Eating Healthy Fats During Pregnancy May Reduce Baby's Autism Risk

A new study indicates that women who consumed high levels of certain types of omega 6 fatty acids during pregnancy may reduce their risk of having a child with autism by 34% when compared to women who consumed low levels of the same fatty acids.

Even more shocking was the same study  found that women who consumed very low levels omega 3s were 53% more likely to have an autistic child than women who consumed average amounts of these same fatty acids.

Of course as the article points out, more research is required and this is not meant to prove or indicate a cause and effect link.  This is not what we would call a smoking gun, nor is it suggesting they have found a root cause for autism.  What this does is offer us another piece of evidence - another piece of the puzzle - to help explain the types of risk factors that may be associated with autism in children.

Whether it be research that helps identify genetic markers associated with autism, research that suggests the age of the father may contribute to genetic mutations which increase the risk of autism, or research that indicates a link between obesity in mothers and an increased risk of autism one thing is clear - and that is we continue to see numerous studies which identify various risk factors that may contribute to autism, and the collective body of evidence suggests autism is not caused by any one factor, but perhaps a variety of difference risk factors which all culminate in a child suffering from autism.

Yet the odd thing about these studies is that even after decades of research and dozens upon dozens of published, independent studies... we still haven't seen a single study which has been able to show vaccines themselves are a risk factor for a child becoming autistic.  Not a single study that has linked vaccines to autism.  Not a single study that has shown even so much as a casual link.

Yet antivaccinationists continue to purposefully distort fact and confuse the public by suggesting that not only do vaccines cause autism, but that there is a veritable mountain of evidence to support this claim.  The only problem is - they aren't being honest, and they will even go so far as to continue to cite Andrew Wakefield as an expert on the subject even though he has been fully discredited, had his original 'study' retracted, was stripped of his medical license due to fraud, and is (for all intents and purposes) the laughing stock of the medical community.

So perhaps the question is... when with antivaxxers start allowing the evidence to lead them to the answers they seek rather than ignoring the endless stream of science which continues to offer insight as to the root causes of autism?

Irony at Work: Andrew Wakefield and Academic Integrity

A friend pointed me to a link showing the schedule of events for the AutismOne conference, and aside from the normal players like Jenny McCarthy, Dr. Eisenstein, and the father-son Geier duo, I couldn't help but notice that they have actually asked Andrew Wakefield to speak.

The best part?  The topic of his speech is "Defending Academic Integrity and Research".

Here is a summary of his little chat:

"Doctors and scientists working in the public interest and specifically for the wellbeing of their patients – particularly those involved in researching vaccine safety – are coming under attack as never before. This talk emphasizes the reasons why we should value the individual over the concept of a "herd," the importance of maintaining academic integrity, and the progress that has been made despite systematic oppression of scientific and medical enquiry."

That's rich.  A guy who was stripped of his medical license due to fraud, a man who failed to disclose financial conflicts of interest, and a man who was found to have manipulated and falsified data within a published study (which was subsequently retracted) is speaking about academic integrity.  

Let's keep in mind Wakefield is the same person who (among many other things) was found guilty of four counts of dishonesty and 12 counts involving the abuse of developmentally challenged children.  The sheer number of proven charges would boggle the mind... yet this is the type of person AutismOne invites to speak about academic integrity?

Sort of makes you wonder if they have Bernie Madoff scheduled to speak about Economic Ethics.

Move the Goalposts... It's Time to Talk Aluminum

Spend more than five minutes on an anti-vaccination website and you will soon realize that most antivaxxers aren't exactly fans of aluminum.  No we aren't talking about aluminum cans or cookware, but rather we are talking about aluminum in a salt form which is commonly used in vaccines to act as an adjuvant.  In simple terms, the aluminum increases the effectiveness of a vaccine due to how it triggers a reaction within the immune system.

Aluminum has been used within vaccines for over 80 years, so you might ask yourself why are antivaxxers suddenly so focused upon aluminum when it isn't exactly a new ingredient?

Well to answer that, you first need to realize where we have been.  Antivaxxers have previously attempted to single out other ingredients such as thimerosal as they blamed it for various conditions up to and including autism in children.  They used scare tactics to associate thimerosal with mercury poisoning due to a misunderstanding of the differences between ethylmercury and methylmercury.

However, even prior to these cries of mercury poisoning from the antivaxxer community, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) was already in the process of reviewing the use of thimerosal in vaccines.  Under the FDA Modernization Act (FDAMA) of 1997, the FDA carried out a comprehensive review of the use of thimerosal in vaccines.  The review found no evidence of harm from the use of thimerosal other than local hypersensitivity reactions near the injection site.

In the early 2000's, the Immunization Safety Review Committee of the Institute of Medicine (IOM) performed a review of all available research including studies in the United States, the United Kingdom, Sweden, and Denmark and they specifically focused upon the hypothesis that thimerosal was a contributing factor to childhood diseases such as autism.  The committee concluded that the available data and studies rejected the casual relationship between thimerosal (or vaccines containing thimerosal) and autism.

This is probably a good time to mention the fact that the IOM is part of the National Academy of Sciences and is a non-governmental institution. That may not seem particularly relevant, but since antivaxxers have a severe distrust for the federal government or any three letter agency (CDC, FDA, EPA et al), it should be clarified that the IOM is an independent organization and therefore would not share the same perceived bias(es) as a government agency.

Even though the IOM rejected the relationship between thimerosal and autism the FDA, as a preventative measure which had begun years earlier, was already in the process of removing thimerosal from vaccines.  As of 2001 thimerosal was removed from all childhood vaccines recommended for children six years of age or younger (keep in mind autism generally presents itself between ages two and four), and the only exception to this were some versions of the inactivated flu vaccine (although thimerosal-free versions are available).  In addition to this, all new non-influenza vaccines licensed since 1999 contain no thimerosal.

So what was the end result of removing thimerosal from childhood vaccines? Did we see a significant drop in the rates of autism? Nope. In fact, since 2001 the rates have actually gone up, and thus the theory that thimerosal was responsible for the "autism epidemic" was quite obviously no longer popular to rally behind. Children who had never received even trace amounts of thimerosal were still being diagnosed with autism and therefore antivaxxers realized they could no longer place blame upon thimerosal. It soon became obvious it was time to try something new.

Move the goalposts - we have another new theory!

When antivaxxers realized that pinning their hopes upon thimerosal might not exactly pan out, they shifted gears a bit and started focusing on one specific vaccine (the MMR vaccine) which they claimed was directly responsible for autism in children.  It was around this time that they started professing that Andrew Wakefield was a genius and seemed to have the secret to unlocking the root cause of autism due to a study he published in 1998 which attempted to link the MMR vaccine with autism.

Of course after Wakefield was discredited and stripped of his medical license, and after his "study" was retracted, and after he was found guilty of fraud and manipulation of data.... well he didn't exactly seem like the great savior afterall and he soon found himself the laughing stock of the scientific community.  It was around this time that many antivaxxers decided to back-peddle a bit and distance themselves from Wakefield (although in some extreme antivaxxer circles, Wakefield continues to be considered a favorite son).

So at that point the antivaxxers decided that instead of focusing on the MMR vaccine specifically, they should simply talk about vaccines or vaccine ingredients in more general terms because scaring people by talking about mercury poisoning or "toxicity" is generally more effective than trying to convince people that a discredited doctor was right all along.

You guessed it - time to pick up those goal posts and slide them back just a bit further!

A few years ago around the time many antivaxxers decided to stop talking about thimerosal or the MMR vaccine, they decided to start talking about other vaccine ingredients such as formaldehyde.  Why the focus on formaldehyde?  Well it surely had nothing to do with science, but rather it was about perception.  It seems most people associate formaldehyde with high school Biology class where a fetal pig or a frog was stored in it prior to dissection.  They recall the strong odor and the fact there were warning labels which stated severe over-exposure to the liquid could result in death.  They also associate formaldehyde with embalming fluid and dead bodies... so surely this isn't something that should be in a vaccine should it?

