Boyd Haley brings the weirdness

19 Nov

On 12th Novemeber, Vueweekly featured the second part of an interview with Boyd Haley during which Professor Haley contradicted so many of the basic tenets of the autism/vaccine hypothesis – and also of good ol’ common sense (remember her?) that I was left wondering if he was in fact an Evil Neurodiversity spy sent to make himself look like an asshat.

“What about the argument that autism rates haven’t declined since thimersoal has been removed from vaccines?” I pose. “It’s a total deception,” he says. “We don’t actually know the autism rate for the last officially thimerosal-vaccinated cohort. And according to parents who asked to look at vaccine inserts, thimerosal was still present in childhood vaccines as late as 2004 in many places. Then in 2004, the flu vaccine, which contains thimerosal, was recommended for six-month-old infants. I don’t know if we even have a thimerosal-free time frame.”

Uh….what? Whilst Haley is literally right he kind of misses points so large they’d fit perfectly on the head of a stag. He claims we don’t know the autism rate for the last officially thimerosal-vaccinated cohort, whereas it might be more accurate to state we don’t really *know* the rate for any autism cohort, ever. No one’s looked. The latest estimates in both the UK and US come in at around 1 in 100. And really, he has the question bass-ackwards. What we need to know is how much thiomersoal was in official use during the last few years as the autism estimates have been rising. The answer to that is, aside from the voluntary flu vaccine and a trace amount used in the manufacture of one brand of vaccine, none. Doesn’t need a professor to work this out…lets go through it Boyd, no thiomersal, rising autism estimates…hmmmm….

We don’t _need_ a thiomersal free time frame. We simply need to compare the autism estimates for when there was a lot of thiomersal in use to now, when there’s pretty much none.

Cherry picking another bemusing quote, we get:

Autistic infants are totally incapable of excreting mercury. They’d be fine if they weren’t exposed to thimerosal.

Hmmm, a Professor of chemistry who’s not aware that even Jill James doesn;t claim that autistic infants are *totally incapable* of excreting mercury. And a professor of chemistry who’s not aware that mercury occurs naturally in humans in greater amounts than vaccines.

Haley then brings on a strawman:

Whatever is causing autism must affect boys more than girls, as autism rates are higher among boys than girls. It is well-known and documented that testosterone accentuates the effects of mercury…

Firstly, it is now suspected (I’ll try hunt down the link) that autism affects females in a much greater number than previously suspected. It should also be noted that whilst testosterone does accentuate the effects of mercury, no valid research has ever been done to show that testosterone is working with thiomersal to heighten the effect of the mercury. Haley is just making a specious correlation.

More weirdness:

“We know autism isn’t genetic,” he says. “You can have a genetic susceptibility, which together with an environmental toxin is what I believe is causing it, but autism went epidemic in all 50 states at one time. This isn’t the behaviour of a genetically caused disease.

Actually, a goodly proportion of autism *is* assocated with genetic abnormalities. Rett syndrome – a form of autism – is _entirely_ genetic.

Haley is also in error when claims autism ‘went epidemic’. Nobody knows wether the rates of autism have ‘gone epidemic’ because we have no base measurement. Nobody can say how many autistic people there were five years ago, let alone 20. And Boyd, really, doesn;t the fact that – as you state – something happened ‘at one time’ lead you to look for explanations closer to reality? Something like…oh, say, a change in the DSM criteria which massively expanded the definition of autism? Something that _did_ happen 20 yeas ago?

The rest of Haley’s piece is a pointed reference to himself as a hero whos truth is being hidden from us all by the nasty pharma companies.

Weird. Just weird. Haley needds to catch up with the rest of the anti-vax loons who have cottoned on to the truth that the thiomersal boat is full of massive holes and pretty much lies waterlogged somewhere off the coast of Stupidville.

30 Responses to “Boyd Haley brings the weirdness”

  1. Socrates November 19, 2009 at 15:20 #

    I suspect the anti-vax loons will still be with us, long after the Autism-Mercury confabulation is buried in the cold, cold ground.

  2. Joseph November 19, 2009 at 15:53 #

    I thought this thimerosal hypothesis was dead back in Q2 2006. It was never really dropped by the anti-vaxers, though, after the predictions of the hypothesis failed spectacularly. Anti-vax trolls still bring it up from time to time.

    It was the key hypothesis of the anti-vaxers. It was not simply a marginal part of a larger anti-vax view. It was the most important aspect of it. Lenny Schafer said as much back in October, 2007.

