The arms race intensifies
Today, the Mail have done some digging and found someone who suffered brain damage from an epileptic seizure which happened after she had the HVP jab. Did the HPV jab cause it? Well, we don't know. If it did, it's a serious health concern, of course. But did it? And if it didn't, why focus on the jab?
Well, we know why. To scare people. To create a climate of fear and panic. To imply that people are under threat and that only the diligent newspapers are the source of truth. Calling the HPV jab 'controversial' isn't accurate when it's only you who thinks it is controversial; when the vast majority of people, even on a poll on a website next to a story claiming the HPV jab is dangerous, decide it isn't.
I first encountered Dr Richard Halvorsen yesterday, when he was quoted in the Sunday Express's disgraceful story as saying:
One minute Natalie is an apparently healthy girl, she has the vaccine and within two hours she is dead.
We are told she had a terrible cancer inside her that killed her but this is implausible.
But he'd already written a vaccination story for the Mail (thanks to Ben Mortimer for the tipoff). Looking into his background it appears this is a doctor who offers the individual vaccines to those worried about MMR - I should add that I don't know if this is a service provided on the NHS or whether he charges for it - so he's not against vaccinations per se. He's also written a book, The Truth About Vaccines.
One look at this website should tell you everything you need to know about his scientific credentials:
I am trained in acupuncture and homeopathy and incorporate complementary therapies into my clinical practice alongside orthodox medical treatment.
Have the bells started ringing for you yet? Here is a GP who is 'trained in homoeopathy and acupuncture'. How much credibility should we attach to what he has to say on scientific matters, do you think?
But Halvorsen seems to be carving out a career as the go-to guy on vaccinations. Well, let me clarify that: the go-to guy if you want to write a negative story about vaccinations. Which is fine, but... is he right? What if he's wrong?
Despite all the evidence which shows that Natalie Morton didn't die from the HPV jab, Halvorsen says in the Mail:
Yet the sudden death of Coventry schoolgirl Natalie Morton after a jab against cervical cancer highlights the reality that vaccination programmes are not without their risks.
The tragic irony for Natalie was that the injection may have triggered a reaction far more lethal than any future, distant threat of a comparatively rare disease.
But there's no evidence for that. None at all. He's just guessing at best. Which is fine, we can all make guesses, but... we don't all present ourselves as being experts on vaccinations, do we? And - what if he's wrong? What harm will it do if he's wrong?
Related posts:
Buy my book, it’s great
Switch site
Donate
Recent Posts
- Cheerio, cheerio, cheerio…
- Children died
- The letters you never get around to sending
- Applying again
- I just sent Robin round – 2
Most Commented On
Recent Comments
- Iain on Applying again
- Roger on The letters you never get around to sending
- Dave Hodgkinson on The letters you never get around to sending
- droid on The letters you never get around to sending
- Rogue_Leader on The letters you never get around to sending
About Me
Hello. I'm a Bristol-based writer and soon-to-be-redundant journalist. You can read more about me and the Enemies site here, or follow me on Twitter. Email me if you like - antonvowl at live dot co dot uk
If you're struggling to read the site please use the drop down box below to increase the text size.
October 5th, 2009 - 12:26
Halvorsen seems to be the go-to guy for vaccine scare stories. He's appeared on the Lay Science blog a few times:
http://www.layscience.net/search/node/halvorsen
October 5th, 2009 - 12:48
To be fare accupuncture does seem to have some solid medicinal basis to it. However this guy does seem to be Mr Rent-a-quote and clearly has money to be made out of mistrust of vaccines.
I am honestly surprised that some of this stuff is getting published, surely the distortion of facts is treading a legal tight rope and somebody somewhere is at risk of getting heavily sued, probably by the manufacturers?
October 5th, 2009 - 13:21
I believe that poll was actually skewed by @polljack (RT @polljack: Daily Mail is dangerously wrong about the cervical cancer jab. Vote No to counteract their lethal nonsense http://bit.ly/qBwII).
Sorry to burst your 'Daily Mail readers maybe aren't all sheep' bubble.
October 5th, 2009 - 16:05
Hello bloggers
I appreciate that you take issue with Dr Halvorsen. But can I point that he says what he says based on the 6 years of research for his book The Truth about Vaccines, and over 25 years as a GP. In the interest of science, and fairness, you may want to read his argument first. He is one of the few vaccine agnostics that pro-vaccine experts are happy to debate the issue with.
Kind regards, Karen Woods
Gibson Square Publishers
October 5th, 2009 - 16:20
"…may have triggered a reaction far more lethal than any future, distant threat of a comparatively rare disease."
Which is true for almost any everyday action, if you happen to be seriously ill but unaware of it.
October 5th, 2009 - 16:38
Hello Gibson Square
I appreciate your invitation to buy Dr Halvorsen's book (you can't have too much publicity, right?), but can I point out that, in the interest of science and fairness, we have read his argument and found it mostly to be full of shit.
His opportune media appearances the second a child dies from a pre-existing medical condition make your client look like a cynical dickhead at best and a dangerous, irresponsible, money-grabbing charlatan at worst, exploting human tragedy to make a quick buck while putting thousands of peoples' lives at risk through a relentless anti-vaccination agenda based on poor research and a confusion over causation and correlation.