Well the truth is there is very, very little formaldehyde in vaccines, and it just so happens that we already have far greater quantities of formaldehyde in our bodies at any given point than we ever receive from any vaccine.  It turns out we have around about 2.5 ug of formaldehyde per ml of blood.

Per the Children's Hospital of Philadelphia's (CHOP) Vaccine Education Center: "Assuming an average weight of a 2-month-old of 5 kg and an average blood volume of 85 ml per kg, the total quantity of formaldehyde found in an infant's circulation would be about 1.1 mg, a value at least five-fold greater than that to which an infant would be exposed in vaccines".

In fact, we as humans actually NEED formaldehyde to survive since it is required for the synthesis of DNA and amino acids, thus suggesting the amount in vaccines would somehow be harmful was at best ignorant, and most likely simply dishonest.  Thus after antivaxxers realized the amount of formaldehyde found in vaccines was insignificant, they actually went so far as to suggest there is a difference between "natural" formaldehyde, and "synthetic" formaldehyde... once again showing that antivaxxers seem to ignore even the most basic tenets of chemistry.

The formaldehyde argument didn't seem to gain much traction however - most likely since anyone who has ever taken a basic chemistry course understands what formaldehyde really is - so the antivaxxers soon decided it was time for something new.

Get the shovel out... those goalposts need to be moved yet again!

This brings us to present day - when many antivaxxers have decided the one ingredient within vaccines which is REALLY, REALLY harmful (for reals this time), and the one ingredient that has the potential to cause the most damage is none other than aluminum.  Per the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), "[a]luminum salts, such as aluminum hydroxide, aluminum phosphate, and aluminum potassium sulfate have been used in vaccines for more than 70 years" so you might think the antivaxxers are a bit late to the game... but hey - better late that never right?

I suppose to the layman, telling them you are going to inject them with aluminum sounds about as appealing as telling them you are going to inject them with mercury.  Saying these things scares people... and isn't that the point?  We can't expect people to realize that the aluminum is the most common metal on the entire planet can we?  Can we expect them to know that there is a vast difference between a chemical compound containing aluminum and an actual piece of aluminum that may be used to form a soda can?

The truth is, aluminum is actually all around us, and even in us.  Aluminum is found in our water, it is found in our the soil, it is found in the air, it is commonly used in antacids, aspirin, and yes it is even found in our food including fresh fruits, vegetables, and meat.

So what is an antivaxxer to do when they soon realize that aluminum is all around us? What can they do when they find out the average human contains between 50 and 150 mg of aluminum at any given time?  What do they do when the find out the average daily intake of aluminum may range from 10-110 mg?   Well... they simply decide to focus on the amount of aluminum in vaccines rather than the amount of aluminum anywhere else in our body or our environment. Seems legit.

The problem is, vaccines really don't contain very much aluminum.  A typical vaccine contains no more 0.85 mg of aluminum per dose.  To put this in perspective, aluminum is also found in soy-based infant formula (0.46–0.93 mg/L) and milk-based infant formula (0.058–0.15 mg/L) which means an infant will consume more aluminum in a few days of drinking formula than it would receive from a typical vaccine.

Per CHOP, "During the first 6 months of life, infants could receive about 4 milligrams of aluminum from vaccines. That’s not very much: a milligram is one-thousandth of a gram and a gram is the weight of one-fifth of a teaspoon of water. During the same period, babies will also receive about 10 milligrams of aluminum in breast milk, about 40 milligrams in infant formula, or about 120 milligrams in soy-based formula.

Even more shocking, a common over the counter antacid has around 300-600 mg of aluminum hydroxide (approximately 104–208 mg of aluminum) per tablet, capsule, or 5 milliliter (mL) liquid dose! That means if you take a single tablet of a commonly available antacid, you are consuming as much as 245 times more aluminum than you would get out of a typical vaccine.

So why aren't antivaxxers out there protesting against antacids?  If you consider how much aluminum a typical adult human might consume in a 24 hour period as a result of some heartburn, it would seem to be the equivalent of hundreds and hundreds of vaccinations, yet antivaxxers fail to even mention it.  Why are these same antivaxxers not signing petitions to have soy-based infant formula removed from store shelves when it exposes infants to 30 times as much aluminum as vaccines within the child's first six months of life?  Could it be the antivaxxers are just slightly biased due to all of their previously failed attempts at pinning the root cause of autism on the vaccine industry?

The truth is, even if someone does ingest 2000 mg of aluminum in a single day, it will quickly leave their body via their feces and urine, which results in over half being flushed out of the body within 24 hours and over 70% of the aluminum being flushed out of the body within five days.  There have been some reports of long term complications surrounding high levels of aluminum exposure which I am certain many antivaxxers have latched on to, but unfortunately for them there have been long term complications from exposure to every element and chemical compound known to man.  As it turns out, the number one cause of drowning in humans is a result of too much exposure to H₂O (commonly called "water"), yet I don't hear many people asking for the government to investigate Evian or Aquafina to see if they are killing people.  Go figure.

Sort of makes you wonder where the goalpost will move next doesn't it?

CNN: Don't Fall at the Finish Line in the Race to Eradicate Polio

I came across an interesting opinion piece published on the CNN website the other day discussing polio vaccination programs.  Much of the data aligns with what we have seen from the Global Polio Eradication Initiative and elsewhere, but it is never a bad idea to get a reminder of what we are up against.

"In less than a quarter century, the number of children paralyzed by polio has dropped spectacularly — from 350,000 cases annually to just 650 last year. In 1988, there were 125 countries where polio was endemic. Today, there are just three - Nigeria, Pakistan and Afghanistan."

Lowell Hubbs would have us believe this is all a coincidence and that the containment of polio in over 120 nations had nothing to do with vaccines.  Not only is that opinion absurd, but it makes you wonder what other explanation he can offer which would make sense.  In a period of just over 20 years, we have been able to control, reduce, and in some cases totally eliminate polio from over 120 nations.  We haven't made significant changes in anything else, but when scientists and doctors enter an area and start vaccination the population.... the rate of polio drops like a stone to the point where it is eventually and entirely eliminated in the younger (vaccinated) population.

I actually wonder if Mr. Hubbs and his anti-vaccination friends have any understanding of disease whatsoever.  Do they honestly feel diseases like polio just disappear without any outside factors?  Do they understand what it means for a disease to be endemic in the first place?  Do they have any explanation for why vaccinated populations no longer have to fear contracting polio and why with widespread vaccination programs in a matter of years the spread of diseases such as polio can all but be eliminated?

You will often hear anti-vaxxers like Mr. Hubbs claims vaccinations don't work or that they cause more harm that good.  Well in this one example alone there are over 349,000 people a year who won't need to suffer from the effects of polio... all due to the polio vaccine.  Does that seem like something causing more harm than good?

The next argument anti-vaxxers like to make is that vaccinations exist only to increase profits of the pharmaceutical companies who manufacture the vaccines.  Apparently the scientists and doctors and researchers who work on these vaccines as well as the healthcare workers who are responsible for distributing and administering the vaccines are all involved in some massive conspiracy to make money... and these thousands upon thousands upon thousands of individuals are all just looking to make a quick buck so they remain quiet.

Really?  There comes a point where I have to assume even a conspiracy theorist such as Mr. Hubbs looks at his own theories and says they are simply too hard to believe, but I won't claim to be an expert on those who appear to be suffering from psychological disorders.

"Last week, health ministers representing nearly 200 countries underscored their strong belief in the effectiveness of vaccines and their importance of protecting all the world’s children by passing two resolutions. One declared polio eradication a worldwide health emergency. The other endorsed a global plan to ensure that all children — not just those in wealthy countries — have access to vaccines that prevent diseases."

