Vaccinations Saving 1.45 Million from Hib and Pneumococcus is Fake News

“Seth Berkley has taken home more than £2 million over the past four years,” Daily Mail on Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunization’s CEO, 2016

Doctors are the dumbest profession in the world, but public health is a close second. A study from Johns Hopkins School of Public Health’s “International Vaccine Access Center” (totally objective, right?) is being used to assert that 1,450,000 children have been saved by vaccines for Haemophilus Influenzae type B and Pneumococcal Bacteria. It is also pure fake news and a total waste of money.

The Association of Schools & Programs of Public Health introduced the study:

Childhood deaths from two leading bacterial causes of pneumonia and meningitis, pneumococcus and Hib, declined sharply during the period 2000 to 2015, especially as vaccines against these pathogens were introduced in high-burden countries, according to new estimates from a team led by scientists at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health.

Here’s how Johns Hopkins describes the methodology:

Wahl and colleagues developed updated estimates—on a country-by-country basis, for each year from 2000 to 2015—of the numbers of Hib and pneumococcal disease cases and deaths in children. They used country-specific figures of children who died of pneumonia and meningitis, along with field-based evidence on the fraction of those deaths caused by pneumococcus and Hib, and WHO/UNICEF estimates of vaccine coverage to estimate the burden of pneumococcal and Hib deaths and cases.

So all of a sudden, correlation equals causation in proving vaccines save lives. According to the Johns Hopkins press release:

The sharp declines in child mortality from Hib and pneumococcus were due not just to the introduction of vaccines but also to general factors that have reduced pneumonia and meningitis deaths from all causes, such as better hygiene and access to health care. 

How do you know if vaccines had anything to do with it at all? There is no comparison between children who were vaccinated and children who weren’t. There is no effort to ensure that other variables weren’t the only cause.

But somehow, having the “Johns Hopkins” name attached to it is enough to give it publicity it doesn’t deserve. A tweet by the money-grubbing, censorship-loving head of the Global Alliance for Vaccines & Immunization guarantees it makes mainstream media’s rounds. Such fake news is par for the course for stories on vaccination.

And of course, this extra-governmental, multi-national drug industry-supported hack is retweeted by the FDA commissioner who is supposed to oversee vaccine safety.

Share on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterShare on LinkedInShare on Google+Share on RedditPin on PinterestFlattr the authorDigg thisBuffer this pageShare on TumblrShare on StumbleUpon

19 Thoughts on “Vaccinations Saving 1.45 Million from Hib and Pneumococcus is Fake News

  1. Dr. Harrison on June 19, 2018 at 6:30 pm said:

    Hi: You continue to make claims of your “expertise” in epidemiology and have mentioned you did an MPH thesis on vaccine safety at George Washington University in 2013. It shouldn’t be all that difficult for you to scan in the thesis and make it available on this website so myself and others can judge your “expertise.”

    • Hi Joel, thanks for commenting here.

      I do have expertise in epidemiology. I have an MPH in epidemiology from GW.

      I think you meant to comment under a different post. In any case, I won’t use past research I’ve done with other scientists as content for my own blog. That would not be ethical.

      If you’ve got an actual problem with some argument I’ve made, you’re welcome to submit a comment about it under a relevant post. In the five years I’ve written about these issues, nobody’s been able to find a problem with the positions I’ve taken. I guess that would explain why you have to make some stupid argument from authority to cover for all the lies your side always tells.

      Jake Crosby, MPH

  2. J Harrison on June 19, 2018 at 10:48 pm said:

    I find it highly laughable that you claim it would be unethical to post your research. I was taught that the entire purpose of research was to further science. So, how can it be furthering science if you withhold your research? On the other hand, you attack people, even harass/stalk them by giving out, for instance, Richard Demirjian’s contact info and even his son who is on the Spectrum and encourage people to contact them. In some states you would possibly face criminal charges. You continuously attack anyone supporting vaccines for having a profit motive. A simple question: If you were type 1 diabetic would you purchase insulin? If you had a raging bacterial infection would you purchase antibiotics? Well, the pharmaceutical companies that sell them make a profit on them. In fact, everything we purchase is sold for a profit. Would you attack Paul Offit if he had developed a new type antibiotic and his institution, who owned the patent not Offit, shared some of the royalties with him? When I write articles, I refute point by point with extensive quotes and numerous references what people write; but I don’t attack their motives. They may do it for financial gain, e.g., those offering Complementary or Alternative Medicine; but even they may actually be sincere in what they believe. No one pays me a cent for my articles. I never worked for the FDA, CDC, or any pharmaceutical company, nor own any stocks or bonds in them, though the retirement mutual fund I am in probably does. I write because I believe in what I am doing. You are free to disagree; but do it by actually refuting what I write. I really wish someone would pay me to do what I believe in. However, the only time you mentioned me was to call an article I wrote a “rant”. How pathetic. My article had extensive quotes and numerous references and all you could say about it was it was a “rant.” Doesn’t sound like a trained epidemiologist to me.

