Outsourcing Fascism

January, 8, 2018 | 24 Comments


  1. This is not a nice or noble game: it is about denying harm – no better than an insurance company denying responsibility. The fact that we can’t replay time or dissect people while they are still alive (and you can rely on the Coroner’s Court to cover up when they are dead) means that there is a certain amount of ambiguity: you could argue that someone died of a heart-attack a millisecond before a bullet happened to enter their heart. You could argue that x wasn’t murdered because statistically it was not place that murders were likely to happen. If something goes wrong the onus is on the patient or their family to prove it, and in the UK any doctor that tried to help them might expect to end up before the GMC. Moreover, the politically controlled Legal Aid Agency will certainly block any attempt to sue the manufacturer.

    Back in 2008 I posted in BMJ under an article ‘Multiple vaccinations, health, and recall bias within UK armed forces deployed to Iraq: cohort study’ co-authored by Sir Simon a series of letters, but the first was a single sentence:

    “On what basis is researching the adverse effects of vaccination placed in the hands of psychiatrists?”


    I would have to check back to see the basis for Sir Simon’s knighthood, but might one suggest over more than three decades it was services to the budget of the MOD and DWP?

    One should probably also recognise that such bodies as SMC and SAS are not only the puppets of industry but of the government:


    I can also understand that government departments need to protect themselves against false claims but they are also unfortunately very good at defending themselves against genuine ones, and this is all too easy when the people themselves are vulnerable.

  2. close links to SAS and SMC, the award of an SAS Prize to SW smacks of SAS awarding the Prize to itself.

    I agree totally sir Simon wessely awarding himself the sense about science award has devalued it.

    I always suspected that JC was no good and might be an abuser .

    from the photos online he has suspicious looking eyes

    I suspect like Rolf jc has convicts for ancestors.

    UNLIKE SIMON WESSEL;Y James COYNE HASN’T qualified for the sense about science award or Maddox prize yet but I am hoping the women come forward soon to complain .
    I hope he doesn’t make the excuse that just one sociopath was typing ME CFS into a search engine is abusing him when so many people more people might have been abused by him.
    jc he says ME CFS isn’t psychological and I am sure that sir Simon doesn’t like it as he wants parity for himself you can quote that Simon .
    jc this gruff old man who should be stopped

    The great thing about science its usually self-correcting what often bobs to the surface isn’t always cream and often its rotten and stinks
    I hope he rots in prison for what he has done


    • Just for the record, there have been roughly 12 emails with content almost exactly the same as this – the same words but mixed around a bit from different email addresses, seemingly different countries.

      David Healy

  3. It tickles me no end that they gave their 2016 award to Elizabeth Loftus … rushing in to defend and acclaim her, maybe 20-25 years after she actually needed it. Dr. Loftus was among the first to take on the proponents of “recovered-memory” therapy, who claimed to cure present emotional distress by uncovering memories of childhood sexual abuse that had been completely repressed by the victim. Back in the late eighties, that included a great deal of the psychiatric mainstream, who either endorsed these theories or were too polite to confront the estimable colleagues and high-class medical centers who were making a killing in the repressed-memory business (and the even more problematic related field of Multiple Personality Disorder).

    Dr. Loftus demonstrated brilliantly that even completely healthy adults can be persuaded to adopt fabricated childhood memories by repeated suggestions from those they trust. She brought aid to many patients and their families who were grievously harmed by this therapeutic fad – at considerable cost and even danger to herself. I heard her speak in 1996, by which time her gutsy, pioneering work was being recognized far & wide. It only took another 20 years for her to be safe enough for Sense about Science to salute her, I guess (g).

    Nowadays, over here, the woods are thick with science defenders, from the EPA and National Parks employees fighting for their right to say “climate change,” to Dr. Bennet Omalu & friends who took on the Concussion Denialists of the National Football League. You’d think there would be no shortage of recent American heroes to honor …

    Oh, but wait. All those guys are earning their spurs taking on wealthy corporations. Can’t have that. Wouldn’t be scientific.

  4. “complete misleading rubbish”.


