"Conspiracy theorist, pseudoscientific, nonsense."

Subject: Herd immunity

Message Body:


Can you please tell me, in as much detail as possible, your understanding of a) herd immunity, and b) why, if vaccination is ineffective (as you proclaim), has small pox been eradicated.

Dear Ben,

The IAS encourages parents to do their own research into vaccination efficacy, benefits, and risks.

To this end we have endeavoured to provide some online reference material on our website at www.ias.org.nz.

Good luck.

The IAS.


 I am having trouble finding any peer-reviewed scientific literature on your web site, could you please send me some journal articles evidencing the claims of the IAS?



Dear Ben,

Maybe I could point you to our very well researched and heavily referenced book “Investigate Before you Vaccinate” By Sue Claridge http://www.ias.org.nz/products/ Or you could get copies of Hilary Butler’s books “Just a Little Prick” and “From one Prick to Another” also extremely well researched and heavily referenced http://www.beyondconformity.org.nz/books. Another fantastic book I recommend to all parents is Dr Robert Mendelsohn’s “How to Raise a Healthy Child In Spite of Your Doctor” http://www.amazon.com/Raise-Healthy-Child-Spite-Doctor/dp/0345342763#reader_0345342763

If you are wanting information about the lack of efficacy and devastation of the smallpox vaccine I would recommend “The Poisoned Needle” by Eleanor McBean http://www.amazon.com/dp/1442131292/ref=rdr_ext_tmb#reader_1442131292 I have also attached “Horrors of Vaccination Exposed” This gives you a very good idea on how smallpox declined naturally and how outbreaks were contained through good quarantine measures and healthy diet and lifestyle choices, really a very fascinating read.

If, after reading this recommended information, you are still convinced that vaccination is the best way to protect your child from certain illnesses I would recommend you download all the datasheets for each vaccine on the schedule and take note of the ingredients, contraindications and adverse reactions so you are well prepared for what to expect, here is the latest schedule for NZ babies http://www.moh.govt.nz/moh.nsf/indexmh/immunisation-schedule-html You can find all the datasheets if you look them up from here http://www.medsafe.govt.nz/profs/Datasheet/datasheet.htm

It is also a good idea to ensure your baby is of optimum health before taking them for their vaccinations, you can do this by following these recommendations when taking your baby for their vaccinations http://www.ias.org.nz/vaccines/choosing-to-vaccinate/ This will help towards ensuring your child only suffers minor adverse reactions, unless they have an underlying genetic disorder or immune system or neurological problem which only shows up once they have received their vaccinations.

When researching the vaccination issue it is important not to rely upon one website or information source, there is plenty of very good information out there, please have a look here http://www.ias.org.nz/vaccine-information/vaccine-resources/ for an extensive list of both pro-vaccine and pro-choice websites, as well as many other resources in regards to health and wellbeing.

I do hope this is of some help towards your research.



 Dear IAS,

 I have obviously offended you by asking for scientific evidence to support your claims, but you still haven’t provided any.I (sic) really don’t care about books, anyone can publish a book. I asked for actual science as in peer reviewed literature published in an independent scientific journal. Your attached reading is laughable conspiracy junk at best.You (sic) also seem to lack a fundamental understanding of what it takes to conduct scientific research. You have also yet to tell me your understanding of herd immunity, this is a basic and well established medical fact, which if you were sincere about understanding immunology, you (sic) should have studied in first year.

The claim that smallpox is less harmful than vaccination is plainly ridiculous and I sincerely hope that you are not stupid enough to genuinely believe it. Vaccination programs have been proven effective since Napoleon made it policy to inoculate Parisian civilians with cowpox. But hey, you clearly believe that all data that contradict your beliefs are just the fabrications of an elaborate conspiracy, so there is really no point in me trying to argue with your dogmatic confirmation bias.