    As for your MPH thesis, even if I may disagree with it, I may find some points valid and I always check out reference lists and footnotes and may find some references to add to my collection. If your thesis passed at GWU, then I assume it is good quality. However, you are not an expert in epidemiology. You have an MPH which is an introductory level degree in epidemiology from a good school. I neither underrate you nor overrate you. If you got a job in a public health department you would start at the lowest level, not a put down, just how things work and then you would work your way up. Sometimes even an MPH with time and experience gets promoted to senior epidemiologist.

    Back to Demirjian. You posted “Age at onset of first symptom” in your article; but Wakefield’s article lists “Interval from exposure to first behavioural symptom” which is the main point. It is what Demirjian contested using his kid’s actual medical records. So, why did you omit this information. Wakefield gives “1 week” for Child No. 11.

    So, you can post your article and further the interests of science or not. I traveled a lot, lived in five different countries, including teaching Conversational English in Tokyo, so I have only 15 or 16 peer-reviewed published articles which can be found searching PubMed; but, I repeat, when I write articles for blogs, I use extensive quotes and numerous references including URLs when possible, so it doesn’t matter who I am, unless personal attacks are used to compensate for lack of ability to discuss in a scholarly scientific manner. One of my favorite inspiractional authors was a longshoreman with at most a high school diploma, Eric Hoffer. And a well published respected Social Psychologist only had a Masters degree, Carolyn Sherif. She had more publications than anyone else in her department; but was forced to go back to school to get a PhD in order to be promoted. So, I don’t rely on credentials, all they say is that one passed a number of courses. The thesis or dissertation give one example of how well one applied what was learned; but only one example.

    In any case:

    For those interested, you can find the Table in Crosby’s article at: http://www.autisminvestigated.com/lancet-family-11-demirjian/

    And Wakefield’s at: https://www.thelancet.com/action/showFullTableImage?tableId=tbl2&pii=S0140673697110960 Check out Table 2

    By the way, in one of your posts you listed all the “liars” about vaccines; but left out most Protestant churches, most Jewish congregations, most Islamic groups ( though I’m not a Moslem, I like to read and the vast majority of Moslems do NOT support groups like the Taliban, Al Qaeda, etc.,in fact they are the vast majority of victims of these fanatical groups) , and the Catholic Church. You also left out most PTAs. I guess you will have to revise your list??? Wow, the greatest world-wide conspiracy of all time just to help the pharmaceutical industry make some money and the amount of profit they make from vaccines is about 2% of their total world-wide profits, though some companies that manufacture vaccine do make more, so why would almost the entire world want to further the interests of a few companies????

    • I never withheld it. I presented it to my department. If it does become public, it won’t be scooped on Autism Investigated.

      I did call what you wrote a rant because that’s what it was. I also said you took a statement out of context, which you did. Wakefield’s intention according to the UK High Court is immaterial to the fact that the findings against him and his colleagues were overturned.

      FYI, I changed your link to the Lancet paper to a direct link to Table 2. It doesn’t contradict what I say. The takeaway you completely ignore is under “Features associated with exposure,” which just says “recurrent viral pneumonia.” Ergo, it corroborates what the parent said and does not mention symptoms of autism.

      Anyway, the rest of your comment is just straw man arguments.