I know of no conspiracy theory on the planet which has successfully argued the involvement of hundreds of people from hundreds of different nations.  Are we really to believe people like Mr. Hubbs who claim the polio vaccine simply doesn't work, or should we believe the experts and the data which proves otherwise?

The choice is clear - and it seems nearly 200 health ministers have come to the same conclusion.

Read the full CNN article here:  Opinion: Don't fall at the finish line in the race to eradicate polio

Destroying the "MMR Vaccine Causes Autism" Myth

In 1998, a unethical doctor named Andrew Wakefield published a study which suggested the MMR vaccine may be responsible for autism.  This claim came from his observations of a whopping 12 children.  Not 12,000, not 1,200, not even 120... but 12 children. 

Wakefield didn't come right out and claim the MMR vaccine was entirely responsible for autism, nor did he claim the vaccine was the only thing responsible, but he instilled enough fear about the vaccine in parents that vaccination rates plummeted as a direct result.  In parts of the UK, at one point only 60% of the children had received both doses of the MMR vaccine which lead to outbreaks of the measles to the point of it becoming an epidemic.  Children were hospitalized as a result, and there were even some deaths.

Granted Wakefield's "study" was originally published in a reputable medical journal (the Lancet) so people assumed it was at least factual.  With time however, people soon discovered that Wakefield acted unethically when he performed his research.  He manipulated and fabricated patient records.  He paid children to give him blood samples.  He left out key information that would have countered his claims, and he failed to mention that he had collected hundreds of thousands of dollars from trial lawyers for testifying against vaccine manufacturers (a blatant conflict of interest that he never disclosed).

As Brian Deer from the UK's The Sunday Times reported:

However, our investigation, confirmed by evidence presented to the General Medical Council (GMC), reveals that: In most of the 12 cases, the children’s ailments as described in The Lancet were different from their hospital and GP records. Although the research paper claimed that problems came on within days of the jab, in only one case did medical records suggest this was true, and in many of the cases medical concerns had been raised before the children were vaccinated. Hospital pathologists, looking for inflammatory bowel disease, reported in the majority of cases that the gut was normal. This was then reviewed and the Lancet paper showed them as abnormal.

Eventually Wakefield's dishonesty and unethical behavior did in fact catch up with him, and ten of the original thirteen co-authors of the original study formally retracted their names from it.  Eventually the General Medical Council in the U.K. recommended that his license to practice medicine be revoked, which it subsequently was.  His original study was retracted from the very journal that had originally published it, he was forced out of the organization he was working for here in the US, and his follow-up study where he attempted to blame autism in animals on vaccines was also withdrawn.

However, even after all of this to some degree the damage has been done.  In some areas vaccine rates still not not risen to the levels they were prior to Wakefield's fraud being published, and of course we have seen a number of celebrities and reporters bring this issue to the surface which only serves to spread fear to parents who are ignorant of the facts and/or don't have time to learn the full story.  Although vaccination rates are once again on the rise, we continue to see the "MMR vaccine causes autism" myth repeated from time to time just as we continue to hear from Wakefield sympathizers (like Mr. Hubbs) who claim the entire ordeal was some massive conspiracy to unfairly target a man who dared challenge 'the medical system'.

Interestingly enough, I stumbled across a study published in The Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry entitled "No effect of MMR withdrawal on the incidence of autism: a total population study".  This study (an actual peer-reviewed study published in a reputable journal mind you) examined the incidence of autism spectrum disorders (ASD) in Japanese children who were born between 1988 and 1996 to determine if the incidence of ASD would rise after the MMR vaccine was no longer being administered (Japan stopped using the MMR vaccine in 1992).

The end result of the study was that although usage of the MMR vaccine had been falling for several years (and eventually was no longer administered) the incidence of ASD continued to rise.  The incidence of ASD ranged from 47.6 to 85.9 cases per 10,000 children before the vaccine was withdrawn to 96.7 to 161.3 per 10,000 after it was withdrawn. A very similar pattern was witnessed for children diagnosed as having ASD with episodes of definite regression.  This is the form of ASD where the child appears to develop normally up to a specific age and then appears to regress (which is the very same form of ASD that Wakefield attempted to blame upon the MMR vaccine).

In needs to be stated that the authors of this study did not suggest the rise in the incidence of ASD was in any way related to the removal of the MMR vaccine and that was not the purpose of the study.  However, the results of the study did openly state that countries that withdraw the MMR vaccine cannot be expected to witness a reduction in the incidence of ASD as so many antivaxxers would like to believe.

Therefore, if autism isn't caused by the MMR vaccine (and the antivaxxers know the science has discredited that idea) and if autism isn't caused by thimerosal (as the removal of thimerosal from childhood vaccines has not resulted in any decrease in the incidence of ASD) what are we left to believe?  The antivaxxers such as Mr. Hubbs continue to see their theories debunked by sound science, so instead of acknowledging the science or admitting that their conclusions may have actually been wrong, they simply retreat and pretend that nothing ever happened.  They will then come out with yet another theory as they try to move the goalposts without anyone noticing. 

One thing is for sure... momentum is not on the side of the antivaxxers, and with so much science stacking up against them they have done the only thing possible - they have started speaking in such incredibly general terms that it makes it much more difficult to challenge them (albeit much more difficult for them to be taken seriously as well).  In the past they had focused upon the MMR vaccine or upon thimerosal or upon aluminum... but when science shows none of those have any statistical weight upon the incidence of ASD, they have now shifted to making unsubstantiated claims about various unnamed "toxins" in vaccines or in the body, and they are now attempting to claim that ASD isn't caused by a specific vaccine alone or even by a number of vaccines, but merely that it is 'triggered' by the sheer volume of vaccines given to children.
 
In 2012 and beyond we can expect to see a new round of antivaxxer hypocrisy as they develop new and improved "detoxification" techniques and products that will claim to improve health and magically cure autism or other conditions caused by these mystery toxins, yet don't expect to see any peer-reviewed science supporting these claims as it won't be available.  The only question that remains is... how much longer will the scientifically ignorant wing of the public continue to trust a group which changes their point of focus more often than Harold Camping and his Rapture predictions?

Facts

"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence."

                                                -John Adams

The above quote may have been written in 1770, but it is as true today as it was then.  Facts are facts, and no matter how much data we throw at them, no matter how much analysis we examine, no matter how many years we spend on a subject... in the end the facts remain.  You cannot debate facts, you cannot change them, you cannot distort them (although many try).  The reality is, a fact is always a fact and it is only our understanding of those facts that changes with time.

This is why when Mr. Hubbs claims he has "facts" of vaccines causing autism, or that it is a "fact" that modern medicine is the third or fourth leading cause of death in the US, or that it is a "fact" that there are natural cancer cures that are being suppressed or hidden by "big pharma", it isn't that he is actually able to support these statements with evidence, it is merely that he misunderstands the term "fact".

Unfortunately for Mr. Hubbs, no matter how many times a person may claim to have "facts" and no matter how many times they brag about their knowledge, it doesn't actually change anything.  Claims are baseless without supporting evidence, and to date Mr. Hubbs, as well as the rest of the antivaxer community, has never been able to provide one single piece of evidence to support their theory that vaccines cause autism, or that vaccines are even a contributing factor for autism.

Obviously they have tried, but things just haven't worked out for them.  First they claimed autism was caused by thimerosal and they attempted to produce data to support that viewpoint.  However, in time their data was shown to be faulty, and once thimerosal was removed from vaccines and the rates of autism did not decrease... the antivaxers were left scurrying for another cause.  They didn't have the evidence necessary to prove their claims, thus the claims of "fact" were once again proven to have no merit.