It's interesting that you don't dispute anything written in the above post or elsewhere, but instead attempt to advertise Halvorsen's book alongside some vague claims about 6 years of research (peer reviewed? published? accepted by the medical community? who knows!) and his time as a GP.
Anyways, kudos for reaching out to 'the bloggers'. You can tell your boss you're doing some work in 'New media' now, reaching out to 'communities' and stuff, without really having to do anything or engage with anyone! Ace.
Kind regards, Jamie Sport
October 5th, 2009 - 16:53
Would Karen Woods like to confirm or deny a claim that Dr Halvorsen has never written any peer-reviewed, published-in-medical-journal papers on vaccines?
October 5th, 2009 - 20:52
Hi Karen,
Dr Halvorsen doesn't appear to have published any research. I visited his website hoping to find a list of his peer-reviewed journal papers but all I got was an advert for his book and a load of pop-up windows advertising gambling sites and viagra.
I thought that my workplace – one of the largest teaching hospitals in the country – might have had a copy of his book in its library but it doesn't – I wonder why not…
Jen
October 5th, 2009 - 23:06
unfortunately i don't think ms wood will be answering any of your questions, she has left identical comments on the following blogs.
http://jdc325.wordpress.com/2009/10/04/dangerous-nonsense-in-the-sunday-express/
(on two articals no less)
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2009/10/a_tale_of_two_news_stories_the_hpv_and_f.php#comment-1979984
and
http://jaycueaitch.wordpress.com/2009/10/04/lessons-learned-i-dont-think-so/
i will however give her the benefit of the doubt (assuming she isn't a bot that is), as she is most likely just someone at the publishers who's been given the crappy task of trawing blogs to defend her employers shitty book on a monday morning.
October 6th, 2009 - 05:08
Given the extraordinary funding of "peer reviewed" academics and their employers (universities,teaching hospitals etc) by Pharma – oh yes and GSK? And of course given GSK's (and Merck that manufactures Gardasil, Cervarix's competitor, or is it – see below)and other Pharma's tendency to sue all and sundry that criticise their products, we should not be concerned about the fact that we can't get many academics to go on record. Google Dr Andrew Gunn UofQ Australia. You are living in fairyland.
And I guess in your Fairyland Vioxx is a cookie – good for all!
Wake up, something smells here, do your research with an open mind and then make your opinions known.
There is something very wrong with the active ingredient in Cervarix and Gardasil and funnily enough the active ingredient is co-owned (patent) and GSK and Merck share royalties.
Criticising those brave enough to say something and ignoring those that are weak and won't is pathetic.
October 6th, 2009 - 08:31
Tunley: You forgot the word "sheeple".
It's "wake up sheeple", for crying out loud
October 6th, 2009 - 08:35
Hi Guys, thanks for your responses. It seems that either 1) only published peer-review researchers can talk or write about vaccines; in which case almost everyone is disqualified except scientists (such as Dr Diane Harper, perhaps) : 2) or everyone can discuss it, particularly GPs who vaccinate children, and those who read the medical research in depth and write a book about it for the non-specialists.
Best of luck!
October 6th, 2009 - 09:09
Square: We trust peer-reviewed science because the authors are not making it up as they go along; unlike personal opinion, The Daily Mail and for-profit publications which are not peer reviewed but think shouting as loudly as possible makes their opinions valid.
Got the difference? Lovely.
October 6th, 2009 - 09:15
ACG: his publishers left it on my blog too.
Karen – the problem with your client's approach is that he rushed to make a judgment without waiting for any actual evidence, put people off giving their children the vaccine, and thus put their lives at risk. He can talk about it all he likes – although as he makes money from vaccines, I'm not sure he can be considered impartial. But it would be best if he dealt in facts when dezling with public-health issues rather than speculation.
October 6th, 2009 - 10:28
Hi Gibson Square,
Your view of the 'peer-review researchers' doing all research probably isn’t entirely accurate, yes there is lots of research being done in university labs by white-coated 'boffins' but a great deal of healthcare research is conducted by practising physicians – in both primary and secondary care, so anyone can contribute. Indeed one of the major difficulties university based researchers have is finding clinical partners – particularly in primary care. I would suggest that if he offered to collaborate in some good quality research Dr Halvorsen’s hand would be bitten off.
I would agree that there is a debate to be had about how pharma currently funds and publishes research, this is (slowly!) beginning to happen.
However, I cannot respect someone who increases the fears of the public by writing a scare story about vaccines before ANY details of Natalie’s death were known. And then, when the cause of death was known to be un-related to the vaccine, wrote another article stating that:
"One minute Natalie is an apparently healthy girl, she has the vaccine and within two hours she is dead. We are told she had a terrible cancer inside her that killed her but this is implausible. If you have cancer you have symptoms."
Especially when that person is a GP and in a position which suggests that he is informed, reasoned and has the health of the public at heart.
And I cannot respect someone who makes money from the fear that he is helping to create. In my view that is unethical and immoral.
October 6th, 2009 - 11:55
I'm just glad Halvorsen isn't my GP.
'Dr, I have a cough and a bit of a sore throat'
'Have you had any jabs recently?'
'No'
'It must be the jabs! And they've erased your memory too! MMRHPVARGH! Excuse me while I call the tabloids.'