Monday, January 3, 2011

Quack of the Day: "Dr" Andrew Moulden

Andrew Moulden is a pretty common name tossed around within vaccine conspiracy circles, and Mr. Hubbs is no exception. Again and again, Mr. Hubbs cites the work (I dare not use the term research to describe it) of Mr. Moulden and even though Moulden has yet to actually prove any of his claims, that really doesn't matter in the mind of a medical conspiracy theorist.

So who is this Moulden guy and why is he so important? Why is he so frequently cited by Mr. Hubbs and other vaccine conspiracy theorists alongside Sherri Tenpenny, Andrew Wakefield, Russell Blaylock, or the ever-present references to the infamous website?

Well the short version is that Moulden claims he knows the root cause of autism, which as a coincidence just so happens to be related to vaccines. He also used his websites (the now defunct,,, and among numerous others) to sell nutritional supplements, pamplets, DVDs, and tickets to his various seminars.

Where have we heard this story before?

Of course reality soon caught up with Moulden and people started looking beyond the clever marketing, the scare tactics, and the silly YouTube videos. This resulted in Moulden pulling his website which was likely a result of investigations into his claims which found them totally without merit, and due in part because he was using his website to sell diagnoses of brain disorders remotely. The basic premise was Moulden would ask people to send in videos (or sometimes just photographs) of their children looking at the camera, and based upon eye movements he would diagnose what is wrong with them... for a hefty fee of course. He called this idiocy his "BrainGuard" process, and in order to even submit a video or photographs he required people to hold a "AMassNetwork IMAN-12" membership - which required a paid fee as well.

Not only did Moulden profess he could diagnose autism or brain disorders via photographs, he even went so far as to claim he could diagnose "some learning and language disabilities" from seeing photographs alone! Even to a layperson this is simply unbelievable as a photograph doesn't tell you anything about the cognitive abilities of a person, but of course to a vaccine conspiracy theorist such as Mr. Hubbs it all makes perfect sense.

Granted anyone who has ever had a photograph taken where they were purposefully crossing their eyes or making a funny face I guess this would be enough to convince Moulden that they have a brain disorder - but back here on the real world where actual diagnoses takes more than a photograph this type of snakeoil simply will not do. Now I fully realize it is hard to believe that anyone (even a self-proclaimed expert such as Moulden) would actually make such wild claims, but thankfully we have his own words to quote to remove any doubt:
"...we are able to diagnose vaccine injury (including autism and aspergers and Gulf War Syndrome and Gardasil adversity and some learning and language disabilities..from photos alone - conformed by video.. and we are right, on the photos alone, 80% of teh [sic] time..add the video - we hit >95% to 100% accuracy)." ~Andrew Moulden
And taken directly from his website (before it was removed) is the entire sales pitch:
"BrainGuard provides digital video and photograph based "video microscopy" to monitor and assess for clinically silent brain damage that causes, or has caused, neurological and neuropsychiatric disorders including autism, autism-spectrum, pervasive developmental disorders, Asperger's syndrome, sudden infant death, infantile paralysis, Post vaccine syndromes (Gulf War syndrome, Guillain Barre syndrome, cognitive impairment...), seizure disorders, ischemic strokes, specific learning disabilities, and attention deficit disorders.
AMassNetwork IMAN-12 Membership available at ( You must have an AMassNetwork membership subscription in order Access/receive BrainGuard services and solutions.
Brain damage, especially vaccine and infectious disease induced brain damage, is clinically silent. Our proprietary techniques and technologies provide the means and methods to assess and monitor the integrity of the central nervous system from birth to adulthood with a non-invasive, cost-efficient, home based, video/photo solution for monitoring the integrity of the human brain across neurodevelopment.
There are three steps:
Capture a 30 second video clip of the BrainGuard client - full face in view, eyes open, awake, alert, and responding/attending to the videographer.
Login or Register with
Follow instructions on how to upload your video/pictures to our secure servers.
What Comes Next:
We will process your submissions and inform, via email to your "IMAM-12" account the results of your BrainGuard scan(s). If we detect the MASS response (a medical emergency) one of our staff will contact you directly with what to do next.
If you are looking for proof causation of vaccine induced brain damage (including autism, Gulf War syndrome, Wrongful death, brain impairment...) - BrainGuard can provide these services and all inquiries."
Now obviously you couldn't make this up even if you were skilled at sarcasm, but this is word for word what Moulden had on his website. So basically Moulden claims he can diagnose a veritable plethora of brain disorders via photographs and/or video without so much as a basic collection of vitals, any medical history whatsoever, or even the most basic of basic interviews or clinical exams... and this is the type of guy the anti-vaccine crowd wants to use as a trusted expert?

Of course charging hundreds or even thousands of dollars to diagnose a medical condition via the Internet is only one part of the scam. Once the "patient" was diagnosed by Moulden as suffering from Moulden Anoxia Spectrum Syndromes or "M.A.S.S" (obviously a term invented by Moulden to serve as a catch-all for anything and everything that he found suspect), he would then sell them his miracle "Brainguard" formula for the low-low price of $47.00 for a one month supply - plus shipping and handling of course.

There is only one major problem here. Not a single one of Moulden's theories or techniques was ever proven. Not only that, but his miracle "Brainguard" supplements were just that... nutritional supplements. They were not pharmeceuticals or legitimate medicine and they even had to carry a disclaimer on them that they weren't intended to treat or cure or prevent any disease etc, thus Moulden himself even understood they were nothing but snakeoil because he never bothered to even attempt to publish a single peer-reviewed paper nor did he ever perform a single clinical trial in any attempt to back up his claims or provide support to this theories.

Now obviously if you are a fellow vaccine conspiracy theorist like Mr. Hubbs you will continue to defend Moulden's work and claim that the FDA or CDC or AMA or whatever other three lettered medical body is corrupt and has done what it can to silence Moulden. The only problem with that is that Moulden himself is Canadian, and as such the US government and American medical governing bodies don't have any control over Moulden's claims unless he tries to practice medicine in the US.

This just goes to show that a quack in America is a quack in any other part of the world as well, even when they are far outside the jurisdiction of the American government.  However even with all of this said, even with the above mentioned facts that cannot be disputed, the biggest problem with Andrew Moulden is probably the fact that the man doesn't hold a license to practice medicine, and thus any attempt by him to diagnose patients (either in person or via the Internet) would be illegal.

