No, Kiddo. Venezuela Doesn’t Have a Measles Epidemic Because of Socialism. It’s Because of People Like You.

We were going to write a big old blog post on how Socialism and Capitalism are not opposites of each other. We were going to tell you that there are Capitalist societies deeply embedded in Socialist states. And then we were going to argue against The Kid’s assertion that Venezuela has a measles outbreak because of Socialism. Nothing could be further from the truth. Not only that, but the United States can never become like Venezuela.

In essence, he is comparing apples to giraffes again.

This one screenshot wraps up his thesis:

Screenshot 2018-08-16 19.20.18

“She” is a young woman who graduated from the Kid’s college and is advocating for a more Socialist approach to the way that the United States deals with certain issues, like healthcare.

Hilariously, that same screenshot wraps up his naïveté. “That country has also embraced socialism more than any other country in the Americas that isn’t an island.” Think about that for a second, and then think of how much this Kid has not traveled the world.

Living in a cocoon is difficult, but that should not preclude a self-anointed epidemiologist from picking up a goddamned book once in a while. Bolivia is just as Socialist as Venezuela, perhaps even more, and yet it is thriving:

“Since 2006, Bolivia has been run by socialists every bit as militant as Venezuela’s. But as economist Omar Zambrano has argued, the country has experienced a spectacular run of economic growth and poverty reduction with no hint of the chaos that has plagued Venezuela. While inflation spirals toward the thousand-percent mark in Venezuela, in Bolivia it runs below 4 percent a year. Shortages of basic consumption goods — rampant in Caracas — are unheard of in La Paz. And extreme poverty — now growing fast in Venezuela — affects just 17 percent of Bolivians now, down from 38 percent before the socialists took over 10 years ago, even as inequality shrinks dramatically. The richest 10 percent in Bolivia used to earn 128 times more than the poorest 10 percent; today, they earn 38 times as much.”


So that kills that whole argument about scary “Socialism” and how it ruins things. And that comment about an “island” is a swipe at Cuba, one of the places on the whole continent where public health is the strongest. They don’t kid around there. Because of the size of the island, the culture of the Cuban people, and the authoritarian/military regime, things get done. People get vaccinated. Water gets cleaned. Outbreaks are stopped in their tracks.

They do such a good job with diseases in Cuba that they sent their physicians to Africa to help with the Ebola outbreaks! (Colleagues who worked side-by-side with Cuban public health workers in Africa have nothing but good things to say.)

What does ruin things? Why is Venezuela so screwed up? Why are measles on the comeback? That, dear reader, would involve a very long discussion on what got Venezuela to where it is. The story would involve authoritarianism, an over-reliance on oil as a source of cash, and a constant friction with American-allied countries (Colombia, Brazil) while being aligned with OPEC countries. This timeline from BBC is a good primer.

We’ve known awhile that the Kid is an Alt Right believer who has stated that social movements like Feminism and Black Lives Matter are “a cancer.” We know that he is a big fan of the current Administration (which is hilarious because the authoritarianism being shown by POTUS 45 and company rivals what Hugo Chavez did in his first term in Venezuela). And we know that he is anti-vaccine.

If anything is going to make measles great again, it’s people like the kid, not someone looking to strengthen public health through policies that are put in scary quotes and are obvious dogwhistles.


Tdap vaccine is not linked to autism, just like any other vaccine (including the flu vaccine)

I remember when my dad told me that there was no such thing as Santa Claus. He sat me down and told me that it had been him all these years who had been buying me gifts and placing them under the tree. It was quite a shock to have this revealed to me; it shook my world. I did everything in my power to reason it through. In my head, dad was a liar. Dad wanted to take the credit for the big jolly guy who’d given me all the gifts I’d ask for in the letters I sent him through my dad.

I was 27 years old.

Soon enough, I came to accept the truth. All the evidence was there in the form of my dad’s receipts for the gifts he had gotten me. People had seen him buy me those gifts. Mom swore to having helped him wrap them. The evidence was compelling, substantial, tangible, credible… Santa Claus was no more.