    They had graphs and in-vitro studies. They had an apparent acknowledgment of plausibility from government: the removal of thimerosal from pediatric vaccines. The new stuff like “too many too soon” or aluminum just doesn’t compare.

  3. Kwombles November 19, 2009 at 17:03 #

    Now it’s the varicella vaccine that’s doing it. Haley is so behind the times! (AoA commenter asserted that it was the varicella vaccine; not an adverse reaction, just the having the vaccine). Sigh.

  4. Robert Rampson November 19, 2009 at 17:03 #

    ‘Anti-vax trolls’ now seem to be in the majority…. More than half the UK’s ‘vulnerable’ people – including key workers and pregnant women – are refusing to have the swine flu jab. Only 46 per cent of people being offered the vaccine in the UK are having it, according to a recent poll among doctors.

  5. livsparents November 19, 2009 at 18:59 #

    I’ve always tried to find a good analogous icon for those who continue to argue thimeresol/autism mass causation; despite all the various mounting evidence that keeps piling up and growing. I can even get some to grudgingly admit that ANY thimeresol autism link using their OWN information is basically a small percentage of a small percentage.

    But, there are still people like Boyd, who despite all, cling to any last piece they can. Finally, the analogy hit me. Sorry for those who are not Monty Python fans…but he IS the Black Knight from Holy Grail fame. “I’l bite your legs off…I mean…thimeresol has not REALLY been removed! I’m invincible!” He’s a looney…

  6. Clay November 19, 2009 at 20:01 #

    Robert Rampson wrote:
    “Anti-vax trolls’ now seem to be in the majority….

    I wouldn’t say that. Only today, the H1N1 vax became available in my county, and was distributed to 10 different locations. Each location was given 2000 shots, and people were waiting at 5 AM at places that wouldn’t open until 10 AM. There are half a million people in this county, we’re going to need a lot more shots. Three adults and one child have died of H1N1 in the past month in this county. Sure, there are some anti-vaxers who will refuse to take it, they’ll have to rely on prayer, I guess.

  7. Joseph November 19, 2009 at 21:50 #

    ‘Anti-vax trolls’ now seem to be in the majority

    Well, no. People with reservations about getting vaccinated because of propaganda pushed by GR and so forth are not “anti-vax trolls.” Anti-vax trolls are people with an anti-vaccination worldview, typically conspiracy mongers, who post non-sequiturs in blogs in order to stir up trouble.

    BTW, someone mentioned that poll over at RI, and I’ve seen some news reports, but I have yet to see the original source of the claim. Specifically, what is the methodology of the poll? What was asked exactly?

  8. David N. Brown November 19, 2009 at 23:02 #

    Only 46 per cent of people being offered the vaccine in the UK are having it, according to a recent poll among doctors.

    I am skeptical of these polls. A number of surveys indicate that a large percentage of the people distrust the H1N1 vaccination, but where is the evidence of reduced demand? So far, the most common report from distributors is that they have trouble getting enough vaccines. I suspect what is happening is that many if not most who profess to be critical of the vaccine are getting it anyway. I have written a little essay on this, titled “Is anti-vaccination the new `Harper’s’?”

  9. Socrates November 19, 2009 at 23:32 #

    Not gold plated science but from the respectable Pulse, a magazine for British Family Doctors: (Posted in its entirety as I don’t think non-members can view content)

    GPs braced to miss swine flu target

    18 Nov 09

    By Gareth Iacobucci

    Exclusive: GPs fear they are almost certain to fall short of the Government’s target for swine flu vaccination, with practices across the country reporting widespread resistance from patients to taking up the vaccine.

    Practices are expected to vaccinate at least half of all patients under 65 in clinical at-risk groups against swine flu during this winter’s campaign, to qualify for reduced thresholds on QOF access targets.

    But a Pulse snapshot survey of just over 100 GPs finds the lukewarm response from patients makes it unlikely the 50.7% target – for patients in high-risk groups aged between six months and 65 years – will be reached by many practices.

    The resistance from patients to being immunised is exacerbated by serious problems with vaccine supplies, with some larger practices warning they are already running out just a few days into the campaign.

    Only 37% of GPs believe the Government’s 50.7% target will be achievable, based on their experience so far of supplies and the reaction of patients.

    Just under half of practices said they hadn’t yet started the vaccination campaign. Those who had estimated a little under half of patients approached were saying yes to the vaccine.

    Dr Gary Calver, a GP in Folkestone, Kent, said: ‘A number of patients were very negative about having swine flu vaccination. It’s going to be extremely difficult to meet targets.’