I know it can be confusing as Mr. Hubbs and other vaccination conspiracy theorists continually refer to Moulden as "Dr. Moulden", but the truth is Moulden doesn't hold an actual license to practice medicine in either Canada or the US (or anywhere else for that matter).  Moulden does hold a doctorate that much is true, but his PhD is actually in psychology.  He earned that degree in 1999 and then claims to have earned his "doctor of medicine" degree a year later from an entirely different school atlhough that seems highly suspect and is unverified.

The fact is, Moulden never finished his residency program (which was in psychiatry not any field related to vaccines by the way), and he has NEVER been licensed to practice medicine - anywhere.  Don't take my word for it though, just read it directly from The College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario (the one and only official medical licensing body of Ontario) which clearly shows he attempted to get through a residency program, but after eight years of trying he was only able to reach the third year (the residency requires five years to complete), so he must have finally given up and decided there was more money to be made by selling DVDs and speaking at seminars than there was by actually practicing legitimate medicine.

So having a medical degree or being able to call yourself a doctor just isn't enough.  Earning a PhD does grant you the right to call yourself a doctor, but someone who fails to complete an actual medical residency program is no more able to treat patients or prescribe treatments as someone who earned their PhD in Economics or History.  Although in reality you might have better luck getting medical advice from a doctor of history rather than someone like Moulden who pretends to be a legitimate doctor.

When you boil it all down and examine the facts, Moulden is just like all of the other "experts" that are all too often cited by antivaxxers like Mr. Hubbs.  He is a great pitchman and tells a good story, and he does have a certain way of convincing people to buy his products (the Billy Mays of the vaccine world if you will) but at the end of the day when you peel back the curtain there not only is no science to support it, but you find the velvet curtain is actually just cheap polyester... an imitation meant to look like the real thing from afar.

Will any of this stop ignorant vaccine conspiracy theorists like Mr. Hubbs from continuing to cite "Dr. Moulden" on their blogs and websites?  Probably not, because if I have learned anything about these types of people it is that even when they are proven wrong and even after you have discredited every single one of their claims or experts, they still refuse to acknowledge the world around them.  We have seen it with "Dr" Tenpenny, we have seen it with "Dr" Wakefield, we have seen it with "Dr" Moulden, and I'm sure we will see it many times in the future as well.

Say what you will about people like Mr. Hubbs, but it is more than obvious that he is a very slow learner.


  1. Your unqulified and a stone thrower asshole...brainwashed and poisoned...who has not done any research or talked to parents that have had bad reactions to immunizaitons. All or nothing heh? grey area or anyone offering to settle it with unbias modern research. Thou doth protest too much! You are going to hell. You an ass and probably have investments in big pharma ! Burn in hell!

    1. Wow! You really made some articulate points there, you dill.

  2. Sorry Mr. Hubbs but you know nothing about my qualifications so you lose on that point. I'm not a stonethrower either since all of the information I have posted on this blog is factual and sourced appropriately.

    As to research, I don't need a google educated idiot telling me how to perform research (and once again I need to remind you that you do not know my qualifications).

    I also don't have any investments in "big pharma" that I know of although I suppose I might own a mutual fund that has some small interest in a drug company - I can't really say for certain, but it surely isn't enough of an issue to influence my views or have any impact whatsoever on scientific fact (which is sort of the point).

    The one and only reason I have even allowed your comment to be posted is because it shows how desperate you have become when you continually and repeatedly make references to me burning in hell or going to hell. Classy for a guy who claims to "care about others".

    I guess I must have hit a button because your rage seems to be growing exponentially, so I guess I will take some joy from the fact that you are pounding away on your keyboard trying to come up with a new and witty retort as you grow increasingly irate at facts being tossed back at your direction knowing full well you aren't given free reign to cut and paste and spew your worthless and biased crap time and time again.

    Maybe time to up the meds a bit there huh Mr. Hubbs? The current dosage doesn't seem to be working out for you. Hey... if you don't want to fill a prescription maybe you can just steal some more supplements from Shopko!

  3. "DR" Moulden is a family member. he is a sick man and is on and off his meds constantly.(mostly off)he has a young daughter he ignores who's granparents look after. he only cares about Andrew. he preys on desperate people trying to help there families. he's sick, pathetic and a liar.
    i feel really bad for those who are his victims

    1. anyone who knocks doctors that seek real cures are of the devil. plain and simple

    2. Well twizzler, thankfully Moulden was never one interested in "real cures", so everyone here is probably safe.

  4. I think it has been well established he is a liar and that he is pathetic... but I had no idea about his daughter (although it really doesn't matter as it doesn't change anything).

    I agree that he preys on desperate people seeking a solution or any miracle that would be able to help their loved ones. Unfortunately it seems the vast majority of these “alternative medicine experts” all follow the same pattern of behavior. They either prey upon fear which persuades people into buying their products, or they prey upon ignorance as they offer to magically fix what traditional treatments and doctors have been unable to resolve.

    Granted Moulden’s treatments don’t actually work (as is the case with all the other quacks out there), but a desperate family most likely won’t ever take the time to seek out peer-reviewed science or ask for documented results of a clinical trial before spending thousands of dollars on snakeoil and worthless treatments, supplements, or products.

    Preying upon the ignorant is bad enough. Preying upon the ignorant who are scared and desperate due to a sick child is even worse. How people like Moulden sleep at night is beyond me, but I take solace in the fact that there is such a thing as karma, and one day they will have to pay for their transgressions.

    1. I am reading your blog and find it curious you don't specify your qualifications that render you an expert on vaccines. While you state Mr. Mouldon is a big fat fraud I don't see anything that shows you as being an expert about drugs or medicine or anything else. He may have been crazy or perhaps not but at least he put himself out there with his full name and what he had to say about the subject. That is more than I can say for you. I at least put my initials on my post and they are real however I am not claiming to be any kind of expert about anything. Just making an honest observation here.

    2. Well "Anonymous" I don't recall ever stating I was an expert on vaccines, drugs, or medicine... because frankly my qualifications aren't the issue here and it is merely a distraction. You see, I'm not running around pretending that I have all the answers and although I have far more relevant education and experience that most of those I interact with on this subject, that has no bearing on my posts or comments.

