Monday, February 14, 2011

You can’t hide in the herd

Science-Based Medicine: You can’t hide in the herd

This is a really good article written by Dr. Joseph Albeitz which melds nicely with our last post on the concept of herd immunity.  Embedded within the article are links to two studies which show "that the act of refusing to vaccinate against pertussis (whooping cough) placed children at a 23 times greater risk of contracting pertussis."

The studies themselves can be found at links below.  Oh look - this first one is an actual published study with full sources and even a statement which says the seven authors (actual doctors mind you) have no financial relationships relevant to the article to disclose... thus no bias.  Also note that this study included hundreds upon hundreds of patients to ensure a broad range was included as opposed to something Wakefield might try to put together with a total of 12 patients (hand-picked and often fraudulently selected).

Parental Refusal of Pertussis Vaccination Is Associated With an Increased Risk of Pertussis Infection in Children

But wait... there's more.  Here is another published study which includes a full decade of data and hundreds of patients included.  If we were to take one sentence to sum this one up it would be the following: "Children of parents who refused varicella immunizations were at a greatly increased risk of varicella infection requiring medical care". 

Parental refusal of varicella vaccination and the associated risk of varicella infection in children.

Darn that science... it just keeps coming up with more facts that interfere and conflict with the antivaxer viewpoint.  We have real science and real studies proving the effectiveness of vaccines (and the proven risks to those who choose not to vaccinate), but vaccine deniers like Mr. Lowell Hubbs refuse to accept it.  Instead, they would rather confuse people by linking them over to some unpublished and non peer-reviewed opinion piece from a personal blog or send them over to the conspiracy theorist website 

As always, facts and science cannot be disputed nor debated.


  1. No matter how many studies are published showing the effectiveness of vaccines (and there are countless in PubMed alone), people like Lowell Hubbs will continue to deny the facts.

    I mean come on the guy seems to deny the Apollo moon landings so clearly he isn't exactly up to speed on what is fact and what is fiction.

  2. That is true - Mr. Hubbs does continue to deny the effectiveness of vaccines on a regular basis and seems to conveniently ignore the studies showing their effectiveness.

    Well to be fair I'm not sure "ignore" is the fair term, but he won't accept them as viable because they might be affiliated with the WHO, AMA, CDC, FDA, or some other medical or governmental body he feels is in on some great conspiracy.

    Sort of begs the question on why he will believe a non-peer reviewed paper which includes findings which have NEVER been reproduced nor replicated, but he won't accept actual published science, but logic isn't exactly a trait many antivaxers share, so we have come to expect no less from Mr. Hubbs.

  3. Sorry Mr. Hubbs - I'm not posting your laundry list of links you claim to be "fully referenced" because they aren't actual studies. Not to mention that you attempted to link to a few television news reports, the known anti-vaccine site "ageofautism", a blog on CNN and even to Mercola.

    Do you even know what a reputable source is or what real published science looks like? I mean you are still trying to convince people that the Wakefield study wasn't a fraud which tells us how disconnected from reality you really are.

    You can publish all the spam you want on your own website or blog or for all I care, but this isn't your personal dumping ground for unsubstantiated opinion.

  4. Again, we have to remember, this "messenger' is uneducated!

    Regardless if he has sites to reference, the person referencing them has no clue of their credibility!

    That is the difference with Lowell. When he reads something, he can't rely on any personal experience or knowledge to deem whether or not he believes it to be true. When I read something, I use my biology degree which included immunology classes, countless hours in the lab, and personal experience working in a science field when reading and analyzing something. My training and schooling involved were centered around the scientific process, logic, and rational deduction. What does Lowell have to draw on besides the internet?

    If he truly wants to be credible, why would he not go to school and take some classes? Why would he not want to work in a lab and see first-hand the scientific process? Why would he not want to publish papers and immerse himself in academia and the review and scrutiny of peers?

    I find it quite arrogant that someone like Lowell feels he can speak eloquently to anything that he has only experienced through one thing...the internet.

    When his credibility is questioned, his instant fall back is the "I'm just the messenger" rhetoric. If he truly is a messenger, why does he comment? I thought messengers delivered messages. Messengers don't comment or analyze, they don't attack or refute, nor do they opine. Sadly, Lowell does not realize the difference.

    The one thing I can't figure out though...if ignorance is bliss...why would Lowell need Paxil?

  5. So Lowell Hubbs seems to share a trait with Jenny McCarthy. They both have learned everything they know about vaccines from Google University.

    That doesn't exactly instill confidence in the information if he doesn't have any background or experience to help him separate fact from fiction or myth from reality. Even doctors who have spent decades in their fields may not know everything, so I have a hard time believing someone who just reads hand-picked websites and who doesn't have any scientific background or education to understand what it is that he is reading can consider himself a messenger.

  6. To chicken shit to post that weren't you? The information and analysis came from your own posted study. It was attached to your own posted study. I could have evaluated that study on pertussis vaccines myself and proven it again just another epidemiological study fraud. You know what though, I didn't need to, it was already done for me. You can not respond to it, and you know it; just like all the other analysis of the 14 mainstream studies you could not respond to nor refute. It makes your statements and claims dead in the water, and you know it.

    And just once again, it all proves you are a liar, a deceiver, and that you refuse to face the real facts. Nothing is enough. Try and be a real man, and have the guts to post it. You recieved two message posts yesterday, and you know it.

  7. I've told you before Mr. Hubbs, this isn't your blog so you don't get to decide what is posted and what is considered spam. I'm not about to post your endless lists of conspiracy theory websites and blogs none of which contain any published science.

    If you don't like it, feel free to post your nonsense elsewhere and don't bother to come back. You won't be missed.

    By the way, this is the last time I'm going to post your insults or profanity. If you aren't capable of posting a comment without having to include either of the two, it suggests to me you don't have any science or facts that can stand on their own merits. Final warning.

  8. From Lowell's comment above:

    "I could have evaluated that study on pertussis vaccines myself and proven it again just another epidemiological study fraud."

    So you studied it yourself Lowell? is fraudulent because of what you have learned on the internet? I don't think so chief. Without credibility, your opinion is irrelevant and completely meaningless.

    Also...your claim is quite boisterous for someone who "is just a messenger."

  9. It is pretty safe to say Mr. Hubbs isn't qualified to "evaluate" anything much less a scientific study. His opinions are merely those he has obtained from reading conspiracy theorist websites and biased anti-vaccine blogs, but they are never based in science.

    Leave science up to the scientists. Students from the University of Google and politicians don't determine fact, so when it comes to matters of science such as vaccines, climate change, or gravity it really isn't a subject that can warrant debate. Facts are facts and they cannot be argued away no matter how hard some ignorant convict tries.

  10. This is the best in condensed form written arguement against vaccines I have ever read. Vaccine philosophical exemptions: A moral and ethical imperative. This document as well shows you clear proof as to why there is NO real science behind the term "herd immunity". Herd Immunity is a MYTH! Go ahead and provide some refute to the article, and again regardless of if you admit it, it is fully referenced.

    Vaccine philosophical exemptions: A moral and ethical imperative
    Friday, February 18, 2011 by: Alan Phillips, J.D.

    Learn more:

  11. I have no doubt that you consider that article "the best" Mr. Hubbs, because you are incapable of rational thought and common sense.

    Look for a blog post about your article... there simply is far too many flaws in order to leave here in the comments, so I'm devoting an entire post to this nonsense.


All comments are moderated and comments from obvious sockpuppet accounts as well as spam accounts that do not add anything of value to the discussion will not be published.