long enough to see HIB destroy children’s brains, and NICU babies contract and die from pertussis, I know that scientist weiler is not acting in the best interest of science or children. Someday his wealth and support will be destroyed by the power of knowledge and education….. just like Andrew Wakefield— harmful lies. Please stand with vaccines.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Dr. EJH – Do you leave work for ten days after receiving the pertussis vaccine?
      You should be familiar with the fact that Tdap and DtaP can create silent carriers of pertussis.
      Vaccinated pediatricians and other worker in healthcare are ready supply of silent carriers of wild-type
      pertussis.

      https://bmcmedicine.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12916-015-0382-8

      Dr. Cherry has called the pertussis vaccine a failed vaccine program, and ACIP and CDC recommend
      (against label) Tdap vaccine during every pregancy, every time, with no safety studies. Subsequent studies removed
      women likely to have problematic pregnancies – and yet these women are not excluded from Tdap vaccination during pregnancy.
      The subsequent studies also failed to report on spontanous abortions and fetal deaths – with the rather lame excuse that it was difficult to obtain accurate data on the dates of the fetal deaths. Later studies just didn’t even report those rates.

      Here’s the article in which Dr. Cherry called pertussis a failed vaccine – how can medical doctors justify using a failed product?
      http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/pediatrics/135/6/1130.full.pdf

      Like

      1. Did you read the study you linked above? It seems to indicate we should continue using DTaP. I was expecting an article showing the opposite. Also, it was n opinion piece, not a study.

        Liked by 1 person

      2. This is taken from the linked article:
        “In line with the results of these 2 recent Tdap effectiveness studies, we should examine our present Tdap immunization recommendations. It is my opinion that we should continue with our present Tdap schedules. Of most importance is to see that all pregnant women receive Tdap with each pregnancy.25,26 This alone can prevent virtually all pertussis deaths in young infants.”

        Seems you are actually IN FAVOR of vaccination!!! 😀

        Liked by 1 person

      3. I am 100% in favor of safe artificial immunization. The basis of “safe” has to be strong, however, and so many of the vaccine safety studies are flawed they barely qualify as science.

        Moreover, the text you pulled proves my point: ACIP and CDC started recommending vaccinating pregnant women BEFORE there was sufficient safety data – the recommendations were baseless, as in unwarranted, and the subsequent studies fail to address the safety of the recommendations for those most at risk.

        Like

  10. Did you actually read the whole editorial or are you like those crazy people that hunt for phrases to illustrate their point? He continues to recommend the vaccine and as any good scientist would calls for improved knowledge so better and more effective ones can be produced.

    No medical intervention is 100% safe or 100% effective. One can make this point to rational minds without fear-mongering and flinging about old disproven ideas and half truths.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Of course I read it, and of course it concluded that the practice be continued.

      I’m puzzled why the unwarranted conclusion of doing nothing to improve the vaccine was included.

      Citing the description of it being a failed vaccine program was MY point. Other routes
      to artificial immunization should be brought forward, if there is science to demonstrate
      their safety and efficacy.

      Like

  11. If you read the baboon studies, you would know that asymptomatic transmission means no symptoms, not spreading of pertussis. And, all the baboons got exposed to wild pertussis. There was no shedding. It is biologically impossible for pertussis vaccine to shed to others. Why are you lying? DTaP doesn’t shed.

    As for this “Dr. William Thompson of the CDC informed Dr. Brian Hooker that results showing an increased risk of autism due to on-time vaccination with the MMR vaccine were stripped from the presentation to the IOM. The study (Destefano et al., 2004) contained subgroup analysis results that showed no association, including Aftrican American females- but did not include the results Thompson told Hooker that his supervisors took out (African American males and so-called isolated autism subgroups). Hooker had waited for ten years for the CDC to produce the data under a FOIA request.”

    Find me one study of autism by race that indicates there are more African American boys with autism? Oh wait, you cannot because Hooker made that claim up with his horrible analysis, the one that was RETRACTED from publication back in August of 2014. All the re-analyses of the Destefano study show the original analysis is accurate.

