The Impossible Demand for 100% Vaccine Safety

What would you say to someone who makes a demand for you to prove to them that all automobiles are

safe?  Do you think you could use safety data to prove that automobiles are more safe than they have ever been?  Maybe you could explain how there are new innovations like airbags, crumble zones, anti-lock brakes, or traction control systems which all work together to increase safety.

Now what if that same person cited statistics which showed that even in the year 2011 there were still over 32,000 people killed in automobile accidents in the US alone?  Does that suggest that automobiles aren't really that safe after all?

When you really think about it... how do you determine what is "safe"?

Reasonable people will understand that claims about vehicle safety based upon the number of accidents or the number of deaths in a year isn't taking in to account the big picture.  First you need to realize that there are hundreds of millions of miles traveled each and every year and there are million upon millions of drivers.  Next you need to take into account that even if a vehicle has eight airbags and has a five star crash test rating, sometimes things can and do go wrong and it may have nothing to do with the vehicle.

In the end, you would realize that 32,000 deaths may seem like a significant number, but in context of the hundreds of millions of miles driven, and the millions of unique drivers, the millions of different vehicles, the total hours spent in a vehicle throughout the year... well in the end 32,000 deaths is actually a very small number.  You might even show them statistics which prove that we haven't had less traffic fatalities since 1949 when the population and the number of miles traveled were less than half of what we have today.  You might even point out that almost as many people die from accidental poisonings in a given year (more than 33,000 deaths in 2010) than do in automobile accidents.

So perhaps logical people will agree that proving vehicles are safe is based upon certain assumptions.  Number one, you need to define the term "safe" and assume that is based upon historical averages and based upon percentages.  You also need to assume that no vehicle can ever be 100% safe, and you need to accept the fact that there will be accidents, and there will be a certain amount of deaths as a result.

With that in mind, should we ban automobiles because people die every year?  Should we change the laws to only allow them to be sold if they are 100% safe?  Should we demand that the government require automobile companies to be held personally responsible for each and every death that occurs while operating a motor vehicle?  Of course not... that sounds so silly when you put it like that doesn't it?

So with that in mind, why do anti-vaccinationists demand that we prove every vaccine is 100% safe?  Not only do they demand vaccines are 100% safe, but they aren't willing to accept the commonly held definition of the term "safe" (which in this case means involving little or no risk of mishap).

Even though there is overwhelming evidence supporting the efficacy and safety of vaccines, it is doubtful this would appease an antivaxxer because chances are there will always be cases where someone had an allergic reaction to a vaccine or a case where someone suffered a side effect, or cases where someone was fully vaccinated but still contracted the disease they were supposed to be protected against.

In addition to requiring all vaccines to be 100% safe, anti-vaccinationists are quick to point out case where someone was injured by a vaccine over 50 years ago.  They believe that the modern vaccines of today should still be blamed for any problems that existed decades ago, just as we should be blaming modern automobiles for the safety failures of the Chevrolet Corvair or the Ford Pinto.

We can all admit that vaccines have not always been perfect.  There have been cases such as the Rotashield rotavirus vaccine in 1998 and 1999 which was pulled from the market after it was determined it increased the risk of intussusception (a rare type of bowel obstruction) in infants.  There was the "Cutter Incident" back in the 1950s where a live virus was included in a polio vaccine which resulted in 10 deaths, and 200 children suffering from paralysis.

We also know that some polio vaccines were contaminated with Simian vacuolating virus 40 (SV40) which has the potential of leading to tumors.  Granted studies linking SV40 to cancer in humans have been inconclusive, this doesn't remove the negative impact these contaminated vaccines have had.

However, even with these and other failures in mind, is this enough to warrant the elimination of vaccines entirely?  Sadly if you are an antivaxxer the answer is yes.  Antivaxxers are convinced that these failures overshadow any good effects from vaccines, and they believe we would be better off without any vaccinations whatsoever.

They would have us return to the days where polio infected tens of thousands annually and killed as many as 6,000 in the US alone.

They would have us return to the days of millions upon millions of people dying from smallpox and to the time where as many as one out of every seven Russian children would die from the disease.

They would even attempt to convince us that the 18 people that died from measles every hour in 2011 (158,000 deaths total) aren't important.  They would try to claim the 71% reduction in measles deaths due to vaccination is trivial and unimportant.

Whether it be a vaccine used to prevent pertussis (whooping cough) or one which has been shown to prevent rotavirus, antivaxxers seem to believe that no vaccine is a good one, and although vaccines are overwhelmingly safe and effective, even if we could guarantee vaccines were safe 99.97% of the time and effective 99.99% of the time it still wouldn't be enough to convince those in the anti-vaccine crowd, because they will never be satisfied with anything less than 100% effectiveness and 100% safety.

So there is a choice... one one hand you could...

• Refuse to acknowledge the safety and effectiveness of vaccines and believe they cause far more harm than good

Or alternatively you can accept reality and...

• Acknowledge that although vaccines are not perfect, they do an incredible job of reducing and in some cases actually eliminating entirely the risk of contracting disease.  Accept that vaccines safe lives and prevent the spread of disease.  Accept that vaccines are overwhelmingly safe and that we have the historical record to show us not only how safe they are, but how effective they are as well.  Acknowledge that we no longer need to fear death from diseases such as smallpox or polio, acknowledge that vaccines are one of humankind's greatest scientific breakthroughs, and agree that vaccines (although not always 100% safe or 100% effective) are far less risky or damaging than the diseases they prevent (which can, and often do lead to death or long-term complications).

Nobody says we have to be satisfied with our current vaccines, and we can (and should) demand for better vaccines, safer vaccines, and vaccines for diseases which currently have no other cure (such as HIV).  We should always be striving for advancements and we shouldn't be afraid to challenge accepted science or to ask the difficult questions.

However there is a vast difference between wishing for vaccines to improve and wishing vaccines didn't exist.  Antivaxxers don't really care about vaccine safety.  They don't care about the millions of lives lost.  They don't care about people suffering from polio or pertussis or smallpox because they have never suffered from these diseases.  They likely aren't old enough to remember a loved one dying from what we now consider to be vaccine preventable diseases, and as such I can think of no other term to describe antivaxxers than the word selfish.

These people don't care about those who have died, and their only concern is pushing a political agenda based upon something they read about on the Internet or a reaction that their cousin's, boyfriend's, sister's, coworker's daughter's, teacher's, kid had after being vaccinated for tetanus.

Demanding improvements is reasonable, demanding 100% safety and effectiveness quite simply is the exact opposite of reasonable.  Just as we understand there is a risk every time we get into an automobile, we also understand there is a risk with each and every vaccination.  The question that should be asked is whether the level of risk is worth engaging in that particular activity, and the data overwhelmingly proves to us that driving in automobiles as well as being vaccinated is well worth the risk.

Conspiracy Theorists and Other Enemies of Science

Journalist Will Storr recently wrote a book called The Heretics: Adventures With The Enemies Of Science which explores why so many conspiracy theorists seem to have trouble accepting facts... even when those facts are right in front of them.

