In 2017 the Sense about Science (SAS) John Maddox (JM) Prize was awarded to to Riko Muranaka for her efforts to counter apparent misinformation about the HPV vaccine.
MedWatcher Japan are the group who have helped raise the profile of concerns about the HPV vaccine in Japan. When it comes to tackling the adverse effects of treatments, there is no more impressive group in the world and in response to their arguments – see Here – the Japanese government has reconsidered its position.
Key to an award of an SAS Prize is that Muranaka should have been threatened, and intimidated for her brave work standing up for truth. I asked some MedWatcher contacts what the score was. They said yep she’s saying she has been threatened but there is nothing much that can be done about it, as she would just use any complaints or even debate as evidence of persecution.
What’s going on?
In the 1980s the pharmaceutical industry began to outsource the running of clinical trials to contract research companies, the writing of articles on their drugs to medical writing companies, and a lot of drug development to biotech companies, who could be bought if they discovered something.
Between 1990 and 2002 when Sense about Science and the Science Media Centre appeared, industry realized they could outsource “fascism” too.
When a controversy blows up about a medical product today, it is rare to have the company behind the product wade into the controversy. They take a reputational hit if they do. Instead, the Science Media Centre in the UK or equivalent bodies elsewhere or SAS wades in – supported increasingly by APA or RCP or other such bodies.
SMC and SAS offer plausible deniability. As Tony Blair seems to have told the Trump team, the Obama administration will never have asked Britain’s intelligence service to spy on Trump – but it will have been understood.
Industry also gets to exploit private enterprise. If a number of providers are competing for the contract. just as with ghostwriters whose job requires competing to find big name academic authors and journals, or CROs who in competing will sign up non-existent patients if need be to secure the next contract, industry can depend on its outsourced defenders to outdo each other in terms of heaping abuse on those who might disparage a company product. They outsourced defenders are not bound by Good Communication Practice standards.
The following material – except my comments in orange – is taken from the SAS website.
The JM Prize recognises the work of individuals who promote sound science and evidence on a matter of public interest, facing difficulty or hostility in doing so.
It pays tribute to the attitude of JM who, in the words of his friend Walter Gratzer: “wrote prodigiously on all that was new and exciting in scientific discovery and technological advance, denouncing fearlessly what he believed to be wrong, dishonest or shoddy. He did it with humour and grace, but he never sidestepped controversy, which he seemed in fact to relish. His forthrightness brought him some enemies, often in high places, but many more friends. He changed attitudes and perceptions, and strove throughout his long working life for a better public understanding and appreciation of science.”
The winner of the JM Prize receives £2000, and an announcement of the winner is published in Nature. The award is presented each year at a reception in November.
Simon Wessely and Fang Shi-min are the two winners of the inaugural JM Prize for Standing up for Science
Fang Shi-min, a freelance science journalist based in Beijing, was awarded the Prize for his bravery and determination in standing up to threats to his life to uncover clinics promoting unproven treatments, and to bring a wide public readership to the importance of looking for evidence.
Simon Wessely, Professor of Psychological Medicine at King’s College London, was awarded the Prize for his ambition and courage in the field of ME (chronic fatigue syndrome) and Gulf War syndrome, and the way he has dealt bravely with intimidation and harassment when speaking about his work and that of colleagues.
Given his very close links to SAS and SMC, the award of an SAS Prize to SW smacks of SAS awarding the Prize to itself.
That said, it’s easy to get on with SW. I’ve been to his house and he to mine. There are certain things you don’t challenge acquaintances on. In this case one of those things was his belief that he’d had death threats and in general had had a hard time from people with Chronic Fatigue Syndrome who didn’t like his research. Long before this SAS prize came on the radar, he had assiduously been peddling this line, as the researchers working on CFS in general do.
One of the other things I didn’t challenge him on was James Coyne who SW thought was marvellous.
I’d first come across JC when the University of Toronto – and perhaps others – appeared to have outsourced the defending of their fragile little selves against the juggernaut that was Healy – after they’d fired me – to JC, who didn’t just say what U of T or others might have wanted to say but went wildly beyond that without his having ever met me or liaised with me in any shape or form whatsoever.