      What I do is observe behavior and provide credible evidence to combat it. I link to peer-reviewed studies and scholarly journals. I post links to news articles and stories which are relevant. What I don't do is expect anyone to accept my opinion as fact. If I see someone make a claim, I challenge that claim and ask for evidence. Sadly, people like the late Dr. Moulden or many of the other anti-vaccine cranks out there are never able to offer any evidence of their claims. No peer-reviewed studies, no published papers, no evidence showing that their claims have merit.

      Thus there really isn't any need for me to go into great detail about my qualifications when they are unable to prove their own claims. If I find that my qualifications would help support a claim then by all means I'll mention it.

    3. Do you have children affected by Vaccines? Have you seen your children change after a Vaccine? Have you any idea how the body works for that matter......Go an educate yourself on the processes of the metabolism , nutrition, defenses of the body and then have a second look at vaccines and the way they ruin the immune system. Easy to attach something positive if you are collecting benefits from the Pharmaceutical system . If vaccines are so wonderful GO GET THEM YOURSELF!

    4. Well Maica - I do believe vaccines are wonderful and I have got them myself! I've received dozens of vaccines in my lifetime - many more than the average adult in fact. The amazing thing is that I haven't had a single case of polio, smallbox, diphtheria, measles, mumps, whooping cough, chicken pox, or a few dozen other diseases. Lucky me.

      You may think you know children who "change" after a vaccine, but your opinions are not science. I like science a bit more because it tends to cancel out biases. You should try it.

  5. This blog is ridiculous. You wish you had 4 degrees let alone 1 which I doubt you have. Dr Moulden seems to have no books to read but you can read his PhD thesis which you can find for free online which of course you likely have not read. There is a news clip where he explains he is gathering evidence to support his claims and seems very honest compared to pro-vaccine-tards like yourself. This blog is pure disinfo and if you think vaccines are so great you ought to get 10 000 injections of every assortment just like your hero "Dr" Offit claims would be perfectly safe. Oh, I forgot, you get paid to pretend to care about science and probably avoid vaccines like the plague. Great job on the disinfo!

    1. Well unfortunately your assumptions are incorrect Mr. Hubbs (aka anonymous). I do actually hold several degrees, but that isn't relevant since this blog post is about Moulden and not about me. I'm not the one claiming I can diagnose neurological disorders based upon photographs and as such my experience and education has nothing to do with it.

      Second, what does Moulden's thesis (or technically theses since he has written more than one) have to do with anything? Are you aware that a thesis does not need to be peer-reviewed? Are you aware that a thesis can vary from someone simply re-stating facts to someone who is intent on proving something? First of all even though I can read at least part of Moulden's thesis online does not in any way make what he has stated valid and frankly I'm not even sure what grade he earned on it. For all we know, his professors gave him a "D" on his thesis - shouldn't that matter if you are attempting to treat his statements as credible?

      Why do I suddenly feel that you have no idea what a thesis even is?

      Next you claim there is a "news clip" where Moulden claims he is gathering evidence. Great - but first of all I'd love to know the source of this "news clip" because I'm quite sure it is either A) Moulden himself via something like YouTube, or B) from an anti-vaccination website that "interviewed" him. So aside from the fact I'm fairly certain no reputable news agency even bothers to talk to the man, all I'm hearing are empty promises.

      I wrote this original blog post almost two years ago, and even back then Moulden's antivaxxer supporters were claiming he was going to be releasing new information "soon". There were promises of studies that never materialized, there was talk about lawsuits and claims of his vindication - but NONE of it has ever happened. What exactly has Moulden done other than work the anti-vaccine circuit where he sells DVDs and his brainguard pills? I'm genuinely curious because as far as I can tell he hasn't really produced anything in the past few years. Even his old website which was dead has now been resurrected as a blog for someone who likes to talk about guns.

      So in short come talk to me when Moulden actually gets a paper or study to be peer reviewed. Until then, nothing seems to have changed. He can make whatever claims he wants, but until he has the evidence to support them all I see is yet another snakeoil salesman selling nutritional supplements to those who can't see through his little con-game.

      Honestly it would be in the best interests of antivaxxers to distance themselves from these con-artists if they ever wish to be taken seriously, but time and time again they actually embrace these types of people who have no legitimate evidence to support their theories. I equate this to televangelists... it doesn't really matter what is said or what evidence exists (or in this case doesn't exist) - it only matters how it is said and how charismatic the person is. I find that sad - but I've come to realize the last thing antivaxxers seem to care about is legitimate science. For them it is never about the steak... always about the sizzle.

      Finally in regards to your comment about me getting paid, I assure you (once again) that nobody pays me to blog about vaccines and the rather idiotic tactics employed by antivaxxers. I'm also a huge fan of vaccines because I've done the research and reviewed the legitimate science that proves they actually work. I practice what I preach, and as such I have already received my 2012 flu vaccination (and I'm up to date on all of my other vaccines as well).

      Oddly enough if you trust what antivaxxers tell you I should be dead or sick due to all of these "toxic vaccines" in my system... yet I'm as healthy as ever. Imagine that!

    2. Actually, you ARE an ASSHOLE. Your 'education' clearly did not encompass compassion, humanity, kindness, or respect for others. I don't know why I read your mean piece of insulting writing to the end, I regret it - it has not educated me or enlightened me, but it has saddened me. God bless you.

    3. Somewhow I have a hard time giving any value to the opinion of someone who begins their comment by calling someone an asshole, and ends with saying God bless you. Just to note - your comment doesn't contain any of the compassion, humility, kindness, or respect for others that you seem to expect in return, and as such you haven't added anything of value to the discussion. Therefore since you didn't bother to counter any of the actual facts surrounding Moulden, I'll assume these concepts are outside of your grasp so instead you decide to insult others while telling yourself you are a good person.

      Newsflash. You're not. You are however a hypocrite. So you have that going for you.

    4. ". . .avoid vaccines like the plague." That's actually kind of funny!

  6. If you take the time to understand both "vaccines" and Doctor Moulden's work a light will go on and you will discover one of the mechanisms for neurodegenerative disease caused by "vaccination".

    ALL vaccines are and have been causing ischemic (impaired blood flow) damages - to all - creating a plethora of chronic illnesses, disease, and in some instances...death. The injury from vaccination is additive, each vaccination further injures.” Doctor Andrew Moulden MD, PhD

    1. Sorry... I missed the part where you cited the medical study that supports Moulden's claims.

      What's that - you mean he has never published a single peer-reviewed study or paper supporting his theories? Wow... It is almost as is he is just claiming things without being able to prove them.