This is an interesting subject and one which I've explored myself - which is why I'm certain this book would be an interesting read (the book was just published this week and I haven't had a chance to read it yet). Chris Parsons over at Yahoo! News wrote an article about the book entitled "Exploring the minds of Holocaust deniers and UFO-spotters who deny common sense".

Parsons' article begins:

"Will Storr is a man who deals in facts. As a journalist of more than 10 years, undeniable evidence and rational data are his bread and butter.

There are groups of people, however, who deny the irrefutable; who see cold, hard facts as mistruths or simply inconvenient.

Whether they are Holocaust deniers, creationists, or those who believe in UFOs - there are plenty out there whose view of the world defies centuries of scientific evidence. 

So why are there intelligent, seemingly rational people like this, who are capable of such unreasonable logic?"

Although I do agree with much of what Parsons wrote in his piece I would take issue with his statement that speaks of "intelligent, seemingly rational people", because the truth of the matter is conspiracy theorists are the farthest thing from rational. I might even debate whether most of these people are intelligent, although perhaps my personal bias is due to the lack of intelligence presented by the typical antivaccinationist. Rationality however... well there isn't much room for debate on that point. Not only do antivaxxers trample upon basic common sense, but they do so with impunity almost as if they have no desire to engage in any sort of discussion which may require it.

Either way, Storr's book might help shed some light on the thought processes that so many conspiracy theorists seem to share even when faced with evidence that counters their opinions. Unfortunately, Storr didn't include antivaxxers within his book that I've seen, but the same lack of logic and unreasonable nature most certainly applies to all conspiracy theorists regardless of form.

Whether it is someone who denies the moon landings, a Sandy Hook conspiracy theorist, a 9/11 "truther", an antivaxxer, or simply someone who believes Lee Harvey Oswald was innocent they all seem to share several things in common - a blatant disregard for logic, a stubborn refusal to accept facts when presented to them, and an complete and total inability to admit when they are wrong.

I wonder what it might take to get an antivaxxer to review Storr's book? If you are interested, you can pick up a hardcover copy from Amazon, or if you are patient you can probably wait for the paperback or (hopefully) even the ebook version.

The Profit of Vaccinations

The New York Times recently published an article about the flu season which shows that the levels of deaths have officially crossed over into "epidemic" territory.  The full article can be found here:  Flu Season Deaths Reach Epidemic Level but May Be at Peak, C.D.C. Says

This is a well balanced article speaking about the impact of the flu as well as explaining that the flu vaccine isn't nearly as effective as some other vaccines like those for the norovirus (aka: the "stomach flu" or gastroenteritis) or pertussis (aka: whooping cough).  Part of this is obviously due to how quickly flu viruses mutate, but another aspect that could be partly responsible is the simple fact that on any given year only around a third of the population bothers to actually get a vaccine.  This means there is a much greater chance that the virus can spread among those who have no protection from the vaccine, as well as among those who the vaccine wasn't effective.

Clearly there are failures in the system and improvements must be made.  Not only do we need better vaccines, but we need to do a better job informing the public as to the benefits.  The good news is we appear to be making progress on both of these fronts, and the percentage of those who receive flu vaccines is on the rise each year.  There are also new vaccines in development that hope to address some of the problems with the current targeted vaccines although progress is slow, and funding is difficult to obtain.

This latter point is one which I wanted to speak about, because all too often we hear antivaxxers complain that vaccines are merely a profit mechanism for pharmaceutical companies and that there is no true benefit.  As the article explains it could take as much as $1 Billion to actually bring a vaccine to market, which at first glance seems like an insurmountable figure.  If a new vaccine was to be developed which either prevented the flu or even merely significantly reduced the chances of contracting a flu virus and if the usage of that vaccine was on par with vaccines for MMR or Hib, chances are we would see a vaccine acceptance rate somewhere above 90%.

So let's be conservative and use a vaccination rate of only 80% for the "one-time" flu vaccine.  We know not everyone would bother to be vaccinated the first year, but after a few years when people realized they no longer need an annual flu vaccine, they would probably be more willing to get the single vaccine, and since many other vaccines have rates well above 90%, I don't think 80% is that unbelievable.

So if we focus on the United States alone, we know there are around 312,000,000 (312M) people who could potentially be vaccinated.  80% of this is around 250,000,000 people who would likely receive a flu vaccine.  So let's assume the cost of this vaccine is $35.  The current wholesale costs of single year flu vaccines is closer to $10, but a one-time vaccine is likely to be incrementally higher due to the complexity.  For example an adult vaccine for MMR costs around $35 while the vaccine for varicella is over $60.  A childhood vaccine for Hib may be only $12 while rotavirus can be over $70, so it isn't hard to a flu vaccine could cost at least $35 wholesale - at least for the first few years after release.

Ok, so now we have 250,000,000 potential customers each of which will spend $35 for a grand total of $8,750,000,000 ($8.75B).  Even if we assume only a 50% vaccination rate (156M) and an even lower cost of $25 per vaccine, the total is still $3,900,000,000 ($3.9B).

Of course the $1B it takes to bring a vaccine to market does not include the costs to produce, distribute, and market the vaccine, so it isn't as if there will be billions in profit the first year, but the flip side of this equation is that we are only factoring in the population of the US.  Chances are once the vaccine was available it could be submitted for approval in numerous other nations with the potential to sell hundreds of millions of doses to those nations.

The moral of this story is, there would be a lot of money to be made from a one-time flu vaccine, yet to date we haven't seen anything available.  Since antivaxxers seem to feel vaccine manufacturers are only interested in profits, how can they explain that not a single manufacturer has unleashed such a vaccine on the public?  It shouldn't matter if the vaccine is effective or not, because as any good antivaxxer will tell you vaccines don't actually work (and yes I'm being sarcastic).  Antivaxxers are even willing to claim publicly that the polio vaccine and the smallpox vaccine did nothing to prevent those diseases (suggesting the diseases just magically disappeared on their own apparently), and they feel that vaccines are generally ineffective.

These same antivaxxers will tell you that the MMR vaccine does far more harm that good and that there is no evidence that viruses like the Measles have been controlled by the vaccine in any way.  They will also claim that the HPV vaccines don't work at all and that it is merely a method for the manufacturers to collect millions upon millions from insurance companies and the unsuspecting public.

You see this is one of those situations where antivaxxers want to have it both ways.  One one hand they claim vaccine manufacturers are simply in it for the money and that the vaccines themselves don't actually work.  On the other hand, they can't explain why the market hasn't delivered something like a one-time flu vaccine which would quite obviously be a gigantic windfall for the pharmaceutical companies.

So which is it antivaxxers?

It would seem to be the fact we don't have a one-time vaccine for the flu only proves that the system works.  We have clinical trials and data which shows us the effectiveness of vaccines, and if a vaccine is found to be ineffective it wouldn't be approved.  We have a system of checks and balances in place to ensure the public is protected and that vaccines are not only effective but that they are safe.  We have a system which rewards responsibility, and one which puts the safety and health of the public as the priority far head of profit.