JC is a notable academic thug, a bully who picks on women in particular. Some people find him very intimidating in print but if you confront him he becomes your new best friend in a rather wheedling kind of way. See Rolf Harris and James Coyne
David Nutt is the winner of the 2013 JM Prize for Standing up for Science.
The judges awarded the prize to Professor Nutt in recognition of the impact his thinking and actions have had in influencing evidence-based classification of drugs…, and his continued courage and commitment to rational debate, despite opposition and public criticism.
Professor Nutt was named chairman of the UK Government’s Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs (ACMD) in May 2008. In 2009 Professor Nutt was dismissed from his role at the ACMD by Home Secretary Alan Johnson after speaking out about the Government’s policies on drugs being at odds with the evidence. Concerns among the scientific community following Professor Nutt’s dismissal led to the creation of the Principles for the Treatment of Independent Scientific Advice, which are now part of the Ministerial Code.
Again I know DN, well enough to share an early morning Caribbean jacuzzi with him when we were both jet-lagged. I thought this award to DN was wonderful given that he had referred me to the GMC in 2006 – a professional death threat – for standing up for science in the face of pretty intimidating odds.
Curiously the weapon he used for the referral was an article by Coyne on the martyrdom of david healy. Something Coyne and the journal in which it appeared seem to have been too nervous to include in the print edition of the journal.
In throwing the case out the GMC put it all down to the usual rough and tumble academics get up to.
Emily Willingham and David Robert Grimes are the two winners of the 2014 JM Prize for Standing up for Science.
Emily Willingham, a US writer, has brought discussion about evidence, from school shootings to home birth, to large audiences through her writing. She has continued to reach across conflict and disputes about evidence to the people trying to make sense of them. She is facing a lawsuit for an article about the purported link between vaccines and autism.
David Grimes writes bravely on challenging and controversial issues, including nuclear power and climate change. He has persevered despite hostility and threats, such as on his writing about the evidence in the debate on abortion in Ireland. He does so while sustaining his career as a scientist at the University of Oxford.
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.
Edzard Ernst and Susan Jebb are the two winners of the 2015 JM Prize.
Edzard Ernst is recognised for his long commitment to applying scientific methodologies in research into complementary and alternative medicines and to communicating this need. Prof Ernst continued in his work despite personal attacks and attempts to undermine his research unit and end his employment. As a result, he has addressed a significant gap in the research base in this field and has brought insights into discussions with the public, policy makers, commentators, practitioners and other researchers.
Susan Jebb, Professor of Diet and Population Health at the University of Oxford, is recognised for her promotion of public understanding of nutrition on a diverse range of issues of public concern, from food supplements to dieting. Prof Jebb tackled misconceptions about sugar in the media and among the public, and endured personal attacks and accusations that industry funding compromised her integrity and advisory capabilities. Despite this experience, she continued to engage with the media and the public on issues of dietary advice, talking about the need for sound science and high quality research, and advocating for high standards of research governance.
Elizabeth Loftus awarded the 2016 JM Prize
Professor Loftus is best known for her ground-breaking work on the “misinformation effect” which demonstrates that the memories of eyewitnesses are altered after being exposed to incorrect information about an event, as well as her work on the creation and nature of false memories. In addition to her research, Loftus has appeared as an expert witness in numerous courtrooms, consulting or providing expert witness testimony for hundreds of cases. Her findings have altered the course of legal history, in showing that memory is not only unreliable, but also mutable.
This year’s nominations – the highest number received in any year – reflecting a growing recognition in the global science community of the importance of engaging in discussion about science in the public realm. In 2016, there were 72 nominations, with nominees from 17 different countries.
Riko Muranaka has been awarded the international 2017 JM Prize for promoting science and evidence on a matter of public interest, despite facing difficulty and hostility in doing so. A journalist and lecturer at Kyoto University, Dr Muranaka is recognised for her work championing the use of evidence in public discussions of the Human Papilloma Virus (HPV) vaccine.