      I guess I'm starting to understand why he never finished his residency. Who needs education or credentials when antivaxxers will believe anything you tell them provided you're willing to go on a speaking tour with some other anti-vaccination experts?

    2. Well Sir since we are so concerned with medical studies please show me a non-biased (No Big Vaccine or HHS involvement) clinical study of sufficient size, power and duration that ANY "vaccine" is both safe and effective.

      As to Doctor Moulden showing us his medical evidence

      The TRUTH MUST NOT be Known

      In the year 2000 when Doctor Moulden presented his evidence to the head of his medical association he was told to throw it away as it could upset the very profitable applecart.

      Do you want me to turn my back on society? "Doctor Moulden you either have to play ball or you lose the ball or they take you out and you will never become a licensed physician in Canada."

      "The system is lost and we need to find it." Doctor Andrew Moulden MD, PhD

    3. Sorry Lou it doesn't work like that. If you make a claim, it is your duty to support that claim with evidence. You claimed vaccines cause "neurodegenerative disease" and that "all vaccines are and have been causing ischemic damages". Until you're able to support those statements with any type of peer-reviewed science, then it would seem we have nothing left to discuss.

      As to the safety and effectiveness of vaccines, if you are honestly at all concerned you can begin by clicking on the vaccine safety and vaccine efficacy links on the right side of the page. The science is there if you wish to open your eyes. That being said, I think we both know that no study will ever be of sufficient size, power and duration to satisfy the mind of an antivaxxer.

      Feel free to post again when you have the studies supporting your, (or Andy Moulden's), wild claims. You can keep the excuses... I've heard them all before and they are no more valid today than they were last year or the year before.

  7. I'm not a doctor. I don't hold a degree in anything close to medicine. So, I'm not gonna argue the science. But, I know history tells us that most likely the "quack" has some very legit science behind his theories, and the "status quo" won't consider it.

    Follow the money... All the 'Conspiracies' that have come to light are realized through the money trail.

    I don't know what this Dr. Moulden is worth, but I'm sure it's nothing compared to the vaccine profits. As a matter of fact, He could have made a whole lot more money by conforming!

    I ended up here doing my own research on vaccines, and I'm researching both sides. My intuition tells me that Big Pharma is hiding a lot... Like they have with many other harmful meds that they made billions from before they paid millions in lawsuits.

    Business is about one thing... the bottom line. This I do know. Crunching numbers we see that it is better to push a product on everyone, and pay the lawsuits later after you profit, rather than stop the production and sale, and lose everything.

    Whether Moulden is a quack or not, How can we trust either side? The science you point to on the side of this page? I've read it. None of it seems unbiased at all.

    Are there any studies on vaccines where the control group receives a TRUE placebo? Meaning NO vaccine? Of course not... The 'placebo' is just another brand of vaccine, correct? That's misleading, and not real science... kinda like what Moulden is being accused of.

    So, how is a laymen like me supposed to know who to trust? Thanks.

    1. I doubt Moulden could profit more by vaccinating considering he doesn't actually have a license to practice medicine. He has a doctorate, but since he doesn't have a license the most he can do is sell DVDs and newsletters expressing his opinion.

      As to "big pharma", they would profit much more by treating disease than they do by preventing disease. The "profit" motive doesn't hold up to analysis I'm afraid.

      Finally as to those studies you are asking for it is a little more complex than a yes or no answer. There are many studies comparing vaccinated populations to unvaccinated populations both here in the US and in other nations such as Denmark and Japan.

      However, you aren't going to find a study where researchers inject a vaccine into some people, and saline into others, because that puts lives at risk. That is a ethical issue and researchers are not rushing to sign up for. I've written about this issue in the past, but when it comes to studies you can't withhold treatment for a group just to see what happens... that is insane.

      If you are seriously interested in vaccination science and efficacy, I'd recommend searching Pubmed for the studies. I've discussed several here in the past, but there are dozens upon dozens - perhaps even hundreds to choose from.

      Bottom line - we know vaccines work. We know the benefits far, far outweigh the risks, and every reputable scientist or researcher who has studied vaccines comes to the same conflusion. Will we ever get 100% agreement? Of course not - we still have people that believe the moon landings were fake and that dinosaurs never existed, so we can never expect full agreement on the issue.

    2. "However, you aren't going to find a study where researchers inject a vaccine into some people, and saline into others, because that puts lives at risk."

      Many times I have read about double-blind studies where researchers seem to do exactly that, and I have often wondered about it. I'm no expert, but when I read about the results of these studies and death rates on each side are quoted, I always wonder how this is ethical. Some studies are stopped early as a result, but what about the dozens or scores of people who died before someone arbitrarily decided enough was enough?

      How would a vaccine study be any different? If people agree to participate, they would know the risks. I'm not talking about super-dangerous diseases, but putting oneself at risk of flu, measles, whooping cough, etc. (healthy adults only, making an informed decision) seems reasonable. Free treatment and/or hospitalization could be offered if someone contracted the disease. I really don't understand the objections, as it would do so much to settle the questions on both sides (if done by an independent organization).

      I once saw a TV program showing how they managed to do a double-blind study for acupuncture! (The placebo was a needle that was just poked in and withdrawn, not left in for a period of time, as with acupuncture. They had a way of taping the needles (or something) so people couldn't tell which they had. Here, I just found it: If that is possible, I don't see why one for vaccines would be so hard. But maybe I'm just stupid...

    3. Double-blind studies are not difficult to design for various communicable diseases that are rarely lethal. And if drug companies were truly concerned about saving lives with scientific verification, then they would incorporate sound, scientific methods to test its product. The double-blind is one such method. Its absence invalidates the "vaccines work" rhetoric.

    4. With all due respect Mark, your comment only shows how little you understand this issue. We may have been able to do such a study 60 years ago, but today there is no way such a study would be ethical. Even a disease which is "rarely lethal" is still dangerous and you can't run around giving people measles just to test a vaccine. Even if death is rare there are many other complications that could arise from that disease.

      I've written about this subject elsewhere on the blog here:

      If you're really interested feel free to read it and check out many of the other sites which have discussed this very subject in much more detail.

    5. you stated that big pharma would profit more from treating disease than preventing it. vaccines cause all kinds of disease, so your point is? they get the profits from what's going into your blood stream and much the shit that happens afterward. Dr. Moulden isn't what you've made him out to be. For anyone that is interested, look up Dr. Moulden on your own.