Next they claimed it was due to the vaccine schedule itself.  Claims of "too many vaccines, too soon" were heard far and wide, yet when studies in other nations were conducted, we found the rates of autism to be merely identical including both nations that have similar vaccine schedules, or nations that have much lower rates of vaccinations.  Even within our own borders we discovered some areas of the nation suffer from higher rates of autism while others have much lower rates and yet these areas share the same vaccination rates and schedules.  So much for that theory.

So could the antivaxers provide any evidence to support their claims that autism was due to the number of vaccines or due to the schedule itself?  No... but that doesn't stop some of them (Mr. Hubbs included) from continuing to cite faulty information about there being no autism in the Amish community.  Even after research has shown that many of the Amish are in fact vaccinated and that many do in fact suffer from autism, the antivaxers refuse to face the real facts as they try to invent their own version of reality.  However many of them did admit that the Amish story wasn't nearly as solid as they had hoped, so they pinned their hopes on the research of yet another charlatan.

Antivaxers far and wide found their new hero in the form of Andrew Wakefield.  Wakefield claimed that the MMR vaccine itself was responsible for autism, and he produced research to support his claims.  The effect sent ripples throughout the medical community and soon you had many legitimate doctors and scientists wondering if there could be a valid connection here.  Parents stopped vaccinating their children and the rates of Measles and Rubella skyrocketed as a result.  There was only one problem... Wakefield was a fraud and his data was based upon faulty assumptions.  Not only that, but Wakefield fabricated data, engaged in unethical behavior, ignored the entire concept of a random sample, and falsified patient records to reach the conclusion he had already determined in his own mind.

Once the scientific community got wind of Wakefield's fraud, his 'research' was retracted, his fellow authors retracted their association with him, and he was stripped of his medical license as he and his followers began their cries of it all being a massive conspiracy by the government or big pharma or whatever else.  Unfortunately for the Wakefield crowd, none of them had any evidence to support any of their claims, and even Wakefield himself was never able to find a single person on the planet who was able to replicate his research (because fabricated research is rather difficult to replicate).  One again the facts get in the way of the anti-vaccination zealotry.

So where do the antivaxers go from here?  It seems the latest target is the rather vague term of 'toxins' even though they don't bother to identify what these mystery toxins are nor do they have any scientific evidence to show how they are harmful or the differences between those people who may have these toxins and those that do not.  Oddly enough, the same claim of mystery toxins has been used to sell herbal detox supplements, detoxification food pads, colon cleansing products, and numerous other snakeoil treatments for decades.  Of course there is never any legitimate science to support these wild claims, but since when has science mattered to an antivaxer or to someone who just wants to make a quick buck.

If we really wish to speak about facts, we need to be honest about the discussion.  Facts are not debatable (which explains why none of the silly antivaxer requests to 'debate' vaccines are ever taken seriously), but since there does seem to be so much misinformation and misunderstanding of facts, I doubt this conversation will go away anytime soon.

The fact is, there is no reputable peer-reviewed or replicable science showing vaccines cause or even contribute to autism.

The fact is, Andrew Wakefield has been proven to be a fraud.

The fact is, some Amish do in fact receive vaccinations.

The fact is, the MMR vaccine does not cause autism.

The fact is, thimerosal does not cause autism.

The fact is, real science is not open to debate, and the scientifically supportable facts don't change. 

In the end, the antivaxers continue to slide the goal posts in the hopes that one day they will be able to claim victory, but in reality they are no different than a preacher who continually claims to know when the world will end... yet is proven wrong time and time again.

John Adams was right - facts really are stubborn things.  They are also incredibly frustrating if you happen to be a vaccine conspiracy theorist with a severe misunderstanding of what a fact really is.

The Difference Between a Skeptic and a Denialist

When discussing controversial subject matter or facts which the average person cannot visually verify themselves, we often encounter a strong sense of skepticism from those who may not be as familiar with the subject matter.  This is why you have people who aren't quite sure if climate change is real and others who have doubts that there are other galaxies in the universe no matter how much science might be provided.

To some degree, a healthy dose of skepticism is a good thing, because it forces people to challenge their own beliefs.  In truth, most scientists and researches are skeptical by nature, and most would never accept anything at face value unless it has been proven, replicated, verified, and proven again.

A skeptic doesn't just develop a hypothesis and assume it is factual.  Rather the skeptic examines a problem, then determines the hypothesis.  They will then perform research to determine if this hypothesis is supported and if so... they will verify the original hypothesis.  If it turns out their research does not support the hypothesis, they will then need to re-examine the data to come up with a different result.  This is what makes science so exciting for real scientists... because they will often admit that the most amazing discoveries come when they least expect it.  Some discoveries are considered nothing more than accidents, and others are found to be the inverse of what was anticipated.

A skeptic doesn't formulate the answer and then find data to support the answer.  Instead, they perform the data and then formulate the answer based upon the findings.  In short a skeptic follows the facts where they lead no matter where that may be.  They don't establish the result before doing the research, and they keep an open mind.

This is a key aspect that identifies the difference between being a skeptic versus being a denialist, because a denialist does the inverse.  A denialist formulates the answer they want to hear, and then they collect information to support that answer while disregarding the information that conflicts with it.  Essentially a denialist determines what their viewpoint is, and then they back into this position by specifically calling out data that aligns with their answer which is often referred to as "confirmation bias".  Confirmation Bias not only involves hand-picking information to support a viewpoint, but also involves interpreting that data in a biased manner.

Thus when you have someone like Andrew Wakefield who (for some reason) gets the idea that the MMR vaccine causes Autism, he doesn't perform legitimate research to prove his hypothesis, but rather he steers his research towards what he believes is the inevitable outcome.  In Wakefield's case, that resulted in manipulation of data, falsification of patient records, numerous ethical violations as well as conflicts of interest etc, etc, but the point is prior to Wakefield being entirely discredited he was doing a bang-up job of convincing others that his hypothesis was supportable all due to his personal bias and lack of scientific integrity.

The same is true with people like Lowell Hubbs.  Mr. Hubbs believes that vaccines cause autism, and instead of being skeptical of vaccines and studying them or researching them to come up with an unbiased viewpoint, Mr. Hubbs instead takes the line of the denialist and simply ignores the mountains upon mountains of evidence which time and time again show there is no such link between vaccines and autism.  He will even go so far as to invent wild conspiracy theories to explain why all of the published studies are never able to find a link while making excuses for the lack of evidence to actually support his viewpoint.

What Mr. Hubbs accepts as truth is only the data he is able to find which supports his version of reality, and because there are no peer-reviewed studies linking vaccines and autism, and because there is no accepted science proving vaccines are harmful, Mr. Hubbs then has to resort to non-scientific sources such as personal blogs, articles hosted from biased websites, personal opinion, non peer-reviewed articles and the ever-present misunderstanding of the basic premise that correlation does not equal causation.

In effect, Mr. Hubbs relies upon illusory correlation as he tends to identify relationships within the data that do not really exist.  He will misinterpret data and display a severe misunderstanding of the data he tends to cite.  Aside from lacking the scientific knowledge to properly understand the complexities of the subject matter, Mr. Hubbs displays an extreme level of personal bias against mainstream medicine, vaccines, "big pharma", and anyone or anything associated with any of the above while displaying an equal amount of personal bias towards anyone or anything which finds fault with mainstream medicine or vaccines. 

In fact, Mr. Hubbs displays a complete disregard for the scientific process, and he has displayed a level of bias which is rarely seen outside of discussions involving climate change, Creationism, or President Obama's birth certificate.  If Mr. Hubbs was truly honest with himself, he would recognize his bias and acknowledge his lack of credibility on the subject matter.  He would also acknowledge he tends to only seek out those who consider themselves firmly entrenched in the "alternative medicine" camp and/or those who have a personal (but scientifically unsupportable) position that vaccines cause autism.