The HPV vaccine is recognised by the scientific and medical community, and endorsed by the World Health Organisation as key to preventing cervical and other cancers. In Japan the vaccine has been subject to a national misinformation campaign to discredit its benefits, resulting in vaccination rates falling from 70% to less than 1%.
Dr Muranaka’s work to put the evidence for the safety of the vaccine clearly before the public has continued in the face of attempts to silence her with litigation and undermine her professional standing. In persisting, she has tried to ensure that a scientific account of the weight of evidence is available not only for Japanese families but for public health globally.
I have to take care what I say here, as SAS will put it forward as evidence that RM is totally deserving of her JM Prize.
The very existence of this post in fact proves they all deserve a JM Prize – maybe even a second one each.
One of the extraordinary characteristics of at least some of the recipients of the JM Prize, SAS, SMC and others is that despite having the backing of the establishment and some of the most powerful interest groups on earth, when up against individuals or at most a handful of people who have been damaged by drugs or vaccines, who are trying primarily to stand up for both science and decency, the SASers see, or at least paint, the struggle in terms of them as the few defenders of science trying desperately to keep a flickering flame alight in the face of overwhelming forces of darkness.
It’s as though the Catholic Church were to use claims their priests had abused children as evidence of the hostile forces surrounding them – and their role as the light that shines in the darkness that the darkness does not comprehend.
The Lilly advert above seems to capture many of the psychodynamic ambiguities involved in this kind of positioning.
To be continued with my nomination for the 2018 JM Prize.
Readers nominations for the Prize are welcome.
Copyright © Data Based Medicine Americas Ltd.
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.
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.
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.
“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
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 . Furthermore, after 18 months, mean vaccine-induced antibody titers remain 10- to 16-fold higher than those recorded with natural infection , 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.
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?
END OF QUOTE
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), 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) 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 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 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) 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.
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”.
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.
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.
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
“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 ..
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.
Just to add that even my University now refuses to recognise our research. Keele no longer issues any press releases on our research and does not even cover it in its weekly news piece ‘Week at Keele’. It is as if my 26 years at Keele, nearly 200 publications and £5M+ in grant income never happened!
Very interesting commentary by JB Handley on World Mercury Project relevant to Chris Exley’s comments
Chris, re your comment “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”.
Have you read David Robert Grimes article in the obliging Guardian, titled: “Impartial journalism is laudable. But false balance is dangerous”: https://www.theguardian.com/science/blog/2016/nov/08/impartial-journalism-is-laudable-but-false-balance-is-dangerous
What is dangerous is when vested interests hijack a debate and censor citizens’ valid queries about policy, e.g. vaccination policy.
There appears to be an international network of trolls who work to stifle any questioning of vaccination policy and practice, see for example comments threads on recent articles on the Indian The Tribune website about HPV vaccination, which were over-run by individuals, usually hiding behind pseudonyms, belittling valid criticisms of HPV vaccination, i.e.
Prevention is better than cure: http://www.tribuneindia.com/news/in-focus/prevention-is-better-than-cure/518413.html
Dubious vaccine for cervical cancer: http://www.tribuneindia.com/news/in-focus/dubious-vaccine-for-cervical-cancer/518412.html
As I know from personal experience, it is extremely difficult for citizens to obtain transparency and accountability for vaccination policy from the international vaccination bureaucracy.
The apparently co-ordinated deliberate stifling of public discussion on this matter on public forums by self-appointed and often anonymous guardians of the vaccine industry is a very serious matter in our liberal democracies.
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.
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.
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, 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. In the UK, TV presenter Melinda Messenger was viciously pilloried for airing her concerns about the safety of HPV vaccination, and in Ireland the HPV vaccine victims’ support group REGRET struggles against Irish Cancer Society propaganda. 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
‘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 ..
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!
“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 ..
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. 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.
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.
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.
Further to my previous comment re Dr Lauri Markowitz, the US CDC’s lead HPV vaccination promoter.