    6. Romaine - can you cite a peer-reviewed study to support the idea that vaccines cause "all kinds of disease"? I doubt it.

      Just look at the facts. If we vaccinate for a disease like polio or smallpox, the population won't contract those diseases. The cost of the vaccine is pennies per dose. Yet treating someone who contracts polio could cost hundreds of thousands of dollars in medical treatment. There are costs for hospitalizations, rehabilitation treatments, countless different pain medications, and perhaps even a ventilator.

      Polio can lead to myocarditis and high blood pressure both of which require additional medications. Respiratory paralysis may occur which requires treatment and medications. Kidney stones may also form requiring additional medications and treatment.

      Bottom line - it is exponentially more expensive to treat a disease than it is to prevent it. This is why insurance companies are more than willing to fund vaccinations and preventative medicine because they know their profits suffer when people contract diseases. Thus if you believe the world of medicine revolves around profit, you have to wonder why health insurance companies are so pro-vaccine. After all if vaccines "caused disease", then medical insurers wouldn't want anything to do with them.

      Time to start thinking critically.

  8. You have been warned. What you speak and write will be judged one day. Repent now. You are a liar and an accuser of someone who speak's truth. You will be judged and an accounting of everything you say will be required. Repent.

    1. I haven't lied at all... thus I have nothing to fear. Moulden on the other hand? Well if what you say is true and we are all to be judged... he is going to have a really bad time.

      Let's just say I'm not too worried about myself. Thanks for your concern.

  9. Looks like Moulden has kicked the bucket:

    1. I won't say I'm happy about the man's death, but I do find the irony in such a "brave, intelligent doctor" who is "so ahead of his time" would die from something as preventable as a heart attack.

      If the man can't properly diagnose his own medical conditions... how could he ever be expected to do the same to anyone else?

    2. He didn't die fom a heart attack. He hung himself. Andrew Moulden suffered from bipolar disorder and he lost the battle.

    3. Obviously I don't have first hand knowledge of specifics, but per the facebook message of Mary Tocco it indicated a heart attack. Frankly I hope it wasn't suicide because that would merely open the doors to many a conspiracy theory about how "big pharma" must have killed a many who was too close to the 'truth' or someone other nonsense.

      No comment on the fact he may have been suffering a mental illness... I'll leave it to the antivaxxers to wonder if the man they considered to be such an amazing doctor was unable to manage his own mental health.

  10. Actually there other other doctors, world renowned doctors, who can diagnose by photographs. If you knew anything about autism, you would know that there ARE actually physical characteristics about the face and head that help with the diagnosis process. You might want to do some more research and update your blog.

    1. Yes Mindy there are physical characteristics, but no reputable (or "world renowned" as you say) doctor would diagnose autism or any related condition by photographs alone. The fact is, a photograph is nothing but the visual capture of a specific split-second, and if someone is rolling their eyes or mid-sneeze who knows what the image would look like to someone who is already searching for visual cues to suggest a brain disorder.

      A reputable physical will ALWAYS require more than photographs in order to make a diagnosis. Then again, Dr. Moulden was never a practicing physician as he never had a license to practice medicine and never actually completed his residency. He has since passed away, but even after his death you still have anti-vaxxers trying to justify his actions.

      I'm not sure what is more pathetic - a man who claimed to diagnose "brain disorders" (or other conditions he happened to invent) via emailed photographs, or the types of people who defend him for bilking unsuspecting and/or ignorant people for tends of thousands of dollars.

    2. Fetal Alcohol Syndrome cause by an ingested substance is indicative of facial characteristics. It does not seem too far-fetched at all that a foreign substance injected into one's bloodstream can cause severe adverse reactions which can be physically indicated. The first step to solving a problem is definitely NOT being in denial that the problem exists.

    3. You show me a legitimate doctor that would diagnose FAS based upon a photograph alone, and then I'll give your comment some merit. To give credence to a snakeoil salesman based upon a method of diagnoses which has never been documented nor validated is idiocy in its purest form. This "doctor" wasn't even capable of diagnosing his own medical issues while having full access to himself for testing... and I'm supposed to believe he can diagnose brain disorders from a few blurry photographs taken with a netcam? Lunacy.

  11. I knew Drew personally while he was completing his undergrad degree and his masters degree. He was mentally ill, but also highly motivated when he was manic. I have no axe to grind against him except to say that any claims he made must be supported by peer reviewed evidence. Otherwise, they are ideology not science, nothing more. RIP Drew. Vaccines work, and they outweigh their risks.

  12. I smell Fear ....Your Fear .....maybe He was right Moulden ...
    ....maybe they are All right !
    .....and if they are ...That's the End Of You !.....and all Parasites Like You ! love people like Moulden can Hang so Much Shit on ..and Get away with it ! because a mans life got in the way of his research .... you could probably tell if you could empathise . ....but you are incapable ......Vaccine Manufacturing has a good man on their side in You! ....Parasite ! .......what about Susan Humphries Md ....come on ya shit on her ...Parasite !

    1. This is a fairly typical comment from the anti-vaccine conspiracy theorist types out there. You can almost diagnose the mental disease by the sentence structure and broken thought process.

      I should probably be more sympathetic, but the fact is people like this are hurting people. We have at least 85 children suffering from the Measles as I write this for no other reason than some idiot anti-vaxxer brought their kid to Disneyland and spread the disease to others including some children under one year old that were too young for the vaccine.

      When you put your own personal un-scientific opinions ahead of the safety of children then you lose the debate. Period.

    2. Further research:

      Why the mysterious and very convenient demise?

      The pharma industry and the US government are not our best friends.

    3. "Why the mysterious and very convenient demise?"

      I'm not sure how to break this to you... but sometimes people die. I know, I know... hard to believe, but trust me - it happens to everyone sooner or later.

      Not much is convenient about Moulden's death - he just left a gap which was quickly filled with other quacks pushing equally idiotic ideas.

      Don't blame others for Moulden's failures. Blame Moulden. Stop trying to find controversy where it doesn't exist.

      Beyond that the criteria used by your source to determine credibility is almost comical. For example - here is his criteria:

      1.Is this person offering opinion, or can he or she back up the claims with valid science?

      Stop right there - can we at least agree on what is "valid science"? Moulden has no peer-reviewed research and never took the time to perform any studies to prove his theories. No other doctor or researcher has supported his conclusions - so it is safe to say he loses on this point.