I’m sad to say that this is not the case with the anti-vaccine crowd. You can tell them all you want that vaccines do not cause autism, and that vaccines actually protect from diseases that are deadly and/or disabling. But they will refuse to believe it because their entire ecosystem depends on the belief that vaccines cause autism. Anything short of that sucks away their life, their reason for living.

One such anti-vaccine zealot is everyone’s favorite “kid.” Even with a master of public health degree in epidemiology, he seems to remain convinced that vaccines cause autism. He’s stated on his blog that evidence he saw in school to the contrary is all a conspiracy from the pharmaceutical industry. It seems that, to him, the lies he has been exposed to over and over from a very young age have made up his mind. To him, Santa Claus (i.e. vaccines cause autism) still exists, and it will continue to exist because anything short of that eliminates his reason for living.

Seriously, he doesn’t seem to live for anything other than that. The primary example is a recent blog post of his where he takes a study that clearly shows that the Tdap (Tetanus, Diphtheria, and acellular Pertussis) vaccine doesn’t cause autism, and then he states that the study confirms that the influenza vaccine does cause autism.

Yeah, I was confused too.

His whole argument hinges on one table in the Prenatal Tetanus, Diphtheria, Acellular Pertussis Vaccination and Autism Spectrum Disorder by Becerra-Culqui et al.

This is table 3:

Screenshot 2018-08-14 10.18.59

Table 3 states that women who were vaccinated with Tdap during pregnancy had a similar incidence rate per 100,000 person-years of having an autistic child. Vaccinated women had an incidence rate of 3.78 autistic children per 100,000 person-years while un-vaccinated women had an incidence rate of 4.05. The ratio between the two was 0.98, meaning that vaccinated women had a lower incidence rate than vaccinated. Anything over 1.0 would indicate that vaccination leads to more autistic children being born.

Because this is one study with a limited number of people, and not a study looking at the entire universe of children born, scientists also report the 95% confidence interval (0.98 – 1.09). The 95% confidence interval is a way of us saying, “We are 95% confident that the true hazard ratio in the entire population (the whole of the population) is between 0.88 and 1.09.” Because it includes 1.0, we cannot say that this observation is not by random chance.

But look at how the kid displays the table on his blog:

Screenshot 2018-08-14 10.18.22

Only point out the things that seem to support your argument.

He points out that the adjusted hazard ratio of 0.85 (with a 95% confidence interval of 0.77 to 0.95) is adjusted for, among other things, influenza vaccination during pregnancy. In epidemiology and biostatistics, “adjusted for” means taking it into consideration. Let me give you an example:

Suppose that there are a group of people from Texas and a group of people from Alabama, and that we look at their test scores in biology. The group from Texas had an average test score of 77% while the people from Alabama had an average test score of 89%. You would conclude that being from Alabama leads you to having a better test score, right?

But what if we told you that they don’t teach biology in all schools in Texas? What if we told you that they only teach it in private schools in Texas, and that only 30% of schools in Texas are private schools? And then we told you that they teach biology in both types of schools in Alabama, and that there is a 50-50 split in the proportion of private to public schools in Alabama? How does this change your conclusion?

To reach the proper conclusion, you have to compare apples to apples, and oranges to oranges. You would compare the private school scores in each state to each other, and likewise with the public school scores. This is an adjustment. This is taking into account the differences in the distributions of a characteristic between the two groups being studied.

As it turns out, in the study in question, women who get their Tdap were much more likely to get their influenza vaccine. It makes sense, right? Women who vaccinate in general are more likely to vaccinate in particular. So, in order to compare apples to apples, the researchers adjusted for influenza vaccination. That is, they compared flu-vaccinated women who got the Tdap and flu-vaccinated women who did not get the Tdap, AND non-flu-vaccinated women who got the Tdap and non-flu-vaccinated women who did not get the Tdap.

Taking flu vaccination into account, and the bias that would creep in because women who vaccinate against influenza seem to be more likely to vaccinated with the Tdap vaccine, vaccinating with Tdap is not associated with having a child diagnosed with autism.

