Dr Terry Simpson

Did you ever read the documents making the rounds? I did, because they don’t say what Rand Paul thinks. Whether that is his ignorance or him trying to bring Fauci back to make a point. Making Sense of the Gain-of-Function Madness open.substack.com/pub/tsimpson/p…

Joseph, does an infectious disease specialist’s expertise stop at passport control?

England having measles outbreaks strengthens the case for vaccination campaigns. It gives Neil every reason to recognize the danger of undermining them elsewhere.

You’ve answered criticism of the person running American health policy by assigning a physician in London personal responsibility for his country’s vaccination coverage. Then added an unsupported insinuation about money.

Address Neil’s (@DrNeilStone ) argument. His postcode is doing far too much work in yours.

Carole, perhaps you should learn what gasping syndrome is before frightening parents with it.

Gasping syndrome was associated with benzyl alcohol toxicity in premature infants receiving large cumulative doses of preservative-containing medications. It was not established as a consequence of routine newborn vitamin K injections.

The FDA recommends preservative-free formulations for newborns when available.

Meanwhile, a new JAMA study of 5.2 million infants found approximately 20 additional intracranial hemorrhages per 10,000 babies who didn't receive vitamin K.

You have a warning about a preservative. We have millions of babies providing evidence of the consequences of refusing vitamin K.

Try reading the medical literature beyond the warning labels.

Julian, congratulations. You've discovered that medications have warnings. Now try reading the rest of the document.

The very FDA label you posted recommends intramuscular vitamin K for newborns.

Severe reactions have been reported, but let's examine the actual evidence.

A November 2026 JAMA study of 5.2 million infants found approximately 19 additional intracranial hemorrhages per 10,000 babies who did not receive vitamin K, after adjustment for other factors.

Nineteen more babies with bleeding in or around their brains. Some will die. Others may suffer permanent neurological damage.

You found a warning from 2003. Medical science has since given us data on millions of infants.

Perhaps read that before frightening parents away from protecting their newborns.

No, Maxine. You don’t get to call it informed consent after stripping away the very information that makes the number meaningful.

“About 1 in 100 avoids a heart attack” can be accurate in a low-risk primary-prevention population over a few years. Turning that into “the other 99 got no benefit and just took on side effects” is statistical theater.

Primary prevention does not mean zero risk. It includes people with hypertension, high LDL, diabetes, smoking history and other risk factors. Their absolute benefit varies enormously.

Yes, in pooled primary-prevention trials, the absolute reduction in myocardial infarction is around 0.8–0.9% over several years. For overall cardiovascular events it is closer to 1.3%, and the benefit gets larger as baseline risk rises.

But saying “99 people got no benefit” is nonsense. You cannot identify the person whose heart attack was prevented. Treatment lowered risk across the group. That is how prevention works.

If we are going to insist on absolute numbers — and we should — then quote the absolute harms too, rather than waving vaguely at “side effects.”

Relative risk without absolute risk can mislead. So can absolute risk stripped of baseline risk, treatment duration, outcome measured, and harms.