      2. Does he have educational credentials?

      I've discussed this previously. Moulden did not have a license to practice medicine. He wasn't allowed to prescribe medications or diagnose, treat, or even see patients. So by all means explain to me how his credentials qualify him to make medical claims.

      3. Are there other physicians and scientists who support his or her beliefs and recommendations?

      This is just outright silly. You can find people to support any theory - but common belief isn't sufficient. You can still find "physicians and scientists" who make wild claims daily but that doesn't matter. What matters is scientific support and verification of said claims. Moulden has none.

      4. Is this person controlled by the pharmaceutical industry, allopathic medical associations, or the US FDA (US Food and Drug Administration)?

      Another silly criteria, because I know of no reputable physicians who would agree they are controlled by these groups. Some may be paid by some of these groups, some may have careers that engage these areas, but they all have their own free will and ethics. To automatically toss everyone aside who has a passing relationship to these groups would require you to ignore most anti-vaxxer physicians as well since many have at one point or another been associated with one or more of these groups.

      5. And finally, what do Quackwatch and their friends have to say about the person?

      This is the best one.... so instead of using critical thinking skills and research to determine credibility - we just look at what others say and then go the opposite direction. Brilliant.

      Is it any wonder why you antivaxxers aren't taken seriously? There isn't even the appearance of critical thinking here.

  13. This whole blogspot paid SHILL site put up by "MarkMonitor
    "As the global leader in online brand protection, MarkMonitor ® delivers advanced technology and expertise to protect the reputations and revenue of the world's leading brands"
    This is just another B.S. HIDE THE TRUTH SITE paid for by the Powers To Be.
    You defame people by half truths while hiding your True BIG PHARMA Clients Who truly hide the Facts about the ingredients and side effects of the autism, paralysis vaccinations.

    1. I have no idea what or who "MarkMonitor" is, but if someone wants to pay me that would be awesome. Granted my ethics are not for sale and I'm not about to post anything I don't beleive... so I suppose I wouldn't make a very good paid shill.

      Nice try though.

      By the way - vaccines don't cause autism and the fact you mention it shows how out of touch you are. Haven't you heard - even the "mainstream antivaxxer quacks" don't make the autism claim anymore because they realize they look like fools. To think you're a few steps behind them is just outright embarrassing. Time to catch up.

  14. Hardly a damn quack. More educated that 99% of the real quacks. Murdered by big pharma.

    1. I knew it was only a matter of time before a conspiracy theorist suggested Moulden was murdered. Facts don't matter right?

      Trust me - Moulden was an asset to "big pharma" because he showed the mindset of the typical antivaxxer. Anyone who spent more than ten minutes researching the guy quickly realized how much of a quack he was - which drove them back to more conventional (and proven) medical treatments.

      Sorry Anon - Moulden is not a martyr... he was just a quack who lacked any evidence to support his ideas.

  15. These arguments are all circular - best just do your own research; decide what you believe about your body, the immune system and what you believe is health/unhealthy (whether its vaccines or food); figure out how to navigate the legal mandate stuff, and stop arguing. The truth shall set us free, but we are human and will never solve any of this. Stop listening to baseless blog which call people it is threatened by "quacks" and other names rather than intellectually making their points. I'm Dr. Mouldon isn't perfect and I'm sure that there are holes in his theory. But vaccines aren't perfect science, either.

    1. Sadly, most people lack the ability of discerning what is fact vs. what is fiction... therein lies the problem. We have snake oil saleman like the late Dr. Moulden here that simply preyed upon the scientific ignorance of the common person to finance his lifestyle, therefore asking people to do their own research doesn't guarantee they will find the right answers.

      Step one is any debate is for the person making a claim to be able support that claim with fact. As I have pointed out many times, these quacks have never been able to prove their claims with any amount of evidence. They believe that stating something is sufficient, and they must not feel peer-reviewed science is important which is why they never bother to perform any studies or publish their findings.

      You want to talk about circular logic? What about quacks citing themselves in their writings and claiming that somehow proves they are experts. Amazing.

  16. Another shill blog trying to hide the truth, rates of people not vaccinating are rising....your losing

    1. Ah yes the "shill" gambit. Sadly you have no evidence to support that - but let's be honest... evidence isn't your strong suit. If it were, you would understand that there is actually an increase in the amount of vaccinations.

      It is true that vaccination rates dipped for a while due to the fraudulent statements released by Andy Wakefield and the subsequent "vaccines cause autism" nonsense that was perpetuated by some celebrities and pseudoscientists. However after Wakefield's fraud was realized and the initial cry out outrage was determined to not be based upon fact, vaccination rates have since climbed to their "pre-manufactuered crisis" levels.

      Case in point:

      The data show that for children aged 19 to 35 months, the percentage who had their full course of vaccinations was as low as 66% as recently as 2002 whereas now it is greater than 80%.

      It is true there are some areas where rates have dropped, but it only takes a few outbreaks before people start realizing that perhaps the health of their children is more important after all so rates start to rise again. Just look at some of the outbreaks we have witnessed in California in the past year or two - and now California (one of the most liberal states in the US) has passed legislation removing the religious and personal exemption options for vaccinations. This means that if a student wishes to attend public schools or daycares in California, they either need an actual medical exception (for serious medical reasons or allergies etc.), or they need to be homeschooled or sent to a private school without the same requirements.

      This was done to protect kids and to prevent more outbreaks caused by these anti-vaccination types who willfully put other children in harms way due to their own selfishness.

      So who is 'winning' anonymous? What do the trends show exactly?

      That's what I thought.

  17. most of this is ad hominem . . . he didn't get his license, he was bipolar, etc., therefore anything he says is worthless. I teach science so I'm interested in testable hypotheses. Moulden's sounded interesting . . . and BTW, he was not saying that "vaccines caused autism." One thing that really caught my attention is the fact that he viewed most disease as multi-factorial, and vaccine injury was a key piece of the puzzle in many cases. That is how most folks view autism, among other things. Especially with the burgeoning field of epigenetics, we realize that even "genetic" diseases are partly environmental too. Anyway, when people say things like, "It's been proven that vaccines don't cause autism," well, I know what data they are looking at, but it's not that simple. That very statement, as written, makes me want to reach for my red pen!