    Dr Mansukh Shah, a GP in north-west London, told a similar story. ‘I think the target of 50.7% will be difficult to achieve. Quite a few patients are reluctant.’
    Click here to find out more!

    Some GPs warned patients were concerned over thiosermal in the vaccine and the risk of side-effects – which practice staff report as headaches, sleeplessness and stomach cramps.

    Dr Ian Pace, a GP in Bourne, Lincolnshire, said: ‘We start tomorrow but with only 500 vaccines available to us there is not a cat’s chance in hell of vaccinating all the target group. Vaccine availability and supply is unreliable so we are unable to adequately plan a campaign.’

    Each practice in England and Wales, regardless of size, was due to receive an initial delivery of 500 doses of the vaccine, with GPs able to order further deliveries from mid-November.

    But many GPs said they had met with big delays in receiving the vaccine, which they feared would hamper their chances of meeting the target.

    And large practices said they had insufficient doses of vaccine to go round – with some forced to put their vaccination campaigns on hold.

    Dr Toby Davies, a GP in Tidworth, Wiltshire, said his practice had received its initial 500 doses last week, and was already running low.

    ‘We’re irritated that small practices received the same number of vials as large practices. We cannot order any more until 16 November and are told deliveries will take one to two weeks from that date. We have had to delay our programme.’

  10. Dedj November 20, 2009 at 00:41 #

    It’s rather hard to find the methodology for the poll(s).

    The actual results (but not the raw data) are easily found for at least two of the polls.

    Pulse magazine report on their poll of GP’s:

    The comments state that the question was “Do you plan to have the swine flu vaccine yourself?”, sent by email via conveniance sampling (the GP’s were on the readership lists). No information about how answers were collated in available.

    Pulse magazine report on their poll of patient uptake is very hard to find at this moment. However, it appears to be based on GP’s estimation of refusal, rather than any actual audit of patients themselves.

    Healthrepublic poll of GP’s:

    No indication of question or methodology. Note that the actual results were “29% said they would not opt to receive the swine flu vaccine and a further 29% said they were not sure whether they would or not.”

    The above links, and the information that is available through the two websites, indicates that – as expected – the anti-vaxx/vaxx-skeptic portrayal of these polls is clearly and firmly in total error.

    Unfortunetly we cannot blame the anti-vaxx/vaxx-skeptics for thier error, as both PT and HCR misreport the polls, turning ‘opt not to’ and ‘unsure’ into ‘1in3 to reject’ (HCR) and ‘did not intend’ into ‘will refuse’ (PT).

    However, the blame for overgeneralising the opinions of GP’s (who work in primary health care) to the opinion of all Dr’s (including those that specialise in client bases that are high-risk) is squarely and firmly in the hands of the ‘pro-safe vaccine’ movement.

  11. mark November 20, 2009 at 09:52 #

    Also on the respected pulse magasine from the 4th Nov.

    GPs and practice staff on frontline turn down swine flu vaccine

    Many GPs and practice staff are refusing to be vaccinated against swine flu, even in ‘hot-spot’ areas where rates of infection are rising fastest.

    At some practices no front line staff have agreed to have the vaccine, despite BMA and Government warnings that it is ‘crucial’ to the success of the campaign.

    And some GPs warned there were early signs that take-up among patients might also be disappointing, amid continued fears over vaccine safety.

    A Pulse survey in August found nearly half of GPs had at that time been planning to turn the vaccine down, with doubts over safety one of the key reasons.

    Dr Niall Finegan, a GP in Salford, Manchester – close to a hot spot in Trafford – said he, the four other GPs and six staff members at his practice planned to refuse the vaccine, and that he did not believe there was enough evidence it was safe.

    ’It’s not been around very long. The fact we are testing it out on pregnant women does not bear thinking about,’ he said.

    Dr Louise Warburton, a GP in Telford – identified as one of the country’s hotspots, with nearly three times the national average consultations for influenza-like illness – said she was planning to say no to the vaccine, as were many other local GPs.

    Practice staff were also reluctant in many areas. Dr Helen Groom, a GP in Sunderland – also a hot-spot – said she would have the vaccine, but around a third of her 23 staff planned to refuse it.

    And some GPs warned their own doubts were shared by patients. Dr Andra Jayaweera, a GP in Rayleigh, Essex, said she would not have the vaccine, and nor would her practice staff and many of her patients: ‘I usually get 100% uptake for seasonal flu, but for swine flu the response is very low.’