So why does the kid think this proves that influenza vaccine causes autism?

It beats me. All they did was make the adjustment to make things equal between the two groups, something every epidemiologist worth their salt should do… Unless you want to misinform the public?


He then takes a table from a different, unrelated study and points out to just one result on it as evidence that influenza vaccine causes autism:

Screenshot 2018-08-14 10.35.03

The red circle seems to be his way of saying, “Only this matters! Pay no attention to the whole of the evidence!”

This is another misrepresentation of the findings, and I kind of blame the authors of the study for making the table so busy. Look at the “Variable” column on the left. All that the data circled in red are saying is this:

“Of the 13,477 children whose mothers were vaccinated in the first trimester, 258 (1.91%) of them were diagnosed with autism. Their hazard was 26% higher for an autism diagnosis when compared to children whose moms were vaccinated in other trimesters. However, when adjusting for maternal allergy, asthma, autoimmune conditions, gestational diabetes, hypertension, age, education, race/ethnicity, child conception year, conception season, sex, and gestational age, the hazard of autism diagnosis went down to 20% over children whose moms were vaccinated in other trimesters.”

The fact that the hazard ratio went down after adjusting tells us that there is something else explaining the elevated hazard (risk). Look at what happened in the adjustment in the other trimester groups… Nothing changed. Look at what happened in the adjustment in the “Anytime During Pregnancy” group… Nothing changed. So what could that “something else” be? I’m not an obstetrician, but it’s reasonable to conclude that outcomes measured in the first trimester are different than outcomes measured in the other trimesters.

Finally, look at the reasoning that the kid used. In the first table, because numbers were adjusted for influenza vaccination, then it must mean that influenza vaccination causes autism. In the second, he doesn’t say that all the factors adjusted for cause autism… Because that would tear down his narrative.

I’m not surprised at all by his misunderstanding of all this. After all, to my knowledge, he doesn’t work as an epidemiologist anywhere. Like any good muscle, lack of practice of your epidemiology skills leads you to lose them. Being unpublished, not working as an epidemiologist, and a staunch defender of the so-called autism-vaccine risk leads the reasoning muscle to atrophy.

No, Dr. Timothy Cunningham did not say that the flu vaccine caused this year’s epidemic, and other anti-vaccine lies

“Your News Wire” is a fake news site. It’s fake and it promotes fake news. That doesn’t stop them from spreading some very preposterous lies about many things, including the influenza vaccine. Most recently, they’re pushing the story that a scientist at CDC — who has gone missing since February 12 — said (not wrote, not insinuated) that the flu vaccine caused the current bad flu epidemic. The fake news site reads:

“In January, Dr. Cunningham shared his opinion that this year’s flu shot was behind the deadly outbreak of the flu, while warning that if his name was attached to the widely-circulated quotes, he would lose his job – or suffer an even worse fate.

Understanding the dangers involved in speaking out about vaccines in the current climate, we granted him anonymity in the article. However Dr. Cunningham told us we should go public should anything happen to him.

Dr. Cunningham was an expert on contagious epidemics, having been deployed by the CDC to work on the Ebola and Zika crises in previous years. He knows a suspicious outbreak when he sees one, and this year’s flu epidemic raised serious red flag’s for the CDC doctor.

“Some of the patients I’ve administered the flu shot to this year have died,” the doctor said in January, adding “I don’t care who you are, this scares the crap out of me.”

“We have seen people dying across the country of the flu, and one thing nearly all of them have in common is they got the flu shot,” he said.”

Dr. Cunningham did not say this. Why do I know this? Because Dr. Cunningham has a doctorate in science from Harvard. He is not a medical doctor. He worked in research. Why would he be giving vaccines?

The story that the flu vaccine caused this year’s bad epidemic is actually a misrepresentation of a quote of a nurse in Wisconsin. Yeah, I know you’re surprised.

So don’t buy into this bullshit. But do keep an eye out for Dr. Cunningham. We’re all hoping he’s safe somewhere and comes home.