We aren't talking about a nutritional supplement or a vitamin that can be sold by anyone trying to make a buck.  Vaccines are subjected to rigorous safety and effectiveness testing which can take years to complete and which requires verifiable proof of efficacy before that vaccine is ever approved for use.  Can we say the same thing about the various supplements and pills sold on antivaxxer websites?

Sort of makes you wonder what type of clinical trial or testing was done on something like the miracle "brain repair" pills sold by a well known anti-vaxxer.  I think we all know the answer, and it rhymes with none.

If vaccines were really all about profit and if the health of the public was an afterthought as so many antivaxxers have suggested, I have no doubt we would have a half dozen one-time flu vaccines on the market this very moment.  Yet we don't - and I've yet to see an antivaxxer who can explain this without contradicting themselves.

Old Habits Die Hard

We have discussed the conspiracy theorist repository known as whale.to a few times in the past namely here and here, and you might think after showing how that particular website included such riveting fiction as flying dolphins, holocaust denials, and how the government invented the AIDS virus and is secretly infecting the population, you might have thought anti-vaccinationists would try to distance themselves from the site.

You may have thought the popularity of Scopie's Law would have some antivaxxers second guessing whether they wanted their names associated with whale.to due to the obvious implications to their credibility. You may have even thought that rather than siting the website directly, that antivaxxers would instead just copy and paste the data into other less familiar websites.

Well... you would be wrong.

As it turns out, antivaxxers still flock to whale.to on a regular basis, and just today I was directed to a comment thread where none other than anti-vaccination extraordinaire Lowell Hubbs is once again citing whale.to as a reputable source.  The following screen cap was taken from a Huffington Post article found here (and one which I recently discussed in a previous blog post).

Mr. Hubbs' comment shows everything that is wrong with the anti-vaccination movement today.  No, I'm not talking about his usage of ellipsis which make it appear that he has to take... a... breath... between...each... word.  Rather I'm speaking about how when antivaxxers are presented with facts they simply choose to ignore them.  When their sources are shown to be lacking, laughable, or just simply absurd they don't seek out more reputable sources but instead they latch on to their nonsense and go into defense mode.

We've seen this same pattern of behavior when it comes to Andy Wakefield.  Even though the Wakefield "study" was retracted and Wakefield himself stripped of his medical license, and even though he was found guilty of fraud and manipulation of data, and even though he was shown to have conflicts of interest due to financial connections to competing/alternative vaccines to those which he was attacking - the anti-vaccine movement refuses to distance themselves from this failed relationship even though it is clear to everyone else that it only serves to harm their credibility.

Thus is it really any surprise to not only see Lowell Hubbs citing whale.to in his comments, but even going so far as to claim it is a "great site" containing "real history"?  Sadly, anti-vaccinationists don't appear to grasp the concept that a untrustworthy source harms their credibility so they just continue to spew the same nonsense day after day.  The fact is, for someone who is on the fence and unsure of vaccinations, these types of tactics only serve to harm the anti-vaccine movement because a person of even moderate intelligence is going to take a look at a website that features flying dolphins, extensive data pertaining to UFOs, and information about government mind-control, and they will be either consumed with laughter, or they will simply assume the anti-vaccine movement is akin to every other group of conspiracy theorists out there such as Bigfoot hunters, 9/11 "truthers", or those idiotic moon-landing conspiracy theorists.

Come to think of it, whale.to might actually be helping to show people how out of touch these anti-vaxxers really are.  In that case I can only hope people like Lowell Hubbs continue to reference the website as often as possible - because it seems to be doing a fantastic job of showing the anti-vaccinationists for what they really are... simple conspiracy theorists who have a propensity to believe anything they read on the Internet.

HuffPo: Anti-Vaccine Vitriol: Seeking Reason

Dr. David Katz recently published a piece on The Huffington Post in response to some of the anti-vaccination nonsense that gets posted on the HuffPo website on a regular basis.  The amazing thing is HuffPo is known to  be somewhat of a safe haven for antivaxxers, so to witness them being called out for their tactics and lunacy is nothing short of amazing.

I'd love to cite some specific passages from his article, but the truth is if I cited only the parts of the article which make sense and which make very valid points, I'd end up posting the entire piece.  Therefore I encourage you to read the entire article in its entirety over at the HuffPo website.  You can find the article at this link:  Anti-Vaccine Vitriol: Seeking Reason.

Well ok, I do have to list one of my personal favorite quotes that Dr. Katz wrote: "In other words, if you want to offer advice against vaccination that reasonable people can take seriously, try being reasonable".

I dare say the phrase "reasonable antivaxxer" is an oxymoron, but perhaps one day I'll actually come across one.  It is difficult to imagine a world where a reasonable person tosses aside all logic and common sense while ignoring mountains of scientific evidence and historical records, but perhaps there are varying levels of reason.

Of course even after reading the article, the antivaxxers once again come out in full force in the comments section.  Sadly it seems most of them were unable to complete the entire article before posting because many of their comments are using the very tactics discussed in the article itself almost as if they antivaxxers were so enraged after the first paragraph or two they skipped the remainder to cut and paste more anti-vaccine nonsense.

One comment that caught my eye was from an antivaxxer who complained of a lack of "[d]ouble-blind, randomized controlled studies" showing the efficacy of flu vaccinations.  Not only did this particular antivaxxer clearly not read or understand Dr. Katz's article, but she also appears to be very confused about ethically questionable studies.

We of course have discussed this issue in the past, and frankly anyone of average intelligence should understand the moral issues with trying to perform such a study, but even more troubling is how these antivaxxers presume it is possible to prove a negative in the first place.  I just have to wonder if someone did perform a double-blind randomized controlled study on a flu vaccine and those individuals who did not receive the vaccine were six times more likely to contract the flu - would antivaxxers actually suggest the vaccine was functioning as designed?  I think we all know the answer, and that answer is "no", because they would simply claim there was bias, or they would challenge the funding source for the study, or they would make claims about how correlation does not equal causation (even though they are guilty of confusing the two on a continual basis).

The truth is, even if the results did come out as expected it wouldn't change perceptions or the minds of the anti-vaccination crowd, so what benefit would such an unethical study provide, and at what costs?  What if one of the test subjects contracted the flu and died as a result of complications?  What if those study participants who didn't receive the vaccine contracted the flu and spread it to dozens or possibly even hundreds of others?

You see when someone doesn't receive a vaccine, it isn't only them who is impacted.  Potentially it is everyone around them.  It is anyone and everyone who comes into contact with that person which is precisely why I have no problem with calling someone who willfully skips their vaccinations out of ignorance to be nothing short of selfish.  If you want to kill yourself I have zero problem with it, but when you put the lives of others in danger due to your selfishness, then I have a problem with your actions.

We have seen the ramifications of scientific ignorance when antivaxxers refuse to allow their children to receive vaccines, and in some cases it has lead to outbreaks of vaccine preventable diseases such as the measles or pertussis... with the end result being hospitalizations, prolonged illness, and in a few select cases even death.