Granted to anyone who knows Mr. Hubbs knows he likely will never shift his viewpoints from those of a denialist to those of an independent thinker, nor will he ever be able to objectively study the information that exists on the subject.  In fact, Mr. Hubbs has taken the denialist role to the extreme and has become nothing more than a common conspiracy theorist who personally believes that doctors, researchers, and scientists are all involved in some massive cover-up to prevent legitimate cancer cures from being released to the public while somehow keeping the lid on all of the data which could somehow prove a link between vaccines and autism.

Whether it be accusations that a three letter agency (FDA, CDC, WHO, AMA etc) is in control of all of the world's scientific data, accusations that 9/11 was an inside job involving the US government and bombs inside the buildings, or claims that people are out to kill him due to the "knowledge" he holds, Mr. Hubbs commonly resorts to such claims of a conspiracy when he recognizes a lack of evidence to support his claims.  He then assumes because his statements are not taken seriously that it somehow suggests they are "truth" which tells us nothing other than the fact that Mr. Hubbs lacks the understanding of the concepts of falsifiability and burden of proof.

Skepticism itself is a good thing and is necessary within the scientific process.  Denialism adds nothing to the equation and merely serves to create a distraction, and full-blown conspiracy theorists such as Mr. Hubbs are the proverbial trainwreck in the center of Logic town.  Yes they might be a mess... but they tend to be rather fun to watch as long as you know you aren't the one who has to clean it up.

Lowell Hubbs: Making Friends Wherever He Goes

If you waste more than two minutes of your life interacting with Lowell Hubbs you will soon realize that he believes he is some sort of messenger or warrior of truth.  In fact, many of Mr. Hubbs various usernames involve some form of these terms including the names "TruthStorm", "TruthEducation", and "Anti Vax Warrior" among others.  Although Mr. Hubbs has no formal training to education in any medical, scientific, or related field, and although he has never participated in or contributed to any clinical studies or research papers, he still feels he is the only person on the planet who has a grasp on subjects like vaccines, pharmaceuticals, and the root cause of cancer.

Therefore, it stands to reason that someone of Mr. Hubbs' "character" would feel the need to spread his vast amount of knowledge (sarcasm intended) to others at any opportunity he can find.  Most recently, Mr. Hubbs has discovered the commentary site Huffington Post which is well known for publishing articles by Jenny McCarthy along with any other anti-vaccine claptrap they can find.  Because of the well known viewpoints of the website, one would think Mr. Hubbs would fit right in - yet that hasn't been the case.

Rest assured Mr. Hubbs did go out of his way to post on any anti-vaccine story he could find and he offered some fantastic quotes that tell us more about him.  My personal favorite was the following which was posted by Mr. Hubbs in late February:

Yes you read that correctly.  Mr. Hubbs actually made a statement  complaining others haven't review his "work", as if to suggest he has actually produced something that could be considered "work".  Apparently in the disturbed mind of Lowell Hubbs, collecting links to anti-vaccine websites mixed in with the occasional YouTube video or quote from someone who claims there is a link between vaccines and autism and dumping all of this nonsense onto your own website (essentially doing nothing more than aggregating the data from multiple sources into one) is the equivalent of producing an end result... or in his simple terms it equates to "work".

Aside from the sheer nonsense involved in this line of thinking, as it turns out even in an anti-vaccine stronghold such as HuffPo, Mr. Hubbs was still seen as a moron and the comments posted in reference to his identified flaws in his logic as well as mocked him for his lack of understanding of the issues.  True to form, Mr. Hubbs immediately jumped on the defensive and resorted to his standard tactic of claiming "nothing would be enough" and that he has adequate proof for his claims (even though he is never actually able to provide it from the unbiased sources he pretends exist).

In fact as he so often does, Mr. Hubbs fired of no less than a dozen different comments on that one very same article all in defense of his anti-vaccine stance and including references to Andrew Wakefield, Andy Moulden, the misconception that the Amish don't suffer from autism, and even statements about Jenny McCarthy's son having his autism "cured" by biomedical treatment (even though doctors have openly stated McCarthy's son never had autism in the first place).

Even in one of the most well known anti-vaccine commentary sites on the Internet, Mr. Hubbs nonsense was simply too silly to ignore and soon enough there were other posters coming out of the woodwork to challenge his claims and show him for what he is... a vaccine conspiracy theorist with no education or training and a complete misunderstanding of the issues.

Obviously this upset Mr. Hubbs greatly which resulted in him lashing out as his critics rather than offering legitimate science to support his views.  Ignoring the fact that Mr. Hubbs seems to direct the same language and tired lines at anyone and everyone who doesn't agree with him (as has been displayed within the comments on this very blog countless times), in the end even the people at HuffPo couldn't deal with his idiocy and Mr. Hubbs found his account removed and his right to comment suspended within one month of originally registering.  In fact, if you search for Mr. Hubbs' profile today it cannot be found as it no longer exists.  Case in point:

So if a person is so far off the logic scale that their anti-vaccine rhetoric cannot even be welcomed in an anti-vaccine stronghold, what does that tell us?  How can someone actually get themselves kicked off of a website known for promoting the concept of vaccines being harmful in under a month?  The fact is, even those who have doubts about the safety and effectiveness of vaccines don't want to be associated with a conspiracy theorist nor do they want to deal with someone who is unable to debate a topic on a rational level without resorting to red herrings, ad hominems, or practically every other logical fallacy known to man.

Perhaps one day Mr. Hubbs will learn, but I wouldn't count on it.  I would be willing to bet he has already registered a new username on HuffPo with the hopes that he can slip through the moderators and start his process all over again.  Instead of objectively looking at the reasons on why his messages haven't been so well received, or instead of trying to address his flaws and present his information in a well thought out, articulate, and polite manner, Mr. Hubbs will simply blame those around him for trying to suppress his message and once again return to his pattern of labeling those around him as "sheeple" and "uninformed".

As Alanis Morisette once said:  Isn't it ironic?

Update 03/27/11:  Mr. Hubbs has responded and claims nobody suspended or removed his account.  Instead he claims he removed the account himself because he "did not care to have [his] facebook picture and account exposed on the google listing for that article".  I really don't know if I follow that logic since a Google search of "Lowell Hubbs" will still return links to numerous anti-vaccination websites (this very blog is listed as the top three results by the way) including references to Wakefield, and Mr. Hubbs own website lists the same sad excuses and attempted statements in defense of Wakefield, so I'm not sure what pulling his Huffington Post account down would actually accomplish when the same statements are found elsewhere.

Also, Mr. Hubbs has never been the type to actually walk away from a debate, as we have seen countless times before he just continues to cut and paste, cut and paste, cut and paste time and time again and the only reason he ever stops is when the forum or article he is commenting on is closed or removed.  However, in the interest of full disclosure I felt it was necessary to at least offer Mr. Hubbs' version of events even if I'm not totally convinced he is being honest about the situation.

Medical Veritas: The Journal For Quacks

Medical Veritas is the name of a "medical journal" invented by promoters of alternative and homeopathic medicine.  They have even coined the phrase "Journal of Medical Truth" as if to suggest they are the only journal interested in finding truth and fact, and they have recently featured such articles as "Ending Vaccination Humanicide", "American Academy of Pediatrics' Shaken Baby Syndrome Fraud", and  my personal favorite "Musical Cult Control: The Rockefeller Foundation's War of Consciousness Through the Imposition of A=440Hz Frequency Standard Tuning".

NO I did not make any of this up, NO as sad as it may sound these articles are not meant to be satirical in nature, and YES that last one actually does in fact suggest that radio waves are guilty of mind control.  Specifically it states "this imposed frequency that is “herding” populations into greater aggression, psychosocial agitation, and emotional distress predisposing people to physical illnesses and financial impositions profiting the agents, agencies,  and companies engaged in the monopoly".  So basically they feel a specific frequency is guilty of forcing people against their will to do a variety of things including becoming agitated and sick, and then in turn it forces them to spend money on remedies.