Peter Doshi is at it again with the anti-vaccine stuff

Let me start with the conclusion, because Peter Doshi’s article can be a little dry if you let it. I don’t want you to miss the point…

In the end, yes, CDC and vaccine manufacturers are out there paying for pushers of vaccines to push vaccines on the population. But we’re talking about vaccines and not heroin. Independent agencies (like local and state health departments, academic institutions, and competing pharmaceutical companies) all continue to validate the need for vaccination as a life-saving public health intervention. That is the difference between this kind of “pushing” of a “pharmaceutical” and pushing something that truly harms. We don’t need Peter Doshi or Sharyl Attkisson or Age of Autism to be the watchdogs because their anti-vaccine intentions are, in our opinion, very clear. For truly making sure that vaccines do far more good than any harm, we have the dedicated healthcare providers, epidemiologists, biostatisticians, and other public health workers who look at the evidence (observational and experimental) and continue to promote vaccination against all the hate and vitriol of the anti-vaccine cult.

And now, the meat of this blog post…

You remember Peter Doshi, don’t you? He’s the dude who wrote a “shocking” report about the influenza vaccine and how it supposedly didn’t work. As it turns out, the report wasn’t all that shocking. As Dr. Salzberg wrote:

“First, as has already pointed out, Doshi is not a virologist or an epidemiologist, but rather an anthropologist who studies comparative effectiveness research. He never conducted influenza research at Hopkins. (He’s now an Assistant Professor at the University of Maryland’s School of Pharmacy.) Second, Doshi’s 2013 article was an opinion piece (a “feature”), not an original research article, and it did not report any new findings. Third, it is highly misleading to suggest (as the anti-vax article’s title does) that Doshi somehow represents Johns Hopkins University. At Johns Hopkins Hospital, the flu vaccine is required of all personnel who have contact with patients, as a good-practices effort to minimize the risk that a patient will catch the flu from a caregiver.”

People who ask me about Peter Doshi get one simple warning from me: Be careful with his writings because he’s very good at manipulating language. Dr. Salzberg’s article continued:

“Doshi uses this sleight-of-hand to suggest that the vaccine may not be beneficial at all. He never says this outright—instead, he just questions, again and again, whether the precise percentages reported in published studies are accurate. For example, he makes a big deal of a CDC announcement in 2013 that the vaccine’s effectiveness was only 62%. He casts doubt with phrases like

“the 62% reduction statistic almost certainly does not hold true for all subpopulations”

That is almost certainly true, but is meaningless from the point of view of public health. Of course the vaccine doesn’t have the same effectiveness in everyone. The point is that it works most of the time.”

Earlier this year, Peter Doshi was at it again with “just asking questions” (aka JAQ-ing off) about the Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS). There was a technical glitch on the VAERS system that prevented some users from being able to access it. He made a big deal about it, and he never clarified that it was a technical glitch which was correctable and certainly not part of some big conspiracy to keep people from reporting vaccine adverse events. The VAERS site has since been updated, and it is working well, but Peter Doshi will probably not tell you that.

Well, now Peter Doshi is at it again. This time, it’s those horrible pro-vaccine organizations who get all sorts of funding from all sorts of horrible pro-vaccine agencies in the federal government (i.e. the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [CDC]). He’s written an opinion piece that is chock-full of nuts. And, as I’ve warned you, he uses language to obfuscate the issue.

So let’s dissect it, shall we? He begins:

“Vaccination programs have long been a centerpiece of public health activity. But policies of compulsion have always been controversial. Against a backdrop of recent measles outbreaks, France and Italy moved this year to mandate certain vaccines for school entry. There’s even a renewed push for mandates in the UK, where public health leaders have long resisted compulsory vaccination on the grounds that it undermines the trust between the public and healthcare professionals and is ultimately counterproductive.”