    And FOIA request? I thought Thompson gave Hooker the data? Why would he have needed a FOIA request? The data never went anywhere. It was always in the MADDS database. Still is. It never went anywhere. Maybe one hard copy got recycled but the server at CDC and MADDS always had the original data. (MADDS = metropolitan Atlanta developmental disabilities study

    https://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/developmentaldisabilities/madds.html

    That you think Justin Timberlake knows more than Dr Babb is laughable. OMG.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. No, you are reading the study quite wrong. The asymptomatic baboons were capable of harboring a reservoir of tranmissible wild-type pertussis to other baboons. And here’s a CDC study of transmission of WT pertussis among vaccinated children https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/6/5/00-0512_article. An here’s a CDC resource that confirms asymptomatic infections exist https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/pubs/pinkbook/downloads/pert.pdf And here’s a CDC resources telling grandparents to be sure they get the whooping cough vaccine at least two weeks prior to visiting their grandchild… why? because they, like vaccinated healthcare workers, can be silent carriers. https://www.cdc.gov/pertussis/downloads/matte-grandparents.pdf

      Hooker had the FOIA unanswered for ten years – which the CDC refused to act upon – and then due to pressure from Congressman Posey, the job fell to Thompson to send Hooker the data.

      The study you are looking for that found increased risk of African American boys is the Destefano et al. study 2004 study – which contains ALL the other subgroup results EXCEPT the ones they stripped out – you can read and listen to Destefano tell Sharyl Attkisson that the reason they removed that result – and the result showing increased risk in so-called “isolated autism”. Here: (from https://sharylattkisson.com/2014/08/29/audio-cdc-addresses-allegations-on-vaccine-autism-link-omission/)

      “DeStefano: No, I mean, I think, you know, the other, the other important consideration here is looking at what, what time period we’re talking about. We’re, you know, autism, as you probably are aware, is a condition that really probably has its start while the child is still in the womb. And, you now, it doesn’t, some of the behaviors and such don’t come apparent, become apparent until maybe the child is one, two, three years old. But, uh, uh what we know about autism that, uh, the, uh, characteristics or behavioral signs do become ava–, you know, apparent by 24 months of age, so. So we had different cut-offs, before 18 months of age, there was no difference in, in any group in terms of, uh, vaccination levels, between the cases and controls. At 24 months of age, when, uh, au—you know—behaviors of autism or some features of autism become apparent, there was no difference between the, uh, cases and controls in any group, it was at 36 months where there was a slight differen—and the difference was we’re talking about a difference between 93% versus 91%, not a, a big difference. But, so that’s at 36 months. And at 36 months, an exposure around that time period is just not biologically plausible to have a uh, uh, a causal association with autism. I mean autism would’ve already started by then. [I me?] I reiterate it probably starts in the womb, but even if you’re saying, you wanna call it starting by the time some behavioral features become apparent, it had started before 36 months. And then, you know, we, from, so I think from a biological argument, it’s implausible this was a causal association. And then I think we have, uh–pretty convince–

      Attkisson: Let me just, let me just interrupt what, before I lose that thought. So you already made up your mind regardless of what the stats show that if it, certain things show that it didn’t make sense, you wouldn’t, you would try to find out a way to…

      DeStefano: No, that’s not we said, I’m just saying, you know, you interpret, you interpret findings, also, you know, there’s the statistics, then you have to also interpret, bring in things like biological plausibility, how do you interpret these results? So I think we had pretty strong evidence that these results at 36 months were primarily a reflection of requirements to attend early intervention special education programs for the for the children with autism. And why do we say that? We say that because the effect was almost all seen in children 3-5 years of age and those were the ones that early education programs and 98%, you know, 98% of that of that age group was in special education programs for which vaccination was of a requirement.

      Attkisson: Is there any possibility that it is biologically plausible and you just haven’t, you know, that that’s, the consensus is that it’s not, among you guys, but that it is and you’re overlooking that?

      DeStefano: I’m, I’m not aware of any data would, that would s–, you know, that would say that, uh, you would have, um, onset of autism after 36 months.”

      So they published all of the negative results, but chose to *not publish* the positive results showing increase risk of autism associated with on-time MMR vaccination because (he claims) they didn’t believe the results. That’s not how science works. They should have published both types of results, and then in interpretation they could have tried to say that the result didn’t make sense given the background information they chose to focus on. Then other scientists could have considered the results, too. The category of largest rate of increase in autism in the period leading up to the study had been regressive autism, with onset between 24 and 36 months. When Hooker told Thompson what he found he said “Of course you did”. Note that the subgroup analyses that Hooker used were provided to him by Thompson and they were the same routines used to analyze the subgroups that did not show positive results that were published in the Destefano et al. (2004) paper. Applying your assessment, those positive results therefore would also be “horrible”, and Destefano et al. (2004) should also be retracted.