I've read science fiction that is less far fetched than this crazy idea, but it does beg the question: "What's the frequency Kenneth?".  Did we mention that the homepage of Medical Veritas is hosted of a "web.me.com" blogger page?  You could probably stop reading right now as it is clear this journal is far from scientific or reputable, but for humor sake let's dig a little deeper shall we?

Medical Veritas is not a respected journal nor is it recognized within the medical community and aside from some alternative medicine or anti-vaccine websites you aren't about to find it cited, nor will you find reputable research scientists mentioning it on their curriculum vitae. It's editors include numerous anti-vaccine types including several who don't hold any relevant education or experience. It includes one (Bonnie S. Dunbar) who holds a PhD in Zoology, one (Betsy Hicks) who is specifically called a "well respected diet counselor" but has no formal education whatsoever (although she is married to a doctor so that should count for something I guess), and they even include one (Toni Krehel) who is listed as an "AP" which is an acupuncture professional from what I gather. Ms. Krehel claims to specialize in the "approach of fusing together Chinese Medicine, Homeopathic Medicine and frequency specific BioEnergetic technology" (I am seriously not making this up).

The fun doesn't stop there however. One of their Senior Editors is a man (Michael K. Primero) who holds a masters in science and technology and who wrote his masters thesis based upon the premise that HIV is not the cause for AIDS.  Another (Tomas Teskey) is a DMV... which is a Veterinarian.  His self-proclaimed expertise is not in vaccines or humans, but rather in horses where this expertise (and I quote) is "taking a specialty approach to the equine hoof".

Not as if we could make this any more entertaining, but the chief editor and founder (Gary Goldman) holds a PhD in Computer Science but no education in any medical related field nor has he spent any time as a medical researcher, and one of the editors is actually Andrew Wakefield... yes that Andrew Wakefield. The same Andrew Wakefield who had his medical license pulled in the UK after he was found to have manipulated research, engaged in unethical bias, and essentially fabricated information that was included in his now-retracted "study" which attempted to link the MMR vaccine with autism. Wakefield even lists this study (keep in mind it has already been retracted and is no longer published) on his Medical Veritas biography (see item 80) without so much as a mention from Wakefield or from Medical Veritas that the study was found to be a fraud, officially retracted and thus no longer consider published, and Wakefield himself stripped of his ability to practice medicine.

Now I'm not trying to suggest every editor affiliated with Medical Veritas is uneducated or not qualified to speak on medical issues. I'm sure there are numerous doctors and experts who have given their names to Medical Veritas and who speak on other matters unrelated to vaccines, but as I have shown above there are also a number of individuals who are totally unqualified to speak on the subject of vaccines or any other human medical issue for that matter.

This just goes to show if you dig beyond the surface, you always find the lack of science and dishonesty associated with the anti-vaccine movement.  They generally don't care because the people they prey on aren't intelligent enough to figure these types of things out on their own, and antivaxers generally don't care about facts in the first place, so any antivaxer who reads this information will find excuses to dismiss the facts as if they don't matter.  Science does matter however... it matters a lot.

The reality is, there are dozens upon dozens of legitimate medical journals out there who would be more than willing to publish peer-reviewed science that can improve upon modern medicine.  You will often hear anti-vaccination conspiracy theorists such as Lowell Hubbs claim that "big pharma" or the CDC, FDA, AMA etc controls all of these journals, but that simply isn't true.  In fact, there are dozens of journals from other nations far, far outside any perceived influence of the American government.  In fact, The Lancet did in fact publish Wakefield's MMR "study" where it remained for years before his fraud was finally discovered, so that just goes to show that respected journals will in fact publish information which is contrary to popular opinion.

Other medical journals have published numerous articles which have called into question knowledge which was previously accepted, and that is the entire point of continuing to study medical and scientific issues.  Doctors, scientists, and researchers are continually improving upon established treatments and they are continually learning new things about the human body, which is why we see thousands of studies and articles published each and ever year many of which expand upon or even correct existing knowledge.  Nobody is trying to suppress such knowledge, but they do require studies to be peer-reviewed and the results must be able to be replicated by others, which explains why so much of the garbage found within Medical Veritas could never be published in a true medical journal.

But hey - you can purchase all 10 issues of Medical Veritas for only $700 - and for that kind of money you are guaranteed more medical conspiracy theories than you can shake a stick at.  If you would rather just flush your money down the toilet (which would likely offer you just as much scientific information as an entire collection of Medical Veritas issues), you could also just send them a donation via a link on their homepage. Actually I take that back... flushing your toilet would at least offer you a visual display of fluid dynamics, so that is actually more scientific information than you would receive by reading Medical Veritas. 

It seems the quacks finally realized since they couldn't be bothered to actually perform double-blind clinical trials or to produce peer-reviewed science it was much easier to just rewrite the rules of scientific publication and invent their own journal.  That is sort of like getting turned down from a few dozen different publishers for your book and then starting your own printing company.  Then when you print a few copies of your book you can run around and tell others you are a "published author".  If only it were that easy.

How far will these people stoop in order to sell a few nutritional supplements, some newsletters, or a few books?  It is not only disappointing, but it is downright disgusting, and the editors and contributors to "Medical Veritas" should be ashamed of themselves for attempting to circumvent the system for their own selfish interests.  If you have legitimate peer-reviewed science to publish there are countless journals who would love to have it, but if you have to resort to rewriting the rules of publication just so you can play... all you have done is show that you are incapable of meeting the qualifications for legitimate publication. 

That is really no better than collecting all of the medical conspiracies you can and posting them on your own personal website as if that somehow adds credibility to them.  Then when someone challenges your claim on an issue, you don't refer to a legitimate medical journal or peer-reviewed study, but rather point them to your personal website where you have collected a vast assortment of unscientific nonsense as if quantity somehow suggests quality.  Unfortunately for the editors and publishers of Medical Veritas, it just doesn't work like that.  Real science can stand on its own merits and doesn't need to bend the rules in order to be proven or accepted as fact.

Herd Immunity: A Scientific Fact

Many anti-vaxers (Mr. Hubbs included) seem to have a problem with the concept of herd immunity as if it is a myth, so I thought it was worthy of discussion to get the facts out there.  First of all the idea of herd immunity is that if enough people area vaccinated from a particular disease and therefore cannot contract that disease and/or pass it to others, then those who are not vaccinated will be protected.  Under most cases the threshold for such immunity equates to approximately 85% of the population being vaccinated for any given disease.

Unfortunately if the group that is not vaccinated grows too large, the 'herd' or population can no longer prevent diseases from being transmitted from person to person and this herd immunity loses its effectiveness.  The real issue here is that we always know there are a number of people who can't get vaccinated for one reason or another.  Maybe they are on chemotherapy or maybe they are on immune suppressive therapy for a chronic disease or maybe they have severe allergies that prevent them from receiving a specific vaccine (some vaccines use egg proteins for example).  These people have no choice but to skip a vaccination due to their other existing conditions, and they rely upon the rest of us to protect them. 

Dr. Paul Offit (probably one of the most well know and respected experts in the field of immunology and vaccinations) recently stated there are 500,000 people (I'm assuming he means people in the US) who fall into this category.  That means it is up to the other 300 million of us to get vaccinations in order to protect those who can't protect themselves.  Granted getting a vaccination is not a totally selfless act as it protects the person who gets the vaccination as well, but knowing it can prevent spreading disease to others is surely an added benefit.

Generally this system works fine, but in recent years due to fear mongering by pseudo-celebrities like Jenny McCarthy and due to fabricated studies like the one pushed forth by the now discredited Andrew Wakefield, there has been a growing number of people who are skipping their vaccines simply because they are too ignorant of the real science and too scared to take a chance.  To some degree these people are simply being selfish because they think the rest of us will protect them, but on the other hand these people are being dangerous because their lack of vaccinations means they can (and often do) contract diseases which are spread onto others.