The policies requiring vaccine are controversial not because vaccines are bad but because people keep spreading the idea that vaccines are some sort of poison. People don’t want to be poisoned, and they certainly don’t want their tax money to go toward poisoning others. That is how anti-vaccine groups are born. They’re born out of an idea that is flawed from the beginning. (Like the idea that HIV doesn’t cause AIDS, which we’ll talk about some more later since we’re talking about Peter Doshi.)

Let’s see some language manipulation:

“The debate is also alive in the US. Although all states require vaccination as a condition for entry to school, most also allow exemptions for families with non-medical philosophical or religious objections. Overall, childhood vaccination levels remain at or near historically high levels, with under 1% of toddlers receiving no vaccines. But beneath the broad national trends there is geographic variation in coverage, and survey data have documented that parental concerns over vaccination safety and timing are common, even among those whose children receive all recommended vaccines.”

Note that Peter Doshi doesn’t mention what a slight drop in vaccine coverage can do. For example, when it comes to the MMR vaccine against Measles, Mumps and Rubella, even a tiny drop in vaccine coverage can lead to an outbreak. So, yeah, it might be good that we’re at under 1% of toddlers, but if that number doubles, or if it reaches 5% in the pockets where anti-vaccine sentiment is high, we can be in for some expensive public health responses.

Peter Doshi continues:

“In 2015, a US federal advisory committee warned that public confidence in vaccines cannot be taken for granted, and some prominent vaccine advocacy organizations are pushing for greater compulsion. But are these groups—which present themselves as reliable sources of information—providing the public with independent information?”

He is now beginning with the JAQ-ing off, and it’s a question that seems to imply that non-independent information is bad. He continues with the example of Senate Bill 277 in California, a bill that became law and removed personal and religious exemptions from vaccine requirement. Instead of saying that their personal belief or their religion prevented them from vaccinating, anti-vaccine people had to find “vaccine friendly” physicians (like noted Douchebag Dr. Bob Sears) who would acquiesce to their fears and allow them to be exempt from vaccination “for medical reasons.” Organizations that were involved in the promotion of that bill’s passage was Every Child By Two (ECBT), the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) and the Immunization Action Coalition (IAC). And they were correct to do so because vaccines save lives. But, Peter Doshi writes:

“IAC, ECBT, and AAP have a few things in common. They are all non-profit organizations with large online presences that promote themselves as sources of reliable information on vaccines. They also receive funding from both vaccine manufacturers and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.”

Oh, noes! CDC promoting a public health intervention with a great track record of working? What shall we do? Vaccine manufacturers promoting their safe and effective products against deadly diseases? Say it ain’t so.

He finishes that section with a mention of his old nemesis, the influenza vaccine:

“And, in their advocacy for compulsory vaccination, they all have in common a goal that pushes beyond official governmental policy and, in the case of influenza vaccines, the evidence.”

Classic Doshi.

The rest of the article has several more questions for us to consider. “Education or lobbying?” is one of the questions because these organizations dared lobby for a public health bill that has probably saved several lives by now (and all without causing autism, to boot!). “Did ECBT and AAP’s support of the California bill cross a line for the CDC?” Peter Doshi asks. He asks this because there is regulation against CDC using money for lobbying pro or against pending legislation. This is a grey area when it comes to vaccines because CDC’s mandate is to protect health and save lives. For that, vaccines are needed. So support of a bill that has increased vaccine uptake in California fulfills the mission of the agency. Then Peter Doshi goes after the influenza vaccine again:

“One of the non-profit’s use of evidence is also questionable. Multiple reviews have found insufficient evidence that mandatory influenza vaccination for healthcare workers has benefits for patients. As one team of systematic reviewers put it, “evidence from observational studies suggests that a vaccine mandate increases vaccination rates, but evidence on clinical outcomes is lacking.””

I told you the vaccine was his nemesis. Peter Doshi can’t seem to get off of it. Or, rather, he seems to get off on not getting off of it? (I’m just asking.)

The questions keep on coming from Peter Doshi:

“In broad terms, the CDC and vaccine advocacy non-profits share a common goal of increasing vaccination rates. But when it comes to the details—which vaccines, when, for whom, and how to achieve those goals—is there a need for independent sources of information on vaccination policy?”