    Dr Liz Miller, a locum GP in London, said she would not recommend the vaccine to her patients because of safety concerns: ‘I do not intend to be vaccinated, nor will I recommend it to patients. It is untested and unnecessary. It’s time doctors started thinking for themselves instead of mindlessly obeying the Department of Health because they are terrified of missing out on free money.’

    But Dr David Wild, a GP in Hebden Bridge, West Yorkshire, said: ‘I will be having the swine flu vaccine and it will be offered to all our staff. Our practice is a team and if people start having problems we will not be able carry out the vaccination programme effectively. ‘

  12. Robert Rampson November 20, 2009 at 14:12 #

    Not just in the UK. In Canada, even the manufacturer of the vaccine is admitting there are risks!

    This from the reputable Vancouver Sun newspaper:

    Dr. Joel Kettner, Manitoba’s chief public health officer, said Thursday that GlaxoSmithKline has asked that the October batch be taken out of circulation because it produced serious and immediate anaphylactic reactions in one out of 20,000 vaccinations, compared with one out of 100,000 in other shipments.

    “We’ve been asked by the manufacturer GSK to not use this vaccine at this time pending further investigation,” he said

  13. Dedj November 20, 2009 at 16:33 #

    Vaccine manufacturers typically produce lists of contraindications on their packaging inserts, clinical advice leaflets, and often on the product website.

    If you think the manufacturer ‘admitting there are risks’ is new, novel, or even note-worthy then you are seriously underinformed.

    Adressing the specific risk, 1 in 20,000 serious adverse reactions is quite high, but lets not fool ourselves into pretending this is anywhere close to the level of risk touted or implied by some in the ‘pro-safe-vaccine’ movement.

    A quick google check for you indicates that your reputation for honesty is in the negative, as indicated by your above misrepresentation of the PT and HCR polls. Sadly, this is typical for people holding your (implied – people like you are VERY careful not to state their actual beliefs even when they’re obvious from context) viewpoints on vaccines. It’s not big, and it’s not clever. It’s easily detectable.

    Kindly educate yourself or please leave.

  14. David N. Brown November 20, 2009 at 18:23 #

    As Dedj says, there is nothing unusual in a company warning of possible side effects. But, a manufacturer warning doctors not to use a particular lot is of great interest. What it suggests to me is that the manufacturer is concerned at being the target of a lawsuit. This could be another factor in the apparent inability of distributors to supply the vaccine to all who want it.

  15. Mike Stanton November 20, 2009 at 21:41 #

    I had my swine flu shot today. Lots of people at work had it. Lots of people at work declined. That does not speak to vaccine safety. it speaks to public perceptions of vaccine safety AND efficacy weighed against perceptions of the risk that swine flu presents. Two people who mean a lot to me have friends who have died. Another friend was hospitalized. That colours my perceptions of risk.

    Regarding the withdrawal of a suspect batch. That encourages me. I am pleased that a 1 in 20,000 effect is detectable and leads to such prompt action.

    Only anti-vaccine trolls would try and link these two pieces of information to suggest that the vaccine is not safe.

  16. brian November 20, 2009 at 22:21 #

    Robert Rampson indicated that the risk of experiencing anaphylaxis following vaccination with a particular batch of H1N1 vaccine was 1 in 20,000. However, Mr. Rampson failed to supply the appropriate context: According to the CDC, about 5% to 20% of the US population contracts influenza each year, and about 36,000 of those people die. If you discount the fact that H1N1 is circulating well in advance of the typical flu season and that the typical seasonal flu will still hit, you might take the average of those figures as suggesting that infection of 12.5% of the US population of roughly 300 million (that’s 37.5 million people) will result in 36,000 deaths. Thus the chance of DYING if you contract influenza (about 1 in 1,042) is 19 times that of developing anaphylaxis following vaccination with the suspect batch of vaccine. It’s also true that once you’re dead, you’re dead, but anaphylaxis is treatable.

  17. Robert Rampson November 21, 2009 at 23:03 #

    Dedj, this would a pretty dull site if everyone who disagreed with you were to leave. We live in a democracy that values free speech…. try to be more open-minded

    Brian, there are lies, damn lies and statistics. How many of those that die of the influenza have underlying health problems? We don’t know.

    Meanwhiile four deaths from the vaccine have been reported in Sweden, one in Israel. Maybe they had underlying health problems too. Who knows?

