The Benefits of Vaccinations: History Continues To Frustrate Antivaxxers

When it comes to vaccines, do the benefits really outweigh the risks, or is there a chance you are simply
gambling your health each and every time you opt for vaccinations?

If you are an anti-vaccinationist (antivaxxer) the answer is clear -  there is no such thing as a safe vaccine, and vaccines are clearly not worth the risk. On the other hand, if you look at history, or if you study the actual impact of vaccines you soon realize that not only are vaccines incredibly safe and effective, but they are responsible for saving millions of lives that otherwise would have been lost to various diseases.

Needless to say, some argue about these benefits, and some like to act as if the jury is still out.  Antivaxxers are continually attempting to suggest that society would be better off without vaccines, and I felt it was well past time they offer some evidence to show us why they feel that is the case.


Enter the Challenger

For those of you following along at home, Lowell Hubbs is a narcissistic anti-vaccinationist who not only has served as inspiration for many of the posts on this blog, but someone who comments (or attempts to comment) on a very regular basis.  In fact Mr. Hubbs has added hundreds of comments to this blog just as he has contributed thousands upon thousands of comments to practically every other vaccine-related blog, forum or website that he can find.

Now it should be noted that although Mr. Hubbs doesn't actually hold a degree in a science related field, and although he doesn't hold a degree at all, and even though he has never spent a single day in any form of post-secondary education - he does consider himself an expert in subjects like vaccinations, medical conditions, the source of disease, the history of medicine, and pretty much any topic which is even remotely connected to modern medicine.  Whether this expertise was gained during his time in the State Penitentiary serving time for one of his four felony DUI offenses, or whether this knowledge was gained from his time working at a meat-processing facility as a day laborer I cannot say, but rest assured Mr. Hubbs claims he is a trusted expert, and therefore you are expected to take his word for it... credentials be damned.

The reason this is important is because Mr. Hubbs is one of the antivaxxers who routinely claims that vaccines cause more harm than good, and in his view (and in the opinion of most antivaxxers) vaccines should never be used - EVER.  Therefore, as I know this is a commonly held belief with antivaxxers, I've asked Mr. Hubbs to provide me the evidence to support this viewpoint.

If you are really interested in the details, you may wish to read the comments from a prior blog post here.  However I will do my best to summarize below.

This all began when Mr. Hubbs submitted a comment which read in part:

"I have put in front of you multiple times the long list of studies that prove in any honest and rational mind, that the claims of vaccine doing more harm than good, are indeed true."

Of course I countered this with a response that Mr. Hubbs clearly doesn't understand what the terms "scientific study" actually mean and how to date there hasn't been a single study which shows vaccines cause more harm than good.  One might think if this were actually the case, one of the more well known anti-vaccine organizations would have performed some level of study comparing the risks of vaccines against the benefits - or perhaps even a summary study of existing data... but alas it doesn't appear it has happened.  Of course Mr. Hubbs claimed there were "numerous studies in Pubmed" and accused me of hiding the truth and twisting the facts and lying to deceive the public yada, yada, yada.

It was about this time that I decided it was time to put this little issue to rest once and for all since Mr. Hubbs, and other anti-vaxxers like him, continue to make these claims on a near daily basis. Therefore I proposed the following solution to Mr. Hubbs:

"Please post a comment with ONE SINGLE peer-reviewed AND published study that shows vaccines cause more harm than good or that vaccines cause autism and we can discuss it."

I then added some ground rules in a silly attempt to limit this discussion and prevent it from wandering away into some unrelated anti-mainstream medicine rant or a discussion about metal tooth fillings or chemtrails as so often happens when you attempt to engage an antivaxxer.  Those rules were listed as follows:

• Do not attempt to link me to your personal website and call it "proof" as I won't publish it.
• Do not attempt to cut and paste a laundry list of dozens upon dozens of links to various articles, blog pages, or anti-vaxxer websites and claim they are scientific because I won't publish it.
• Do not attempt to change the subject and rant about me, this blog, or any other unrelated issues as I won't publish it.
• Do not attempt to post a link to an anti-vaxxer website and claim it is a published study.
• Do not attempt to link to a summary document or an abstract or a partial summary report because I won't publish it.
• Do not attempt to post a transcript of a speech or interview as you attempt to pass it off as a published study because I won't publish it.
• Do not attempt to link to a non-recognized 'journal' like Medical Hypotheses or Medical Veritas or anything which isn't listed in MEDLINE because I won't publish it.
• In short - stick to legitimate peer-reviewed studies rather than opinion pieces, blog posts, interviews, or unpublished nonsense.

Ok - so that seems straightforward enough right?  So if our antivaxxer friend can post a study proving how vaccines are actually causing more harm than the benefits of said vaccine, this should be a slam dunk.  Honestly I wouldn't even be as picky as I make it seem, so if he could provide me with a summary study that even attempts to compare the risks of vaccination against the benefits I would be happy to discuss it.  Surely if you make such a claim you should have the supporting evidence to back it up, so I might think it someone is so adamant about their statement they might actually have some level of evidence at the ready just in case someone challenges them.