Case in point, California is now under the worst pertussis outbreak in the last 50 years which has resulted in over 1,500 people contracting Whooping Cough and at least 10 deaths thus far.  The root cause of this outbreak?  People who skipped their vaccinations and thus spread the disease to others.  The primary reason for a growing number of people refusing to vaccinate their children or receive vaccinations themselves has been the discussion about a possible link to autism and all of the media attention which has surrounded the issue.  However, if you actually drill down on the issue you will find numerous peer-reviewed studies which have been performed that show no link between vaccines and autism, yet not a single peer-reviewed study anywhere which proves such a link exists.

This is generally the point where Mr. Hubbs would profess that the Wakefield "study" (not really a study, but more of a paper) proved such a link, but truth be told even when the Wakefield paper was published, it still was not able to prove such a link exists and never even claimed to.  Besides the fact that Wakefield didn't make the specific claim that the MMR vaccines causes autism (he merely eluded to a potential risk) and aside from the fact that Wakefield relied upon no more than a dozen hand picked children as his sample as opposed to hundreds of cases a real scientific study would have used, as it turns out his paper was based upon blatant fraud including the manipulation of patient data and cross-contamination of samples.

We should thank Mr. Wakefield however as he is credited with driving the vaccination rates in the UK down from 93% to around 75% and as a result the measles were actually declared to be an epidemic again in the UK.  This in turned resulted in countless people contracting the measles and in some cases it actually resulted in death, so be sure and mail a thank-you card to Wakefield for his great job (sarcasm intended).

Have I mentioned that not a single scientist has been able to replicate Wakefield's original findings?  Yea... that seems rather important when you try to suggest something is peer reviewed (the Wakefield study was not), but it does explain why so many of the original authors involved with Wakefield's paper later pulled their names from it.  Funny how not a single one of the "doctors" associated with the anti-vaxer movement has been able to replicate Wakefield's original findings even though they continue to profess his original work was sound - but that seems to be status quo for the antivax movement... make accusations but don't bother to back them up with evidence or any real science.

So with all of this said, we can clearly see the results when people decide to stop vaccinating.  Diseases spread, people suffer, and in some severe cases - people actually die.  So what has happened to the rates of autism during this same period of fear-mongering and vaccination avoidance?  If the anti-vaxers are correct the rates should be dropping due to fewer people being vaccinated, but sadly (and predictably) that hasn't been the case. 

Herd immunity is clearly not a myth and it works when people take responsibility for their health and the health of their families. Unfortunately, due to the desire to prey upon the fear of parents, the media has allowed this fraud to be perpetuated among the entire population which has resulted in many parents skipping the necessary vaccinations.  The good news is science is once again prevailing as more and more parents realize these fears are unfounded and the risks of not vaccinating are far too great to ignore. 

The other good news is the media is finally catching up with science and starting to report on the real facts including how Wakefield has been proven time and time again to be a lying fraud and how throughout all of the research and study which has been directed towards vaccines, none of it has proven any type of a link to autism.  In addition to this, due to the number of outbreaks of diseases that were once under control such as pertussis and measles, intelligent and logical people are discovering that herd immunity is not a myth, but rather an undisputed fact.

An Analysis of the Lowell Hubbs "Counter-Blog"

Ok I'll admit it - after I received a message from a contributor about one of Lowell Hubbs' responses to one of my previous posts, curiosity got the best of me so I decided to look with my own eyes.  Obviously I am not about to spend hours upon hours reading every link and sentence Mr. Hubbs has provided as 98% of it is merely cut and pasted from his website or other websites from known antivaxxers, but I did spend a couple of minutes looking at it to get an idea of the content and the structure.

Here is what I found within a single one of Mr. Hubbs ramblings:

• Number of embedded URLs found within the post: 168  (Yes really... 168)
• Number of YouTube Videos presented as if they are "fact": 2
• Number of images used (several in direct violation of copyright protections): 9
• Number of references to Mercola websites: 13
• Number of references to Lowell's own blog as if it is a legitimate source: 5
• Number of statements or URLS obtained via his "University of Google" education: hundreds
• Number of references to the known and proven conspiracy theorist library whale.to: 7
• Number of references to a web.mac.com personal blog: 4
• Number of references directly to "Dr" Tenpenny's online supplement store: 1
• Number of references to biased (non-scientific) websites such as ageofautism and natural news: Too many to count
• Number of references to peer-reviewed scientific studies, published medical journals, or other mutually accepted sources of scientific and medical material anywhere on the planet which show a link between vaccines and autism, the MMR vaccine and autism, thimerosol and autism, or any combination of the above:  0
• Once again showing that Mr. Hubbs has zero knowledge of the scientific method, a complete misunderstanding of the concept of burden of proof, a lack of the ability to rely upon proven science, the inability to formulate a post without feeling the need to continually refer to previously discredited "experts" and a very strong overusage of websites, blogs, and known fellow anti-vaxxer conspiracy theorist source material with an obvious complete and total misunderstanding of what he is actually reading:  PRICELESS

Aside from the fact that Mr. Hubbs is still trying to use sites like whale.to to make a point even though it has been 100% discredited in every scientific circle on the planet, and aside from the fact that Mr. Hubbs is still attempting to defend the 100% discredited Andy Wakefield, and aside from the fact that Mr. Hubbs relies upon himself as a source when he quotes his very own website (which leads to even more links and unsupported blogs, which in turn lead you back to some of the very own sites he listed originally), and aside form the fact the Mr. Hubbs actually has pasted the same information more than once because he can't even figure out how to cut and paste properly, the simple reality is that to anyone who doesn't go by the name Lowell Hubbs, that entire blog is a total trainwreck which actually only serves to harm the antivaxxer movement. 

As it seems, not only is Mr. Hubbs not taken seriously by the medical or scientific community at large, but as it seems he isn't even taken seriously by the primary anti-vaxxers.  That is like a group of skunks ignoring and avoiding one single skunk because they all think he smells bad.  This lack of credibility on Mr. Hubbs' part is why not a single one of the "established anti-vaxxers" has ever associated themselves with Mr. Hubbs even though he proclaims to have "one of the best anti vaccination sites on the planet" and has admittedly spending countless hours and "all of his available time" performing "research" via google and typing letters to the editor, posting on chat boards, posting comments on medical blogs etc, etc.

The bottom line is even when Mr. Hubbs does reference a real study or a legitimate table found on a reputable unbiased website, he doesn't have the knowledge to interpret the data properly therefore he makes up (or likely repeats) the incorrrect conclusions about the data, or in many cases merely makes statements that have no bearing on nor any relation to the information presented.  It goes without saying that if a single blog post has to contain well over 160 links to other websites and blogs, that the author of the post is unable to actually formulate his own thoughts, do his own research, or publish a well thought-out and well argued blog post.

Mr. Hubbs has a long way to go when it comes to matters of science, but it would appear he also has just as long of a way to go when it comes to matter of writing, debate, and basic logic.  A word of advice to all of you reading this: If you are still school age, please stay in school.  If you are older and have kids - please ensure they stay in school, because we can see in Mr. Hubbs what happens when you are a poor student and make poor decisions, and clearly that is NOT the type of future you want for yourself or anyone you may care about.

There is some good news to come from Mr. Hubbs continual ramblings however.  It shows people just how unstable and insane the anti-vaxxers are, which in turn leads them to real doctors, real science, and real medicine, which in turn helps keep vaccinations numbers up, and preventable diseases down. 

Thanks Mr. Hubbs!

Journal: Study Linking Vaccine to Autism Was Fraud

I'm not sure we have room for any additional nails in this coffin, and I have covered this story in the past here and here, but once again we find yet another study which proves that Andrew Wakefield and his fabricated science is nothing short of blatant fraud.