    The Polish Government have refused to buy the vaccine until it has been fully tested. The Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk said that his government won´t buy vaccines for swine flu that have not been properly tested or from producers who he says won´t take responsibility for possible side effects.

    He said “that vaccine producers were pressuring governments to buy, but were also demanding that all responsibility and compensation for possible negative side effects fall upon government shoulders. Today we are dealing with great pressure from pharmaceutical firms … we are dealing with expectations that hundreds of millions of dollars will be spent on vaccine while no one wants to guarantee that it has no side effects.”

  18. Dedj November 21, 2009 at 23:51 #

    Thats not what I said or implied Robert. You presented admissal of risk as a novel or notable action on behalf of a pharma company. I reminded you that this is not new, novel or even abnormal behaviour.

    You haven’t actually stated disagreeance, as you haven’t actually presented any form of arguement at all. It’s hard to tell someone to leave for disagreeing with you if they haven’t actually said anything that disagrees with you. I’m fully willing for the swine flu vaccine to be withdrawn if it causes excess deaths, any claim that I have stated or implied to the contrary is purely fictitious or in total error.

    The 5 swine flu deaths in Sweden occured over a month ago. One was a 74 year old will multiple underlying health problems, another was 90 with underlying health problems. Another appears to have had a serious heart condition and another a chronic illness. I found that out within minutes. Why didn’t you?

    I willing to be open minded to whatever you bring (imply heavily without stating clearly) to the table. But if, as with the polls mentioned above, what was actually written consistantly turns out to be different to what you implied – and a quick google search turns up an occasion where you misrepresented yourself before – I’m going to take whatever you say with a pinch of salt.

  19. Robert Rampson November 22, 2009 at 06:37 #

    Well, Dedj, I am pleased to read that you are willing for the swine flu vaccine to be withdrawn if it causes excess deaths. That’s certainly a start.

    You are right that I have not presented an argument, only concern. This is because I am not a doctor or a scientist and am not qualified to assess the mountains of medical evidence for and against the various vaccines.

    I am old enough (retired now) to remember many examples of governments and international corporations (and not just pharmas)carelessly killing or maiming tens of thousands of people: Thalimonide (remember the Australian doctor who was vilified for raising concerns?), or deliberate exposure of servicemen to nuclear fall-out during tests by the government, or the supply of blue asbestos by US corporations when it was known to be dangerous (as a result more people now die in the UK of mesothelioma rach year than die on the roads). It’s a litany of indifference and wrong commercial priorities.

    I am not convinced by government, by the pharmas or by you that some vaccines are not imnplicated in causing death or permanent disablement ro significant numbers of people. An increasing number of people are beginning to share these concerns.

  20. Dedj November 22, 2009 at 19:22 #

    An increasing number of people are beginnning to share the concerns that cell phones cause cancer or that ecstacy can turn you homosexual. Fallacious appeals to popularity are not convincing arguements.

    Presenting concern is all fit and well, but thats obviously not why you’re here. For you to pretend that you are ‘just saying’ when your actual views permeate everything you have written, is being dishonest to both yourself and us.

    As pointed out before, a quick google search indicates that dishonesty is not something you have any problem engaging in.

    Out of all that irrelevant blurb you have spewed in your ‘defence’, not a single jot of it has concerned the actual problems I, and others, initially raised with your, ahem, ‘concerns’. You may also want to check upthread for my now released post concerning the 3 polls. You have also failed to answer any of the concerns with your research skills or other issues raised since then.

    Odd that. You’d almost suspect it’s becuase you have no answer.

    Please do not reply unless you have something substantial to add.

    “I read something somewhere sometime” is not an answer, nor is digressing onto thalidomide. McBride was ‘villified’ by being awarded Man of the Year, made a CBE, a MOAust, and awarded money by the Institute of Life. Of course his original Lancet letter earned him derision, he was making a significant claim with (at the time) scant evidence.

    People attempting to villify medications are present in the world of medicine all the time, making it hard even for those of us who practice in the allied professions to identify legitimate concerns amongst all the quackery and bias.

    Am I going to chase everything up for you, or are you going to pull your finger out?

  21. Robert Rampson November 22, 2009 at 23:59 #

    Would your ‘allied profession’ have any connection with a certain pharmaceutical company. I wonder? Just asking….

  22. Mike Stanton November 23, 2009 at 00:45 #

    This from the reputable Observer newspaper

    Ukraine – the figures so far

    Population 46 million
    flu victims 1.6 million
    flu deaths 400 or 1 in 4000 cases.