I really was going to try and be respectful, but it is now clear that your campaign is just conspiracy theorist, pseudoscientific, nonsense.  I see no difference between your anti-vaccination rhetoric and that of chemtrails proponents, 9/11 thruthers, (sic) creationists, moon landing deniers, HIV deniers, homeopaths, psychic healers, UFO believers, etc.

I also don’t appreciate the scare tactics you try to push on gullible parents (see your 3rd and 4th paragraphs), not only do you exaggerate the likelihood of vaccination, you also fall back on loaded words designed to frighten the feeble minded.

Surely you must believe that what you are doing is for the greater good, but, since this all appears to be a conspiracy theory without any scientific basis, I implore you to stop before a child dies of preventable disease. Do you really want to have innocent children die because their parents mistook your advise (sic) for legitimate, scientific information.

 Not that you’ll take note, but I try.






Take care,


Dear Ben,

The IAS is a voluntary organisation whose volunteers give freely of their own time in order to assist parents to make an informed choice about whether or not to vaccinate.

Your antagonistic agenda, Ben, was clear from the outset, and I am not prepared to waste any of my own time doing your research for you, especially when it is quite clear that you are not interested/capable of any sort of objective analysis of the available facts; neither am I prepared to be interrogated by you in an impromptu examination (your first email) when your clear objective is not to seek information to evaluate, but is rather to engage in a confrontation.

History (including modern history) is replete with examples of ideas and beliefs that have been held by the mainstream community (including the scientific community) that have subsequently been shown to be false. Consensus, Ben, does not automatically equate to truth. Indeed, there is well-publicised contemporary evidence of both this fact and the corruption of the integrity of (your so-called) independent scientific journals in a scandal that has rocked another sector of the scientific community. Interestingly, the proponents of this theory and their followers also mock thinking people who question the validity of their claims.

If I am (as you imply) feeble-minded, at least I am still able to say that I have made an effort to research the facts and make an informed decision regarding vaccination, as opposed to the vast majority of people who meekly do as they are told without question.

Good luck in your quest for truth, which is not always as obvious as one might assume.



 Dear IAS,

I’ll take that as an admission that, with the exception of internet conspiracy articles and pseudo-scientific literature, there is nothing supporting your opinions. I hope one day you can become scientifically literate enough to study medicine. I have a higher education and I review the scientific literature, so you claim that  ‘I (sic) am not prepared to waste any of my own time doing your research for you’ is flaccid at best. Again, you need to differentiate between trawling the internet for articles to quote mine and nonsense to cling to in order to reassure your preconceived ideas versus doing actual research. In reality your ideology is a dangerous conspiracy theory which has already killed too many innocent people.

And, yes, science is always changing – rigorous self criticism scrutiny how science works . (sic)That was why I was prepared to listen to your claims if you had any evidence to support them, but, you don’t, period. If you do have such evidence, then (sic) by all means submit it to a journal – scientific journals love controversy (that is why Nature published a paper in support of homeopathy before verifying the study – because controversy gets citations) and you would surely get published. Hell, I would love to publish such a controversial paper – I’d become famous and get tenure. But alas, the anti-vaccination hypotheses don’t hold water when tested.

Falling into a conspiracy theory is easy, (sic) our brains aren’t perfect after all. It happens to many people, and it’s hard to get out of (you have to admit that you were wrong, but hey, that’s how science works), just look at the 9/11 truthers for instance, even though their claims are easily and repeatedly debunked, they still hold them passionately. When presented with scientific evidence that proves them wrong however, they do a paranoid/childish state of denial fueld (sic) by the belief in an evil, all permeating conspiracy.

Vaccinations don’t make a lot of money for ‘big pharma’ (they give most of it away to developing countries), and governments don’t subsidize things that reduce the work force and/or waste money (why crack down on ACC but continue funding something worse than smallpox?).