I fully understand it is silly to ask for a study that proves vaccines cause autism or a study that proves vaccines cause more harm than good, because we all know these studies don't actually exist.  Of course I also know antivaxxers refuse to look at the entire body of evidence and they refuse to acknowledge all of the good that has come from vaccinations, thus asking them to provide a study seems only fair.  After all - if you make a claim, it is your duty to support that claim with evidence, and therefore it shouldn't be difficult for Mr. Hubbs to support his wild statements with a study or two.


The Response:

So how does Mr. Hubbs respond to this challenge?  Do you think he is able to follow a few simple rules and provide a study in support of his beliefs?

Not exactly.

The initial volley from Mr. Hubbs should have contained perhaps three or four sentences and a URL pointing to this mythical study of his... but that just won't do for an antivaxxer.  Therefore I present to you the two part response that Mr. Hubbs felt was a logical reaction to a very simple question:

Part 1 of 2:

"This reply will be in two parts.

I am getting more than a little tired of that kind of persistent hypocrisy in your claims, in regard to your own personal attack on me throughout the pages of this blog, and as well in your allowing all the as a fact, slanderous reply comments to be published, that you have. Your continual and false self elevation to some sort of expert here and on these issues, is beyond laughable. A self proclaimed blogging expert with as well absolutely and intentionally, no personal identity. As far as statements of opinion; why is it that you claim to and believe that yours are the only ones that correct; no matter what the subject matter, and no matter how well founded your oppositions claims are.

Look at what you are doing here. All you had to do was publish my original and first reply, and be done with it. But oh no, you refused to do that, and here you are weeks later still avoiding the content of that reply and its reference material. Here you are still making pathetic and repeat false excuses, one after another, for why you could not publish that reply as it was. Here you are as well making reply posting rule after rule, that actually has and had nothing to do with the dis-allowance of that said reply. You simply refuse to allow the truth information and all that unbiased science to be promoted; it is to much truth. Your agenda is NOT truth' and it all to clearly never has been nor ever will be. Your agenda is one of self selective denial.

And don't even go there in any attempt to claim you have not been to my website, as you know exactly what is there, and that is why you refuse to link to any of its pages. You quite clearly used to as well scour the original site in an attempt to find some dirt, and you were never successful. You as well simply refuse to allow any readers know that I have a counter blog to this one, and/or to ever reference to it. What should that tell the readers, when you go on blogging and creating more and more titled blog pages, having never answered to the truth information that exists on that blog? A blog that contains many repeat copies of the rebuttal and correct information replies, you refused to publish on this blog."

Ok so let's go ahead and dissect part one of this comment.  First of all you will note Mr. Hubbs was unable to provide a link to the study that was requested.  This is obviously not unexpected and as I've dealt with more than a few antivaxxers in my time, I fully expected this type of response.

What Mr. Hubbs does offer us is a list of complaints.  He complains about my 'hypocrisy', my identity, the  comments I've published on the blog, the comments I haven't published on the blog, my 'agenda', the rules I've set forth in this discussion, or why I won't link to his many blogs or websites.

Did you catch the part where he actually provided the evidence or the study showing how vaccines are so harmful?  Yes I guess I missed it too... because of course instead of offering some level of evidence, Mr. Hubbs feels his laundry list of complaints are worthy of multiple paragraphs and are more important.

Rest assured however, that Mr. Hubbs wasn't done yet.  Thus he posted the following comment some time later (perhaps after he opted to clam himself down via some Earl Grey tea and yoga).


Part 2 of 2:

"Part 2 of your reply.
You see what you are avoiding here again is any realization as well of the fact that it is not just one study that is the total of the evidence. It is multiple studies and data all showing the same or similar findings. It is when you put that all together, that you have the total package of realization and understanding. So, what are you doing? You are again censoring the reply information you have been given. I do not find it acceptable, nor do I have any desire whatsoever to play along with your twisted censorship games, Editor.

However, even though I have explained to you the situation, and I could give you dozens of good vaccine harm and ASD related studies, I am going to give you a single study, to see what you come up with. Actually I am going to give you two studies, because they are somewhat interlinked as a basic info package. These studies are obviously quite self explanatory. The first one deals with the spectrum of ASIA: ‘Autoimmune (Auto-inflammatory) Syndrome.
The spectrum of ASIA: ‘Autoimmune (Auto-inflammatory) Syndrome induced by Adjuvants http://lup.sagepub.com/content/21/2/118.full
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20708902
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22235045
http://lup.sagepub.com/content/21/2/190.abstract
http://lup.sagepub.com/content/21/2/128
http://www.the-rheumatologist.org/details/article/1081203/ASIA_A_New_Way_to_Put_the_Puzzle_Together.html
http://lup.sagepub.com/content/21/2/210.abstract
PLoS One. 2009; 4(12): e8382. Published online 2009 December 31.Self-Organized Criticality Theory of Autoimmunity
Conclusions/Significance
Systemic autoimmunity appears to be the inevitable consequence of over-stimulating the host's immune ‘system’ by repeated immunization with antigen, to the levels that surpass system's self-organized criticality.
http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0008382 (Full study)
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2795160/
By the way; when we get done with this, we can move on to the issue of aluminum vaccine adjuvants, combined with vaccine contamination. Be sure that you as well provide any counter studies in any arguments you make, and just your opinions, are of course, not acceptable. Claims as well from Paul Offit and the CDC, that dietary consumption of mercury and/or aluminum is the same thing as injected forms of it, and claimed to be handled by the human body and detoxed the same way, are as well and of course not acceptable, as it is not backed by any real physiological data nor science."