    Over the next 13 months, Professor Ernst was subjected to a barrage of interrogations, letters and emails and was issued with a stern warning, although his university eventually found that a formal disciplinary warning was not appropriate.

    the episode was “the most unpleasant period of my entire professional life” and it led him to being drained of funds and unable to continue his work, leading to his early retirement.

    Sir Colin Blakemore, an Oxford neuroscientist and judge, said: “Edzard Ernst, rightly known as the ‘scourge of complementary medicine’, has doggedly pursued the argument that there is only one kind of medicine – medicine that works.”

    Cambridge astronomer Lord Martin Rees, former president of the Royal Society and fellow judge, said: “Society should be grateful to scientists who scrutinise the science – or pseudo-science – underlying controversial issues and are prepared to engage with the public. Such people often get more flak than praise.”

    There is only one kind of medicine – medicine that works – society should be grateful ..

    Colton and his mother Kathleen share his story of vaccine injury following the Gardisil vaccine with the VaxXed team in Oren, Utah.


    Nice, nice people doing their very best .. in this complete awfulness

    • Thanks for posting the link to Colton Berrett’s story Annie.

      In the video Colton’s mother notes that Colton’s doctor will not give the HPV vaccine to boys any more, and he’s cautioning on girls.

      Colton says: “…it’s good he’s at least not doing it to boys, but lots of girls are gonna still get hurt”. (Around 12:30 in the video.)

      Colton also says: “I’m angry that they’re still giving out the vaccine. They don’t care that people are getting hurt… (Around 16:40 in the video.)

      and: “You gotta do your research like, you can’t just trust a doctor any more…” (Around 16:56 in the video.)

      Sadly Colton has now died, see: Funeral expenses for Colton Berrett: https://www.gofundme.com/funeral-expense-for-colton-berrett

      If you’re interested in the emerging problems of over-vaccination, it really is worthwhile to watch this video about Colton’s story: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CHYmb9Hwj4A&feature=youtu.be

  5. Is Riko Muranaka an ‘expert in HPV vaccination’?

    I’ve been trying to get some answers about the unnaturally high antibody titres induced by HPV vaccination, so far without success.

    Given Dr Muranaka’s high standing in the science community, today I’ve forwarded my query to her, i.e.

    Dr Muranaka, I understand in some quarters you are considered to be an expert in HPV vaccination? Is this correct?

    What do you think about the unnaturally high antibody titres induced by HPV vaccination, is there any possible downside here?

    In a review paper published in 2010, Ian Frazer, a co-inventor of the technology enabling the HPV vaccines, states:

    “HPV immunization induces peak geometric mean antibody titers that are 80- to 100-fold higher than those observed following natural infection [19]. Furthermore, after 18 months, mean vaccine-induced antibody titers remain 10- to 16-fold higher than those recorded with natural infection [19], and these levels appear to be preserved over time, suggesting that immunization may provide long-term protection against infection…” (See page S9.)

    HPV ‘immunization’ inducing antibody titres that are 80- to 100-fold higher than those observed following natural infection seems to be a very unnatural response.

    Is this a good thing? Do you know?

    Given your influence in promoting and defending HPV vaccination Dr Muranaka I would appreciate your response on this matter.

    Elizabeth Hart

    Ian Frazer’s review paper is titled Measuring serum antibody to human papillomavirus following infection or vaccination, published in Gynecologic Oncology 118 (2010) S8-S11, and funded by Merck & Co. Inc. His reference for his high antibody titre comment is a paper by Diane M Harper et al – Efficacy of a bivalent L1 virus-like particle vaccine in prevention of infection with human papillomavirus types 16 and 18 in young women: a randomised controlled trial, published in The Lancet, Vol 364 November 13, 2004, and funded and co-ordinated by GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals.

    • Re my previous comment re unnaturally high antibody titres induced by HPV vaccination, and my query forwarded to ‘HPV vaccination expert’ Dr Muranaka on this matter.

      See below my follow up query to Dr Muranaka, sent today:

      Dr Muranaka, re my previous message re unnaturally high antibody titres induced by HPV vaccination.