  3. J Harrison on June 20, 2018 at 12:36 am said:

    The High Court DID NOT OVERTURN THE BMC FINDING’S AGAINST WAKEFIELD. Justice Mitting clearly stated that there was evidence that Walker-Smith’s actions involved research and also evidence that his actions were based on clinical judgement. Justice Mitting said that the BMC did NOT explain why they went with the former, did not give a clear explanation, so he overturned the findings for Walker-Smith. On the other hand, Justice Mitting clearly stated that Wakefield’s actions were purely research. And the study was supposed to look at relationship between autism and GI tract problems. So, why did Wakefield ask the parents what they thought caused their child’s condition? Well, because most were recruited by Wakefield from families involved in a lawsuit against the vaccine maker or families associated with JABS, an antivaccination organization helping with the lawsuit. Wow, Wakefield knew their answer before even asking. Not exactly honest research. And finally, though not dealt with in the article, at the press conference Wakefield stated he would not feel comfortable with giving the MMR; but would, instead, want monovalent vaccines and, golly gee, his name was on a patent submission for a monovalent measles vaccine. As for the Table, you attack Demirjian because he made clear his disagreement with the time following vaccination to first symptoms.

    And, I realize I’m wasting my time. As I pointed out, you are an egregiously unethical person who attacks others rather than using a scholarly and scientific approach to refute what they write. Giving out the contact information for a young man who apparently is doing well is beyond DESPICABLE. You just don’t know boundaries. And you fail to understand that people can make money doing what they believe in. In fact, when I went to school, my generation often made career choices based on what we liked, not, as many, though not all, nowadays do on what pays the best. I don’t remember any of my fellow students getting MBAs.

    Straw man arguments? That your personal attacks are unethical? That you find excuses to not share your thesis. I rewrote two of my masters theses and five sections of my PhD dissertation and got all of them published. Feel free to find them on PubMed and criticize them, if you can. I learn more from good critiques than anything else. So, given all the journals out there, why haven’t you tried to get your thesis published. The Geiers have certainly published a lot of articles. Why didn’t they suggest you publish yours?

    And one more thing about Wakefield. He withdrew his own case from the High Court. He claimed because he couldn’t afford it; but evidence found is that his own lawyer’s advised his chances of winning were not good. It doesn’t make any difference though why he withdrew from his case, except that Justice Mitting did not rule directly on it, though indirectly by stating in Walker-Smith’s case that his actions were solely for research certainly indicates how the Justice would have ruled. And how dense are you that you don’t understand that if the High Court had overturned findings on Wakefield that would mean he got back his medical license and could practice in UK.

  4. J harrison on June 20, 2018 at 2:33 am said:

    Obviously it is a waste of time discussing anything with you. My paper that you called a rant included accurate quotes from Justice Mitting and he clearly stated that Wakefield was carrying out research on the children. Believe what you want. If any of your readers prefer to actually read what I wrote and what Justice Mitting wrote, they can find my article at:

    http://www.ecbt.org/images/articles/Andrew_Wakefield_Has_Never_Been_Exonerated_Final.pdf

    and Justice Mitting’s decision at: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2012/503.html

    As for asking the Geier’s, it is your paper, are you ashamed to allow others to see it? Why don’t you want to try to get it published? It is your decision. You call yourself an epidemiologist; but, besides coursework and an MPH you don’t share your one research experience and there is NO indication you have ever worked in the field. So, you basically have some book learning. And, perhaps, one piece of research.

    And you avoid responding to my questioning your ethics in harassing/stalking people and making personal attacks rather than refuting what they write in a scholarly and scientific manner.

    You obviously believe you are ABSOLUTELY RIGHT, give no impression that you even consider a 1 in 1,000 possibility that you could be wrong about anything. Not how a true scientist thinks.

    If you had written a paper like mine and I disagreed with it, I would NOT have called it a rant; but quoted what you said, then find quotes from Justice Mitting, and explain why your interpretation was wrong. I guess you think that all you need to do is critique something without any corroboration. Do you suffer from delusions of grandeur?

    And are you a mind reader “Richard Demirjian is wrong, and now he knows he’s wrong.” Really? Or you believe he is wrong and assume he agrees with you. Delusions of Grandeur as well as unethical personal attacks. You appear to be an angry young man who managed to get a degree; but may have learned some statistics and epidemiology; but not how to think like a scientist.

    And you write the GMC didn’t give his license back; but if Justice Mitting had overturned their decision, they would have had to either retry his case or automatically give his license back. Don’t you understand even the basics of law or logic? Justice Mitting did NOT overturn the GMC decision on Wakefield regardless of what you believe in your fantasy world.

    And, your list of everyone who is part of the worldwide conspiracy of lies on vaccines gives the impression that you suffer from paranoid delusions as well which often go along with delusions of grandeur.

    Now, I have better things to do and will endeavor to not monitor this page. It’s a waste of time.

    • It is my paper, but it also relied on resources outside of my alma mater that weren’t mine.