“But do advocacy organizations with financial ties to the CDC and vaccine manufacturers have sufficient distance to offer such a service?”

What? No questioning of Dr. Paul Offit’s intentions? Shame on you, Peter. Shame on you.

As far as originality, I have to say that this anti-vaccine article is not very original. (It is anti-vaccine, Peter, because you seem to be questioning the need for vaccine mandates, vaccine information to the public, use of the influenza vaccine, and promotion of the use of vaccines, over and over and over again without a single mention of the good that vaccines have done.)

It’s a lot like this blog post by Age of Autism whose thesis was that ECBT got a lot of pharma money and thus vaccines cause autism, or something. And this other blog post by the same cesspool of so-called reporters which contends that the Immunization Action Coalition got a lot of sweet, sweet cash from CDC.

Noted anti-vaccine activist and conspiracy theory loon, Sharyl Attkisson asked the same questions (or did the same JAQ-ing off) as Peter Doshi did, except that she did it in 2008. (Little late to the party, Peter.) Sharyl wrote:

“There’s nothing illegal about the financial relationships, but to critics, they pose a serious risk for conflicts of interest. As one member of Congress put it, money from the pharmaceutical industry can shape the practices of those who hold themselves out to be “independent.”

The American Academy of Pediatrics, Every Child By Two and Dr. Offit would not agree to interviews, but all told us they’re up front about the money they receive, and it doesn’t sway their opinions.”

So I wonder where Peter Doshi got his inspiration for his latest anti-vaccine post?

Let’s quickly go back to what Dr. Steven Salzberg wrote about Peter Doshi, because it reveals something troubling about Peter’s view of the world:

“Perhaps even more disturbing is that Doshi signed a petition arguing that the HIV virus is not the cause of AIDS, joining the ranks of HIV denialists. He signed this statement while still a graduate student, so I contacted him to ask if he still doubted the link between HIV and AIDS. I also asked him if he supports flu vaccination, if he agrees with the anti-vaccine movement’s use of his statements, and if he believes the flu is a serious public health threat.

On the question of signing the HIV/AIDS petition, Doshi responded that “Seeing how my name was published and people have misconstrued this as some kind of endorsement, I have written the list owner and asked for my name to be removed.” He declined to state directly that he agrees that the HIV virus causes AIDS—though I gave him ample opportunity.”

It seems to me that Peter Doshi has a conspiratorial view of how the world of science works. If 99% of scientists say that HIV causes AIDS, it seems that Peter Doshi (a young Peter Doshi, a graduate student Peter Doshi) rebelled against that. If 99% of scientists and physicians and epidemiologists say that the flu vaccine is a good idea at a population level to mitigate the effects of the seasonal epidemics, it seems that Peter Doshi rebelled against that. Now, if 99% of pediatricians, epidemiologists, and public health authorities are finding ways to counter anti-vaccine nut jobs who are convinced that vaccines are poison and that they can endanger us all, it seems that Peter Doshi rebells agains that.

It would all be fine and well if he wasn’t an associate editor at the BMJ, a highly-respected journal. It makes me fear that articles submitted for review that shed a positive light toward vaccines, or toward the HIV-AIDS causal pathway, are not being accepted, or that hey may be stonewalled. Of course, I have no evidence of this, and pushing that idea without evidence would make me no different than Peter Doshi and Sharyl Attkisson and the bunch of weirdos at Age of Autism. But, still, I can’t help but wonder… And shudder.

Fifteen Children in South Sudan Die During Vaccine Campaign

The Associated Press is reporting that 15 children have died as a result of a vaccination campaign in South Sudan. According to the report:

“Fifteen young children have died in a botched measles vaccination campaign that saw people as young as 12 years old administering the vaccines, South Sudan’s government announced Friday.

The United Nations said the children died of “severe sepsis/toxicity” from the contaminated vaccine, and the health ministry blamed the deaths on human error. One syringe was used for all the children during the four-day campaign, and the vaccine was stored without refrigeration the entire time.”