      I previously asked this question of Diane Harper, a co-author of the paper referenced by Ian Frazer, i.e. ‘Efficacy of a bivalent L1 virus-like particle vaccine in prevention of infection with human papillomavirus types 16 and 18 in young women: a randomised controlled trial’, published in The Lancet, Vol 364 November 13, 2004, and funded and co-ordinated by GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals.

      In my email to Dr Harper, dated 5 October 2015, I said:


      Your paper states: “Geometric mean titres for vaccine-induced antibodies to HPV antibodies were over 80 and 100 times greater than those seen in natural infections with HPV-18 and HPV-16, respectively. Vaccine-induced titres remained substantially raised at 18 months, and were still 10-16 times higher than those seen in women with natural HPV-16 or HPV-18 infections, respectively.” (My emphasis.) (See page 1763.)

      And on page 1764: “We have shown that the HPV-16/18 virus-like particle vaccine adjuvanted with AS04 induces a level of antibody production against HPV-16/18 that is much higher than that induced by natural infection. Previous work has shown that combinations of the adjuvants MPL and aluminium salts induce an enhanced immune response compared with antigen alone or adjuvanted with only aluminium, at both the humoral and cellular level. These findings suggest that the immune responses induced in vaccinated women may provide a longer duration of protection than the protective effects induced by natural HPV infection; however, a protective antibody level has not been established nor is there sufficient data currently available to estimate the duration of vaccine-induced protection.” (My emphasis.)

      The vaccine producing titres over 80 and 100 times greater than those seen in natural infections seems to be a very unnatural response… Is this a good thing? Does anybody know?

      Have you addressed this in any of your subsequent research re HPV vaccination?


      Dr Harper responded to me the same day saying: “it is a very good thing as it now appears that only one dose of cervarix will last women (and men, but anatomic endpoints have not been studied, only titer levels) will protect for more than 10 years. this is good because there is a minimization of number of doses one gets and the issue with trying to repeatedly figure out how many doses one may have had.”

      Dr Muranaka, with your expertise in HPV vaccination, do you think unnaturally high titres induced by HPV vaccination are an important matter to consider?

      What do you think about Dr Harper’s response to me?

    • I haven’t received any response from Dr Muranaka as yet.

      I followed up with another message today, see below:

      Dr Muranaka, further to my previous messages re the unnaturally high antibody titres induced by HPV vaccination, and my correspondence with Dr Diane Harper.

      In a later review paper (2008)[1], Diane Harper refers to high antibody titres after both HPV vaccines, Cervaris and Gardasil, i.e. “the peak response to vaccination was robustly 100-200-fold higher than natural infection titers for both vaccines in neutralizing type-specific antibody titers for both HPV 16 and 18”, although in a later paper (2009)[2] Harper says peak titre after Gardasil vaccination is 104-fold higher than natural infection for HPV 16, and 27-fold higher than natural infection titres for HPV 18.

      In essence though, it appears HPV vaccination with both vaccines creates a much higher antibody response than natural infection, and from my layperson’s perspective I wonder if there is any downside to this unnatural response?

      In her 2008[1] review paper, Harper also states: “Despite both vaccines having a 100% seroconversion 1 month after three doses of vaccine, the mechanism of immunogenicity from a scientific perspective is poorly understood. The measure of antibody induction by geometric mean titers (GMTs) is dependent on the assay system used, and is not comparable between HPV types within one manufacturer or for identical HPV types between manufacturers.”

      It is concerning that the novel virus-like particle (VLP) vaccine products Gardasil and Cervarix have been fast-tracked globally, when “the mechanism of immunogenicity from a scientific perspective is poorly understood”.