Therefore antivaxxers can continue to protest that no double-blind randomized and controlled studies on the efficacy of the flu vaccine have been performed, but it won't change anything and is merely a distraction.  As much as we might love to see such a study, it won't be happening anytime soon not only because of the ethical issues, but because anytime a study is performed and the treatment has such profound effects, the study will be interrupted.  It is simply inhumane to continue a study when a sample group shows such a significant benefit over the control group, and any long-term study of a vaccine is most certainly going to show this disparity thus we must look elsewhere for the necessary data.

Granted it isn't like we can't look at actual historical data to know if something works.... say for instance the fact that the CDC reported the incidence of invasive Hib disease dropped from 40-100 per 100,000 children down to 1.3 per 100,000 due to routine usage of the Hib vaccine from 1980 to 1990. Surely that is merely a coincidence.

Then again, Australia found the same thing... which results in this chart showing how the Hib vaccine resulted in over a 90% drop in reported cases in 12 years and actually eliminated all fatalities within 7 years.

It still must just be a coincidence right?  I mean we can't use this type of data because it isn't part of a double-blind randomized and controlled study... so it must be garbage.

Then again, there have never been double-blind randomized and controlled studies proving the efficacy of parachutes either, and there won't be anytime soon.  Does that mean we shouldn't trust the efficacy of parachutes?  Of course not, because we already know they save lives.  We already have more than enough evidence to know that parachutes are a great idea, and we know what the alternative is.  To suggest we need a double-blind study to determine whether parachutes work or not would be unethical (and obviously idiotic), but when you think about it, vaccines are no different.


So the next time an antivaxxer asks for a double-blind study aka: a "vax vs. unvaxxed" study showing the efficacy of vaccines, just ask them if they are willing to participate in a double-blind study for parachutes.  Sure that seems incredibly stupid, but so does the idea of passing on a vaccine because of scientific ignorance or fear.

Now if you need an example that is more in tune with vaccine, simply look no further than shoulder-mounted three point safety belts in automobiles.  We know the usage of such devices has resulted in many lives saved, and we know what the statistics are prior to their usage much in the way we know what the rates of disease were prior to vaccines being developed.  So should automobile manufacturers be required to perform double-blind studies on seat belts prior to installing them in vehicles?  Should they be required to report any findings of shoulder injury or broken arms due to the seat belts even though those same people may have died without the seat belt?

Our world isn't always so black and white, and sometimes the data is impossible to obtain via a perfectly controlled scientific study.  In some cases we need to look at the other sources of evidence such as infection rates or historical data.  It may not always be as clean and concise as a chart listing infection rates of X vs. Y, but unless you are willing to jump out of a plane without a parachute you really have no business complaining about a lack of double-blind studies.

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?

Will Antivaxxers Embrace the HIV Vaccine?

I was reading the latest news about one of the many HIV vaccines in development, and even though the results of the initial phase of testing appear to be very positive, I couldn't help but wonder to myself... how will the antivaxxers spin this to make something as beneficial as a HIV vaccine to be a bad thing?

I understand full well we are a long way away from an actual usable and functional HIV vaccine, but the initial clinical trials suggest that such a vaccine could be right around the corner.  So if we assume a HIV vaccine is within our grasp, and we already know over 33,000 people a year are diagnosed with HIV / AIDS and over 9,000 die from the disease annually, will there be a major push from the antivaxxer community to proclaim the vaccine is more harmful than HIV itself?

Perhaps it is too early to tell.  We don't yet know of any potential side effects of the HIV vaccine so we can't say what harm it may cause.  However if we look to other vaccines as examples of what we might expect it seems highly unlikely that antivaxxers will support such a vaccine even if it is shown to save thousands of lives.

How do we know this?  Simple... just look at something like the HPV vaccine (Gardasil). We know the lifetime risk of developing cervical cancer in the US is 1 in 147 for those women who are unvaccinated while it is only 1 in 400 for those women who are vaccinated.  Knowing the fatality rate of cervical cancer is around 35%, we can use simple math to determine that the HPV vaccine could potentially save approximately 2,500 lives per year in the US alone.  Now antivaxxers are quick to point out that within one year of receiving a Gardasil vaccine there have been at least 68 reported deaths.  Some sources cite slightly higher numbers, some cite lower numbers, but the 68 number is accurate as of June 2011 and came directly from the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS).  What they fail to tell you however, is that that total includes all deaths... even those which were a result of suicide, car accidents, or unrelated medical conditions.

Now in case you are curious, even if we use the full 68 deaths, and we consider that at that point in time over 35,000,000 doses of the Gardasil vaccine were given it would mean that 68 works out to be 0.0004%.  It is probably also a good time to mention that 0 of those deaths (0.0000000000%) have actually been attributed to Gardasil... and that number doesn't change no matter who has reviewed the data.

However, I'm in generous mood and I'm trying to make a point, so for the sake of discussion, let's just go ahead and assume out of those 68 deaths that the vast majority were a direct result of the vaccine.  For the sake of argument, we will ignore all common sense and logic and simply assume that 50 of those 68 deaths were a direct result of Gardasil.  Now let's also assume that VAERS only captures about 10% of the actual adverse events tied to vaccines, and therefore we need to now extrapolate that 50 deaths to be a total of 500.  So out of 35,000,000 doses of the vaccine given, we are making a wild assumption of 500 deaths.  In case you are curious that works out to be an effective rate of 0.00142%

Do you have any idea how small a number 0.00142 really is? That is roughly one out of 70,000.  That means  if you injected one person each day with Gardasil, you could continue to do so for 192 years before someone might actually die as a result - and that is under the huge assumption that all of these deaths can be directly linked to the vaccine (which we know they cannot).

Great - so the chances of dropping dead within one year of receiving a Gardasil vaccine are 0.00142%.  Fine... I know it is a huge stretch, and we know the numbers are nowhere near that level, but even if we use worse case scenario logic coupled with idiotic assumptions, we still come up with a value which is incredibly small.

So how many lives have been saved by the vaccine during that same period of time?  The Gardasil vaccine was approved by the FDA in June of 2006, so five years later in June 2011 by the time those 35,000,000 doses were distributed, we could have potentially saved 12,500 lives from the vaccine.

So let's be clear - if the vaccine saves 2,500 lives a year (12,500 lives over five years) and if the vaccines results in 500 deaths during that same period, that tells us the end result is a net increase in lives saved.  This means the Gardasil vaccine actually saved at least 12,000 lives.  Yes you can argue the number is larger or smaller, but in the theme of keeping things simple, this is a fairly conservative figure.

So what do antivaxxers say when presented with these numbers?  Do they admit that the net effect of the vaccine is that lives are saved?  No.  Do they admit that even if the vaccine isn't perfect that it is still better than nothing?  Nope.  Instead of looking at the net impact, antivaxxers do what antivaxxers always do when the numbers don't help their cause.  They deny the numbers and claim the math doesn't add up.... or better yet they simply refuse to talk about it.

Now we know it is impossible for even the most diehard antivaxxer to deny basic arithmetic, so instead they simply flatly deny that the vaccine saves any lives.  They even go so far as to claim there is no connection between HPV and cervical cancer.  Yes seriously.  (In case you are wondering, the claim about HPV not causing cervical cancer is flatly untrue and stems from a misunderstanding of the virus.  It is true that not all strains of HPV cause cancer and it is also true that many HPV infections are short-lived and don't result in cervical cancer, but it is widely know that some strains of HPV (namely HPV 16 and HPV 18) do in fact cause more than 99% of all cervical cancers).

So we can see with our own eyes that antivaxxers with do anything and say anything rather than admit a vaccination is actually beneficial.  They will misinterpret data, they will misreport the facts, they will misrepresent scientific studies and even cherry-pick statements out of context.  Even worse, when all else fails... they will just flat out lie.

So if one day we are presented with a HIV vaccine that could potentially save tens of thousands of lives each year, is it possible that antivaxxers would actually embrace the vaccine and admit that it benefits the health of the human race?

Considering many antivaxxers don't even believe that the HIV virus causes AIDS... not bloody likely.

Lowell Hubbs Doubles Down on the Kiddie Porn Stories

As I recently posted, Lowell Hubbs likes to talk about child pornography both on this blog, as well as on his own Facebook page.  I showed how the images Mr. Hubbs attributes to these child predators are actually well known images from random Internet memes including a rather portly teenager known as "fat emo" and an overweight man known for having double chins.  I even had to point out the image Mr. Hubbs used that was supposedly a run away child that was abducted to be part of a child porn ring was none other than Eddie Munster from the 1960s television show The Munsters.  True to form, rather than admitting he was once again caught in a lie, Mr. Hubbs feels the need to defend his nonsense with his comments:

"As for the image said to be Larry Esenhour, and that is the correct spelling. He is indeed what he was said to be, and that is in fact his dad. The image of Eddy Munster was only added as a joke. In fact one said Larry Esenhour is one pissed off person right now, and at you; because this was exposed on your blog. I would be a bit worried about that if I were you." ~Lowell Hubbs

So let's break this down a bit and see what Mr. Hubbs is rambling on about.  First, on the initial Facebook post, Mr. Hubbs claimed the image was "Larry Eisenhour".  Now within this comment he claims the name is actually "Larry Esenhour" which we are told is the correct spelling.  This may seem like a trivial point, but we will come back to this later.

Second, Mr. Hubbs now claims the picture of Eddie Munster was added as a "joke".  This makes sense, because we all know mocking child pornography is so humorous and fun (sarcasm intended).  The reality is Mr. Hubbs knows how stupid he looks when he just picks random photos and then invents stories to go along with them and although he can remove the photos from his Facebook page, he can't remove the evidence from this blog.

The final few sentences in Mr. Hubbs' quote are just more of the same.  Veiled threats, unsupportable claims, and more all-around insanity.  What Mr. Hubbs fails to understand is that the more he speaks about these supposed "child pornographers" the worse he looks.  Why you ask?  Well... doesn't it seem odd that Mr. Hubbs seems to know so much about child pornographers even knowing what their current mental state might be and what they look like and the websites they participate in... yet he is never able to direct the police to their current location or offer any evidence of their supposed crimes?

Fear not however, because Mr. Hubbs wasn't satisfied with posting one senseless comment about kiddie porn, and soon enough he felt the need to continue the discussion with the following comments.  I've added my commentary here as well since it gets a bit long.

"Actually alias Costner, the guys [sic] name is Isenhour. Hey, so I didn't have the spelling right; so what." 

So first it was "Eisenhour", then it was "Esenhour", and now it is "Isenhour".  Mr. Hubbs has claimed two of these three names are correct... so be my guest if you want to  figure that one out.  I guess it is difficult to keep your story straight when you are making up the details as you go along.

"Actually the guy died this week of a heart attack, age 23." 

I should note it was just a few years ago when the "fat emo" meme made the rounds, and at the time the kid in the photos was clearly no more than 14 or 15 years old.  I'm was never a math major, but I don't see how a 15 year old kid becomes 23 in a couple of years... but let's not let basic math or logic get in the way of a good Lowell Hubbs comment.  Again, I find it odd that Mr. Hubbs seems to know so many details about these supposed child pornographers including how old they are and even how one of them died.  So where is the obituary?  Should I look under Larry Eisenhour, Larry Esenhour, or Larry Isenhour?  The odd thing is... I searched all three and can't seem to find anything on anyone with any of those three names.  So if the information isn't readily available on the Internet, how would Mr. Hubbs know about the personal lives of a man he claims is running a child porn ring?

I wish I could say Mr. Hubbs' comment starts to make more sense at this point... but sadly that is never the case.

"Thats [sic] actually a good thing because he was ruining the lives of to [sic] many young people, and that in regard to his child/teen porn studio he has been running. Unfortunately it is still running, under a new leader. Thats [sic] right, the underlings just keep moving up the ladder. Directly linked with and to the site [redacted], with accounts, and as well LS magazine and the undergound [sic] sex ring systems in the Ukraine." 

Note that I redacted the name of the website Mr. Hubbs likes to use merely because if there is any illegal activity occurring there I'm surely not going to advertise it.  Why Mr. Hubbs continues to provide such detail is anyone's guess.  This is yet another example of where Mr. Hubbs claims he has specific details about this underground child porn ring including the identities of those who may be running it, the website they operate from, accounts they may be using, and a name of a magazine.  So how does Mr. Hubbs explain his plethora of knowledge about child porn rings?  Seems a bit too convenient don't you think?

"Just because it was the only image and picture available on the internet [sic], for the guy, doesn't mean it is nor was not real. I couldn't make up anything like that up [sic], nor would I have any possible reason to make it up. How do you know what I know, and/or how and why I know what I know? You wouldn't." 

Actually Mr. Hubbs, yes you could make something like that up because you did exactly that.  You were busted using stock photos and trying to fabricate a backstory to cover your own guilt, and therefore you did the only thing you know how to do.... you lied.  You doubled down and dug the hole a bit deeper and you were caught - AGAIN.  Sadly this isn't the first time these tactics have backfired on you.

As far as your riddle about knowing what you know... that is just comical.  I'm expecting a comment about you being rubber and me being glue any moment. 

"And you actually seem to want to believe this person has received some sort of false accusation [sic] abuse from me? And you claim that I did that, and fabricated that, just to cover things up and create a falsely accused hacker. All to cover up that there really was no hack of my facebook acct., and to cover up that I really did put the information in there myself, stating that I was some sort of "Child Videographer". Thats [sic] what you want any readers to believe." 

I'm not claiming "this person" has received some sort of false accusation of abuse Mr. Hubbs.  I'm claiming this Larry Eisenhour / Esenhour / Isenhour person is a fabrication of your mind.  You invented a name that you weren't even intelligent enough to be able to remember how to spell, and you took an image from Google to invent a person to blame for your recent troubles.  That is what I believe Mr. Hubbs, and readers can make their own judgement based upon the information you have provided.

"No, Costner; irregardless of how long you say that was on my f.b account in the work and education, and you say I kept posting on my wall, with that said in existence; the truth is that I did not see it nor notice it, be it for whatever reason; that is as said the truth, I was not aware that it was there, and had not noticed it. I would as well of course have no reason to suspect anyone would do that, nor to keep rechecking for something like that having happened."

First of all I have no idea where you learned basic English, because I'm convinced a four year old could bang their head against a keyboard and come out with sentences that make more sense than what you have written here.  However if I read between the lines and try to approximate what thought you were attempting to convey I would agree the statement about your Facebook profile would be a fair because most people don't check their entire Facebook profile every single day.  However that particular excuse doesn't really hold water when put in context with the rest of your excuses - such as your next paragraph...

"In fact although said Larry I.; did hack my facebook acct. several times and shut down my entire computer system; until I locked that down by a specific alternative means to log in; (no specifics will be given); the person who actually hacked the said information into the account as far as that Work and Education section, was more likely to be and have been Dakota James. Dakota James is the same person who has provided all the illegally hacked and acquired legal document files as to and in regard to my said landlord situation,and that were on the page on this blog that you just pulled down. That for and by whatever means that page was published on this blog, and obviously later was and has been pulled down. You have never been hacked, right? You are as a fact, lying." 

See this is where Mr. Hubbs starts to lose me.  He makes wild claims about hackers (where have we seen that tactic before), but he is never able to offer any evidence.  I can't even begin to count the number of times that he claims this blog has been hacked, yet oddly enough I never seem to be aware of it.  I've never had any issues with this blog, I've never been forced to change my password, I've never received any alerts from Google about failed access attempts nor has anything else ever occurred to make me think someone has been "hacking" the blog.

Oddly enough, Mr. Hubbs seems to always see these phantom blog postings, yet he never seems to be able to capture any evidence that the have occurred.  Even multiple RSS readers never capture any of these phantom posts... so are these hackers so incredible that they are able to present blog posts only to Mr. Hubbs when no one else ever sees them?  Doubtful.  Although keep in mind in the past when Mr. Hubbs claimed this blog was hacked it turned out to be nothing more than him using MS Paint to create a fake blog page which he claims was published.  So very sad.

As far as this Dakota James character, that was a name used for a few comments posted here and logic dictates that most likely is not a real name.  The truth is I haven't heard anything from "Dakota James" since the original comments and I have no idea if he/she even visits this blog on a regular basis.  I'm guessing Mr. Hubbs must still be bitter about what was posted and is trying to do whatever he can to attack Dakota James,  but as is typically the case all we have are the ramblings of a conspiracy theorist and no evidence to support anything he says.

Rest assured if I was provided copies of "legal documents" I'd probably post them for all to see, but as it sits I'm as much in the dark about why Mr. Hubbs was evicted as anyone else.  I do find it odd that he can't find the time to pay the rent but he does have 20 hours a day to surf the Internet collection anti-vaccination material for his website... but whatever.

"So, keep on telling me I am lying and making up all your fabricated in your mind bullcrap, Costner; you are looking more mentally deranged all the time. Deny it all you want." 

Well as long as you asked.... yes Mr. Hubbs you are lying and making all of this "bullcrap" up.  You know it, I know it, everyone else who has read these blog pages knows it.  It isn't much of a stretch since you make up pretty much everything you ever write and very little of what you type is accurate, but when you dive into the subject of kiddie porn I must admit I get even more disgusted than when you are in over your head speaking about vaccines or other issues of healthcare.

I'll also deny that I'm looking "more mentally deranged"... which I believe is fairly obvious since I'm using your own words against you.  Hard to blame me for that Mr. Hubbs.

"Dakota James by the way is as well a person you have allowed to reply post on this blog more than once, and each time what was claimed to involved as well a fabricated presentation that amounted to entirely false claims, and what that person knew at the time was entirely slander which was directed at and to me. So, ongoing goes the desperation; doesn't it Costner. Don't actually, and refuse to debate the person directly, (me); just personally attack them with false accusation of lacking credibility in general. Sick stuff."

As I said Mr. Hubbs, this Dakota James identity has only posted here a few times and it was quite a while ago.  I believe I even made a comment in response to one of the comments he/she posted where I indicated I couldn't verify what was said.  However since nobody (including yourself) can ever verify what you post, I figure it is appropriate.

As far as debating you, we have been over this numerous times.  Scientific fact is not open to debate no matter how many times you throw a temper tantrum about it, and nobody - I repeat NOBODY - takes you seriously enough to 'debate' you.  Besides I have posted numerous pages deflating your claims and your supposed experts, and even when presented with scientific fact you refuse to acknowledge it.  It is difficult to have a debate with someone who won't follow the very basic tenets of debate in the first place.

Note - the remainder of this comment was submitted in a second post as apparently Mr. Hubbs had reached the character limit for comments. 

"Continuation
Now, you can ask all you want why a person would not go to law enforcement? Law enforcement is absolutely worthless in these situations, and that early on was tried. These people can and do cover their tracks quite well and that is how they keep operating without getting caught. These such people have so much money, they as well have law enforcement operating right in their pocket, and working for them. Not all, but some; and enough to get a heads up, and as well derail anything that goes up against them."

These people cover their tracks quite well?  Really Mr. Hubbs??  They cover their tracks so well that you know their names, you know their ages, you have their pictures, you know the websites the operate from and even the name of the 'front' magazine?  They cover their tracks so well that you know specifically who has 'hacked' your Facebook page and when one of them dies you even know what the cause of death was?  Wow... sure sounds like they do a great job of covering their tracks doesn't it Mr. Hubbs?

Yet even though you have all of this detail surrounding this mythical "child porn ring" you have no evidence showing that you ever tried to contact police or anyone else for that matter.  No police report, no attempts to go to the media... nothing.  So now you are claiming these people are so great at covering their tracks, yet you - a man known only for being a conspiracy theorist of questionable mental health - knows specific details including names, ages, websites, accounts, and even payoffs to law enforcement.

Yea that makes sense.

"No, as a fact I do not need law enforcement for anything Costner; and I have not nor will I ever need them for anything. They are absolutely worthless and have proven themselves to be worthless on every front, in these situations. Thats [sic] right, start scratching your head; ahhhehehehaaaa what, WHAT; &;^%($..THATS [sic] RIGHT, the only by choice... and actually clueless f**k here...is YOU! B***H!" 

Ok so I edited the profanity, but I think we all know what was said here.  So maybe Mr. Hubbs doesn't need law enforcement, but based upon his four DUI convictions, his time in prison, his shoplifting convictions, his conviction for theft of a bicycle, and whatever else is on his record... it sure seems that society still needs law enforcement to protect us from the likes of Lowell Hubbs.

"By the way; Larry is a person who as well had acquired medical funding money to after me; you know, such as stalking, hacking, calling me directly and making threats; sending trackers to watch my every move and follow me everywhere I go. This is standard issue from the medical community that I have endured now multiple forms of over over two years now. That from multiple different medical funders [sic] They do this because the truth is to [sic] damaging, and they want the truth silenced. And THIS should be any of your business, Costner? Why is that? YOU are one of the most demented and one of the sickest son of a b*****s on planet earth, as a fact. And you think, that no one can see that?"

