Robert J. Gifford
@robjgifford.bsky.social
I carry out research into the evolution of viruses and their impact on host species. Open science.
The Guardian frames a timing change for very low-risk infants as “limiting” vaccines.
ACIP didn’t restrict access or question safety, it shifted a universal 24-hour rule to shared decision-making.
When public-health advocates misstate the facts, it doesn’t protect trust. It erodes it.
ACIP didn’t restrict access or question safety, it shifted a universal 24-hour rule to shared decision-making.
When public-health advocates misstate the facts, it doesn’t protect trust. It erodes it.
December 6, 2025 at 5:04 PM
The Guardian frames a timing change for very low-risk infants as “limiting” vaccines.
ACIP didn’t restrict access or question safety, it shifted a universal 24-hour rule to shared decision-making.
When public-health advocates misstate the facts, it doesn’t protect trust. It erodes it.
ACIP didn’t restrict access or question safety, it shifted a universal 24-hour rule to shared decision-making.
When public-health advocates misstate the facts, it doesn’t protect trust. It erodes it.
These scary numbers appear to come from a maximalist population model, based on delaying the birth dose to exactly 2 months for all infants.
ACIP did not recommend:
- eliminating the vaccine
- delaying until 2 months
- delaying universally
- denying the birth dose to parents who want it
ACIP did not recommend:
- eliminating the vaccine
- delaying until 2 months
- delaying universally
- denying the birth dose to parents who want it
December 6, 2025 at 4:59 PM
These scary numbers appear to come from a maximalist population model, based on delaying the birth dose to exactly 2 months for all infants.
ACIP did not recommend:
- eliminating the vaccine
- delaying until 2 months
- delaying universally
- denying the birth dose to parents who want it
ACIP did not recommend:
- eliminating the vaccine
- delaying until 2 months
- delaying universally
- denying the birth dose to parents who want it
- Presents a false paradox
- Recycles unsupported, unfalsifiable bat immunology narratives
- Conflates association with causation in outbreaks
- Relies on a small circle of experts
- Omits massive negative evidence
- Treats rumour as fact
- Applies mythic spectacle (bats as villains and saviours)
- Recycles unsupported, unfalsifiable bat immunology narratives
- Conflates association with causation in outbreaks
- Relies on a small circle of experts
- Omits massive negative evidence
- Treats rumour as fact
- Applies mythic spectacle (bats as villains and saviours)
December 4, 2025 at 2:06 PM
- Presents a false paradox
- Recycles unsupported, unfalsifiable bat immunology narratives
- Conflates association with causation in outbreaks
- Relies on a small circle of experts
- Omits massive negative evidence
- Treats rumour as fact
- Applies mythic spectacle (bats as villains and saviours)
- Recycles unsupported, unfalsifiable bat immunology narratives
- Conflates association with causation in outbreaks
- Relies on a small circle of experts
- Omits massive negative evidence
- Treats rumour as fact
- Applies mythic spectacle (bats as villains and saviours)
Do you think that would also be the case here?
Weekly symptoms of infection doesn't sound particularly appealing to me.
www.newscientist.com/article/2492...
Weekly symptoms of infection doesn't sound particularly appealing to me.
www.newscientist.com/article/2492...
August 21, 2025 at 5:41 AM
Do you think that would also be the case here?
Weekly symptoms of infection doesn't sound particularly appealing to me.
www.newscientist.com/article/2492...
Weekly symptoms of infection doesn't sound particularly appealing to me.
www.newscientist.com/article/2492...
There is currently no approved vaccine for scarlet fever.
April 10, 2025 at 1:24 PM
There is currently no approved vaccine for scarlet fever.
It appears my error was in devoting decades to virology rather than mastering Victorian literature and kitchen remedies. A humbling revelation—thank you for your service to science.
April 10, 2025 at 8:53 AM
It appears my error was in devoting decades to virology rather than mastering Victorian literature and kitchen remedies. A humbling revelation—thank you for your service to science.
I don't think you're capable of a reasonable discussion.
Bye!!!
Bye!!!
April 9, 2025 at 1:46 PM
I don't think you're capable of a reasonable discussion.
Bye!!!
Bye!!!
Read what I wrote.
April 9, 2025 at 1:36 PM
Read what I wrote.
And why do you need a 2000 year timeline to make your point?
Is it because a shorter timeline would show child mortality dropping precipitously prior to mass vaccination?
It's not anti-vax to expect more honesty and clarity in public health messaging.
Is it because a shorter timeline would show child mortality dropping precipitously prior to mass vaccination?
It's not anti-vax to expect more honesty and clarity in public health messaging.
April 9, 2025 at 10:51 AM
And why do you need a 2000 year timeline to make your point?
Is it because a shorter timeline would show child mortality dropping precipitously prior to mass vaccination?
It's not anti-vax to expect more honesty and clarity in public health messaging.
Is it because a shorter timeline would show child mortality dropping precipitously prior to mass vaccination?
It's not anti-vax to expect more honesty and clarity in public health messaging.
I'm sorry to have to say it, but if this is meant to persuade vaccine skeptics, I think it's disingenuous and probably counterproductive.
Why are you conflating water systems with vaccines?
Who's against clean water?
Why are you conflating water systems with vaccines?
Who's against clean water?
April 9, 2025 at 10:40 AM
I'm sorry to have to say it, but if this is meant to persuade vaccine skeptics, I think it's disingenuous and probably counterproductive.
Why are you conflating water systems with vaccines?
Who's against clean water?
Why are you conflating water systems with vaccines?
Who's against clean water?
What starts as a critique of healthcare policy becomes an argument for a new moral regime in which science is moralised, and politics is medicalised.
April 7, 2025 at 12:08 PM
What starts as a critique of healthcare policy becomes an argument for a new moral regime in which science is moralised, and politics is medicalised.
Scottish-American. 😉
April 7, 2025 at 9:17 AM
Scottish-American. 😉