      I stand by my assessment that Justin Timberlake knows more about vaccine risk that Dr. Babb. Otherwise she would join the side of humanity that is demand vaccine safety science reform. The only other possible explanation is that she knows more, and is acting out of deceit. I prefer to think most pediatricians don’t know, or won’t let themselves know. I’ve met many who will speak with me off the record (for fear of being sanctioned by the AAP) and they say they know, they feel trapped.

      Like

      1. ” The asymptomatic baboons were capable of harboring a reservoir of tranmissible wild-type pertussis to other baboons.”

        Exactly. They are not shedding from the vaccines

        The “isolated autism” was retracted for being shoddy. In reality, there is no indication there are more AA boys with autism than white boys.

        It is quite sad you think Justin knows more than an MD. MAkes me wonder about your mentaly capabilities.

        Liked by 1 person

  12. I am a family physician. If looking to find things we physicans might share in common with you, I would say we both seem to care about ensuring vaccines are safe and effective. I think we can all agree on this. I think a big difference, James (we are on a first name basis, right?) Is your perceived safety risks of vaccines are much higher than what the overwhelming majority of medical professionals believe. I find this discrepancy interesting. It seems to me that you are overestimating risks, underestimating benefits, cherry picking data and making some poor unscientific arguments (arguments to lay people might sound all too convincing). Also, I find it odd that you claim all these scary sounding information regarding vaccines but then you say that you have vaccinated your own kids? So, if I am biased, it is because I have seen kids who have been suffered unnecessarily from vaccine preventable illness. My dad had and continues to suffer from the long term effects of polio that he contracted at child before the vaccine was available. Now my daughter has an autoimmune condition that requires her to be on immunosupressing medications which put her at risk from contracting a vaccine preventable illness (she is unable to have her mmr, varicella and other vaccines at this time). So that’s my perspective. I sure hope that your perspective is of genuine concern for children and not that of profiting from parents who only wanting what’s best for their children fall victim to the hyperbole and fear based “facts” you sell.

    Like

    1. Thank you for sharing your thoughts. There was batch of polio with active virus that spread polio, I wonder if your dad had received a vaccine from that batch? I met a public health official in WA during a visit there who braved the criticism from peers to step forward and tell the story of how that bad batch of polio vaccine –
      which she had received and was injured by – inspired her career in public health.

      Nevertheless, we need to stop conflating the discussion of risk with efficacy.
      Having worked in biomedical research designing studies and analyzing data, I can tell you that your own perception of vaccine risk is skewed. I don’t know what “perceived safety risks of vaccines” are, but I know that too few medical professionals have actually looked at studies. They seem to prefer to take their position from CDC and AAP. I’ve looked at studies in-depth and I assure you many of deeply flawed. Here is an example of seven flaws found in a study that claimed that there was no link between vaccination during pregnancy and autism: http://www.ageofautism.com/2016/12/seven-major-flaws-in-zerbo-et-al-2016-association-between-influenza-infection-and-vaccination-during.html
      I did not choose this path. I chose to write a positive chapter on vaccines in my book “Cures vs. Profits”. I found that to keep my own standard of ethics and to be able to continue to use reason and logic I could not write a completely positive chapter. I was very disturbed by the poor state of vaccine safety science, and the immense amount of evidence of fraud and cover-up of meaningful results. Look up the Simpsonwood transcripts and the VSD study. That would be a good place to start. If you read “My Journey From Ignorance”, you’ll know why my sons were completely vaccinated and why I know work to bring the balance of the science forward. “Scary”? That implies I choose to use fear somehow to motivate individuals to act. I analyzed CDC and NIAID’s monopoly on the use of fear while writing my book on Ebola. You’ll find plenty of pro-vaccine text there. What puzzles me is that most of the posts from MDs are about ME, not about the actual topic – vaccine risk. None have refuted the knowledge I’ve shared. I think the lack of critical evaluation is highly consistent with my position right after writing “Ebola” and 90% of the way through “Cures” (I wrote the vaccine chapter last). What do YOU think about the Merck whistleblower lawsuit (see http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/lawrence-solomon/merck-whistleblowers_b_5881914.html). I understand the pressure conform to the normative messages to minimize the public’s perception of vaccine risk at all costs. I’ve read the missives on how imperative it is for the public to not be allowed to discern any risk of vaccination. Is that fair to those who will be injured? Is it right for a genetic minority to condemn a genetic minority to paralysis, seizures, death, neurodevelopmental disorders, autoimmune disorders, etc out of fear of mild childhood illnesses? We need to stop conflating considerations of efficacy with due considerations of risk. The evidence that the US public is being denied their rights to informed consent on vaccines is massively overwhelming to anyone who cares to actually look at it.