      In her 2008[1] review paper, Harper states: “…both vaccines contain a proprietary adjuvant system to improve the immunologic response to the VLP antigens. The adjuvant system, AS04, in Cervarix contains both an aluminum salt and a toll-like receptor-4 agonist (monophosphoryl lipid A); the adjuvant system in Gardasil contains an aluminum salt called aluminum hydroxyphosphate sulfate. Clinical trials in humans show that the HPV 16/18 VLPs adjuvanted with AS04 induce a significantly greater initial antibody response than do the HPV16/18 VLPs adjuvanted with aluminum hydroxide alone, and this superior response continues for at least 4 years…Experiments in mice show that the Merck proprietary amorphous aluminum hydroxyphosphate sulfate used in Gardasil induces a greater initial antibody response to HPV16 VLPs than does the aluminum hydroxide adjuvant alone…”

      A VacZine Analytics press release titled “GSK and Cervarix – is AS04 a double edged sword?” (2007)[3] says the novel adjuvant AS04 contained in Cervarix “is a combination of standard aluminium hydroxide and the new component, monophospholipid A (MPL). MPL is a derivative of the lipid A molecule found in gram-negative bacteria and is considered one of the most potent immune system stimulants known”.

      Merck’s proprietary amorphous aluminium hydroxyphosphate sulfate used in Gardasil also appears to be more potent than aluminum hydroxide adjuvant alone.[1]

      Harper says the purpose of the adjuvant “is to prolong the immune response for as long as possible with the smallest amount of antigen (VLP) possible”.[2]

      It is a matter for serious concern that the novel Gardasil and Cervarix VLP HPV vaccine products have been fast-tracked around the world, particularly as “the mechanism of immunogenicity from a scientific perspective is poorly understood”.

      If children and their parents were properly informed of the unnaturally high antibody titre induced by both the novel aluminium-adjuvanted Gardasil and Cervarix vaccine products, and that scientists such as Diane Harper admit the mechanism of immunogenicity of these products is poorly understood from a scientific perspective, I wonder if they would consent to this still experimental medical intervention?

      Dr Muranaka, given your standing in the scientific community as a person qualified to speak on HPV vaccination, I again request your response on this matter.

      Elizabeth Hart

      1. Diane M Harper. Prophylactic human papillomavirus vaccines to prevent cervical cancer: review of the Phase II and III trials. Therapy (2008) 5(3), 313-324.
      2. Diane M Harper. Currently Approved Prophylactic HPV Vaccines. Expert Rev Vaccines. 2009; 8 (12): 1663-1679).
      3. GSK and Cervarix – is AS04 a double edged sword? Press Release. VacZine Analytics. Posted on 19 Dec 2007.

  6. Carmine Pariante ‘machine with malfunctioning parts’

    RC of Psychiatrists‏Verified account @rcpsych 8h8 hours ago

    “As a psychiatrist, I know that Johann Hari is wrong to cast doubt on antidepressants.” Read @ParianteSPILab’s piece in @IndyVoices here.


    Dr David Healy told me: “There was never any basis for it, ever. It was just marketing copy.”


    Carmine M. Pariante Retweeted
    RC of Psychiatrists‏Verified account @rcpsych Jan 2

    Congratulations to @rcpsych member @bengoldacre for being awarded an MBE for services to Evidence in Policy in the New Year Honours!

    All for one and one for all .. https://twitter.com/rcpsych/status/951101844339724288

  7. “When a medical explanation is slow in coming, physicians, officials and companies often bear the brunt of (patients’) anger, for example in chronic fatigue syndrome and Gulf war sickness, authorities who denied sufferers’ claims met with scorn and contempt”

    “It is only human for doctors to view the public as foolish, uncomprehending, hysterical or malingering”.


    There are many more examples of Wessely’s beliefs and published works about ME (including several textbooks) and the above are merely illustrative. Despite the advancement of medical science over the last quarter of a century, Wessely’s views about ME have remained intransigent. There is abundant evidence of his total disregard of the significant biomedical evidence base that has been shown to underpin ME, and despite his irrefutable indifference to the profound suffering of people blighted by ME, Simon Wessely is honoured with the inaugural John Maddox Prize for his courage in standing up for “sound science”.
    That is a travesty of science, truth and justice.

    Science Or Manipulation Of Truth?


    He locked the door and threw away the key with dismal attitudes to SSRI violence and suicide and he will not go down in history as one of the Great Thinkers of our Time – with the Body Counts as they are

    In retrospect, his invitation to the Victoria Derbyshire Show was a National Disaster .. featuring Citalopram and Seroxat ..