    1. First of all Lynne, I find it interesting that you mention ad hominem meanwhile you engage in numerous logical fallacies. Aside from the glaring appeal to authority fallacy you have displayed on more than one of your comments, you also grossly rely upon a burden of proof fallacy.

      Let me try to explain this Lynne - although a science teacher SHOULD know this inside and out. The fact is, if Moulden is going to make a claim - regardless of what that claim may be, it is up to him to actually provide sufficient evidence to support that claim. He claimed he understood the root causes of autism, yet he never offered any evidence to support that claim. He never contributed to a study of any kind. He never authored or co-authored a single study in any peer-reviewed journal. The evidence is simply non-existent aside from his own statements claiming it to be true.

      Do you understand the problem here Lynne? Surely you know enough about the scientific method to understand that Moulden's claims require testability. They require data. They require repeatability. They cannot stand upon their own merits based upon Moulden's own personal opinion.

      As far as your statement surrounding vaccines not causing autism you are correct that people should not say it has been proven that vaccines don't causes autism, because the truth is you cannot prove a negative. However in layman's terms you will often hear people say vaccines don't cause autism (without claiming this has been "proven") because until there is any evidence to support the idea that vaccines do cause autism - we are left with the obvious choice.

  18. Your ethics have been for sale for quite awhile....and as for proving and healing....the only dept. Of medicine that is not a sham is the trauma unit.....medical Dr.s and medical science has never cured a single disease.....prescribing medication for a disease you don't know the cause of is irresponsible.....this is what the medical field does....They prescribed medications that mask symptoms and allow the disease to go on progressing....and research is a miserable failure.....still the same three choices for after all those billions of my.....I believe the true sham speaks for itself........

    1. I'm not sure what your rambling nonsense is meant to respond to, but you clearly haven't a clue what you are talking about.

      There are many diseases which have been cured and wiped off of the planet. Even more diseases COULD be eliminated if people would acknowledge the power of vaccines and stop pretending their know more than hundreds of years of scientific advancement.

      There are a lot of tropes employed in your comment so I suspect you're the type that reads headlines on various websites and believes you have a complete understanding of the facts. Sadly that isn't the case, and I've learned through experience that I lack the patience to engage your type one-on-one. There are plenty of other sites more suited for this discussion (I happen to write on a couple of them), but until you put up an actual argument about the actual topic there is no reason to bother engaging you.

  19. Moulden gives intelligent argument to his case. He also was intelligent enough to comprehend the threat to his life and/or reputation he was under. Still he battled on courageously facing what awaits most who speak out against the vaccine or pharmaceutical industries with solid and sound reasoning. Perhaps all doctors should read his works and make up their own mind rather than listen to people who ridicule him. Then if he is wrong they can decide. Didn't the writer of this site read Mouldens works?? Well surely doctors who are intelligent can also study him and be encouraged to do so to remove all doubt as to Mouldens "madness". Or are you afraid of what they may learn?

    1. Sadly, you're mistaken. Moulden offered no peer-reviewed science to support any of his theories. He offered no whitepapers, he offered no analysis, he didn't author any studies... he just had a website and a few YouTube videos. That isn't evidence, and that isn't science.

      Let's also not use terms like intelligent or courageous to describe Moulden. He was never able to finish his residency even after years of trying so this was either due to his inability to complete the coursework, or perhaps because he was too busy selling DVDs and offering to diagnose neurological conditions via photographs sent over email. I'm not sure either of these suggests he was intelligent, and as far as courageous it doesn't take courage to tell people that you can diagnose their children with a brain disorder simply by looking at their photographs. It doesn't take courage to make statements that appeal to medical conspiracy theorists while selling them DVDs or collecting speaking fees. It doesn't take courage to jump on the anti-vaccine or anti-science bandwagon without offering one single piece of evidence to support one's theories.

      This isn't courage - this is fraud. This is deceit. This is dishonesty. This is the work of a charlatan and a quack. There is nothing to "study" from Moulden, because he never bothered to produce any real science. It was merely conjecture, opinion, and nonsense packaged in sellable form for the low, low price of $29.95.

      Had the man ever bothered to engage in a medical study to support his theories or had he found the time to author and publish a peer-reviewed paper in a reputable medical journal then perhaps there would be something to review, but as it sits it appears his lack of scientific contributions is the only measurable accomplishment in his entire career which is why even other anti-science quacks haven't bothered to pick up where Moulden left off.

  20. Dear editor, have you ever hear about largest vaccine study some 35 years ago in India, performed by WHO, with "gold standard" in medical researching? If not I will tell you. In short, large population was given BCG vaccine and large was given placebo. End result: Ones with real vaccine attract more disease against they where vaccine for than placebo group. Please comment this.

    1. I assume you are referring to the random controlled trial of the BCG vaccine in a specific population. From my understanding, the vaccine was not shown to be effective for that group however your statement about those with the "real vaccine" attracting more disease don't appear to match the actual study results.

      We need to acknowledge that not every vaccine ever produced will be effective for every group of people and every form of disease. This is why we perform studies and why clinical trials are performed. The fact that we are able to openly read about such trials which show us a vaccine such as this one offered little to no protection against adult forms of bacillary pulmonary tuberculosis should serve as evidence that nothing is hidden from view and the published trials are helping to ensure only viable vaccines are administered to the appropriate populations.

      What this has to do with the late Andy Moulden I have no idea, but it should go without saying that a single study showing a lack of efficacy of one vaccine is not any reason to assume that all vaccines are ineffective. The data simply doesn't support that conclusion.

  21. Don't disagree with Big Pharma or, like many, you will end up receiving their vaccine of death.

    1. Well that is just silly. Are you suggesting "Big Pharma" had something to do with Moulden's death? Truth is, if there was a list of targets that "Big Pharma" would want to get rid of, Moulden wouldn't be on it as he was a nobody. Meanwhile you have frauds like Andrew Wakefield and Joseph Mercola who have made comfortable livings from attacking conventional medicine and treatments. Yet they are alive and doing quite well for themselves (well - you know - aside from Wakefield losing his medical license along with all his credibility). You get the point.

      Sometimes people die. I know that comes as a shock but it happens.

