Reply To: Vaccine contaminants and safety


Home Forums Discussion Forum Vaccine contaminants and safety Reply To: Vaccine contaminants and safety

#54573
Dr Edd

You mention Assange and other martyrs who have been persecuted for telling the truth. There’s an important distinction. Those people are whistleblowers with insider knowledge; they aren’t ideologically-opposed critics who make up stories to challenge the consensus of expert opinion. John Oller isn’t a whistleblower by any stretch of the imagination. He explicitly notes in the article that the conclusion is only an opinion; all he can add to the unreliable test data released by the Catholic Bishops is his own suspicion (and of course that of the other authors).

No, John Oller isn’t alone on that roll of dishonour. In the “Author’s Contributions” addendum to that article it says: “The bulk of the writing has been done by Oller with edits ranging throughout the development of the manuscript and reported findings by Shaw and Tomljenovic.” Now, if you scroll up to the top of the last link I provided you’ll see what the reviewer thinks of those two:

Here we go with the same old story that I’ve pursued for years – the one about University of British Columbia researchers, Christopher Shaw and Lucija Tomljenovic, who are amongst the most laughable anti-vaccine scientists (and I use the word “scientist” very loosely) to ply their pseudoscientific nonsense onto the world. Their articles are regularly retracted by even minor journals, but like zombies, those articles return to life in even more obscure, minor journals.

The Open Access journal has a minuscule impact factor of 0.2 (which is roughly on a par with the Beano). It’s rather “special” in a key regard: the authors pay to get their articles published – which of course is a major incentive to the publishers. And it seems that on this occasion one of the peer reviewers was the esteemed Dr John W. Oller.

Oller isn’t just a run-of-the-mill Christian: he’s a Biblical literalist. That puts him in some embarrassing company, and reveals a strong ideological motive to denounce certain aspects of medical science. I have no doubt he had his reasons to get involved with autism and vaccines, but it didn’t give him the requisite training to judge on the science. He didn’t have to pass exams in developmental pathology or immunology; he only had to read enough propaganda to cherrypick facts that suited his ideologically-inspired anti-vaxxer agenda.

We can evaluate the reliability of those 4 tests you rely on, tomorrow.