  8. And I thought that I was in line for the JM prize!

    I am afraid that the Science Media Centre and SAS have been totally successful in preventing media coverage of our research on aluminium. There was a time when the UK media, including the BBC, would freely write about our research and I was interviewed many times on radio and television.

    In the last 12 months we have published two seminal studies, the first on aluminium in brain tissue in familial AD and recently aluminium in brain tissue in autism (see;https://www.hippocraticpost.com/?s=Exley). Neither received any coverage by the mainstream media. The latter study has already been viewed more than 70K times and has gone to 2 million twitter accounts so we are getting some coverage but because of the 2 aforementioned self-appointed arbiters of ‘good science’ only the Daily Mail ‘dared’ to cover it in the press.

    The JM prize seems to me to be just as much about the ‘establishment’ as everything else.

  9. David, you mention David Robert Grimes, a winner of the Sense about Science 2014 John Maddox Prize, saying: “If there is anyone around the place who sounds most like Coyne, without being JC, its DRG who has the same features of picking on women and being intimidating and just plain objectionable. He wades in on medical, especially vaccination, issues, without having any background that would qualify him for doing so, and usually does so from the safety of a twitter feed or print media – he has been notably reluctant to engage with people in real time.”

    As you say, “He wades in on medical, especially vaccination, issues, without having any background that would qualify him for doing so…”

    The Guardian has given Grimes a platform to promote and defend HPV vaccination, see “We know it’s effective. So why is there opposition to the HPV vaccine?” https://www.theguardian.com/science/blog/2016/jan/11/why-is-there-opposition-hpv-vaccine-cervical-cancer

    I understand Grimes’ current research is “chiefly concerned with the mathematical modelling of oxygen distribution in both vascular and avascular tumours”. He also claims to be a “keen advocate of critical thinking and the scientific method”. http://users.ox.ac.uk/~donc0074/

    Recently I’ve emailed him asking what expertise he has to back up his promotion of the HPV vaccine products, and his disregard for citizens’ concerns about these novel, fast-tracked aluminium-adjuvanted vaccines.

    Given his self-promotion in this area, I’ve also asked him what he thinks about the unnaturally high antibody titres induced by HPV vaccination, i.e. is there any possible downside here, as I’ve outlined in previous comments.

    I await his response. Individuals who take it upon themselves to aggressively promote questionable vaccine products, such as HPV vaccines, and hinder discussion of the valid concerns of other citizens, must be held accountable.

    • Elizabeth

      I fear that what is most significant here is Grimes’s lack of qualification. Indeed, he could be very well informed without being qualified, but it is much safer professionally to peddle misinformation and to attack members of the public if you have little or no connection with the subject and cannot be held accountable. Of course, there are rent-a-mouth GPs who talk in vaguenesses and platitudes (the “trust me I am a doctor” types) but the people who are really responsible never get to be questioned.

  10. Re HPV vaccination, see these recent articles in Slate, to be read in conjunction:

    What the Gardasil Testing May Have Missed: https://slate.com/health-and-science/2017/12/flaws-in-the-clinical-trials-for-gardasil-made-it-harder-to-properly-assess-safety.html

    Why is Slate Questioning Gardasil? https://slate.com/health-and-science/2017/12/why-slate-is-questioning-gardasil.html

    The tone of this commentary illustrates the mainstream media’s reluctance to rock the boat on vaccination policy, these commentators really are uncomfortable in casting aspersions on a vaccine product…

    I wonder if Slate is facing pressure to stop any criticism of HPV vaccination?

    The medical/scientific establishment often intervenes to stifle discussion on reported adverse events after HPV vaccination, as can be seen by the backlash against the Toronto Star’s report “A wonder drug’s dark side”, which was subsequently censored[1], and attacks on US journalist and TV host Katie Couric, who presented stories from mothers who claim their daughters suffered serious harm after HPV vaccination[2]. In the UK, TV presenter Melinda Messenger was viciously pilloried for airing her concerns about the safety of HPV vaccination[3], and in Ireland the HPV vaccine victims’ support group REGRET struggles against Irish Cancer Society propaganda[4]. This is just a sample of the global HPV vaccination cover-up which is currently underway.