      Richard Demirjian knows he’s wrong because I told him he’s wrong in his voicemail.

      The GMC won’t because it was a witch hunt against vaccine skepticism:

      31.b. You knew or ought to have known that your reporting in the Lancet paper of a temporal link between the syndrome you described and the MMR vaccination, Admitted and found proved i. had major public health implications, Admitted and found proved ii. would attract intense public and media interest, Admitted and found proved

      Goodbye, Joel.

  5. J Harrison on June 20, 2018 at 3:13 am said:

    Delusions of Grandeur. You leave a message on his voice mail telling him he’s wrong and he should know that you are some sort of g-d, thus, he should accept your opinion. Yikes!

    And once Justice Mitting overruled the GMC under law they would have had NO choice, Wakefield would have gotten his medical license back. You really are so locked into your paranoid belief system that you totally ignore reality.

    Exchanging comments with you reminds me of when I did an internship in a Psychiatric clinic. Yes, I also trained in Clinical Psychology. My doctorate in Sweden was a pure research program, so I also took all requisite courses for a diploma in Clinical Psychology, etc. and did a one year internship. Never figured out exactly what I would do when I grew up. I figured clinical psych would help me better design research questionnaires, etc, which it did. Until a few years ago when my age started catching up with me, I took various courses at local community college after retiring. And I still read 3 – 4 hours per day, not as much as I used to, and arthritis in my hands make it difficult sometimes to type.

    Keep believing the Demirjian even thinks whatever you say is worth paying attention to. You really should seek professional help. You really don’t understand that harassing someone/stalking people who you don’t like, disagree with is totally WRONG! I guess when one suffers from Delusions of Grandeur as well as paranoid delusions, the rules and morals that apply to others just don’t apply???

    And if you read even part of the GMC Wakefield hearings it is clear that he didn’t launch much of a defense.

    • The judge overturned the findings but not the sanction since Wakefield didn’t appeal. He still should’ve gotten his license back since his sanction was based on those findings, but the GMC was clear in wanting to kill vaccine safety research altogether as I’ve just quoted to you. So they didn’t give it back to him.

      I don’t need to be God to read a table. If I was God, I would do away with vaccines entirely.

  6. J Harrison on June 20, 2018 at 1:39 pm said:

    If you were g-d you’d understand simple concepts, like Justice Mitting’s ruling ONLY applied to John Walker-Smith. And please give the reference for where you got the quote so I can check its validity. Didn’t they teach you in your MPH program that when using direct quotes one has to supply a reference?

    As for the GMC wanting to kill vaccine safety research, there has been a ton of research published since Wakefield’s article, including studies that found adverse events, so why hasn’t the GMC gone after each and every researcher that found adverse events? And Wakefield’s study was supposed to look at relationship between GI problems and Autism, not the cause. As I already wrote and you apparently refuse to understand, the 12 kids were NOT from the normal queue for The Royal Free Hospital; but recruited from families involved in a lawsuit or JABS, a antivaccination group supporting the lawsuit. In fact, almost all were from outside the catchment area for the Royal Free. That alone invalidates what the parents said. Imagine a city is trying to decide which company should get a permit for land use and a poll is conducted, claiming to be a random sample; but turns out to be employees, friends, and relatives of one company that is trying to get the permit, the poll would be invalidated. You just don’t get it. Didn’t they teach you about biased sampling? What did you learning in your studies? As I wrote, when Wakefield asked the parents what they thought caused their kids condition, he already knew how they would answer. And what parents believe is NOT evidence. If there had been news overage, a story of a preliminary finding that pesticides were associated with autism, newspapers exaggerate preliminary findings, and Wakefield truly used a random sample of kids coming to the Royal Free, many of the parents would, with selective hindsight, remember a spraying for mosquitos around the time the kid was very young. I’m sure you don’t understand this at all.

    And I repeat, obviously nothing registers with you, that Wakefield did NOT write in the article anything about the problem being the MMR was a trivalent vaccine; but at the press conference made clear he would want monovalent measles vaccine and his name was on a patent application for just such a vaccine. Talk about conflict of interest. First, he had received upwards of a three quarters of a million dollars consulting with the law firm representing parents who believed MMR cause their kids problems (this above his regular salary at the Royal Free Hospital). Second, he had applied and been approved for a grant to do research to “prove” MMR vaccine was the culprit. No, he didn’t use the grant money for his study of 12 kids; but the fact that he applied to do research to “prove” and he recruited kids that he knew how the families would answer, when even asking them was not what he claimed the study was about, certainly demonstrates a STRONG bias; but in your mind, as long as the bias, no matter how egregious, favors what you rigidly believe, then it is OK. Science and logic be damned.