Read on:

Journal: Study linking vaccine to autism was fraud

LONDON – The first study to link a childhood vaccine to autism was based on doctored information about the children involved, according to a new report on the widely discredited research.

The conclusions of the 1998 paper by Andrew Wakefield and colleagues was renounced by 10 of its 13 authors and later retracted by the medical journal Lancet, where it was published. Still, the suggestion the MMR shot was connected to autism spooked parents worldwide and immunization rates for measles, mumps and rubella have never fully recovered.

A new examination found, by comparing the reported diagnoses in the paper to hospital records, that Wakefield and colleagues altered facts about patients in their study.

The analysis, by British journalist Brian Deer, found that despite the claim in Wakefield's paper that the 12 children studied were normal until they had the MMR shot, five had previously documented developmental problems. Deer also found that all the cases were somehow misrepresented when he compared data from medical records and the children's parents.Wakefield could not be reached for comment despite repeated calls and requests to the publisher of his recent book, which claims there is a connection between vaccines and autism that has been ignored by the medical establishment. Wakefield now lives in the U.S. where he enjoys a vocal following including celebrity supporters like Jenny McCarthy.

Deer's article was paid for by the Sunday Times of London and Britain's Channel 4 television network. It was published online Thursday in the medical journal, BMJ.

In an accompanying editorial, BMJ editor Fiona Godlee and colleagues called Wakefield's study "an elaborate fraud." They said Wakefield's work in other journals should be examined to see if it should be retracted.

Last May, Wakefield was stripped of his right to practice medicine in Britain. Many other published studies have shown no connection between the MMR vaccination and autism.

But measles has surged since Wakefield's paper was published and there are sporadic outbreaks in Europe and the U.S. In 2008, measles was deemed endemic in England and Wales.

Online: http://www.bmj.com

Now there are a few very key facts related to this story that bear repeating.  First, we know now - 13 years after this study was originally published, that Wakefield's science was not only shoddy, but outright fraudulent.  That said, it should not come as a surprise to anyone to learn that vaccine conspiracy theorists like Mr. Hubbs are still professing Wakefield's innocence and claiming the original study was accurate.  They claim Wakefield's conclusions were sound and that he is merely being picked on for daring to question the medical establishment.

However, as time has shown us, even though the rates of MMR vaccination have dropped significantly since Wakefield originally perpetuated his fraud onto the innocent public, the rates of autism have gone relatively unchanged.  In fact according to recent data, rates of autism have actually INCREASED during this period which is the exact inverse of what Wakefield, Mr. Hubbs, and all other anti-vaxxers would want us to believe.

However, during this same period of time we have seen numerous outbreaks of measles.  The World Health Organization (WHO), has stated that more than 20 million people worldwide are affected by measles each year and it is the single leading cause of vaccine-preventable deaths among young children, resulting in 164,000 deaths globally in 2008.  Therefore, by publishing his fraudulent study, Andrew Wakefield has actually led to increase risk, and thus increased number of deaths, of children that are no longer being vaccinated. 

Thankfully Wakefield's fraud has had very little impact within the US, therefore for the most part due to the continual usage of the MMR vaccine within our population, we have not seen major outbreaks across the nation.  However in the United Kingdom where people followed Wakefield's work more closely (and where his study effectively went unchallenged the first few years after publication), they have actually witnessed outbreaks in both England and Wales. There was also the first measles related deathreported in the UK in over 14 years, and it was due to a young boy being unprotected from the measles virus because he did not receive the MMR vaccine. 

So even though we have not witnessed a decrease in the rates of autism (as Wakefield would have us believe would be the case with fewer children receiving the MMR vaccine) we have seen outbreaks of measles which have been proven to lead to death.  The lesson we can take from this is that not only do the actions of the anti-vaxxers not actually solve the autism issue, but in fact they lead to higher rates of viral infections which can result in pain, long-term side effects, and even loss of life.

So what does Mr. Hubbs think of all this?  Well according to his most recent statements, and in spite of the mountain of evidence which has proven Wakefield to be nothing short of a charlatan, Mr. Hubbs still supports Wakefield 100% and even continues to post information about Wakefield's study on his silly website.  In fact, Mr. Hubbs has even signed an online letter of support for Wakefield and he continues to make excuses in a vain attempt to paint Wakefield as the victim.

Sorry Mr. Hubbs, but the real victims are those children who are now suffering due to their parents (unsubstantiated) fears of having autistic children which due in large part to the fraud that is one Andrew Wakefield, led them to bypass the proven safety which comes along with the MMR vaccine.  The real victims are those 164,000 humans who die each year from measles which equates to 450 deaths each and every day or 18 deaths every hour! 

Wakefield himself is not and has never been a victim, but the damage he has done will last decades, and for that we have no one to blame other than Wakefield himself and his loyal troop of ignorant followers such as Mr. Hubbs who overlook science and instead believe this is all some vast conspiracy to protect profits of the drug companies.

Is it any wonder that Mr. Hubbs and his fellow anti-vaxxers have never been able to come up with one single peer-reviewed study which has proven there is even a remote link between autism and the MMR vaccine?  They have a lot of excuses, but at the end of the day they are still left with zero science.

So this leads us to the next point - the fact that Wakefield actually doctored information and altered facts about his patients.  Wakefield even went so far as to make claims about these children which have now been proven to be factually incorrect such as his claim that the children were "normal" prior to receiving the MMR vaccine (whereas in reality at least five of the 12 children referenced had documented developmental problems).

This is the type of person that Mr. Hubbs considers to be an expert... a man which has been proven to falsify data, to manipulate findings, to change information, to distort historical fact, and even one who engaged in unethical behavior by paying children at a birthday party $5 to take samples of their blood.  This is a man who has had his license to practice medicine revoked, his studies retracted, and who has been found of numerous ethical violations and professional misconduct.

The problem here is that Mr. Hubbs' standard list of excuses won't work here.  The fact is Wakefield did originally publish his work, so the conspiracy theory employed by Mr. Hubbs that nobody is ever allowed to publish work which calls into question actions taken by drug companies, "big pharma", or mainstream medicine has been proven to be factually incorrect.

Even though the study has since been proven to be nothing more than a fraud, the simple truth is for over a decade Wakefield's study was published and available, which proves that anyone can publish a study if they actually take the time to perform the research (or in Wakefield's case take the time to fabricate and manipulate the research).  This minor fact seems to go a long way to call into question why Mr. Hubbs' other laundry list of "experts" have never bothered to publish any of their nonsense, but that is an issue we have addressed previously (and likely will do so again in the future).

Another common excuse from the convoluted mind of Mr. Hubbs is that drug companies or medical agencies such as the CDC, FDA, or AMA seek to destroy anyone who dares speak out against them.  However, once again we see this excuse has more holes in it than a box of Cheerios.  First, the particular article cited above was paid for not by a drug company nor a medical agency, but actually by a newspaper (the Sunday Times of London) as well as a television channel (Britain's Channel 4).  Thus unless Mr. Hubbs wishes to add investigative journalists and media outlets to his list of people who are in on this vast conspiracy, there really isn't anything to this one.

The facts continue to pile up against Wakefield, and against conspiracy theorists like Mr. Hubbs, although perhaps the most damning statements and admission of guilt comes from Mr. Hubbs himself:

"noone [sic] said anything about that the [...] studies PROVED a vaccine link to autism.” ~Lowell Hubbs

Therein lies the problem.  While Mr. Hubbs is out there attempting to defend snakeoil salesman and ethically challenged "experts", he ignores the true goal of science which is to find proof.  This all just goes to show that in a mind of a conspiracy theorist it isn't important to determine fact or to discover the truth.  No - in the mind of a conspiracy theorist the one and only true goal is to challenge authority and deny reality.

Is it any wonder why anti-vaxxers like Mr. Hubbs can never be taken seriously?