    We urgently need more mainstream media stepping up to the plate to investigate the global fast-tracking of still experimental HPV vaccination, I suggest this is shaping up to be the biggest medical scandal of all time.

    1. A story titled ‘A wonder drug’s dark side’ was taken down from the Toronto Star website after pressure from the medical establishment, as detailed in this note from the publisher: https://www.thestar.com/news/2015/02/20/a-note-from-the-publisher.html
    2. Katie Couric show on HPV vaccine sparks backlash. CBS News, 5 December 2015.
    3. Row erupts on This Morning sofas as Melinda Messenger is accused of scare-mongering over her decision NOT to give her teenage daughter the HPV vaccine. Daily Mail, 14 December 2016, updated 15 December 2016, and HPV Debate: Melinda Messenger sparks row on This Morning as she’s accused of scaremongering for not giving her daughter the HPV vaccine. The Sun, 14 December 2016, and Melinda Messenger hits back at ‘hostile’ Holly, Phil and This Morning for ‘gagging her during HPV vaccine debate. Mirror, 16 December 2016.
    4. See for example REGRET response to Irish Cancer Society launch of ‘Political Education Campaign’ on the HPV Vaccine: https://www.regret.ie/ICS_response.html

  11. ‘It has created devastation’

    recovery&renewal‏ @recover2renew 7h7 hours ago

    Hoyrood has been “inundated” by submissions backing a campaign calling for support for those harmed by #antidepressants and #benzos . See @SP_Petitions meeting 18 Jan


    Professor David Healy, a global expert in psychopharmacology added “Ten percent of the population of Scotland…

    recovery&renewal‏ @recover2renew 7h7 hours ago

    Special thanks to @DrDavidHealy @BaylissaTherapy @DrTerryLynch @benzosarebad @alyne_duthie @ilalamay @barry_haslam @jf_moore all the hugely courageous people who have submitted their own personal written submissions.

    Simon Wessely Retweeted 9hrs

    Jon Simons Retweeted Cricket on BT Sport

    Well done, England! Clever to use the Tests as a warm up so they were ready for the games that really matter.

    MSPs to hear pills plea

    Ashes to Ashes ..

  12. Annie, you must feel so proud of your home nation – you are miles ahead of the rest of us. Just hope that Holyrood ‘listens’ productively and DOES something magical – such as BELIEVE what people have to say to them. Fingers crossed!

  13. “Linked into the above, there is a further factor to bear in mind which is that pretty well the entire literature on these drugs is ghost-written, with the brief of the ghost-writers being to produce good marketing copy. There is no access to any of the data behind studies that may have been undertaken on these drugs, some of which have been conducted in Scotland. The MHRA have not seen the raw data and the Scottish Parliament cannot get access to the data behind these studies should Parliament request it. You should judge any comments of doctors or others apparently supporting the use of antidepressants against this background. “


    Plaintiff’s Exhibit 347: Each picture depicts a real person who committed suicide while taking Paxil in a GSK-clinical trial.  The red “Vs” mean their specific suicides were violent in nature.  There were multiple suicides using firearms, including a murder suicide by one patient.  There were also two deaths from people jumping in front of trains. 

    When it comes to suicide attempts, GSK did not keep track of all the attempted suicides in their clinical trials because, according to their company witness, it would be too burdensome. 


    In episode 8, were honored to talk with Wendy Dolin, LCSW, who has her own therapy practice and is the founder of MISSD: The Medication-Induced Suicide Prevention and Education Foundation in Memory of Stewart Dolin. We talk about akathisia, her suicide prevention advocacy through MISSD, her amazing trial win and NY Times feature, and the national and international awareness she has raised about akathisia.


    No Shame On U ..

    for the exceptional ‘Better Times Will Return’ concept and deliverance ..

  14. Here’s another ‘doctor’ who uses his PhD title to give him authority to promote and protect HPV vaccination, without the expertise in HPV vaccination to back him up.