So let’s reemphasize the meaningful facts before the anti-vaccine liars get a hold of these news and start to use them to attack the vaccination campaigns here in the United States.

First, South Sudan has been embroiled in a civil war for quite a while now. They used to be part of Sudan, but broke off and became independent in 2011. The continuing state of war, along with periodic famines, have presented quite a challenge to deliver food, medicine, clean water, and other supplies. To top it off, measles has been on the increase, further putting a burden on the lives of the people there. (And, by extension, the lives of Sudanese refugees the world over as refugees go back to see family and take measles back to their host countries.)

Second, 12 year-old children should not be administering vaccines. Yes, there is a shortage of trained professionals to administer vaccines because of the situation on the ground. But it goes without saying that this was a huge mistake. There are many things that can go wrong — and apparently did — during the administration of a vaccine, and I’m sure 12 year-old children are not trained to handle it.

Third, even with the preservative thimerosal in it (which the MMR vaccine does not have, as it is a live-virus vaccine), vaccines can still become contaminated over the course of several days being open and not in proper storage conditions. Furthermore, needles can collect pathogens from all over the place, including people. They probably passed on those pathogens from person to person, causing all of this.

“The civil war has killed tens of thousands and sent more than 1.8 million people fleeing the country, creating the world’s fastest-growing refugee crisis.

In 2016, South Sudan had at least 2,294 measles cases and 28 people died, according to U.N. data. So far this year, at least one person has died and 665 people have been infected.”

So, when the anti-vaccine jerks tell you that it was the vaccine that killed these children, make sure to fire back with facts.

Peter Doshi is at it again with (anti?) vaccine article (updated)

Remember Peter Doshi? The researcher whose shocking (it isn’t) opinion pieces are used by anti-vaccine zealots almost on a yearly basis? The researcher who presented at an anti-vaccine conference hosted by the notoriously misnamed National Vaccine Information Center? Yeah, you remember. Well, he’s back.

This time, he is apparently outraged that there is a glitch in how certain browsers handle the web address for the Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System:

“For over three weeks, the website of the US government Vaccination Adverse Reporting System (VAERS) has been inaccessible to most users. The website address,, is printed on the vaccine information statements (VISs), short documents listing the benefits and risks of vaccines that are required by law to be distributed with every vaccine dose administered in the US.1

But the website link leads anybody using the web browsers Chrome, Firefox, and some versions of Internet Explorer to a warning page. “Your connection is not private,” it says in large font on my screen (fig 1⇓). “Attackers might be trying to steal your information from (for example, passwords, messages, or credit cards).” The only browser that seems to consistently connect properly is Safari, used by only around a quarter of people accessing government sites.2”

See, you should be using Apple products. He continues:

“I can’t speak for others, but I suspect most people will respond to such a warning by closing their browser and moving along. The adverse event will go unreported. Few will realize that connecting to (that is, dropping the “www.”) takes you to the intended website.”

You don’t say? People who have had an adverse event, or their healthcare providers, will just shrug their shoulders and say, “screw it”? But then he buries the lede:

“Technically, the website is not down. It is just misconfigured such that the website address advertised to millions is not working, and hasn’t been working for at least three weeks.”

So what did Peter Doshi, PhD, do? Did he call CDC to tell them? Did he research the glitch to see why it’s happening? Did he know that there are other ways to report to VAERS beyond online? He apparently just shot off an email and then waited (probably on a gold-lined throne, as I hear they pay well at the BMJ) for a response:

“It’s not known how long this problem has been going on, but I informed the US Department of Health and Human Services, which runs the VAERS program, on 25 April. After not hearing back, I sent another email on 2 May. I then received a call from Elisa (she wouldn’t provide her last name out of a concern for confidentiality), who said the information technology staff were working on it. Presumably they’re still working on it as the problem isn’t fixed.”

Does Peter Doshi, PhD, expect CDC to get on the phone with Mozilla, Google and Microsoft to fix this? Because it’s really their problem. (As he himself wrote, the Safari browser, created and maintained by Apple, deals with the web address just fine.)