      Like

  13. So now James you are resorting to censorship to hide the truth from your readers? Or are you afraid to answer my questions?
    Those are the ONLY explanations for why you deleted my questions. This PROVES you are wrong about the “CDC whistleblower” and gives me great happiness to see you admit this openly by your choice of censorship to hide the truth.
    But I’ll give you another chance.
    Can you answer these questions:
    1) If vaccines caused the african-american children autism, why were they in special-ed classes (because they showed signs of autism) that required vaccines and only vaccinated because of those requirements (after signs of autism showed?) Shouldn’t they have been put in special-ed classes AFTER the vaccines if your conspiracy theory was accurate?
    I mean, the parents can easily vouch for this. Strange how Vaxxed didn’t make any attempts to interview them (or anyone with autism for that matter, but I digress….or any autistic experts, but I digress…or any fully-practicing doctors…but I digress.)
    2) If Brian Hooker is such a honest guy why did he lie about his own son’s autism? In court documents he was forced to admit signs of autism showed up before the MMR vaccine. Also, his doctors and own wife admitted the same. He was caught lying & there are verified court documents that prove this. He lost his court case so badly that I’m not sure anyone in human history has lost a case that bad before. Seriously, read the judgement. It is an absolute RECKONING.
    Sub-question. Why did vaxxed never mention this court case online after it was handed down? Hmm….
    3) If African-American children get autism from vaccines more than other subgroups shouldn’t African-American’s have a higher rate of autism than caucasians? They don’t. They have a lower rate. Fact.
    4) According to your now debunked conspiracy theory, after Dr. Thompson’s study co-authors saw a statistical association between the MMR and autism among African-American boys, they decided to add criteria into the study where a Georgia birth certificate would be required, thus negating those results that showed a link.
    The problem with this assumption is that this proposed change to use birth certificate data was made two months before the results of the study were known, making the claim that they changed the criteria after seeing the results literally impossible. This fact is, not surprisingly, not mentioned in the film.
    Why do you never mention this?
    5) How many actual real whistleblowers do you know of that continue to work for YEARS for the place they blew the whistle on? It’s not like the CDC pays very well. Why has Thompson never come out and been interviewed to support your theory? Why has he taken his own statement down online?
    6) Why were the documents first posted online by a pro-vaccine/pro-science autistic father and autism advocate? Why would he post them online if they showed anything but the fact that there was no fraud or cover-up?
    I can’t wait for you to dodge/deflect these questions with your regurgitated talking points! I’ve seen your answers to some of these questions before on Twitter so go ahead and copy & paste the nonsense!

    Like

    1. Whoever you are, I don’t see any objectivity in your approach to vaccine issue, ever, you have stated publically that your mission is to “expose” me, which reveals a complete lack of credibility in your attempts to appear impartial.

      Most of your questions are asking me to guess at another person’s motive or state of mind and have nothing to do with this post.

      Careful examination of the files that were provided to Congressman Posey by William Thompson revealed that The CDC knew about the significant associations as early as 11/7/01.  Then on 2/13/02, Coleen Boyle suggested reformatting the data.  Hope this helps!

      Like

      1. So you’re dodging almost every question then? You realize that admits you either can’t answer my questions or to do so destroys your conspiracy theory, right?

        How does verified factual rates of autism among african-americans compared to caucasians have anything to do with guessing another person’s “motive” or “state of mind?”

        How does court records of Hooker’s embarrassing loss to the government where he had to admit signs of autism began before the MMR was given to hid child have anything to do with “guessing?”