    Dr Michael Head, a senior research fellow at the University of Southampton, and project lead (and co-applicant) on the Research Investments in Global Health study (Resln).

    According to his uni profile, Head’s current research project is to “collate investment data from the G20 countries for infectious disease research and analyse global data against global and national burdens of disease…” https://www.southampton.ac.uk/medicine/about/staff/mh1d14.page#research

    There is no indication that he has expertise in HPV vaccination.

    Michael Head also operates under the pseudonym ‘mikeh’, on the Bad Science Forum associated with Ben Goldacre’s Bad Science website, see for example the ‘Vaccine News’ thread: http://badscience.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=32992&start=4300

    On that page of the thread he links to his article published on Nature, i.e. ‘Inadvisable anti-vaccination sentiment: Human Papillomavirus immunisation falsely under the microscope’: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41541-017-0004-x (Co-authors are Magdalen Wind-Mozley and Peter J. Flegg.)

    Head et al take it upon themselves to disregard safety concerns about HPV vaccination, and Nature go along with publishing this propaganda piece that serves the best interests of the HPV vaccine industry.

    Naturally it includes the obligatory dig against Andrew Wakefield, there must be a handbook out there giving these ‘scientific types’ guidelines on how to write articles about vaccination and protect the status quo…

    In their article, Head et al refer to “the extensive wealth of global literature that vividly demonstrate the excellent efficacy and safety record of the vaccine”.

    Really? As far as I’m aware, there is as yet no independent and objective systematic review of the HPV vaccine literature, i.e. untainted by industry bias or other vested interests. Meanwhile, the effectiveness of the HPV vaccine products Cervarix and Gardasil is being grossly over-hyped. As admitted in The Lancet in 2011, it will be decades before we know the outcome of globally fast-tracked still experimental HPV vaccination.[1] This will require independent and objective observation, which I suggest is not evident at the current time.

    The Head et al article published on Nature states: “The authors declare no competing interests.”

    Perhaps it was an oversight that Michael Head failed to disclose his Resln study benefits from funding from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, an organisation which is heavily involved in HPV vaccine promotion, see for example this Summary of Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation-supported HPV vaccine Partner Activities: http://www.who.int/immunization/sage/HPV_partner_info_gates.pdf

    1. HPV vaccine effect: Is the glass half full or half empty? The Lancet. Vol. 377. June 18, 2011.

  15. About David Robert Grimes, it is ridiculous that The Guardian and The Irish Times (among others) are willing to print the drivel that he writes. It seems that Grimes is so flattered by the attention he gets from Sense About Science that he’ll do anything they suggest. And the mainstream media (especially The Guardian, etc.) seem to regard SAS as the highest scientific authority!

    DRG also follows the lead of David Gorski (aka Orac) the leading pro-vaccination demagogue and blogger.

    DRG’s sheer incompetence and naivety on most subjects was obvious to me when I saw his articles about fluoridation and nuclear power (in which I have experience).

    Of course at this stage newspapers like The Guardian have dropped all standards they pretend to hold dear. “Facts are sacred”, my foot.

  16. Re my ongoing quest for consideration of the possible downsides of the unnaturally high antibody titres induced by HPV vaccination.

    So far I’ve had no response from the publicly outspoken HPV vaccination promoters and defenders Dr Riko Muranaka, Dr David Robert Grimes, and Dr Michael Head. (See previous comments.)

    Another outspoken HPV vaccination promoter is Dr Lauri Markowitz, who is with the National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases at the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

    Dr Markowitz was on the US Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices’ Human Papillomavirus Vaccine Working Group in 2006. She’s the ‘corresponding preparer’ on the ACIP’s document recommending implementation of HPV vaccination: http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5602a1.htm

    Dr Markowitz is an author on many papers about HPV vaccination, for example this paper published in Pediatrics: Prevalence of HPV After Introduction of the Vaccination Program in the United States: http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/early/2016/02/19/peds.2015-1968

    I’ve now emailed Dr Markowitz to see if she can cast any light on the unnaturally high antibody titres after HPV vaccination matter, and consider whether there are any possible downsides.

Leave a Reply