I’ve emailed Peter Doshi, PhD, to congratulate him on this new little nugget he’s given the anti-vaccine nuts. They love it when someone with a doctoral-level education sees any issue, no matter how small, with the system of immunizations in the United States and abroad. See, when someone sees things your way, and when that person is highly educated and holds a position at a prestigious journal, then your views (no matter how skewed) are valid. The horrible things in your imagination become a little more real.

Update! A reader pointed something out to us that bears repeating:

“The problem is the SSL certificate was generated for but he is going to

Because of this mismatch, the browser is rejecting it. HHS needs a certificate that covers both and It is indeed a misconfiguration but it’s relatively minor.

The government is making a sincere effort to make sure their web sites are more secure, but sometimes they mess up. Most users will

SSL certificates facilitate encryption of traffic between the user and web site. They also allow users to verify that they are connected to the real web site, rather than a hacker’s web site. The mismatch is causing the browser to think that the user is not going to the genuine site.”

Want to kill your employment chances?

Imagine that you’re not a wealthy, privileged “kid.” Imagine you’re just a regular Joe, or Jane. Imagine that you are going into a job interview and the people interviewing you have looked you up online to see what you’ve been up to. Are you at all concerned with what they’ll find?

I mean, yeah, they’ll probably see those pictures of you from college or high school, the ones where you’re acting the fool and making an ass out of yourself. They probably will find that angry blog post you wrote about your girlfriend. But will they find anything that will prevent you from getting the job?

If you’re a self-professed epidemiologist, and you want to get a job as an epidemiologist, do you think it’s a good idea to spew anti-vaccine, anti-science nonsense? Never mind the misogyny and racism, or the xenophobic language, but what about the anti-vaccine nonsense?

Would you hire someone as an epidemiologist if they said something like this?

“How is it that so many women march on Washington against something the president said on a hot mic 12 years ago, but not against the mandating of a vaccination that causes ovarian failure, paralysis and death? While the drug company Merck bought off feminists to lobby for the human papilloma virus (HPV) vaccine, thousands of women and girls have been killed, paralyzed or sterilized as result of its side-effects.

All that was done in the name of preventing a sexually transmitted virus that causes cervical cancer, even though early screening remains far-and-away the most effective prevention. Meanwhile, the vaccine offers a limited duration of immunity and virtual uncertainty that any risk of cervical cancer is reduced.

InfoWars and Daily Mail have more on the story.”

InfoWars? Daily Mail? Those are the source of your scientific information on the HPV vaccine? Jesus H. Christ. There is no credible evidence that the HPV vaccine causes “ovarian failure, paralysis and death,” but there is plenty of evidence that it prevents cancer.

Would you employ someone in an office with people from all sorts of backgrounds if they wrote this?

“That autistic women are much more likely to be dykes is not a huge surprise in light of how Asperger Syndrome has an even more disproportionately higher male-female ratio than the autism spectrum as a whole. This fact is likely due to Asperger’s diagnostic criteria restricting its diagnosis to people with average or above-average IQs. Men vastly outnumber women in above-average intelligence.”

Or this?

“Self-styled victims come in many other forms of identity-defined politics: man-hating feminists, cop-killing Black Lives Matter terrorists, illegal immigrants who think they are entitled to amnesty and Muslims who complain about “Islamophobia” and deny that Islam has anything to do with Islamic terrorist attacks.”

Or this?

“There are third-wave feminists who exaggerate sexual assault statistics, who fabricate claims that men have higher wages than women and who advocate the killing of all white men. There is the Black Lives Matter movement which has proven itself to be a form of social justice cancer similar to feminism – advocating racially segregated dormitories and the murder of police officers (two of whom were actually murdered in New York City by a BLM supporter).”

Yeah, I didn’t think so. Lucky us this kid will never see the inside of an office at a health department or work in any capacity to set policy. Unlucky for us that he has the wealth from his family to allow him to continue spewing this anger and hate for a while instead of flipping burgers at a local burger joint.