Jim Wright - Professor against H1N1 Vaccination - Quack or not?

[Segnosaur]

I've recently seen an article appearing in the CBC news (One of Canada's national TV/Radio outlets.) In the article, they quote a Dr. Jim Wright...

From: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2009/10/28/f-vaccination-debate.html
Health researchers argue that the only way to know about a vaccine's true effectiveness is to carry out randomized trials. In other words, give the vaccine to one random group, a placebo to the other, and track the results. But that kind of random testing hasn't been done for the H1N1 vaccine.
...
Dr. Jim Wright at the University of British Columbia says he would be willing to take the vaccine — but only if it was part of a trial. We haven't seen the last of the swine flu, he says, and if we don't test the effectiveness of this vaccine, we'll be mired in the same vaccination debate each year. "If we don't do a trial, then next year in September or October everyone will be wondering again if they should take the vaccine. My criticism of this vaccine is the same as my criticism of other flu vaccines.

First of all, I don't necessarily believe Dr. Wright... I know that the medical community doesn't always agree on everything, but I do believe that the influenza vaccine is a good thing (for both seasonal and H1N1 flu.)

Secondly, I think he's wrong about the lack of 'trials'. Although its not possible to do double blind studies about overall effectiveness before the rollout of the vaccine, it is certainly possible AFTER the vaccine has been rolled out, and in previous years the vaccine has shown effectiveness.

However, I am wondering... has anyone ever heard of Dr. Jim Wright before? I've seen anti-vaxers quote various 'quacks' before (like Mercola). However, Dr. Wright is in theory associated with the University of British Columbia. Is he actually a quack? Or is he a competent researcher who just has views that happen to be wrong in this case?

A quick search found another reference:
http://www.equipocesca.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/swine-flu-vaccines-gervas-and-wright-sep-2009.doc

[Capsid]

Neutralising antibodies have been found in elderly individuals that are specific for the swine flu probably due to prior exposure to a similar H1N1 strain in 1957 and these eldelrly folk are not getting infected. The vaccine has been shown to induce neutralising antibodies in human volunteers and these antibodies are known to protect from infection. I don't see the need to do a placebo study.

[Segnosaur]

Neutralising antibodies have been found in elderly individuals that are specific for the swine flu probably due to prior exposure to a similar H1N1 strain in 1957 and these eldelrly folk are not getting infected. The vaccine has been shown to induce neutralising antibodies in human volunteers and these antibodies are known to protect from infection. I don't see the need to do a placebo study.

Well, the second seems to go into a little more detail about his 'beliefs'. It makes several suggestions:
- "immunologic response is not a guarantee that the vaccine will reduce severe infections and mortality."
- "H1N1 vaccine will provide similar immunity to the natural infection."

Like I said, I do support vaccinations and recognize some flaws in his arguments; I just want to know what his reputation is in the medical community.

[Dymanic]

Neutralising antibodies have been found in elderly individuals that are specific for the swine flu probably due to prior exposure to a similar H1N1 strain in 1957 and these eldelrly folk are not getting infected. The Asian flu pandemic of 1957 was caused by an H2N2 strain. Though not impossible, it seems unlikely that any H1N1 strain would have gotten much traction that year.

[Capsid]

The Asian flu pandemic of 1957 was caused by an H2N2 strain. Though not impossible, it seems unlikely that any H1N1 strain would have gotten much traction that year.Ooops, I stand corrected. My sources were not reliable it seems.