Here’s a CDC promotional video for HPV vaccination from February 2013, with Dr Markowitz and her colleague Dr John Iskander: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bnd_iCOR7-w
This is part of the CDC’s ‘Beyond the Data’ series, which brings you “‘take home’ messages for you to use in your practice, in your classroom and in your home.” In this video “Lauri E. Markowitz, MD highlights how providers can help – Send reminders, Arrange quick visits and Promote anti-cancer vaccine”.
In the video, John Iskander says there seems “to be some issues with getting teens to complete the vaccination series, and what are some of the things we can do to improve that?” (The video can be accessed via this link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bnd_iCOR7-w )
Lauri Markowitz responds: “Well kids of this age are busy. They have schedules, extra-curricular activities, it’s hard to get them in for the three visits that are needed to complete the vaccination series. I think that providers can do a variety of things. The first thing is when they get their first dose to be sure to remind them that they need two additional doses to complete the series. And then I think doing reminders, reminder calls, reminders of any sort, are really going to be helpful to get the second and third doses in. And also providers can remember to use every visit that the adolescents come in to immunise. I think all those things can be helpful. The other thing I should mention is quick visits, so when they come in to get their second and third dose they don’t have to wait and have a full visit, they can just come in for their vaccination.”
John Iskander then refers to data that suggests “there’s a significant minority of kids who haven’t yet started the vaccine series. So, what are the issues there, are there some different strategies that need to happen to get more kids started on this protection?”
Lauri Markowitz replies: “Well, we know there’s some fairly strong data that one of the most important things is a strong provider recommendation. Having a recommendation from a provider for any vaccination is one of the most important predictors of getting vaccinated, so that’s very important. There can also be things like standing orders, so that if an adolescent comes in in the age group where the vaccine is recommended, they can, there can be some indication on the chart they should be offered the vaccine. And again, eliminating lost opportunities, so if an adolescent is coming in, and gets another vaccination that’s recommended at that age, they can also get the HPV vaccine.”
John Iskander then talks about the ‘time pressure’ of providers, “they might have 15 minutes for some of these visits, and you know, they need to communicate some key information about this vaccine and its importance. So, what are the, you know, in that short amount of time, what are the most important things they should be talking about?”
Lauri Markowitiz says: “The most important thing, this is an anti-cancer vaccine, we know it’s very effective, it’s actually one of our most effective vaccines, and those are very important things. It’s recommended for both boys and girls, at 11 or 12 years, and this is a great age to give the vaccine, we know the immune response to the vaccination is very good at this age, and it can be delivered before any potential exposure to the virus.”
James C.Coyne Retweeted
David GorskiVerified account @gorskon 4h4 hours ago
Another take on the sad death of Colton Barrett. @skepticalraptor agrees that it was not #Gardasil that killed him and that the #VAXXED crew is vile for taking advantage of his tragic death.
‘maybe he ate a bad hamburger. There are just so many causes.’
‘What makes the tragedy so much worse is how the antivacine vultures responsible for VAXXED have swarmed around the family since discovering his case, encouraging his mother to buy into the false notion that Gardasil injured her son to the point where he was so damaged that he took his own life and blaming Gardasil for his suffering and death.
Their behavior, their exploitation of Colton and his family, is beyond despicable.’
I left a comment about unnaturally high antibody titres induced by HPV vaccination on the Skeptical Raptor blog article “Gardasil killed Colton Berrett? The evidence does not support this claim”: https://www.skepticalraptor.com/skepticalraptorblog.php/gardasil-killed-colton-berrett-evidence-no/
My comment has disappeared from public view. On my Disqus record the comment is marked as “Detected as spam”. Was my comment reported as spam? This appears to be a common tactic used on public forums on vaccination articles to censor public questioning of vaccination policy and practice.
I’ve also left comments on Orac’s/David Gorski’s Respectful Insolence article: “Did Gardasil kill Colton Berrett? The answer is almost certainly no”: https://respectfulinsolence.com/2018/01/17/did-gardasil-kill-colton-berrett/
The ‘usual suspects’ are emerging to attack me and my comments. There’s no indication they have the expertise to respond to the serious matters I have raised.