  22. Dr Moulden seems like an interesting guy. The ideas he shared should be considered with an open mind. Increasing the blood flow in disease conditions can't hurt can it? Purifying the blood with oxygen and improving circulation is a good idea for all human beings at an stage of life right? That is what Dr. Moulden was saying isn't it? Do you have any links you can share showing the benefits of vaccines? I am interested in learning the data from both sides of the debate. Thank you

    1. Dan there is plenty of information showing the benefits of vaccines available on this blog, but as I don't post new material here any longer I'd suggest looking at other sites for material. Science Based Medicine is a good site, and if you are sincere in your desire to look at data "from both sides" then you should start with the CDC for vaccine data.

      As to Moulden's ideas - increasing blow flow is not always advantageous nor is increased oxygen content. Keep in mind cancer cells thrive based upon blood flow so it isn't always a good thing to focus upon increasing blood flow alone.

      There is such a thing as oxygen toxicity which could result in pulmonary edema, atelectasis, or a variety of conditions.

      It is important to understand the symptoms of a patient and treat that patient in context of their entire body. It is not appropriate to simply assume there is one thing wrong with them and jump into treatments without a full examination and tests.

      When Moulden claimed he could diagnose patients with brain disorders without even bothering to meet them or perform any type of physical examination it proved he was nothing short of a fraud.

  23. Here's your scientific proof editor

    argue that

    1. Well Mr. Hubbs (I like your new account, but you should probably learn how to spell anonymous one of these days), the link you provide doesn't contain any scientific proof. Perhaps you don't understand this, but the number (47,500) that they site didn't come from a scientific study, but instead originated in an editorial. There was and is no data to support it which you would understand if you bothered to read actual articles instead of just the headlines and captions.

      I could post a rebuttal and analysis of the editorial, but this has been debunked and exposed numerous times before yet you continue to post this same link time and time again ignoring reality. Therefore I know you won't care to read any of the analysis, but in case anyone else does want to see why this is so grossly misleading and outright false... they can read the following material:

  24. When there is an outbreak of a disease, not everyone will be infected. Take for example chicken pox - what is the treatment drug to cure chicken pox? What would a good doctor tell a patient? Monitor fever, calamine lotion, limit touching of blisters, keep hygiene, eat nutritional diet, drink plenty of water, some vitamins to boost your immunity. If fever persists for more days than usual go back to doctor. No big money for the pharma.

    You're a highly intelligent person with many qualifications and you deliberately ignore the obvious just to spin for your sponsors. With vaccines, the big pharma is able to cover a larger proportion or 100% of a demographic. So from this simple analysis, big pharma absolutely profit many times over with vaccines than "treating" disease. Plus they have an arsenal of supplementary drugs to treat consequential conditions derived from the vaccines.

    What is insane is you playing up on ethical issue about withholding treatment for a group involved in a vaccine's trial. How are lives at risk for the group receiving saline when they were not at risk of any health hazards? Vaccine trials require HEALTHY VOLUNTEERS. Or did you mean the risk of complications or even death for the group receiving the untested vaccine?

    1. You're correct that the treatment for chicken pox didn't involve a lot of high priced medications and normally it would run its course at home. For those that fail to get their vaccinations this is the same treatments that exists today in most cases. The problem is, not everyone reacts to the virus in the same manner and there are a lot of complications that can occur such as:

      * bacterial infections of the skin and soft tissues in children including Group A streptococcal infections
      * pneumonia
      * infection or inflammation of the brain (encephalitis, cerebellar ataxia)
      * bleeding problems
      * blood stream infections (sepsis)
      * dehydration
      * death

      Oh ok... death probably isn't technically a "complication" but it does happen. It is estimated that 100 deaths are prevented via vaccination for chickenpox in the US annually.

      So ask yourself what "big pharma" makes more profit from.... some vaccines which cost pennies per dose, or treating sick patients who end up in hospitals or require numerous doctors visits or prescriptions to treat complications from a preventable disease. I think the answer is clear.

      Second I have no "sponsors" so your shill gambit is totally without merit.

      Third, for those who believe in vaccines and who have reviewed the science behind them (which is for all intents and purposes consists of 99.999% of the medical and scientific community), the ethical issue of withholding a vaccine is a significant issue. If we know we can prevent a disease it is unethical to withhold that potentially life-saving vaccine from someone just so that we can check back with them in a decade and see if they are still alive. So yes - withholding a vaccine does put lives at risk and it is very much an ethical issue.

      I've written about this topic elsewhere on the blog, and elsewhere on other sites as have others. Part of me would love to see a true double-blind clinical study surrounding vaccine usage because I'm extremely confident that I already know what the results would be, however I would have a hard time justifying putting the health of others at risk by withholding vaccines from them just to make a point that most antivaxxers would refuse to acknowledge anyway.

  25. Hey guys listen, this person on this blog isn't real
    he is just a CIA plant. To further their agenda and to make people believe their propaganda. Conspiracy Theorist, a term coined by the CIA to try and stop people from questioning the OFFICIAL NARRATIVE. Like President Kennedy's murder. If you question you MUST BE CRAZY. So Crazy that it gets you murdered by your own government.

    1. Is there really any more evidence required to show that the anti-vaccine crowd is just plain crazy?

      At least if they are going to fabricate stories they might insert the name of a government agency that might actually care about healthcare. I'm pretty sure the CIA couldn't care less as they are more interested in "super secret spy stuff". The FDA would have been a more logical choice... but I understand logic isn't exactly the strong suit of the average anti-vaxxer.

    2. If you still believe in vaccines then you are not paying attention to what is happening to all the children who receive them.

    3. Well Dan - I don't see a lot of children suffering from vaccine preventable diseases these days, and diseases like smallpox and polio are no longer a threat because of vaccines.

      Like it or not, society is healthier than ever. We are living longer and suffering less disease. Seems like if we pay attention there isn't anything to fear with vaccines.

      Yet some people fear what they don't understand Dan. Perhaps you should educate yourself via peer-reviewed science instead of facebook memes and anti-vaxxer newsletters.

  26. Look into the movie Vaxxed. That will open your eyes. Plus watch Trump clean house with the CDC and all their cover ups.

    1. The movie directed by Andy Wakefield... the very guy who was proven to be a fraud and lost his medical license? You mean that movie?

      I know enough about the movie to know what it isn't - and it most certainly isn't scientific or based in fact.

      Here is a nice review if you're interested:

      If you're waiting for Trump to "clean house" I suspect you are going to be waiting a very long time. Facts have a stubborn way of sticking around regardless of elections or the changing administrations.


All comments are moderated and comments from obvious sockpuppet accounts as well as spam accounts that do not add anything of value to the discussion will not be published.