The sad thing (aside from dying children around the world) is that you actually believe you are being skeptical, (sic) but ironically you are deep in a confirmation bias – a state of uncritical dogma. Try this for mental exercise, pick a conspiracy (be it shape-shifting reptilians, the moon landing, intelligent design, or whatever) and try reasoning with it’s (sic) adherents. If you find parallels with your own arguments (such as making excuses for the lack of scientific evidence), this should strike you as a red flag about your own ideas. Or as Stephen F. Roberts sums up (about theism) “..When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.”


Dear Ben,

I am really pleased that you are so confident in your decision to vaccinate. I too am extremely confident with my decision not to vaccinate.

Many parents choose to take full responsibility for their families health instead of taking the path dictated to them by the State, those parents also make many other healthy lifestyle choices for their children, such as extended breastfeeding and avoiding over the counter drugs such as paracetamol, only using antibiotics if absolutely necessary and ensuring they provide good, homemade, nutritious foods for their family. I would say that no amount of name calling is going to change their minds.

I wish you and your children the best of health.



Dear IAS

I have asked for peer reviewed literature, if there were any real studies that supported your stance, I would accept them. There are many ‘arguments’ that have two sides: science and nonsense. Should I weight equally alchemy and chemistry? evolution and creationism? magic and physics? what about homeopathy? The answer is of course no. Science (and indeed critical thinking) is not a democracy, if you don’t have evidence to support your claims, don’t expect them to be taken as seriously as those that have been rigorously tested and have survived the scrutiny of the scientific community.

 But let me ask you, what evidence would it take for you to reject your anti-vaccination stance?

 For me, I will reject vaccination if a scientific study can prove that:

1) Vaccination against disease X does not significantly (I’d even settle for >p=0.05 as opposed to >p=0.002) the antibody count compared to a control group. or,

2) If the expected (I use ‘expected’ in a statistical context) effects of vaccination were worse than that of disease.

 It must feel great to have uncovered so many conspiracies. Even though the research into molecular biology I do puts the theory of evolution to the test everyday, science really works on faith 😉 But hey, if you can’t understand a subject, it’s easier to say it’s either a conspiracy (in the same way a child will say “This math test is impossible!” – same diff) or even better, ascribe the phenomena to magic, like creationists do (or like cave men inventing gods to bridge their basic ignorance).

 My IQ has been scored as 180 in a three day empirical assessment, so I can be confident that I am on the right hand side of the intelligence curve. But as you know, the mark of an intellectual snob is requesting scientific evidence to support claims about the natural world.

 Basically, depending on the efficacy of a vaccine, a certain proportion of the population needs to be vaccinated to stop an epidemic. This is why in areas where the anti-vaccination conspiracy is prevalent, disease prevalence also increases (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aEFiERdNBKs). This is based on utterly basic math (and has been proven) so I don’t get how you can’t understand such a basic concept. Vaccines don’t always work, we know that, that is why governments push to vaccinate the right proportion of the population. But hey, I’m sure that you’re open minded enough to accept that basic fact 😉

 I wouldn’t have expected such childish stupidity from even a moderately dim person. That would be like me saying that either everyone dies from influenza or nobody dies from influenza, that either everybody has hay fever or nobody has hay fever, etc. You clearly have no idea how vaccination even works.

 So how many scientific papers have you published for your 15 year research career?  Or are you abusing the word ‘research’ again to make your conspiracy theory reading sound more legitimate?

 The reason there are no tigers in my lab is because ependorf pipettes repel them. I’m so glad that I’ve found somebody who can understand my reasoning.

Now, I would suggest that you stick to being a dogmatic conspiracy theorist/ stay at home mom or whatever it is you do for a living. I’ll continue conspiring with other scientists behind the docks. Maybe next we’ll try claiming that the earth is round! So long as you meddling kids do go and reveal our sinister plans to deny your deity. Hail Darwin!

All I ask is for some evidence, all you give is obscurantist ramblings. But you have at least evidenced something to me – that ignorance is not a handicap for strong opinions.