It really is very difficult for citizens to obtain transparency and accountability for vaccination policy and practice – we’re treated with disdain by ‘the authorities’, and often stifled and even censored on public media forums.
“then government might listen and take the urgent and necessary action needed to tackle this chemical holocaust ! “
One in three people in a Valleys town are on anti-depressants, it has been claimed.
The statistics relate to Mountain Ash in Rhondda Cynon Taf (RCT) and were revealed by Cynon Valley Assembly Member Vikki Howells , who said it was a “staggering figure”.
FURY AT LAW KO
Mum of Glasgow teenage suicide victim blasts Nats for refusing to curb how pills are prescribed to kids
Annette McKenzie – whose daughter Britney Mazzoncini, 16, died of an overdose – wanted a law ensuring parents had to consent to anti-depressants being given to under-18s by GPs
Number of patients harmed by prescription drug withdrawal ‘too difficult to say’, says Scottish Government psychiatrist
Asked by MSP Rona Mackay whether there were any statistics on the number of people suffering withdrawal effects from prescription drugs, Dr Mitchell, the Scottish Government’s Principal Medical Officer for Mental Health, said there were none.
Academic Stalking/Let Them Eat Prozac
Academics should be able to find a better way to solve their problems than this.
September 8, 2015 | 3:14 AM
Ah, but then there are Healy’s undeclared conflicts of interest in promoting ineffective and often dangerous reboxetine?
Who can you trust?
Katie Tierney Higgins RN
September 8, 2015 | 8:29 AM
And then there’s this from David Healy’s blog:
“I was referred to GMC some 8 years ago. Then the referral came from David Nutt and Guy Goodwin, professors of psychiatry in Bristol and Oxford, who as the basis of the complaint used an article by James Coyne, a psychologist in Philadelphia, raising concerns about Healy.
Coyne had become or perhaps saw himself as an unofficial spokesperson for the University of Toronto in the Healy Affair in 2001 – a scandal precipitated by the possibly self-styled Boss of Bosses, Charlie Nemeroff leaning on the University to get rid of Healy.
JC spent years afterwards ranting and raving to anyone who would listen about Healy’s conflicts of interest, lack of academic heft, and general sliminess. But he didn’t turn up to debates that were scheduled and wouldn’t engage on the issues.”
Who can you believe?
September 9, 2015 | 9:43 PM
Katie Tierney Higgins RN >>>>> Well spoken, accountability must become standard, from medicine to politics. My naive idea was that this was allready in Place.
Medicine and Healthcare in America is business, but I naively thought it wasn’t here in Europe.
And don’t bother about that Coyne, he has an obvious “flip-side” towards DH.
It just looks strange when a person tries to find faults in a better person.
No-one is flawless, but if you make an effort to improve yourself and things around you, you get the “high ground”. DH has a mountain to stand on.
September 12, 2015 | 2:23 PM
On the issue of David Healy and reboxetine … what I’ve seen of his record has made me more inclined to trust him not less.
His basic theory was that it might work better than an SSRI for people with symptoms and personality traits of a certain type. In other words, a minority of people complaining of depression. That was not the message the industry wanted to hear. They wanted a Blockbuster Story: Reboxetine for everyone, Reboxetine in the water! Healy’s theory may have been closer to the truth but it wasn’t profitable enough.
He was also just as interested in questioning the Gospel of Serotonin as in promoting a non-serotonin-stimulating drug. Another line of research not likely to thrill the sponsors. His study of 20 normal volunteers on Zoloft and reboxetine was aimed at testing his “different strokes for different folks” theory. He wasn’t trying to study drug-induced suicidal impulses, which he thought were real but very rare. Both he and his university would have been scared to death to try any such thing. But when 2 of 20 volunteers became suicidal on Zoloft, he realized that was the most important result — not his theory.
Actually, the theory came out looking pretty damn good. Everyone in the study had rather liked one drug and disliked the other, pretty much as he thought. In fact, there were more “Zoloft fans” than “Reboxetine fans.” Healy never tried to cover that up, either.