So again Mr. Hubbs begins his comment with excuses.  Excuses on why such a study (showing vaccines cause more harm than good) doesn't exist.  Excuses on why he can't comply with a simple set of rules.  Excuses on the format of his response.  We've seen this before and such excuses are fully expected.  However then Mr. Hubbs goes on to say he will provide a single study - and then changes that to say he will provide "two studies".

Great - I can work with two studies... two studies isn't a big deal, and if either of them - or both of them combined lead me to believe his statement about vaccines causing more harm than good may have some validity then by all means I'm willing to hear him out.

The problem is, Mr. Hubbs cannot count, and apparently he has no idea what a 'study' is.  He doesn't provide links to just one or even two studies, but instead his comment includes no fewer than nine different links to various documents, summaries, and a few studies.  This isn't to say the studies he references aren't interesting because they are, but the issue is they don't even attempt to claim vaccines cause more harm than good.  So much for following simple rules.

Alas, let's humor our antivaxxer compatriot as we delve down into the fractured mind of a man who has been known to claim 9/11 was an inside job or how you can cure cancer with baking soda.  Surely it will be a fun ride.


The Analysis:

Link Cited: http://lup.sagepub.com/content/21/2/118.full

First, it is probably worth noting the very first link Mr. Hubbs provided isn't even a study.  This begs the question on whether or not Mr. Hubbs really knows what a study actually is, but we will ignore that point for now and discuss the actual content.  What he actually has provided is an article which begins by explaining how a Saudi Sheikh was diagnosed with probable systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) and how the disease re-presented itself after a flu vaccine.

Great - so even if we assume the flu vaccine triggered the re-emergence of his auto-immune disease and was 100% responsible this still does not in any way prove that vaccines cause more harm than good.  In fact, the article discloses the fact that he had the condition prior to the vaccine, and it also states the condition was treated with steroids.  This is an example of one person having a reaction to a vaccine, so is the premise here that because one person had a reaction that vaccines on the whole are simply harmful?  Nonsense - that is the logical equivalent of claiming because someone drown in a swimming pool we should ban water.

The article does cite several other articles, summaries, and even a few studies that discuss this same subject matter, and of course Mr. Hubbs actually links to some of them separately later (which I'll discuss below).  There are few interesting statements within this article however. Number one, the article states "[...] although immunization with the flu vaccine is considered safe for most SLE patients, for this particular patient, re-immunization should be considered with caution".  Also, earlier in the same article they authors state "[...]vaccines are beneficial for the vast majority of subjects [...]".  Those statements don't really seem to be very harmful for vaccines but rather they seem to suggest that side effects are rare and that the benefits outweigh the risks.  If this is the best Mr. Hubbs can do, it isn't looking good for him.


Link Cited: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20708902

For his second link, Mr. Hubbs shows us an abstract for a proposal entitled 'ASIA' - autoimmune/inflammatory syndrome induced by adjuvants.  This isn't a study, but rather a review of other data which result in the authors suggesting four conditions (siliconosis, Gulf war syndrome (GWS), macrophagic myofasciitis syndrome (MMF) and post-vaccination phenomena) should be classified as ASIA.

Great - that's helpful I suppose, but there is nothing withing the proposal that provides actual data and it isn't even pretending to be a study so I'm unsure why Mr. Hubbs felt this should be included (other than the fact he most likely copied and pasted this entire series of URLs from a different antivaxxer website).


Link Cited: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22235045

Moving on to the third link, it appears Mr. Hubbs finally gets to the point where he has actually provided a link to a study.  This is a supposed study of 114 people (of which 93 are used within the study) diagnosed with immune-mediated diseases following immunization with hepatitis-B vaccine.  There is value to summarizing this data, unfortunately there are some serious flaws with this methodology.  Now I know this will upset antivaxxers, but the fact is this 'study' only looked at people who consulted with legal representation as they blamed their symptoms upon vaccines. Needless to say this isn't exactly the way to perform unbiased research.

Where are the confidence intervals linking the hepatitis B vaccine with the auto immune conditions?  Why didn't they bother to use a control group?  Where is the 'meat' of how they performed their research?  How many of these patients had histories of existing auto-immune diseases?  I wish I could answer these questions, but the information isn't present, so we are left to guess.  What we do know is the authors indicated there were common clinical characteristics which in their view suggests a common denominator in the diseases. Fair enough... but this is far below the burden of proof to suggest vaccines cause more harm than good.

So if we ignore the lack of detail in the study for a moment and simply assume that all 93 of those people had some form of a reaction to the hepatitis B vaccine and that there was no other possible cause of their illnesses, does that therefore mean the vaccine itself is harmful and that it should be eliminated?  Unfortunately the authors don't extrapolate their data to the population as a whole, and we aren't provided with details on how their selected their subjects or what methodology was employed to find them, therefore we can't really know how these numbers would apply to a large population.

We do know however that hepatitis B can lead to liver failure, cirrhosis, and cancer - so it is a serious condition. The American Medical Association (AMA) has indicated that in the US 11,000 people a year are hospitalized as a result of hepatitis B, and according to an article found in the Cleveland Clinic Journal of Medicine, around 5,000 people in the US die each year from the disease.  That same article indicates that each year as many as 1,000,000 people worldwide (that is 1 million!) die of hepatitis B-related cirrhosis or hepatocellular carcinoma (cancer).  The article also states the following:

"The incidence of acute hepatitis B in the United States has declined from 8.5 per 100,000 population in 1990 to 2.1 per 100,000 population in 2004, with the greatest declines (94%) in children and adolescents, coincident with an increase in hepatitis B vaccination in these age groups."

So we have a vaccine which has been showing to reduce hepatitis B by over 75% and up to 94% in children and adolescents... yet antivaxxers try to suggest because the vaccine may trigger a re-occurrence of an auto-immune disease this is sufficient reason to eliminate it from the marketplace?

Per the AMA, the hepatitis B vaccines have been administered to more than 20 million people in the US and more than 500 million people in the world, and oddly enough we aren't hearing about thousands upon thousands of vaccine-related deaths or injuries... so doesn't that suggest the vaccine is far more beneficial than harmful?

The truth is, the evidence against the vaccine which suggests it can lead to auto-immune diseases is anecdotal, but even if we assume such a link exists and is certain there still isn't sufficient evidence to suggest the vaccine isn't beneficial.  We know it can prevent people from contracting hepatitis B, we know it will prevent hospitalizations for tens of thousands, and we know it saves thousands of lives each year in the US alone.  Is that not enough evidence to show the vaccine is worthwhile?


Link Cited: http://lup.sagepub.com/content/21/2/190.abstract

This is an abstract speaking of Gulf War Syndrome (GWS) and how it may be part of the ASIA.  It isn't a study, and the article does not try to claim the aetiology (cause of the disease) of GWS is even known. The article readily admits that GWS could be due to exposure to environmental factors or chemical drugs, vaccinations or the adjuvants in them - but they make no claims, and offer no evidence to support these statements. What this article is attempting to communicate is nothing other than that fact that they feel GWS should be part of the ASIA classification. That may be interesting, but it is not at all useful in this discussion - it appears Mr. Hubbs most likely pasted this link as it was included in a list of ASIA related URLs he found elsewhere. Color me surprised he didn't bother to review the material he was attempting to base his case upon.


Link Cited: http://lup.sagepub.com/content/21/2/128

This is yet another article about ASIA. This one specifically relates to "illegal injections of foreign substances for cosmetic purposes" such as silicone, mineral oil, collagen, and other substances. It in no way relates to vaccines, and in no way relates to this discussion.

Once again it is not only clear Mr. Hubbs didn't bother to read beyond the first link or two in this list before pasting it into his message, but it is clear he is unable to follow even the most simple of rules.  Apparently asking for actual medical studies is far too difficult.


Link Cited: http://www.the-rheumatologist.org/details/article/1081203/ASIA_A_New_Way_to_Put_the_Puzzle_Together.html

Oh look yet another article about ASIA.  If there was any doubt Mr. Hubbs copied a list of ASIA related links from another website, it seems to have pretty much been confirmed as yet again it appears the material doesn't actually support the statements he is attempting to make.

We have already been shown several articles that discuss what ASIA is... so what is the benefit of offering this one?  Once again this isn't a study, it offers no comparison between risk and reward, it doesn't even attempt to suggest vaccines should be eliminated or reduced, and it speaks in very general terms rather than attempting to blame vaccines for ASIA.  For example, it explains that autoimmune disease may be caused by both genetic and environmental factors, and that those environmental factors can include infections, toxins, drugs, and other agents.  We can't deny that vaccines would fall into this list here, but what conclusion should be drawn from this?  Sadly - Mr. Hubbs doesn't seem to know.

What we do know is the article Mr. Hubbs tries to use as evidence to support his position that vaccines cause more harm than good actually states the following:

"Vaccines have been safely and effectively administered to humans and animals worldwide for 200 years, thereby enabling the elimination of many serious and life-threatening infectious diseases."

It seems to me that the article actually helps promote the idea that vaccines are beneficial.  They do explain there are risks and yes they offer examples, but clearly based upon the body of evidence, even the authors felt it was worth noting that there are significant benefits to vaccines.

Science: Ten Billion.... Antivaxxers: 0.


Link Cited: http://lup.sagepub.com/content/21/2/210.abstract

This is getting rather repetitive.  This is yet another article (or rather an abstract of an article) that discusses ASIA, and although it doesn't delve into the benefits vs. risks of vaccines, the very first sentence does state that "adjuvants may induce autoimmune diseases in susceptible individuals". (emphasis mine)  So essentially they aren't even claiming adjuvants actually are the root cause of ASIA, but rather they may be in certain cases, when people just happen to have other genetic traits that make them susceptible.

Awesome - isn't that helpful!  Actually, sarcasm aside, it is an interesting article provided you acknowledge the research involved measuring post-vaccination levels of pathogenic antiphospholipid antibodies in genetically prone mice.  Does this help Mr. Hubbs with his case that the risks of vaccinations outweigh the benefits?  Not in the slightest... but at this point it is abundantly clear Mr. Hubbs not only has no idea how to actually read and comprehend this information, he also has no idea how to offer supporting evidence that works for his position rather than directly against it.


Link Cited: http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0008382

Well I'll give credit to Mr. Hubbs for one thing... at least this one is an actual study. It doesn't do much to suggest the risk of vaccines outweigh the benefits, but it does do a great job at explaining how if you repeatedly inject massive amounts of antigens into mice it may lead to systemic autoimmunity.
The authors of this study admit the levels of antigens they are introducing are beyond the system's "self-organized criticality", and frankly that is what research generally does.  They test to extremes to determine the outcome which would never occur in normal daily life, thus injecting various substances into mice every five days may be the equivalent of injecting 5ml of the exact same antigen into a human every week for several decades.  It isn't that anyone is suggesting we do this of course, and such a test would be unethical, but the researchers are knowingly and willfully going far beyond a level which is considered "normal" in the mice in order to test a theory.

The real problem here isn't with the study at all... but rather Mr. Hubbs interpretation to the study.  In fact the study is testing exposure to massive amounts of antigens, but they are not suggesting this is linked to exposure from vaccines, and they even openly state that "[l]iving organisms are constantly exposed to a broad range of environmental antigens, as exemplified by the recent re-emergence of measles virus infection among a subpopulation of Japanese young adults who were not vaccinated against the virus."

So as you can see, the researchers are actually focused more upon environmental antigens impact those who aren't vaccinated rather than those who are.  That isn't to say someone couldn't be overstimulated via vaccinations, but it appears it would require exponentially more vaccinations than any human being is ever exposed to in multiple lifetimes, because in terms of vaccinations a human wouldn't be exposed to the same antigens dozens, or perhaps even hundreds of times.

Now I fully realize why antivaxxers like these types of studies, because they draw their own conclusions from them which typically result in phrases like "this proves vaccines will cause autoimmune diseases" or "vaccinations will inevitably lead to autoimmune diseases".  The problem here is that these same antivaxxers clearly do not understand how these studies are performed, and they are improperly interpreting the results without understanding the testing methods.

This is sort of like claiming eating tuna will lead to heavy metal poisoning, or that drinking alcohol will lead to liver failure and therefore tuna and alcohol should be outlawed.  Of course we all know eating tuna or drinking alcohol is perfectly healthy in moderation.  The problem is when you consume too much of either - and then there can be side effects.  There can be medical complications, and if you continue down this path long enough it can even lead to death.

The point is, if antivaxxers are so insistent that we eliminate anything that can harm us if exposed to it long enough, they would have to ban everything on the planet including water, oxygen, and sunlight.  Good luck with that.


Link Cited: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2795160/

This is yet another example of why we know Mr. Hubbs doesn't actually read the content he links to and instead just copies and pastes lists of URLs from antivaxxer websites and blogs.  How do we know this?  Well, if you actually visit the link above you will find it is the exact same study posted previously... but hosted on a different website.  It is as if Mr. Hubbs bragged that he saw both a Mountain Lion AND a Cougar during a recent camping trip and therefore we should be doubly impressed.

Note to Mr. Hubbs:  A Mountain Lion and a Cougar are the same animal.


The Results:

So there you have it.  A list of nine links, not a single one of which actually even attempts to suggest (much less prove) that vaccines cause more harm than good.  Out of the nine we saw several repeated themes, duplicated information, and a general misunderstanding of what constitutes a study, and although the link dump is impressive in terms of the number of websites included, it falls short of actually reinforcing the argument that vaccines cause more harm than good.

The thing is, I won't deny that vaccines have some side effects.  Nobody will deny that.  Nobody will pretend anything consumed by or injected into the human body may not have side effects in some small number of people, because the reality is anything that comes into contact with humans will have side effects to someone.  Some vaccines have contained egg byproducts would be harmful to those with egg allergies - but do we pull all vaccines off the market because of the potential it might cause an allergic reaction?  No.

We understand that with every product on the planet, there are potential risks.  Peanut butter has been known to kill many people, but you won't see anyone protesting in front of the JIF factory claiming it should be banned.  There are even people who are allergic to sunlight (photodermatitis) - so does that mean we should only allow people out at night?  Obviously not.

In short Mr. Hubbs, you didn't show me a study that backs up your previous statements.  At all.  You failed - and to make matters worse you couldn't even come up with this list yourself.  Instead you had to copy and paste it from one of the many lists that originated as part of an antivaxxer movie like this one:

http://www.greatergoodmovie.org/TGG/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/RESEARCH10-8LJM.pdf

I must ask myself, why is this so hard for antivaxxers?  Why are they unable to provide the evidence that they claim exists, and instead they simply cut and paste various links that not only don't relate to the issue under discussion, but actually include data that specifically counters their arguments?  How incredibly sad.  I'm not sure if I should be saddened that they obviously are unable to understand the material, or simply disgusted that they have these concepts explained to them time and time again yet refuse to acknowledge the facts.

Trying to suggest vaccines cause more harm than good is one thing, but you need to be able to provide evidence to support that view.  I can find a study that shows there are side effects of vaccines, but out of context that is meaningless.  What is required is for someone making such a claim to include information about the benefits of the vaccine as well - and then there can be a comparison.

For example I might claim aspirin is harmful and then link to a study like this one.  I can now prove that aspirin can be a major risk factor and contributor to bleeding events and can even lead to death... but does that tell the whole story?

Not exactly.

Therefore if I wish to be honest, I would also need to factor in the benefits of aspirin.  I could link to an article like this one which details the benefits of aspirin when used for cardiovascular prevention.  Some compare and contrast is required - and ultimately the full picture becomes clear and we soon realize that the risks of taking aspirin are minor, while the benefits many.  This helps explain why you can run down to practically any corner store in the nation and buy a bottle without a prescription, and why millions of doses are taken daily with very few issues.

Thus when it comes to vaccines, we need to be honest about not only the risks, but also the benefits.  Merely listing all of the potential side effects or negative consequences of a vaccine is not being truthful about the issue, thus we need to also consider what benefits may exist.  After all... isn't that the entire point?  If you want to know if the risk outweigh the benefits you can't simply ignore the benefits - you need to address them head on.


Benefits of Vaccines:

Let's look at just one vaccine - the smallpox vaccine.  I've discussed this before, but it bears repeating.

Towards the end of the 18th century, approximately 400,000 Europeans died annually from smallpox. Around that same time, approximately 10% of all children born in Sweden died from smallpox, and even worse one out of every seven Russian children died from the disease.

In the early 1800s, the United States passed a law (aptly named the Vaccine Act of 1813) to ensure the safe and legitimate smallpox vaccine would be available to the public. By the late 1800s, smallpox was effectively eliminated within the US due to the vaccine.  This wasn't just a coincidence, and contrary to what anitvaxxers have tried to suggest, smallpox did not get renamed to something like chickenpox (if you have ever seen images of someone infected with smallpox, you wouldn't even try to suggest such insanity).

Smallpox was responsible for an estimated 300–500 million deaths during the 20th century, and killed approximately 25% of those who were infected (obviously more serious than chickenpox).  Smallpox was killing up to two million people a year as recently as the late 1960s and yet due to a large-scale vaccination initiative, we actually eradicated smallpox in 1979.  It not longer exists in the wild and there hasn't been a case reported since.  Even though many nations on the planet still suffer from a lack of clean drinking water and there are still many diseases spread via a lack of sanitation - we were still able to eliminate smallpox.

So what is the end result?  Well for starters even if we don't factor in the population growth we know the vaccine has saved approximately two million lives a year.  Since 1979 that is 68,000,000 lives saved... all from a single vaccine.  Therefore I must ask the question... are those 68,000,000 lives less important than a small chance that someone, somewhere might suffer a side effect from a vaccine?

When we look at the benefits of other vaccines we see the same picture.  In some developing nations, measles used to kill as many as 34% of those infected by the disease, yet due to a vaccine it is a disease which for the most part can be prevented and in areas where vaccination rates are highest the mortality rate of measles is near zero.  This is yet another example where a vaccine has saved hundreds of thousands or perhaps even millions of lives - so if one wishes to debate the risks vs. benefits, it seems the benefits are many.

Look at the polio vaccine, the pertussis vaccine, the rabies vaccine, or vaccines for diseases like diphtheria, rotovirus, or hepatitis B and you will find much of the same.  Vaccines prevent disease, vaccines prevent suffering, and vaccines prevent death.

In Summary:

I knew asking for evidence from an antivaxxer was an exercise in futility.  The overwhelming evidence that concludes vaccines save lives is irrefutable, and vaccines are commonly held as one of mankind's greatest triumphs.  To suggest the risks of vaccines somehow outweigh the benefits requires one to revise history, to ignore decades upon decades of existing research, and to close their eyes, minds, and hearts to the facts surrounding them.