        As for asking Hooker why he lied about his son, it’s obvious why. I don’t need to ask him. He already admitted it in court documents. How are you not aware of this?

        How does verified knowledge of the kids in the study being placed in special ed classes because of signs of autism being shown before they were vaccinated have anything to do with guessing?

        You can’t name ONE whistleblower in US history who stayed with his job?

        You’re mistaken about the dates of the birth certificate data. I just verified it to make sure. Maybe you’re thinking of another aspect of the study or are confused.

        As far as objectivity you should look in the mirror. 100% of your posts, tweets and blogs are negative when it comes to vaccines, the very definition of being anti-vaccine, yet you don’t wish to be called that.

        If you got that number down to maybe 70%/30% you’d gain more respect from the medical and scientific community. By refusing to answer my questions & continuing to make anti-vaccine statements and cherry-pick the studies that confirm you bias (going as far as to claim Justin Timberlake’s medical knowledge on vaccines is greater than a real doctor) you’re not going to get any respect outside your circle (who will agree with whatever you write, no matter what.)

        Like

      2. The most relevant information is in the missing results (obvious to anyone looking the Destefano et al study) and the content of Thompson’s statements. I am not here to answer your irrelevant and distracting questions. I have referred you to Thomspon, and to Hooker. Do you need their email addresses?

        Like

      3. And, RT, 100% of the research studies I cite are what matters. The fact that you suggest that I aim for some arbitrary percentage of pro- vs. con- oe that you think I am concerned about “being accepted” by the scientific community means (1) you don’t understand the value of setting the record straight, (2) you are unwilling or unableb to comprehend the flaws in CDC pseudoscience on vaccine safety, and (3) you fail to see that the only thing I’ve done is to continue exercising rational inquiry and being the objective scientist I was trained to be after learning of the serious deficits in vaccine safety science. Denialists such as yourself abandoned objectivity on this topic long ago.

        Like

      4. The ONLY thing that matters is if the conspiracy theory is true or not. Are African Americans more vulnerable to autism as you believe?

        The answer is undeniably NO as the rates of African Americans are LOWER than caucasians.

        Hooker was impeached the second he was caught lying about his son.

        The children you claim got autism from vaccines showed signs of autism BEFORE THE VACCINE. Thus, placed in special ed classes.

        I don’t need to speak to Hooker (who has been impeached) or Thompson (who is still working for the CDC, the only known so-called whistleblower in US history to continue to work for his job after “blowing the whistle.”

        The facts are facts.

        You attack me and label me as a denier, which is ironic since you are a vaccine denier. But, even worse, you deny the facts I outlined above.

        If Paul Offitt was caught lying in court wouldn’t you mention it?

        Why does Hooker get a pass? Are you cherry-picking who you impeach because of their view on vaccines?

        100% of the research studies you cite are cherry-picked to be against vaccines. Every one of them.

        There’s no denying that’s not science. And labeling science “pseudoscience” because you’re mad you actually practice it makes you the denier. Once again.

        Like

  14. Reblogged this on Babble On… and commented:
    This is why people are losing trust in doctors. The truth could not be more obvious. The science could not be more muddy, yet some doctors will condescend to keep themselves at the top of the heap. The profession risks losing its’ shine because of drug and policy pushers whose only goal is what? Keep kids healthy? That is laughable.

    Like

  15. All pediatricians should be horrified at the fact that they are injecting aluminum into developing brains. See https://jameslyonsweiler.com/2017/11/27/aluminum-in-the-brains-of-children-with-autism/
    If they vaccinate children and pregnant women w/flu vaccines that contain thimerosal, they should be doubly horrified at the injuries they are causing to cellular detoxification and immunological antigen processing https://jameslyonsweiler.com/2017/11/23/biological-mechanisms-of-vaccine-injury/

    When they realize what they science actually says, they will speak out about the need for vaccine safety reform – if they are ethical.

    Like

    1. As you know, none of those “studies” come from non biased sources. This is akin to asking you to trust a study done by Offit. Would you?

      The study alleges 5 people with autism died. Post death alleges high Al levels. You think that establishes causation? Wow, and you call yourself a man of science?

      This study proves conformation bias and cherry picking is real. Nothing less, nothing more.

      Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s