Awfully weird behavior for a supposed “hired gun for Reboxetine” as Coyle would have us see him …
I had never heard of Dr. Coyne. His remarks appear to have been intemperate, and none of the outlets that covered the story featured his views. This led him to write letters, the first of which was published in the University of Toronto Bulletin, in which he indicated the only odd feature of what has come to be known as the Healy affair was that the university had seen fit to consider hiring Healy in the first instance, as he had little research to his name and his healthy volunteer study was poor from a methodological point of view and likely unethical. Dr. Coyne sent a number of comparable contributions to locations, including Web sites, where they could be posted without oversight.
Who was James Coyne?
Another ‘doctor’ who pontificates on HPV vaccination is Dr Heidi Larson, Director of the Vaccine Confidence Project.
Perhaps she can answer my query about the unnaturally high antibody titres induced by HPV vaccination?
See my recent email to her below:
Dr Larson, in your article about HPV vaccination published in Nature in December 2015, you say “The world must accept that the HPV vaccine is safe”: https://www.nature.com/news/the-world-must-accept-that-the-hpv-vaccine-is-safe-1.18918#/
You discount concerns about the safety of the HPV vaccines that are emerging from around the world, e.g. Denmark, Japan and India.
You unambiguously insist “that the HPV vaccine is safe”. However, as far as I’m aware, there is as yet no independent and objective systematic review of HPV vaccination safety and effectiveness, i.e. untainted by industry bias or other vested interests.
I suggest the safety and effectiveness of the HPV vaccine products Cervarix and Gardasil is being 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. This will require independent and objective observation, which I suggest is not evident at the current time.
Dr Larson, on your article in Nature you failed to disclose your competing interests. I suggest you should have disclosed that the Vaccine Confidence Project is funded by the Bill & 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 Reference to funding of the Vaccine Confidence Project by the World Health Organisation, and partnerships with a range of vaccine promoting organisations, should also have been disclosed.
I suggest you should have also disclosed that the Vaccine Confidence Project has associations with industry. According to The State of Vaccine Confidence 2015 report, Professor Sir Roy Anderson is on The Vaccine Confidence Project International Advisory Board. Professor Sir Roy Anderson is also an ‘Independent Non-executive Director’ of GSK, i.e. GlaxoSmithKline, a fact which is not disclosed in The State of Vaccine Confidence 2015 report.
Dr Larson, your bio notes your research “focuses on the analysis of social and political factors that can affect uptake of health interventions and influence policies”. Your particular interest is “risk and rumour management from clinical trials to delivery – and building public trust”.
It seems that your area could be more succinctly described as vaccine promotion.
What specific expertise do you have in regards to the novel, globally fast-tracked aluminium-adjuvanted HPV vaccine products to back your enthusiastic promotion of these products?
Are you qualified to answer questions about the unnaturally high antibody titres induced by HPV vaccination, i.e. 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 titres that are 80- to 100- fold higher than those observed following natural infection. Furthermore, after 18 months, mean vaccine-induced antibody titers remain 10- to 16-fold higher than those recorded with natural infection, and these levels appear to be preserved over time, suggesting that immunization may provide long-term protection against infection…” (See page 29.)
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 Larson, courtesy of the obliging Nature journal and funding from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, I would appreciate your response on this matter.
PS: I’m not an ‘expert in HPV vaccination’. I’m a citizen asking questions about this novel medical intervention that has been fast-tracked around the world and aggressively pushed upon the international community, with the over-enthusiastic support of people like you.
1. HPV vaccine effect: Is the glass half full or half empty? The Lancet. Vol. 377. June 18, 2011.
2. Professor Sir Roy Anderson. Independent Non-Executive Director, GSK – GlaxoSmithKline: https://www.gsk.com/en-gb/about-us/board-of-directors/professor-sir-roy-anderson/
3. Dr Heidi Larson. MA PhD. London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine: https://www.lshtm.ac.uk/aboutus/people/larson.heidi
4. 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.
(Amended to included bracketed no. 3 in the text to indicate reference.)