However let it never be said that I didn't give an antivaxxer a chance.  Mr. Hubbs has obviously failed, and although I know he will twist the facts and distort these words in some vain attempt to pretend he knows more than generations of scientists, doctors, and researchers - the point remains that vaccines save lives.  Vaccines aren't perfect... they likely never will be, but when we let the evidence and facts guide us we can come to no other conclusion that to equivocally state that the benefits of vaccines far, far, far outweigh the risks.

And  this ladies and gentlemen is why you can't bother to argue with an antivaxxer, because they ignore science and facts as they spew nonsense.  They can't support their views even when given the opportunity to do so, and when presented with a detailed analysis of their incoherent ramblings, the only thing they can do is respond with more insults, more denials, and more lies.

I've given then the opportunity to present their case and they failed... the discussion is over and now you can see with your own eyes why I don't bother to engage these people on a regular basis.  Sorry antivaxxers - if you aren't going to bother to read materials before you actually cite them as evidence I see no reason to waste my time engaging you further.

You've had your chance... you blew it.

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.

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?

The Obsessions of Antivaxxers

I often wonder why some antivaxxers seem to be so obsessed with posting information about vaccines.  It isn't as if it is merely a matter of sharing information or merely a hobby, but rather it appears to be what defines many of them.  I can understand when a parent feels a vaccine harmed their child that they would react to their situation.  I can also understand someone standing behind a cause and supporting it with their words and actions.  I can even understand someone devoting themselves to an action which they feel has merit.

However when someone spends the vast majority of their time each and every day on the Internet scouring anti-vaccine websites and posting comments to countless stories and articles about vaccines, and when someone essentially ignores the world around them due to their obsession it stops being about a cause and starts becoming nothing short of an obsession.

Recently, a local antivaxxer Lowell Hubbs posted the following status update to his Facebook page, and it serves as one example of what happens when someone becomes so obsessed with an issue that they essentially forget about the life around them.

Now I am not about to claim I have any idea what was going on here, but I did check the Sioux Falls Police Department Call Log and was unable to find anything that relates to Mr. Hubbs around the date he posted his update, so for all I know Mr. Hubbs is once again making up details.

I do know that the Police Department doesn't typically serve eviction notices, and they don't typically take the Fire Department along for good measure, so why Mr. Hubbs is stating they joined the Minnehaha County Sheriff (who would typically handle evictions) is beyond me.

Of course I would expect if someone was serving me with an eviction notice I might step away from the computer instead of updating my Facebook status... but to each his own I suppose.  The other question that comes to mind is why these agencies would be involved in serving just a notice.  Per SDCL 21-16-2, typically a landlord would serve the first notice of eviction, and if the resident isn't home they are allowed to post the notice at the residence, so law enforcement is not needed.  It is only when the resident refuses to leave that they bother to seek a judgement at which point the Sheriff becomes involved to force the resident to leave the property.

So the question remains - why would law enforcement visit Mr. Hubbs if it was not to serve an eviction notice?  As with most stories told by Mr. Hubbs, I'm guessing there is a lot more to this one than what he claims, and his words cannot be fully trusted.  Nevertheless, Mr. Hubbs did add a bit of detail in a follow-up Facebook posting.

Let's be clear here - I'm not accusing Mr. Hubbs of having any outstanding warrants, nor am I accusing him of any nefarious activity.  I'm not sure who Mr. Hubbs was speaking with when he posted this, but considering there weren't any other comments on his earlier post other than the one shown I suppose it is possible he was merely speaking to (or arguing with) himself.  I suspect we aren't getting the full story here, but even if it is true that Mr. Hubbs is merely being evicted I can only hope he lands on his feet and finds another residence soon (if he hasn't already).

What troubles me is that I see a pattern of behavior here that seems all too common with antivaxxers.  They seem to have no significant life outside of their time on the Internet or their time on the anti-vaccine seminar circuit.  They can't be troubled by pesky details like finding gainful employment, obtaining degrees from legitimate post-secondary institutions, completing research studies, finishing residencies, or in some cases even minor details like paying the rent.

I have also noticed a pattern where many of the most prolific and predominant non-medical antivaxxers are either stay-at-home parents, unemployed or underemployed, and/or they are on disability.  Is it simply a matter of these people having too much time on their hands, or is there a deeper connection here?  I simply cannot understand why the anti-vaccine movement seems to attract so many people who, at least on the surface, appear to suffer from Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder (OCD).

Beyond the obvious symptoms of OCD, I am left wondering about the other mental health aspects of this type of behavior.  Is the obsession really about vaccines themselves or is there something else at play here?  As mentioned previously, I could understand a parent reacting to vaccines if they felt their child was harmed by them.  Even if a parent is confusing correlation and causation, I can still understand the desire to find answers and it isn't a stretch to see how they would latch on to some of the views that are central to the anti-vaccination platform.  