    I will use an analogy. Many years ago J. Edgar Hoover, head of the FBI, was obsessed with communism. He believed Albert Einstein was a communist and devoted considerable manpower over many years to proving it. One of his agents heard about a German woman, a schizophrenic in an American mental hospital. She was interviewed and claimed to have been at a communist party meeting attended by Einstein. Only problem, the address she gave was wrong and the date was when Einstein could be proved to be elsewhere. Hoover failed; but kept the schizophrenic’s testimony in the extremely thick Einstein file. In other words, regardless of how invalid anything was, if it went against Einstein it was kept in the file (Jerome F (2002). The Einstein File: J. Edgar Hoover’s Secret War Against the World’s Most Famous Scientist. St. Martin Press) Basically, this is what you do, ignoring contradictions, and continue to repeat things that just aren’t true. Are you perhaps related to J. Edgar?

    And please give the detailed reference for the quote, including URL and if long document, the page.

    • I hyperlink to the quote directly in my earlier comment. Clause 31.b, page 43 of the GMC charge findings. The GMC can only go after medical doctors registered in the UK. GMC can’t go after researchers like us who don’t practice medicine or doctors outside the UK.

      The children went to the hospital because of the clinical work being done there, not because of litigation. The Lancet paper never claimed the children were selected from random sampling, and Wakefield suggested parents use monovalent vaccines already in use at the conference. IMHO, however, he was wrong to suggest any vaccines.

  7. J Harrison on June 20, 2018 at 5:20 pm said:

    31.b. You knew or ought to have known that your reporting in the Lancet paper of a temporal link between the syndrome you described and the MMR vaccination, Admitted and found proved i. had major public health implications, Admitted and found proved ii. would attract intense public and media interest, Admitted and found proved

    AND you write “IMHO . . . he was wrong to suggest any vaccines.” If he had stuck with the findings on regressive disorders and GI, though later evidence found even these finding highly suspect, there would NOT have been a problem. You really believe that, given he stood to make a lot of money if the submitted patent for a monovalent measles vaccine had been approved, that it did not play into his bringing up vaccines, even though you admit he should not have done so?

    Yep, based on a grossly biased sample, kids whose families were directly or indirectly involved in a lawsuit, so not a valid study and, again, at the press conference Wakefield, who already had made quite a bit of money consulting with the law firm involved in the lawsuit, who had applied for a grant to “prove” the connection, not to investigate it, and whose name was on a patent application for a monovalent measles vaccines, mentioned that he would NOT recommend a trivalent vaccine, clearly a dishonest conflict of interest where he stood, if the patent had be approved, of making a lot of money.

    BMC finding:

    “a. of the paper were “consecutively referred to the department of paediatric gastroenterology with a history of a pervasive developmental disorder with loss of acquired skills and intestinal symptoms (diarrhoea, abdominal pain, bloating and food intolerance)” and subsequently described them as a “self referred” group,
    Admitted and found proved
    b. You knew or ought to have known that such a description implied,
    The Lancet paper stated that the children who were the subject
    i. a routine referral to the gastroenterology department in relation to symptoms which included gastrointestinal symptoms,
    Found proved
    ii. a routine process in which the investigators had played no active part;
    Found proved

    They were mainly recruited by Wakefield, clearly discussed in Justice Mitting’s decision and in the GMC decision. And no, they weren’t a random sample (By random in this context I meant not determined by the clinic; but normal referrals without any specific other reasons).; but they were clearly a biased sample of kids involved in lawsuit and not the normal consecutively referred patients to their clinic. I mentioned random sampling just to make a general point; but the key is that the kids were a BIASED SAMPLE. Believe what you want. From the GMC, just a couple examples: “In reaching its decision, the Panel is satisfied that you had a number of conversations with Mrs 2 regarding Child 2’s condition, which resulted in the referral of that child to Professor Walker- Smith. “On 9 August 1996 Child 6’s General Practitioner,
    Dr Nalletamby, wrote to you following a previous discussion that you had had with him on the telephone.” “On or prior to 11 September 1996 you supplied Professor Walker-Smith with Child 9’s name enabling him to contact Child 9’s paediatrician, Dr Clifford Spratt.” Duh, what part don’t you understand? These kids were picked by Wakefield, not “random” referrals to the clinic.