So let me get this straight... this "Larry" operates a child porn ring, yet the "medical community" has provided him funding to track little old Lowell Hubbs and monitor his every move?  Seems legit.

So now Lowell Hubbs is the victim... we had it all wrong.  Lowell Hubbs is the one being threatened.  Lowell Hubbs is being tracked and having his every move monitored.  Lowell Hubbs is being followed everywhere.  Lowell Hubbs is being hacked and stalked.  Surely Lowell Hubbs would never invent or fabricate a story now would he?  Surely Lowell Hubbs only has the best interests of young children in mind when he speaks about child pornography day after day, comment after comment, time after time.  

Why didn't he say so sooner - it all seems so clear now!

So in summary - as if this post isn't far too long already - I'll just go on record again as saying I personally believe that Mr. Hubbs is very good at fabricating stories and making himself appear as the victim.  He seems to have an unhealthy interest in children, and a fascination with speaking about child porn rings.  He seems to suffer from any number of mental health disorders, and his version of reality is clearly not what the rest of us see.

I don't write these types of posts to merely pick on Lowell Hubbs.  I write them because based upon his comments I honestly fear that Mr. Hubbs may one day be in the headlines as he is involved in a horrific event.  I want to ensure his words are documented, and I want to ensure anyone who thinks this man is some type of an authority on vaccines or vaccine related information clearly understands the type of person he really is.  Not only has he been shown countless times to be a liar and not only has he been shown to be a conspiracy theorist, but the quotes above as well as those from previous posts clearly display signs of numerous mental disorders.

Don't expect Mr. Hubbs to consult a trained mental health provider however... apparently the only help he needs can be found at the bottom of the bottle.

Tastes so great it leads to four DUI convictions.
Is number five on the way?  

I have to ask... is this the type of man you would trust with the health and safety with your child?  If so, you have far greater problems than some vaccines.

Vaccine Conspiracy Theorists Are Slow Learners

Whether your agree or disagree with many of the viewpoints held by Vaccine Conspiracy Theorists, you must acknowledge they are a stubborn group.  Take for instance the all-too-common reliance upon conspirary theorist websites that have been proven time and time again to be as far away from reputable as you could possibly get.

You might think after a vaccine conspiracy theorist finds out that the same site they have been quoting from has also been publishing conspiracy theories about how cell phone towers are designed to harm children or how dolphins can fly (yes seriously), or most offensively engaging in holocaust denial they might stop using that particular source when writing about vaccines.

You'd be wrong.

In fact, when an antivaxxer discovers one of their favorite vaccine conspiracy theorist websites is known for hosting other unbelievable conspiracy theories they don't distance themselves at all... they actually embrace it and start to rely upon it more often than ever. They don't seek better more scientific sources but instead double-down and go all-in on a hand full of crazy.

Ladies and gentleman, I give you exhibit A:

Ah yes.... the amazing conspiracy theory repository that is whale.to, and this time the website contains such important information that we need to be told about it IN ALL CAPS SO WE DON'T MISS IT!  It shouldn't surprise anyone that Lowell Hubbs would continue to quote whale.to... because he is not only a fan of the website, but he is also one of their "contributors".  Yes boys and girls, we are once again reminded why vaccine conspiracy theorists never gain any traction and why they will never be taken seriously.

When a person has to obtain their 'data' and 'facts' from a well-known dumping ground for random conspiracy theories that are so far out there they aren't even found on well known antivaxxer websites, and when the person running the website is actually a pig farmer rather than a scientist, journalist, researcher, or scholar... well let's just say you have issues.

Trusting whale.to to offer valuable scientific knowledge while ignoring all of the baggage that comes along with them is akin to a person acknowledging that Osama Bin Laden was most certainly an evil man who deserved death, but then bragging that he sure could whip up a fantastic fruit salad.

The mind of a vaccine conspiracy theorist is a very confusing place indeed.

Child Abuse and Vaccines

You might think a post entitled "Child Abuse and Vaccines" would speak about how many antivaxxers consider vaccines to be abuse and how they feel any child who is subjected to vaccines is somehow harmed.  In truth, I wish this was that type of post, but unfortunately that may have to come at another time.

Instead, this post focuses on Lowell Hubbs and his continual desire to discuss the sexual abuse of children.  This has been a frequent subject of Mr. Hubbs in the past (more than a few times), but I thought he had moved on to less upsetting subject matter.  I never intended to discuss this subject on a blog that surrounds antivaxxers and vaccine conspiracy theorists, but unfortunately Mr. Hubbs continues to somehow bring the subject back time and time again, so forgive me for veering off-topic.

I mentioned in a previous post that I have concerns about people who seem to be obsessed with children and who display a lack of meaningful relationships in their adult lives, but some information that was recently submitted here serves as evidence that Mr. Hubbs may not be exactly what he claims to be.

For instance, based upon a tip I recently visited the Facebook page of Mr. Hubbs, and I was immediately presented with a banner image of young children holding hands, running, and playing.  That in itself isn't all that significant, but then I noticed what Mr. Hubbs has listed in the Work and Education section of his profile:

Yes you are reading that correctly.  Mr. Hubbs lists himself as a "Child Videographer" for an organization which manufactures and distributes "under eighteen adult oriented imagery and video content".  In fact that specific organization was involved with the manufacture and distribution of actual child pornography.

I'm not sure what would bring someone to post that type of information, or if they think it is some sort of joke although I did note that information was found on his Facebook page for several days all the while he had been posting dozens and dozens of articles and commenting on numerous other posts, so call me skeptical at his attempts to use the old excuse of "black hat hackers" taking over his account.

Once Mr. Hubbs realized several people had commented on his work history, and once a link was provided showing the true nature of "LS Magazine" he quickly and silently removed it from his page, without so much as an explanation.

Of course Mr. Hubbs wasn't done yet.  In some vain attempt to divert attention away from himself, he immediately submitted the following images and comment to his Facebook page:

I really am not sure what is going on here, but it seems Mr. Hubbs is claiming the first image above shows a person named "Larry Eisenhour".  The truth is that image is a popular Internet meme which goes by the name of "Fat Emo".  A Google search will find dozens if not hundreds of variations of that very image, and rest assured the rather portly young man featured in the image is not named Larry Eisenhour, but is instead a teenager who is struggling with his new found Internet fame.

The second image is also a popular image online and appears at the top of the search results for "people with double chins".  I'm not sure why Mr. Hubbs would post this image and claim it is Larry Eisenhour's father, but once again claims being made by Mr. Hubbs don't appear to match reality.  At this point I'm fairly certain "Larry Eisenhour" is just another figment of Mr. Hubbs' imagination much like "Harley Manning" was in the past.

The third image posted by Mr. Hubbs is recognizable to most people above the age of 30, and is the actor Butch Patrick portraying the character Eddie Munster from the television show The Munsters.  How Mr. Hubbs thinks this is an abducted child is beyond me considering Mr. Patrick is now 59 years old and that particular image dates back from the mid 1960s.