However, when someone who has no family and has no direct experience with vaccines suddenly and inexplicably expresses an interest in children, and when they appear to lack significant, meaningful relationships with adults in their life, and when they seem to often discuss subject matter involving physical, emotional, or sexual abuse of children I'll admit it concerns me.  In fact, if you look at common psychological profile for a child predator you find many of these exact traits.  Although this doesn't directly have any connection to vaccines, this is a subject we have discussed in the past, and based upon some information recently provided to me it appears we will be discussing it again in the near future.

Stay tuned.

Genetic Test For Autism Developed By Australian Scientists: HuffPo

An article posted yesterday at the Huffington Post states "Australian scientists have developed a genetic test Molecular Psychiatry and they cover 237 genetic markers.
to predict autism spectrum disorder in children".  The findings were published in the journal

It is probably a good idea to reserve judgement until these findings can be verified and replicated, but if this holds true it could be a breakthrough on the path to find the actual cause(s) of autism itself.  Granted the study can only claim a 70% accuracy when predicting autism, but the fact they were able to identify specific genetic markers is promising, and in time the accuracy will most likely be vastly improved.

This type of research can help identify at-risk children far sooner in life which in turn can allow treatments to begin earlier in the child's life.  Early detection and treatment can make all the difference when it comes to autism, so this type of research can be invaluable.

The question now becomes - how can anti-vaccinationists spin this study to blame vaccines for autism?  It doesn't seem likely that they will suggest that vaccines are responsible for the manipulation of genetic code in a small child, thus I can think of two excuses we can expect to see from the antivaxxer community.

Number one, antivaxxers will claim that vaccines work in conjunction with these genetic markers to "trigger" autism in children.  This is an interesting theory of course, but it will be as equally interesting to see the data and research which supports this hypothesis.  Needless to say I can almost hear the antivaxxer community scurrying to come up with something - anything - they can use to suggest this is plausible.

Number two, antivaxxers will claim that vaccines cause genetic mutations which are then passed on to the offspring of those people who received vaccinations in the past.  Thus if two adults are fully vaccinated and they produce offspring, the child would then reflect these genetic markers that put him or her at risk for autism.  Again it will be interesting to see the science that shows the vaccination status of the parents if antivaxxers wish to push this theory.

Granted there could be several more excuses that I couldn't even begin to guess, but the one thing I am certain about is that the antivaxxers will NOT come out and claim that autism is a genetic disorder with no connection to vaccines... because that would be allowing the science to steer their views rather than backing into an opinion by discrediting the science.  The truth is, if we all let science guide our views rather than making assumptions, there would be no such thing as an antivaxxer in the first place.  However since that isn't the case, it is safe to assume this study will be ignored and overlooked by the antivaxxer community, just as all of the previous research that has shown a strong genetic component to autism has been ignored and/or manipulated.

Full article here:  Genetic Test For Autism Developed By Australian Scientists


Update 9/14/12:  As predicted, antivaxxers such as Lowell Hubbs have complained that I didn't link to the actual study, and therefore Mr. Hubbs has suggested I didn't actually bother to read it.  Obviously that is quite an assumption on the part of Mr. Hubbs, although true to form he is one again incorrect.

I didn't realize I had to spoon feed the anti-vaccinationists by giving them direct links therefore eliminating the confusion caused by using a search bar, but to humor Mr. Hubbs I'll go ahead and provide the link here.  Please note that eventually this study will most likely not be available for free viewing, and as such the link may stop working (which is why I didn't include it originally and instead merely linked to the journal which published the study).  However for the time being you may read the original study at the link below:

Molecular Psychiatry: Predicting the diagnosis of autism spectrum disorder using gene pathway analysis

When the study is no longer available (aka: open) on the website, you should still be able to read the abstract by searching for the title of the study above and/or the primary author's name: Professor Christos Pantelis.

I should also note that Mr. Hubbs claims this study "actually in fact directly supports the ASD/Vaccine connection".  I of course predicted antivaxxers would take this route, but of course aside from his opinion Mr. Hubbs can offer no evidence to support this statement.  In fact, the study itself makes no reference to vaccines at all, and the term "vaccine" is found nowhere within the text of the study.  This is yet another example of antivaxxers seeing what they wish to see, with no time spent understanding the science, the methods, or the output of many hours of effort.  If anyone didn't bother to read a study, I'm guessing it was Mr. Hubbs as I can see not other explanation behind such a severe misunderstanding of the content.

The reality is the study surrounds genetic variants and the ability to predict autism and other autism spectrum disorders.  It has to do with genetic classification and prediction - nothing more.  The researchers did not in any way broach the subject of what "causes" autism, but rather they are focused upon detection methods.  Much more must be done to expand upon this data to learn the root causes of the genetic markers identified within this study, but we are a long, long way from being able to make any statements pertaining to causation.

Far be it from an antivaxxer to wait until the science leads them down a path before they proudly proclaim they have all the answers.  In the mind of an antivaxxer like Lowell Hubbs, research can be interpreted any number of ways... provided all of those ways result in someone or something blaming vaccines for autism.