    Yes, the GMC can only go after doctors licensed and practicing in the UK; but the High Court overruled their finding on John Walker-Smith and he got his medical license back. You just fail to understand how legal systems work or, more accurately, your ideology refuses to understand.

    And NO they weren’t brought to the clinic because of “clinical work being done there”, they were clearly brought for research purposes as clearly discussed in both the GMC and Justice Mitting’s decision and I remind you that Justice Mitting stated that some of Walker-Smith’s actions clearly were for research; but some could be interpreted as clinical and the GMC failed to make clear why they decided based on the former and Justice MItting makes clear that Wakefield’s involvement, including recruiting the kids and requesting certain procedures was ONLY for research. If they were brought to the clinic solely for clinical, then Wakefield should NOT have been involved at all! He was an adult gastroenterologist, whereas Walker-Smith was a child gastroenterologist, and Wakefield’s position at the Royal Free was a research appointment.

    • I said he was wrong to suggest any vaccines FOR CHILDREN TO TAKE. I NEVER said he was wrong to report vaccines as a potential cause. The vaccines he recommended were already in use, which is why he recommended them. Naturally he couldn’t have invented something that was already invented and available for widespread use. The patent would have never been issued if that’s what it was for. But while we’re at it, let’s take apart your claim the children weren’t consecutively referred, here is what the judge ruled:

      “157. …Thus construed, this paper does not bear the meaning put upon it by the [GMC] panel. The phrase “consecutively referred” means no more than that the children were referred successively, rather than as a single batch, to the Department of Paediatric Gastroenterology.”

      Ergo, the paper’s description of patients’ inclusion was accurate. The reason Wakefield doesn’t have his license too is because he stood his ground and never wavered on the vaccine-autism link.

      Good to see your total support for research suppression showing through even more, though, given that you believe: an expert witness for vaccine litigation must be trying to concoct a case for profit, the GMC was right to punish Wakefield for reporting a potential problem with a vaccine, and the children’s cases ought to be dismissed as genuine illnesses because they are seeking justice for their injuries as anybody would. You outright support censoring research. Do you want to be taken seriously here? Why do you persist in commenting?

      Perhaps a better use of your time would be trying to get sites like Autism Investigated shut down. The CEO of GAVI advocated expelling anti-vaccinationists and vaccine skeptics from social media. It would be much more consistent with your ideology than hijacking a comment thread here.

  8. Grace Green on June 20, 2018 at 8:27 pm said:

    J. Harrison,

    No surprises that your qualifications are in psychology since all you have is the gift of the gab. I can’t argue with you better than Jake does as he’s thoroughly versed in that case, but as someone who’s lived in the UK for 63 of my 65 years I can assure you that under the NHS no doctor can solicit for patients. Everyone has to be referred by a General Practitioner, as those children were. Andrew Wakefield was researching the CASES of the children, on paper, not the children, who were at the hospital for clinical assessment and treatment. I can’t believe all the rest of the rubbish you have written here. Your knowledge of our health system is a joke. What is your motive for making up this nonsense?

    I fail to see how Jake’s thesis has anything to do with this topic. A person’s qualification speaks for itself, but the more highly qualified are not always the wisest or the most ethical. The Vaccine Holocaust is truly evil, and anyone who speaks against it is saying things how they are.

    • He supports researchers getting punished for reporting problems with vaccines, so he’s irredeemable.

      At least my thesis is the one thing he finally stepped off of, although that’s probably because he isn’t nearly as obsessed with the Geiers as he is with Wakefield.

  9. I’ve deleted Joel Harrison’s latest rant in submission because at this point he’s just repeating himself while trying to hijack the thread in order to pump his own blogs. I’m sure anybody who wants to waste time reading them can find them on their own. Autism Investigated will not be used for clickbait.

  10. Pingback: Joel Harrion's Selective Paranoia: Autism Investigated's Editor Made Up MPH Degree, But Dr. Montanari's Attacker Was Just "Some Nut Case" - Autism Investigated

  11. Pingback: Joel Harrison’s Selective Paranoia: Autism Investigated’s Editor Made Up MPH Degree, But Dr. Montanari’s Attacker Was Just “Some Nut Case” - NAMELY LIBERTY

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Post Navigation