How disconnected from reality does a person have to be to just start posting images and inventing cover stories in order to hide his own actions?  Once again Mr. Hubbs claims to have the name of someone involved in child porn and child abductions, and once again there doesn't appear to be any evidence to support his wild claims.  Once again he makes statements about hackers, but he is never able to offer any evidence that any hacking has occurred.  No police reports, no media coverage, no stories found on Google... just the words of a known conspiracy theorist who is desperately trying to deflect attention away from his own words and actions.

If there was any doubt surrounding the mental health of Mr. Hubbs or the dishonesty that surrounds so many of his claims, his own words should solidify his place as nothing more than a dishonest conspiracy theorist who seems to have an unhealthy obsession with children... and possibly 1960s sitcom stars.

I'm a big fan of "innocent until proven guilty", but I can promise you I would not entrust Mr. Hubbs with any young children.  There are simply too many red flags, too many unanswered questions, and too much evidence suggesting his continual obsession with children and his continual desire to talk about the sexual abuse of children goes far beyond a simple concern for their health and well-being.

With all of this in mind, and with clear evidence showing the blatant fabrications and dishonesty that flow out of Lowell Hubbs' mind, how can anyone trust this man to provide them with factual information pertaining to vaccines?  If a man will lie about child pornography, and if a man invents clever background stories using images he simply pulled from Google and attached names to, how can he ever be taken seriously?  Yet this is the very same man who is Facebook friends with some of the nations most infamous antivaxxers including people like Andrew Moulden and Sherri TenPenny, and the very same man who fellow antivaxxers thank for his contributions to their "cause".

Is there really any question why antivaxxers are never taken seriously and why their movement remains on the lunatic fringe?

Does the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program Protect Vaccine Manufacturers?

The National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP) was developed in the 1980s to ensure a steady supply of vaccines were available and to prevent vaccine manufacturers from exiting the market due to rising litigation costs.  Some antivaxxers claim this was nothing more than a handout to the vaccine manufacturers because once the VICP was in place there was a higher burden of proof in order to "win" a vaccine injury lawsuit.  They also claim the VICP has allowed the vaccine manufacturers to make billions in profits with no risk since they are legally protected from vaccine injury lawsuits.

Is there any truth to these claims?  Not really.  

According to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), "In the early 1980s, news reports of serious side effects from the DTP (diphtheria, tetanus, pertussis) vaccine caused some to question the safety of the vaccine.  Parents began filing many lawsuits against vaccine companies, doctors, and nurses.  Some vaccine companies decided to stop making vaccines, which created vaccine shortages and threatened the Nation’s health.

All of these problems led a group of doctors, public health organizations, vaccine companies and private citizens to encourage Congress to enact a new law to compensate those found to be injured by childhood vaccines. The National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986 (Public Law 99-660) created the VICP, which began on October 1, 1988."

The truth is, in many ways the VICP made it easier for people to file claims, because it isn't a requirement to be a US citizen, and in some cases a citizen who receives a vaccine outside of the US can still file a claim with the VICP.  A claim can also be filed even if a vaccine was used in an off-label manner and even if the vaccine was administered against administration recommendations.  A claim can even be filed for a vaccine which isn't even licensed in the United States.  In a traditional lawsuit prior to the VICP, many of these things would have made compensation of an injury much more difficult if not entirely impossible.

Also, assuming some very minimal requirements are met, the VICP will pay legal fees and lawyer's fees related to the claim even if the claim is ultimately denied.  Previously in civil court proceedings, if a claim was rejected, the person who filed the claim would most often be responsible for their legal fees, thus this was a huge benefit to those who have filed claims.  In some cases, the risk of having to pay excessive legal fees could serve as a barrier preventing many people from filing lawsuits surrounding their injuries.

In addition to this, the VICP does not require a person specifically prove that the vaccine caused an injury.  Although the VICP does include injury as one of the criteria, an injured person can alternatively claim that the vaccine merely made an existing injury worse.  The VICP also includes an option for an injured person to merely prove they had a symptom of an injury within a specific time period - but they do not actually need to prove that symptom was caused by the vaccine alone.  The "vaccine injury table" simplifies the process in many cases because it includes a list of conditions which are presumed to be caused by vaccines.  This isn't to say these are the only conditions that may be caused, but in many ways this is a "fast track" to simplify the process for a person who feels he or she has been injured by a vaccine.

In summary, the VICP doesn't require a higher burden of proof than would exist in a civil lawsuit, and it is actually quite the opposite.  Within the VICP, a person can claim they were injured and provided their injury is legitimate and provided they filed their claim within the required time period, they have a much easier chance of winning the case than they would have under the rules of a traditional civil lawsuit.

Also, it is very important to clear up one major misconception with the VICP.  The VICP itself does not prevent a vaccine-injured person from suing the vaccine manufacturer or even the person who administered the vaccine.  In some cases it may be necessary to file with the VICP first, but regardless of the outcome of that case a person who feels he or she was injured by a vaccine can still file a civil lawsuit against the vaccine manufacturer, healthcare system, doctor, nurse, or anyone else involved in the process.

What the VICP does is offer a streamlined process to handle vaccine injury cases.  It reduces costs for both parties and helps to reduce the costs of frivolous lawsuits from unscrupulous lawyers who would seek millions in compensation for symptoms they couldn't even link to vaccines in the hopes the vaccine manufacturer would offer to settle out of court just to make them go away.  It also earmarks funds from each vaccine ($0.75 per dose) which are held in the vaccine injury compensation trust fund and are used to compensate victims or those who file claims against the VICP.

Of course the VICP isn't perfect, but clearly it is better than forcing vaccine manufacturers out of business due to legal threats, and it helps ensure a supply of life-saving vaccines are available to anyone who wants them.  One major issue with the VICP might just be how easily some lawyers have taken advantage of the "pay no matter the outcome" design of the VICP.  

For example, many lawyers specialize in "vaccine injury" cases because they understand whether the client wins or loses in court, the lawyer's fees will still be paid by the VICP.  In these cases, there is zero risk to the lawyer because he or she knows their fees will be covered.  This isn't like a civil lawsuit where if the claimant loses the case there will be no money to pay for legal fees... so in essence this is a guarantee for the lawyers.

In fact, since the original claims were filed in the late 80s, $2.3 Billion has been paid to the claimants themselves, but over $91.5 Billion has been paid to cover attorney's fees and other legal costs.  Thus for every dollar coming out of the VICP, only 2.5 cents goes to the actual "injured" party, while 97.5 cents goes to lawyers and to fees.  Perhaps even more interesting is for the VICP claims that were denied, over $49.6 Billion has been paid to cover attorney's fees and other legal costs.  This is $49.6 Billion that most likely would have never been paid under the rules of a traditional civil case.

As you can see even when the lawyers lose... they actually win.  It seems that if the VICP is a handout to anyone... it isn't the vaccine manufacturers - it is trial lawyers.

National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP)

What You Need to Know About the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP)

Health Resources and Services Administration Vaccine Injury Table