    According to Rampson’s reputable source there is a risk of 1 in 100000 for a severe adverse reaction to the vaccine. They withdrew a suspect batch which increased the risk to 1 in 20000. Compare this to a death rate of 1 in 4000 for the actual virus. If I were in the Ukraine I know what I would choose.

    Rampson seems to have confused cynicism with scepticism. It is OK to be cynical but a true sceptic examines the data and if the data contradicts your belief it is OK to change your mind.

    But by calling Dedj a pharma shill Rampson has shown that he is only interested in his own opinion and has turned his back on serious discussion.

  23. Joseph November 23, 2009 at 00:50 #

    @Robert: Just asking, or just trying to imply there’s a hidden motive, with zero evidence to back up that insinuation? Don’t be surprised if arguments as weak as that are met with nothing but the contempt they deserve.

  24. Dedj November 23, 2009 at 01:07 #

    You have still not answered any of the challenges put to you.

    Honest and decent conversation entails answering questions as well as asking them.

    Anyway, you are certainly not ‘just asking’, you are making an attempt to heavily imply fraud and dishonesty on my part by insinuation. It’s a trick that has been tried before.

    That aside, your question is non-sensical. All allied health professions have ‘connections’ to pharma companies in the sense that we work in MDT’s that usually includes clinicians with prescription rights. As such, some clients will inevitably be on precriptions that may include products of ‘a certain company’. They will also be using products of many other companies, but no-one has used the Tena or Stanair stair-lift shill gambit yet.

    Even if we take your question as the pharma-shill gambit it obviously is, it is still non-sensical. AHP members number into the tens of thousands each, treating millions of patients together. Many are involved in research, some of which is likely to be funded by companies looking for new product markets and/or organisations looking to get the best bang for thier buck. That there is going to be loose pharma and/or big health co. connections to any AHP is to be expected.

    I’m not even sure how people like you think a healthcare system where providers (big pharma/big health) and clients (Primary Care Trusts, Hospital Trusts, independant precribers, nurses, physio’s, OT’s, insurers) are functionally seperate could even work. Combatting fraud is one thing, opposing working relationships is another. Under an intrinsically seperate system, who would have the responsiblity for assessing whether a new regime (drug, exercise, activity, counselling or any mix) is better than TAU? Leave it up to drug companies alone? No chance.

    Back to answering those concerns I mentioned then……

  25. Chris November 23, 2009 at 03:53 #

    Interesting that Robert Rampson brings up the Pharma Shill gambit on a comment about a person who is pushing a new chelator called OSR:

  26. Robert Rampson November 23, 2009 at 11:14 #

    Thanks Dedj, I’ll take that as a ‘Yes’.

    I don’t think there’s any more to be said on this subject.

  27. Dedj November 23, 2009 at 12:57 #

    Given how obscure and non-specific your grammatical question was, it would have been dishonest of me to say no.

    You certainly cannot take my answer to mean anything other than what I carefully explained to you. You certainly cannot take it to mean myself or my profession as a whole is unduly influenced by any big pharma company. You certianly cannot take it to mean that I recieve any payment, in part or in whole, in materials or assets, from any individual or any agent of any pharma, equipment or health company.

    Thank you for proving the earlier google searches concerning your dishonesty to be correct. You should have been more honest in your desire to label me a pharma shill. I put it to you that your question was deliberately obscure in order to ‘trick’ me into giving you a answer that can be twisted by you to fill your predetermined conclusion.

    “I don’t think there’s any more to be said on this subject.”

    You could try addressing the concerns that have been raised with your misrepresentation of the polls mentioned above, and of your misrepresentation of the behaviour of ‘a certain pharma company’.

    You certianly haven’t yet addressed any concern laid against you.

    Do so.

  28. Tom November 23, 2009 at 13:15 #

    Rampson sez, “This is because I am not a doctor or a scientist and am not qualified to assess the mountains of medical evidence for and against the various vaccines.”

    Grateful you don’t have anything more to say on the subject. You’ve already said so little.


  1. Tweets that mention Autism Blog - Boyd Haley brings the weirdness « Left Brain/Right Brain -- - November 19, 2009

    […] This post was mentioned on Twitter by GraceBarkwell, chokha. chokha said: Autism Blog – Boyd Haley brings the weirdness « Left Brain/Right Brain […]

  2. Boyd Haley brings the weirdness | Left Brain Right Brain – International Badass Activists - August 26, 2020

    […] Source: Boyd Haley brings the weirdness | Left Brain Right Brain […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: