Prev
Next

Irresponsible parents spare the jab, endanger the child

Wendy Tuohy

by Wendy Tuohy

27 Nov 05:55am

Must Reads

We don’t deserve this huge, exciting scientific project - this is a caption

We don’t deserve this huge, exciting scientific project

41

Mining money talks the loudest in Australian politics - this is a caption

Mining money talks the loudest in Australian politics

60

Please enter your password - this is a caption

Please enter your password

39

Filed under: Health, Immunisation, Society, Vaccination, Whooping Cough

171 comments

It’s an anxious moment for many parents; rolling up the sleeve of your precious baby and presenting that perfect skin to the doctor’s needle.

It better be a bloody big lollipop. Pic: Lyndon Mechielsen


And the sting is the least of your worries; we may be rational and sensible enough to know vaccinating our kids against potentially fatal diseases is right, for them and the community, but that cocktail of antigens going into their arm is a discomforting sight.

What if we’re the one in a million whose baby has an adverse reaction or gets the rarest side-effects?

And what about the hysteria over MMR and the suggestion vaccination may have links to autism (though debunked by the latest science, which indicates it often presents coincidentally around the same age the jab is given, and there is no causal link)?

Why do we need to vaccinate anyway, you might wonder, everybody else does, so my baby should be safe.

But this type of selfishness makes me furious, as it would anyone who has known a child convulsed by whooping cough night after night, extremely distressed and coughing so violently that she breaks a rib.

Even if I had not known a (vaccinated) little girl who had had this experience, I would be just as angry with the increasing number of middle-class, educated parents opting out of vaccination (the parents the government announced it would target yesterday by removing tax breaks).

Whether it be fashion, fad or brainwashing by the alternative health lobby and anti-vaccinators - particularly some chiropractors - it’s becoming quite the thing among the leisurely classes to spare your darlings the jab.

They don’t love their children less, but do they think they love them more than those of us who help protect what doctors call “herd immunity” by stamping on our fears and going through with vaccination?

This demographic was recently described by a Melbourne GP as “well-read, hyper-vigillant, protective parents for whom the remote possibility of an adverse side effect outweighs any potential perceived benefit from immunisation’’. Their kid won’t get sick, because all of us inferiors have vaccinated ours, so why expose them to it.

The GP noted such parents often recommend non-vaccination to others, using their healthy child as evidence the program is a conspiracy by pharmaceutical companies which rely on “scaremongering”. But what about the statistical manipulation by the tune-in, drop-out yuppies who make claims such as that the only reason whooping cough cases are rising is because there’s better testing?

These parents do us all a disservice, but most of all they make an irresponsible choice on behalf of their kids, who as adult travellers will likely visit countries where horridly debilitating diseases persist.

And surprise surprise, diseases once under control are back here already and on the rise. Seven Australian infants died of whooping cough between January 2008 and last July. In May an unvaccinated 22 year-old died of diptheria - caught from a friend just back from overseas.

Yes, this trend could just be part of the intensive, helicopter parenting which has taken hold as Australians have babies later, and have fewer of them. Or it could just be elitism.

Either way, people who think they know better than the wider community, or scientific facts, are letting everybody down. The least they can do is forgo the tax benefits paid to the majority, who take the pain—for the sake of everybody’s health.

Most commented

431Australia, you have nothing to fear but fear itself
390There's no one Thomson won't burn to save his skin
336Animal experiments won't cure me from cancer
313Thomson didn't answer the question everyone is asking
266Who murdered the Arts degree?
246A big day for Thomson, who thus far is guilty of nothing...
231South Australia. It's the middle bottom bit.
231Craig Thomson speaks. Meanwhile, in Australia...

171 comments

Show oldest | newest first

    • Bald Eagle says:

      05:17am | 27/11/11

      Reasons why a parent might decide not to vaccinate apparently include:
      1) Vaccines have never been tested
      2) Vaccines contain toxic additives and heavy metals
      3) Vaccines are contaminated with human and animal viruses and bacteria
      4) Vaccines can cause serious immediate side effects
      5) Vaccines can cause serious long-term side effects
      6) Vaccines do not necessarily protect against infectious diseases
      7) Doctors, as paid salesmen for vaccine products, are no longer considered to be trustworthy arbiters of their safety and effectiveness
      8) Pharmaceutical companies have paid for almost all vaccine research to date
      9) Doctors and health professionals rarely if ever report vaccine reactions
      10) Some childhood illnesses have beneficial aspects and therefore, prevention may not necessarily be in the best interests of the child

      for more info
      http://tinyurl.com/cbewcm9

      Reply

    • marley says:

      09:11am | 27/11/11

      @Bald Eagle - reasons why you’re wrong:

      1.)  All vaccines are extensively tested before going on the market.  We now have over 80 years experience with some of them.
      2)  Most vaccines do not contain toxic additives or heavy metals.
      3)  Vaccines in the past have been contaminated.  Modern techniques for the manufacture of vaccines have virtually eliminated this risk.
      4) Vaccines can cause side effects to a tiny minority of patients.  The risk is lower than the side effects caused by getting the disease.
      5) There is no evidence whatsoever that vaccines cause serious long-term side effects.  The diphtheria, tetanus, whooping cough and polio vaccines have been around for 60 to 80 years, the measles vaccine for close to 50.  Where are the long-term side effects?
      6) Depending on the disease, vaccinations have an efficacy rate of 85 to 95%.  Some are longer lasting than others - the whooping cough vaccine loses efficacy after a few years - and the flu vaccine is less effective because the disease changes every year - but the MMR and polio vaccines are highly effective and for long term.
      7). Doctors don’t sell vaccines.
      8) Google Pub Med and you will find tens of thousands of articles by academic institutions on vaccine safety and efficacy.  And they have not been paid for by Big Pharma.
      9) In the US, Canada and elsewhere, individuals can report vaccine reactions directly without having to go through their doctors.
      10)  There is no childhood illness that has a beneficial aspect.  Otherwise, it wouldn’t be called an illness.

    • Adolon says:

      09:33am | 27/11/11

      Ah, I notice your link refers to an article written by the Australian Vaccination Network (AVN).

      For anyone unaware of the AVN, the NSW Health Care Complaints Commission investigated them after complaints and found them guilty of providing incorrect and misleading information.

      Please take the above with a (hefty) grain of salt.

      References
      Public warning about the Australian Vaccination Network. NSW Health Care Complaints Commission. Retrieved from http://www.hccc.nsw.gov.au/Publications/Media-Releases/PUBLIC-WARNING-/default.aspx

    • Fiona says:

      09:36am | 27/11/11

      Well bald eagle, it didn’t take you long to come out of the woodwork did it?
      1) is a load of bunkum. If you mean we haven’t had randomized double blinded clinical trials, then you also know that it would be highly unethical to do so.
      2) we come across heavy metals in everyday life. Merely by eating fish we ingest mercury.
      3) we need components of the virus to make an effective vaccine.
      4) yes they have that potential, that’s why people are encourage to stay at the clinic for the next 15 minutes so that we can monitor them for those.
      5) give me a genuine link to this please
      6) yes people can still get infectious diseases (particularly chicken pox and whooping cough), but a much less severe form.
      7) I’m not a doctor and I’ve been vaccinating for years. Where’s my money??? Or that of my vaccinating colleagues?
      8) is there a problem with pharmaceutical companies paying for research in this area? They won’t stay in business long if their products are no good for their consumers. Please provide a link to your claims.
      9) ICB on that. We just recently reported a fairly mild reaction. I know it’s been patchy at times, but mostly it’s done properly.
      10) I don’t know about beneficial effects. They can confer life long immunity to survivors, but chicken pox doesn’t always and you can get shingles a long way down the track. Please provide your proof of this claim.
      Oh and look up the NHMRC website and the CDC website amongst others.
      See,easy to come up with a list with little proof either way and some knowledge. All from the comfort of my own home.

    • Mel says:

      09:41am | 27/11/11

      Bald Eagle that website is the usual spurious nonsense spouted by the the “Australian Vaccination Network” - which is a anti-vaccination group.

      Not really an objective link at all.

    • Bianca says:

      09:47am | 27/11/11

      1) Um, the eradication of Small pox?
      2) Viruses and bacteria release toxins that can KILL your child
      3) Vaccines contain only what is necessary to prevent illness - they undergo more thorough quality control than any alternative medication
      4) Vaccines can cause a localised rash or runny nose, viruses can cause organ failure and death
      5) ‘Serious’ long term side effects like pushing Australia’s life expectancy to beyond 80
      6) Have you not seen any statistical data about the prevalence of HiB, Diptheria or Polio? The evidence is almost as dramatic as the reduction in morbidity & mortality from road accidents when seat belts were introduced
      7) Doctors work their butts off for years to educate themselves in this area and train themselves to help you. They get paid the same weather you turn up for a cough or cold or if you turn up for a vaccine. In fact, if they were really interested in $ they would not vaccinate so you visit them more often. Dah,
      8) That is just untrue. Have you looked at any Science Journals?
      9) There is a mandatory reporting surveillance system in Australia. In the first 6months of 2010, 2 225 reports were made in Australia and the greater majority of these were for mild fever or allergic reaction. None were fatal or had life-long complications.
      10) It is correct that some of the milder bacteria and viruses can help strengthen the immune system but do you want to test how strong your child’s immune system is with a bug so nasty that it causes most children to die?

    • Bald Eagle says:

      10:34am | 27/11/11

      Glad I got your attention.
      You lot are much better at refuting false arguments than those that believe in climate change.
      Of course climate change is occurring and we are playing a big part in it.
      Can someone please educate the climate change deniers like the person using the name “Super D” who uses an article about vaccinations to ram in his denier rant in the comment directly below this post?

    • Jarrah says:

      10:41am | 27/11/11

      The Governments own study done this year:

      “On 23 April 2010, the Chief Medical Officer
      (CMO) of Australia suspended the use of seasonal
      influenza vaccines for all children aged 5 years
      and under, pending further investigation of an
      apparent increase in febrile convulsions following
      administration of the vaccines in this age group.
      The previous evening, the Western Australian (WA)
      Government had announced the suspension of its
      program of seasonal influenza vaccination for well
      children under the age of 5 years.”

      http://immunise.health.gov.au/internet/immunise/publishing.nsf/Content/11DFBB4FD968D072CA25789400172DA1/$File/adverse-event-march-2011.pdf

    • Jarrah says:

      10:43am | 27/11/11

      You are bang on the money Bald Eagle, and as seen by responses to your comment the pro-vaccinators only have ridicule and scare tactics NO FACT OR EVIDENCE to back their arguments, riddle me this people:

      Could you please provide one double-blind, placebo-controlled study that can prove the safety and effectiveness of vaccines?

      Could you please provide scientific evidence on ANY study which can confirm the long-term safety and effectiveness of vaccines?

      Could you please provide scientific evidence which can prove that disease reduction in any part of the world, at any point in history was attributable to inoculation of populations?

      Could you please explain how the safety and mechanism of vaccines in the human body are scientifically proven if their pharmacokinetics (the study of bodily absorption, distribution, metabolism and excretion of ingredients) are never examined or analysed in any vaccine study?

      Could you please provide scientific justification as to how injecting a human being with a confirmed neurotoxin is beneficial to human health and prevents disease?

      Can you provide a risk/benefit profile on how the benefits of injecting a known neurotoxin exceeds its risks to human health for the intended goal of preventing disease?

      Could you please provide scientific justification on how bypassing the respiratory tract (or mucous membrane) is advantageous and how directly injecting viruses into the bloodstream enhances immune functioning and prevents future infections?

      Could you please provide scientific justification on how a vaccine would prevent viruses from mutating?

      Could you please provide scientific justification as to how a vaccination can target a virus in an infected individual who does not have the exact viral configuration or strain the vaccine was developed for?

    • marley says:

      12:04pm | 27/11/11

      @ Jarrah:

      First, might I say that when you quote extensively and word for word from someone else’s work, in this case David Mihalovic’s “9 Questions That Stump Every Pro-Vaccine Advocate,” it’s considered ethical to use quotation marks.

      Now:  to your points:

      1. I googled Pubmed with the term “double blinded placebo controlled test of vaccinations” and came up with 187 results in 5 seconds.  Here’s one:

      http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21219987

      2.  Long term studies – hmm.  Well, let’s see now, we’ve had the tetanus vaccine since the 19th century, diphtheria and whooping cough vaccines since the 1920s, yellow fever since the 30s, polio since the 50s, mumps and measles since the 60s, pneumonia since the 70s.  How long does a vaccine have to be used before you figure we have enough long-term evidence of its safety? 

      As for efficacy, let’s get back to Pub Med, shall we -  how about this one: 
      http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez/17989383
      or this:
      http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21277403

      3.  Take a look at charts for rates of polio or measles infections in the US or Canada or the UK pre and post introduction of vaccines.  It’s right there for anyone to see.  Here’s a nice little chart from the UK

      http://www.hpa.org.uk/web/HPAweb&HPAwebStandard;/HPAweb_C/1195733756107

      4.  Do you even know what pharmokinetics are?

      5.  Which neurotoxin are you talking about?  Most childhood vaccines don’t contain thimerosol.

      6.  If there’s no thimersol in the vaccine, why do we need a study?

      7.  Vaccines aren’t injected into the bloodstream.  Obviously, Mihalovic doesn’t have a basic understanding of vaccines, and neither do you.

      8.  Vaccines can’t prevent viruses from mutating.  So what?  They protect the body against the existing version of the virus, and may give it limited protection against a mutated version.  Not vaccinating ensures your kid has no immunity to any version.

      9.  Ever heard the term “partial immunity?”  You can be vaccinated for the standard version of whooping cough, but you may well have some degree of immunity to a newer mutated version of whooping cough.  You get sick, but not as sick as if you had no immunity at all.

    • Mark Smithson says:

      12:25pm | 27/11/11

      @Jarrah- you seem to use quite a few scientific words in your comment, but you clearly aren’t a medical professional or you’d know that:
      - vaccines aren’t injected into the blood stream, they’re injected (predominantly) into muscle, and on occasions under the skin or are swallowed.
      - if there is a mutation, then a vaccines may not cover a certain viral strain (think influenza each year), but the due to the many antigens found in a bacteria/virus, a vaccine will usually cover many of them, thus allowing different ‘strains’ to be covered.

    • LC says:

      02:25pm | 27/11/11

      An article written by the AVN…Yeah, I think I’ve seen enough.

    • Alf says:

      04:24pm | 27/11/11

      F###ing Hippies…you should just move to another planet.

    • RyaN says:

      11:21am | 28/11/11

      @marley: “You get sick, but not as sick as if you had no immunity at all.”
      I have seen this statement used willy nilly, is there any evidence to back up such a claim.

    • maybe says:

      12:51pm | 28/11/11

      It seems that Bald Eagle was not advocating anti-vaccination, but simple making a point.  And there’s no use in wasting energy trying to convince people like Jarrah why their arguments hold no merit as they are based on a complete lack of understanding.  Why people argue about things they nothing about is beyond me. Kudos Marley for making a solid attempt though, you are a better person than I.

    • marley says:

      01:50pm | 28/11/11

      @RyaN - well, how about H1N1?  People who’d been around in the 40s, or who’d had the 1976 swine flu shot, both seem to have had partial immunity to the 2009 version.  It was the young folk that got really sick, while the oldsters generally fared much better.  First and only time I’ve ever been grateful for that shot back in 1976.

      http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=single-vaccine-dose-even

    • openmind says:

      09:34am | 30/11/11

      I just love it how all you pro-vaxxers take a condescending view and think that it is acceptable for parents not to make a choice for their OWN child. I don’t know why you are all so quick to exclusively trust everything the medical profession tells you….it wasn’ t that long ago that doctors encouraged asthmatics to smoke as it was thought to help them to take deep breaths, lol. One day in the future it will finally come to light that vaccinations are dangerous and are not the reason that ‘life threatening’ illnesses are on the decline…since when was chicken pox a serious life threatening illness? Next thing you know we will be vaccinating against the flu, oh wait, they already do that. Marley, I have seen the ingredient list and there are some things that i certainly don’t want injected into my newborn baby! On and yes, doctors do get paid per vaccine they administer.

    • Tam says:

      11:47am | 30/11/11

      My baby died.

      There is no side effect or potential complication that is more serious or scary to me than the death of another one of my children. Nothing that any of those vaccinations ‘might’ do to my child is worse for me, than the death of one of them by a potentially avoidable disease.

      Yes, I vaccinate.

    • Super D says:

      05:56am | 27/11/11

      I have long observed that among a certain section of the population there is an inverse relationship between belief in vaccination science and belief in climate change. 

      It’s ok to question vaccinations that have thousands and thousands of hours of testing not to mention widespread actual usage but not the hypothetical forecasts of authoritarian climate doom mongers.

      Reply

    • gobsmack says:

      09:45am | 27/11/11

      Aren’t you just saying that scepticism about the benefits of vaccination is inconsistent with an unquestioning belief in climate change?
      What is this “certain section of the population” that, apparently, you have spent a long time observing?

    • marley says:

      11:05am | 27/11/11

      @gobsmack - I’m not sure what the situation is here, but in the US, the decline in vaccination rates is apparently occurring among the middle class - and I believe that would be the demographic most likely to accept the science of climate change.

    • badrinath says:

      12:38pm | 27/11/11

      Well if you have seen it in all your non-partisan wisdom Super D, then….

      I could say I see an interesting correlation between people who cry “Nanny state” wherever they can but also support vaccination of every child -  and a refusal to do so being held as stupid - as well as people refusing to accept any responsibility for the effects of human industrialisation and carbon ‘un-sequestration’  on the climate

      It’s OK, to hold onto your beliefs likea faith only accepting evidence that supports your view whilst automatically refuting any evidence that is against your view, as long as you don’t have to think to much to appease the anxiety of life…

      It’s called conservative values genius.

    • marley says:

      01:01pm | 27/11/11

      @badrinath - are you equating being pro-vaccination with having conservative values?  wow. just wow.

    • Badrinath says:

      02:57pm | 27/11/11

      No Marley, I am equalting stupid assumptions that rise out of value based thinking with Super D’s comment. And claiming that in the case of Super D, his/her conservative values lead them to do so.

    • Paul Murray says:

      06:07pm | 27/11/11

      Oh, the demographics are pretty simple.

      Older people have trouble crediting climate change, but have seen first-hand the ravages of communicable diseases. Vaccination denialism is a product of a generation of people who never lived through the measles epidemics. It’s a Gen X phenomenon.

    • andye says:

      07:57pm | 27/11/11

      @Super D - I have long observed that among a certain section of the population there is an inverse relationship between belief in setting fire to puppies and kittens and belief in climate change.

      You burn pets, you evil monster. Why should we listen to someone who tortures cute animals?

    • maybe says:

      12:56pm | 28/11/11

      Paul Murray, I’d hardly generalise that it’s a ‘Gen X’ problem.  More like an ‘ignorant assholes’ problem.  I’m gen Y and have a decent understanding of molecular biology, but have lived through no awful epidemics.  I still believe I’m informed enough in my opinion that vaccination = good.

    • acotrel says:

      06:03am | 27/11/11

      Aromatherapy is a much better option !

      Reply

    • Tara says:

      06:28am | 27/11/11

      Demographic; commonly called helicopter parents. Let’s not mince words here.
      Chiropractors & Neuro feedback centers… The new cure-alls for all things neuro now?
      Why can’t we have a science unit at high school about how to read & critically analyse research? These 2 ‘alternative therapies’ in particular should SCREAM red flags at people. Multiple expensive visits, no measurable testing of progress made (self report), & if are so effective, why do you have to keep going back & why aren’t they covered under Medicare?
      Bit of a tangent there, sorry.
      Am appalled by the stupidity of seemingly intelligent people on a daily basis. VACCINATE YOUR CHILDREN.
      Teacher/ Psychologist
      Tara

      Reply

    • Michelle says:

      09:03am | 30/11/11

      Oh “teacher/psychologist” Tara. Obviously you feel your qualification makes you superior, so are you actually a Mother? I dare say you’re not, so when you have that qualification under your belt you can have a say, in the mean time is response to your demand “VACCINATE YOUR CHILDREN” UP YOURS!!!!!

      I really couldn’t think of anything worse that a teacher who has a degree in psychology, I pity the poor kids in your class! Teachers are bad enough, psychologists even worse, so a combination is simply a disaster!

    • Tedd says:

      06:28am | 27/11/11

      “What if we’re the one in a million whose baby has an adverse reaction or gets the rarest side-effects?”

      That is still generally 100 to 1,000 times less likely than a severe reaction to the actual disease and less likely than permanent effects of the disease.

      We live in a dangerous world which is ironically less dangerous (i.e. safer) than even 1-2 generations ago.

      Reply

    • Helen says:

      09:49am | 28/11/11

      “That is still generally 100 to 1,000 times less likely than a severe reaction to the actual disease and less likely than permanent effects of the disease.”

      I wish you could tattoo this on some peoples’ foreheads. Thanks for making this point. It comes up all too rarely when people say “But think of the 1 in 10,000 adverse reaction!!!”

    • Wynston Cruso says:

      12:53pm | 28/11/11

      Interesting, however the link supporting your ‘fact’ seems to be missing. In other, related news, people and animals had existed for a little while before the development of vaccines, yet some how we’re here…. *brain explosion*

      Bottom line, when or if I have kids, I’ll vaccinate or not and that will be my decision, the end.

    • Steve M says:

      02:36pm | 28/11/11

      yep Wynston, you stand by your right to do as you damn well please regardless of how ofthers may be affected. Thats your RIGHT! Yeah, but what about your RESPONSIBILITY as a memeber of society? god these self indulgent tossers get my goat. ME ME ME ME

    • marley says:

      03:04pm | 28/11/11

      @Wynston - yep, animals and people have existed before the invention of vaccines. If you want to go back to the days when the infant mortality rate, mainly from vaccine preventable diseases, was 170/1000 be my guest.  I’ll take current infant mortality rates of 5/1000, thanks very much.

    • TJ says:

      04:05pm | 28/11/11

      @Wynston - we may have ‘survived’ way back then, but we tend to live longer now, what could count for that…..let me think…...advances in medical practices including vaccinating?

      I am Gen X with no kids but if I ever have them they will be vaccinated

    • Erick says:

      07:21am | 27/11/11

      It could be helicopter parenting, it could be elitism - or maybe it’s just Darwinism at work.

      Reply

    • marley says:

      08:50am | 27/11/11

      @Erick - the problem with that theory is that it won’t necessarily be their kid that gets knocked out of the gene pool.  It might be some child who was too young to be vaccinated, or who has a medical problem that prevents his being vaccinated at all.

    • Erick says:

      10:16am | 27/11/11

      @marley - That’s a good point. However, statistically it would be more likely the unvaccinated kid who suffers - so overall it would still have a selective effect. But only a minor one, I admit.

    • andye says:

      07:59pm | 27/11/11

      @Erick - “Elitism”? What the hell does that even really mean here? How does “elitism” affect vaccinations, and who are the people you are talking about?

    • Erick says:

      05:09am | 28/11/11

      @andye - If you read the article, you’ll see the sentences I was replying to.

    • andye says:

      08:28am | 28/11/11

      @Erick - Oh I do actually read the articles but I missed that you were quoting. Still doesnt make any sense.

    • TJ says:

      04:08pm | 28/11/11

      @Erick - are you feeling ok? are you sure it’s not a femist plot to override the wishes and rights of men/fathers?

    • Matt says:

      08:35am | 27/11/11

      The kids that can die from these parents not vaccinating are kids to young to be vaccinated to parents who would vaccinate i.e whooping cough in 3month old is deadly and the child cant be immunised as to young.  This is the reality of loss of herd immunity.  Whooping cough in 8 year old not vaccinated is a problem but no where near as deadly.

      Reply

    • Aza J says:

      03:32pm | 27/11/11

      Actually the first pertussis (whooping cough) vaccine is given at 6 weeks/2months, so you’re wrong there already.  Also this is a reason why parents are encouraged to get a pertussis booster when their child is born

    • RyaN says:

      11:39am | 28/11/11

      @Matt: Not to mention that you are advised by hospitals and doctors to stay away from public places and reduce exposure of your new born child to too many people until their first round of vaccinations.

      I guess you can take some medical advice but not others.

    • St. Michael says:

      02:21pm | 28/11/11

      RyaN: “Not to mention that you are advised by hospitals and doctors to stay away from public places and reduce exposure of your new born child to too many people until their first round of vaccinations.”

      Again you’re twisting the logic, RyaN.  Until your child’s immunised, they’re vulnerable to that disease.  Just because the disease has a high vaccination rate does not mean you can’t encounter it in the world.  Herd immunity only slows the spread rate and its general frequency.  It doesn’t wipe it out altogether.  And, precisely because there are more and more tools like yourself who advocate antivax, that medical advice is even more sound.

    • RyaN says:

      04:24pm | 28/11/11

      @St. Michael: Firstly, the low class personal assault through an assumption just shows the level of intelligence of the commenter.

      Secondly, READ WHAT I WROTE.

      I stated CLEARLY that you are advised by doctors and the hospital to keep your new born away from people. The advice is clear yet you persist in doing so then screaming and carrying on that it was the fault of someone else that your new born got sick.

      Putting aside the level of comment that you lowered yourself to, your assumption on my standpoint on vaccination is incorrect, I am not “antivax” as you put it.

    • St. Michael says:

      05:49pm | 28/11/11

      “Putting aside the level of comment that you lowered yourself to, your assumption on my standpoint on vaccination is incorrect, I am not “antivax” as you put it.”

      Your responses to date say otherwise.

    • Tam says:

      08:49am | 27/11/11

      Unfortunately, I believe that parents can still sign the ‘conscientious objector’ form and still receive the tax benefit - no change at all really!

      Reply

    • Gg says:

      10:26am | 27/11/11

      The fact that we have to even have this discussion in a highly-educated, developed country is a disgrace. Shame on the anti-vaccination lobby and kudos to the Gillard government for this sensible decision.

    • Your name:Pudel says:

      07:06pm | 27/11/11

      @ Gg, as a conservative voter, I agree the Gillard government is correct on this one.

    • RyaN says:

      04:26pm | 28/11/11

      @Gg: The anti-vaccination lobby wouldn’t have this problem if he government simply put their rubber stamp on 100% guaranteeing the safety of all vaccinations and accepting liability of all costs incurred as the result of this not being true.

    • Jen says:

      10:27am | 27/11/11

      While agree with vaccination, there ARE instances where children DO have adverse reactions to elements in SOME vaccinations - my first born had a severe reaction to Triple antigen, as did his cousin, who needed to be medivaced to a hospital. However, we were told that this was an uncommon reaction to only one part of the Triple Antigen ‘cocktail’ and my children were subsequently vaccinated with the CDT rather than Triple Antigen. Amongst my siblings, this was a recognised risk with the vaccination of our children, so the CDT was the vaccination of choice - so the risks can be managed for the most part, but I think that parents need to be aware that there is a risk of reaction (having said that my children are now in their 20s so the vaccine may have been modified) but that they need to weigh up the risks - for me, for example, I was very worried about the risk of Whooping Cough as my children grew because I knew they did not have the protection but the choice to take that route, under advice from doctors was, I feel, justified. So, as with anything, it needs to be a parents decision but they NEED to really carefully look at all the information and look at the statistics and any family history before they make a decision that will impact the health, and possibly life, of their precious child and the children their family associates with.

      Reply

    • Pudel says:

      07:11pm | 27/11/11

      Jen, from what I recall the aim is a 95% rate of vaccination, as a portion of the population, 5% or less, cannot be vaccinatted for medical reasons, like in your childs case.  This 95% attains a herd immunity, by reducing the risk of the unvacinatted getting the disease as well.  If we have less than 95% the incidence of the disease in the community increases exponentially.

    • Fiona says:

      07:31pm | 27/11/11

      Jen, you’re correct, the triple antigen part of the vaccines has been altered. The pertussis component is now accellular, so part cell not whole cell. Vaccine reactions have decreased because of this.

    • shane says:

      10:33am | 27/11/11

      Conscientious objectors only make up about 1.7 percent of the population. Well below the threshold required for herd immunity. The point of the legislation is to get those that don’t have a philosophical objection to protecting their children from preventable disease to get off their apathetic arses and vaccinate.

      Reply

    • baal says:

      10:35am | 27/11/11

      when i got a nasty form of a virus that could be spread via coughing, my doctor told me to stay away from pregnant women and childre under 2 years for 6 months. If i was out shopping i should cross to the other side of the street. I spent 6 months avoiding kids, pregnant ladies including a friend, not going to my daughters play group and avoiding some fat people becuase it can be hard to tell.
      The point is my doctor gave me evidence and advice on how my decisions could affect others and i followed it. If i coughed near someone young and hurt them I never would of forgiven myself.
      People who make a choice to put themselves before the health of children should be publically identified so we can choose to avoid them.
      It is a choice, let them make their choice but also make them suffer for it. They are a threat to public safety.

      Reply

    • patsy says:

      09:58am | 28/11/11

      I don’t know if this has changed, but I thought you couldn’t enrol your child into school without proof of vaccinations.

    • Georgina says:

      10:37am | 27/11/11

      Load of rubbish - PUNCH do some better home work please - very disappointed! It isn’t about the money from the government - its about our freedom of choice of the best way to bring up our children, this also includes smacking if I wish ! - there are plenty of books so you can education yourself either way just don’t take some doctor’s say so when he gets paid to tell you what to do. I would do it again paid or not from the ‘rulers’ of our ‘free’ country.

      Reply

    • CBR says:

      12:56pm | 27/11/11

      Your decision to not vaccinate your child affects more than just you and your child.

      It affects the newborn two doors down that is too young to be vaccinated. It affects your neighbour’s kid who is allergic to the vaccine, and cannot be vaccinated. It affects your frail elderly neighbour. It affects that person down the street undergoing chemo. It affects people with AIDs.

      The fact you take your medical advice from Dr Google and your own comprehension, rather than actual doctors who train and study for the better part of a decade just for the basic qualification, speaks more of your own indulgent and selfish stupidity than of anyone else’s.

    • Heidi says:

      01:02pm | 27/11/11

      Clearly the English language was not one of the topics you chose to “education yourself” in…

    • Fiona says:

      07:36pm | 27/11/11

      Of course doctors get paid for what they advise you to do. Who doesn’t? At the most they’ll get a few brochures, maybe a short DVD about the latest vaccine and a pen from the pharmaceutical companies. Ooh, corruption.

    • Anonymous says:

      08:35am | 28/11/11

      Subjecting your child to the risks of an illness due to an ideology is arguably child abuse. It also makes you a shit parent. Learn to listen to the medical experts. They’ve devoted their entire lives to prolonging the lives of others.

    • Lauren says:

      12:36pm | 28/11/11

      CBR - I could not have said it better myself - well done!

    • Antivax says:

      09:25am | 30/11/11

      GO girl!!!!!!!

    • Jarrah says:

      10:37am | 27/11/11

      You all make some grandiose claims based on experimentation on past recipients of vaccines which do not equate to research but illegal experimentation on unsuspecting victims so:

      Could you please provide one double-blind, placebo-controlled study that can prove the safety and effectiveness of vaccines?

      Could you please provide scientific evidence on ANY study which can confirm the long-term safety and effectiveness of vaccines?

      Could you please provide scientific evidence which can prove that disease reduction in any part of the world, at any point in history was attributable to inoculation of populations?

      Could you please explain how the safety and mechanism of vaccines in the human body are scientifically proven if their pharmacokinetics (the study of bodily absorption, distribution, metabolism and excretion of ingredients) are never examined or analysed in any vaccine study?

      Could you please provide scientific justification as to how injecting a human being with a confirmed neurotoxin is beneficial to human health and prevents disease?

      Can you provide a risk/benefit profile on how the benefits of injecting a known neurotoxin exceeds its risks to human health for the intended goal of preventing disease?

      Could you please provide scientific justification on how bypassing the respiratory tract (or mucous membrane) is advantageous and how directly injecting viruses into the bloodstream enhances immune functioning and prevents future infections?

      Could you please provide scientific justification on how a vaccine would prevent viruses from mutating?

      Could you please provide scientific justification as to how a vaccination can target a virus in an infected individual who does not have the exact viral configuration or strain the vaccine was developed for?

      Reply

    • shane says:

      11:12am | 27/11/11

      Small pox.
      80 years of successful vaccination.
      Small pox.
      Polio has almost been eradicated.
      Small pox.
      The neurotoxin you refer to isn’t in most vaccines. Red herring.

    • marley says:

      12:06pm | 27/11/11

      @Jarrah -see replies above.

    • Vicki PS says:

      03:02pm | 27/11/11

      Jarrah and Bald Eagle, riddle me this:

      - Could you please provide scientific, independently confirmed evidence that you are not Martians?

      -  Can you quote double-blind, placebo controlled studies that show that antic-vaccination is not a Martian conspiracy?

      -  Can you prove that the Martians have not disabled your cognitive capacity?

      -  Can you provide scientific evidence to prove that you have not been infected with Martian superviruses that will quickly overwhelm the entire population of unvaccinated children who have fallen victim to their semi-educated parents’ credulity and sense of entitlement?

    • Your name:TC says:

      03:19pm | 27/11/11

      Guys why bother.  The anti vac group are the most radical group to talk to. They will simply not even consider the facts.  They ask for reasons/stats/studies etc etc and when they are given them they simply ignore them.  Their “facts” are based on assumptions and coincidences oh and of course the infamous wakefield study.  They question medicine yet will be led on a leash by great minds like Jenny McCarthy (though I agree it is a much prettier poster girl for their cause than a highly educated doctor with years of involvement in vaccinations).  The problem is people are easily led and quickly forget the past. Though I do wonder how many other medical breakthroughs from the last 100 years anti vac people refuse to use “Triple bypass heart surgery are wrong because you might die from it on the table”.

    • shane says:

      04:44pm | 27/11/11

      TC we bother because they, anti vaxxers, are an incredibly noisy tiny minority. They make an inordinate amount of whinging considering their numbers and scare otherwise reasonable people into believing their made up crap. And believe me most of their propaganda is out right lies. It is like whackamole but it has to be done. Lives are at stake.

    • Alicia says:

      10:58am | 29/11/11

      If you want to see what difference these vaccines have had why don’t you just look at places where polio and TB still run rampant. There is a reason that if you want to travel to certain regions in the world you need to get vaccinated. Maybe all these antivac idiots should speak to someone who has had one of these diseases and see the effect that some of them have on the sufferer. We as a generation are lucky that we have not had to live with the loss or disablement of a family members due to these diseases as our parents and grandparents have all been vaccinated.

    • Michael R says:

      10:40am | 27/11/11

      No matter how much you dream of utopian conformity, freedom over one’s bodily health is a core desire that cannot be extinguished by faith in science. There will always be people who distrust science and rebel at the jab of a needle. Get over it. Stop dreaming.

      Reply

    • Jarrah says:

      10:45am | 27/11/11

      And riddle me this then all you pro-vaccinators, from the mouth of the vaccinating machine itself which flys smack in the face of the recent undertakings of the Gillard Govt:

      “On 23 April 2010, the Chief Medical Officer
      (CMO) of Australia suspended the use of seasonal
      influenza vaccines for all children aged 5 years
      and under, pending further investigation of an
      apparent increase in febrile convulsions following
      administration of the vaccines in this age group.
      The previous evening, the Western Australian (WA)
      Government had announced the suspension of its
      program of seasonal influenza vaccination for well
      children under the age of 5 years.”

      http://immunise.health.gov.au/internet/immunise/publishing.nsf/Content/11DFBB4FD968D072CA25789400172DA1/$File/adverse-event-march-2011.pdf

      Reply

    • shane says:

      11:14am | 27/11/11

      Yes. An example of science at work. Problem found and issue addressed. No one has ever suggested that vaccines are entirely risk free. The risk of death or disability from failing to vaccinate far outweighs the risk of vaccinating even when very rare issues occur.
      Your point?

    • LDLS says:

      01:12pm | 27/11/11

      I note you ignore all posts who who correct your misconceptions. In fact you try double posting the same BS obviously to try again to mislead yet you fail to debate those in opposition to your facts.

      People like you are the danger to our children not vaccines. Yes sadly some will have issues after a vaccination but the vast majority do not.

      If you hate vaccines so much go live in a commune with those who believe as you do.  After all it’s your lot who can harm those who did the right thing and were vaccinated not the other way round.

    • St. Michael says:

      04:51pm | 27/11/11

      Nice try, Jarrah, but some of us are from Western Australia, so we know when you’re talking out of your arse.

      The suspension of the program was because of a bad batch in one seasonal flu vaccination in WA.  There’s never been any event like it in all that time.  Febrile convulsions, despite the name, only very, very rarely if ever do any sort of permanent damage.

    • Katy Davis says:

      10:51am | 27/11/11

      I’m sorry, I will take the million to one risk and vaccinate my child. I have had whooping cough - it is not pleasant, and I still have respiratory problems that arose from it, and I was vaccinated. So please, tell me why you would risk death over the unproven and very very minute chance that your child may possibly be diagnosed with autism, which he or she would probably be diagnosed with anyway?

      Reply

    • shane says:

      11:17am | 27/11/11

      I agree but there is no risk of autism, even minute, from vaccines. All the evidence of such was from a fraudulent study done by the former Dr Wakefield.

    • Sue says:

      11:13am | 27/11/11

      Unfortunately, this is a bad case of damned if you do , damned if you don’t. I have 6 kids, my youngest is now almost 15 years old and with the 4 eldest, was very much on the side of vaccination, however, they still contracted measles after being immunised and thus raised some doubts in my mind…. still a stickler for the jab, had my 2nd youngest immunised .... He was adorable, extremely social and advanced for his age. Changes started a few weeks later and he was diagnosed with autism about 5 months after that ....and after some serious insight it was put down to his measles vaccination. After that I refused to immunise my youngest and had to fight to get her into pre-school and school etc. She is now almost 15 and has NEVER had measles, chicken pox, mumps or any of the like. She never gets colds or flu and is extremely healthy…. Has never been to a doctor for any illness apart from a urinary tract infection…. Excuse me for being sceptical, but I think it is barbaric for parents to be held to ransom over immunisation. I realise it was necessary to wipe out the prominent spate of childhood illness years ago, but I shudder every time one of my grandchildren go for their “needles” However, I don’t say anything, or judge them as it is their parents right to immunise as it should be the parents right not to.

      Reply

    • marley says:

      12:09pm | 27/11/11

      @Sue - it’s pretty well established that there is no connection between the MMR and autism.  The vaccination is given at about the same time the symptoms for autism appear.  Correlation, not causation.

      And your youngest child has been healthy because he’s been surrounded by kids who have had the vaccinations.  If he goes to India or parts of Africa, though, he’s going to be highly vulnerable to polio, measles and a plethora of other diseases which are still endemic.

    • skepdad says:

      12:38pm | 27/11/11

      Sue, I’m sorry to hear about your son’s autism, but there is absolutely no causal link between vaccinations and autism.  Whoever “put it down” to the vaccination was simply wrong.

      As shane mentioned above, the entire anti-vax “autism link” movement stems from horrendously poorly conducted research from Andrew Wakefield which has been comprehensively discredited.

      For your illumination, the following are the charges for which Wakefield was struck off the UK medical register:

      - “Was being paid to conduct the study by solicitors representing parents who believed their children had been harmed by MMR”.
      - Ordered investigations “without the requisite paediatric qualifications” including colonoscopies, colon biopsies and lumbar punctures (“spinal taps”) on his research subjects without the approval of his department’s ethics board and contrary to the children’s clinical interests, when these diagnostic tests were not indicated by the children’s symptoms or medical history.
      - “Act[ed] ‘dishonestly and irresponsibly’ in failing to disclose ... how patients were recruited for the study”.
      - “Conduct[ed] the study on a basis which was not approved by the hospital’s ethics committee.”
      - Purchased blood samples - for £5 each - from children present at his son’s birthday party, which Wakefield joked about in a later presentation.

      It is simply the case that autism usually first presents at around the age that kids get their MMR and other vaccinations.  This is true for kids who are vaccinated and kids who aren’t.  It’s simple statistics that if enough kids are vaccinated, and a certain percentage of those present with early symptoms of autism, sooner or later one will happen directly after the other and look like a causal link.  It’s not.

      I’m glad your other kids are healthy, but anecdotes are not statistics, and they are not research.  Both of mine are fully immunised and are normal, healthy, happy kids.  Anecdotes and small sample sizes are meaningless when we’re talking about public health.

    • LJ Dots says:

      01:33pm | 27/11/11

      @Sue - the link between vaccination and autism has been well and truly put to rest, a study of over 500,00 children over 7 years confirms this. In addition, the autism support sites I checked were also in agreement which I hope shows you that there is no bias involved.

      I know this probably will not convince you, but will I provide these links if only to provide some measured data for parents to consider and who might otherwise be swayed by your post.

      The easy to read Time magazine article
      http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1003673,00.html

      The actual study on the New England journal of Medicine.
      http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa021134

      As marley had pointed out earlier, readers could also Google Pub Med for further studies.

    • Lisa says:

      04:31pm | 27/11/11

      @Sue
      I contracted measles years after being immunised, back in the 80’s. My identical twin, also immunised, did not.
      This experience didnt stop me from immunising my children. I put it down to being unlucky.

    • St. Michael says:

      04:55pm | 27/11/11

      “I realise it was necessary to wipe out the prominent spate of childhood illness years ago, but I shudder every time one of my grandchildren go for their “needles”

      Sue, bear in mind that the diseases (absent smallpox, which we think has been completely eradicated from the face of the Earth) we are vaccinated against are still floating around.  The reason we vaccinate is to minimise or stop their spread, not to eradicate the organism that carries it from the planet’s surface.  That’s why the vaccination program has to continue.  If you stop vaccinations, the UK experience shows quite clearly that the diseases come back, fast and hard.

    • Vicki PS says:

      07:13pm | 27/11/11

      Guess what, Sue?  A dear friend died in hospital after receiving dozens of injections of all kinds.  Which one do you reckon caused her death?  Or could it be that the cancer killed her?  Did it occur to you that your son was already autistic?  Babies with autism don’t come with a barcoded label, you know.

      Sue, one day your unvaccinated daughter might be the nurse who contracts whooping cough and kills a hospital ward-full of immune-suppressed cancer patients: or who infects another unvaccinated pregnant woman and causes her child’s deafness and intellectual disability.  Or, if she ever has children herself, it could be her baby.

      I’m inclined to think that barbarism lies in knowingly endangering the lives and health of vulnerable others, because you are too silly and stubborn to recognise that sometimes shit just happens.  Parents’ rights over their children are unlimited, and certainly don’t confer an entitlement to endanger others.

    • chungo mung says:

      11:39am | 27/11/11

      So you recognise that it is an anxious moment, but state:
      “we may be rational and sensible enough to know vaccinating our kids against potentially fatal diseases is right, for them and the community, but that cocktail of antigens going into their arm is a discomforting sight” – thus the only rational and sensible thing to do is give kids the injections because there is only “one in a million whose baby has an adverse reaction or gets the rarest side-effects” which is likely not a piece of scientific evidence, rather a dramatic piece of prose.

      When we are talking about the science of putting antigens into the body of a child, we do need to be talking facts, not ‘one in a million’ unofficial numbers. Then you go on to refer to the “latest science” groovy dude, until the next latest science comes out and takes our understanding the other way. And your focus is on there being no proved “causal link”. Have you thought about that term? If you hinge this on the proof of a causal link – when there is anecdotal evidence to suggest a possible causal link – and when the challenge of proving that there is a causal link is not solved by not ‘finding’ a causal link (meaning possibly not ‘yet’ finding) the strength of your assumptions is dissipating.

      Your whooping cough example is all well and good, but perhaps you should spend a few years raising a child with autism which does not heal like a broken rib (I recognise this is not proved, but there is evidence to suggest it is possible – as it cannot be proved that the whooping cough immunisation guarantees safety from the disease nor is it necessary to prevent ever catching it in the first place).
      All I am trying to say Wendy is that you are telling people through your strong opinion that they should do a thing, claiming your argument is completely reasonable and sound. Which is untrue, but worse still, if the next “latest science” tells us they now see a causal link, or that the administering of panadol (before or after immunisation) and the physiological effects of this can contribute to a causal link for the above, then you may not feel so confident about the effect of your opinion.

      Of course those depending on herd immunity are indeed selfish people, whose philosophy is seriously flawed especially when they recommend to others to do the same. But these people are not well read, they are narrowly read – popular internet information and opinion – and are part of the whole me, me, mine approach to living in society.

      This is not an opinion about whether or not a political knifing was planned or not, this is an opinion about what drugs a parent should put into the fragile system of a small child as a preventative measure and what cost. Very volatile area to throw out a Sunday morning “You should do this you irrsesponsible hippies”.

      Reply

    • CBR says:

      01:02pm | 27/11/11

      No. There is no evidence to suggest vaccines cause autism. None. Nada. Zero. Zilch. Zip, proven again and again, including in a long-term study involving nearly half a million children.

    • St. Michael says:

      11:49am | 28/11/11

      “...as it cannot be proved that the whooping cough immunisation guarantees safety from the disease nor is it necessary to prevent ever catching it in the first place”.

      Um, the whooping cough vaccine is explicitly stated to only last 10 years or so, after which you need a booster.  Thus medical science has never guaranteed lifetime safety from whooping cough due to one shot.  Do more reading.

    • thatmosis says:

      11:57am | 27/11/11

      Not only should the Government hold tax breaks for parents who dont get their children vacinated they should also make them pay for any medical assistance that these children need when they become sick from preventable diseases.

      Reply

    • Keith Hammersmith says:

      12:08pm | 27/11/11

      My main issue is, by not vaccinating you put everyone at risk. If everyone vaccinates,  diseases disapear, thus posing no risk and are unable to mutate.  If people stop vaccinating, diseases can reappear (like all the cases of whooping cough), and when a disease is here, it can mutate and then pose a threat to those of us that vaccinate.  Thus the service that the unvaccinated can bring to the world is simply more disease.
      What I don’t understand also is how the unvaccinating parents simply refuse to acknowledge the science… seriously you take jenny Macarthy’s word over that of EVERY doctor??

      Reply

    • LC says:

      11:44pm | 27/11/11

      Who needs science when you’ve got Jenny McCarthy? wink

    • david says:

      12:27pm | 27/11/11

      I feel that Wendy should decide if the focus of this piece is going to factual or emotional.

      Wendy undermines any factual information presented with anecdotal evidence, name calling and negative stereotypes. Cheap shots at those who disagree will not help others to consider a change to their current stance.

      If the facts speak for themselves, then Wendy needs to let the facts speak. Her emotional outbursts and personal prejudices only cloud the issue.

      Reply

    • marley says:

      01:03pm | 27/11/11

      If the anti-vax crowd cared about facts, they wouldn’t be anti-vax.  So why not go after them with emotions.

    • david says:

      07:00pm | 27/11/11

      I wasn’t speaking of anti-vax evangelists. they’ve merely dug a bunker opposite to Wendy’s. I was thinking of those who are caught in the crossfire - newly expecting parents who have just begun searching for answers.

      They would be better served by a voice of reason - not to be proselytised from the pulpit.

    • Keith Hammersmith says:

      10:13am | 28/11/11

      the voice of reason isn’t hard to find, just go talk to your doctor.
      He or She will tell you to vaccinate your kids. It doesn’t matter what Doctor you go to, they will give you the same advice.

    • LaDiva says:

      12:30pm | 27/11/11

      Yes, this trend could just be part of the intensive, helicopter parenting which has taken hold as Australians have babies later, and have fewer of them. Or it could just be elitism.

      Another insulting generalization about older parents. I’m an older first time mother and I vaccinate my daughter.

      Reply

    • mick says:

      01:33pm | 27/11/11

      A damned if you do and damned if you don’t situation.

      On the one hand we need to protect children and on the other hand forcing parents to immunise can also throw up problems.  Recall that in the good old days they had X-Ray machines in shoe shops to X-Ray feet in shoes -  long exposure and high doses from what I am told.  And then dentists use to pull teeth rather than fill then and also drill out a whole tooth for a minute speck of decay.

      So what’s the point of all the ramblings.  Have I lost it or is it a case of Sunday too far away?  The point is that the scientific community does get it wrong sometimes.  So not making immunisation compulsory would appear sensible as it give people choice.  The advertising campaigns should ensure that most of us do the right thing although we need to ask if this right is worth the inevitable loss of life which will occur by not adhering to medical advice.  How long is a piece of string?

      Reply

    • marley says:

      02:26pm | 27/11/11

      @mick - the scientific community does get it wrong, sure - but we have several hundred years of experience with vaccination, and a good 70 years of experience with mass vaccination.  We have a very clear idea of the benefits and risks.  We also now have a very clear idea of the risks of kids catching measles.  So, would you prefer a 1 in 100,000 chance of a negative reaction from the vaccine, or a 2 in 1000 chance of death if your kid catches the measles?

    • Pudel says:

      07:25pm | 27/11/11

      Reading your post, it also shows that in the face of evidence the scientific community change when the risks are found to outweigh the benefits.

    • Sue says:

      02:31pm | 27/11/11

      The point I was making in my previous comment was, my daughter has been around children with these afflictions(who HAVE been immunised might I add) and has not caught anything from anyone, she is not anti- social, she goes to school, works part-time and is always “out there” and kids around her who have been immunised have had measles, chicken pox etc. My older kids who were also immunised had these illnesses so the vaccines obviously don’t fully prevent them anyway. And for the ones who say “They may get them, just not as bad” that’s just bizarre. How do you really know for sure! Anyway, I am fully comfortable with my decision to not have her immunised. If I were to take her to any countries overseas, she would be made to have her vaccinations anyway… not that we are in a desperate hurry to head to any 3rd world countries anytime soon anyway. For the record, I’m not “blaming the measles needle for my sons autism,God, he is a one in a million kid and I wouldn’t want him to be anyone but who he is. I was told that is what the cause was by our paediatrician and also a specialist we were sent to, but it made me wary and has opened my eyes I can tell you.

      Reply

    • marley says:

      05:59pm | 27/11/11

      @Sue - the thing is, you know, that you don’t have to go to a “third world country” to get exposed to some of these disease.  There have been outbreaks of measles in the UK, France and Switzerland in the last 10 years, almost entirely amongst the unvaccinated population.  And adult measles is not a pleasant experience.

    • LC says:

      02:47pm | 27/11/11

      I gotta say, denying pig-ignorant non-vaxxing parents tax breaks is probably the best thing Gillard has ever done. I’d also go a step further and stop medicare payments for treatments of diseases which can be prevented by vaccination, but it’s a start.

      Reply

    • rb says:

      03:07pm | 27/11/11

      Treating this as a black and white discussion doesn’t help. Each vacc and disease has a different risk factor and should be considered for each persons individual situation.

      There is not 80yrs of history for vaccs, they are constantly being updated and changed and each new version has to be tested. Sometimes these changes happen because risks are found.

      Herd immunity only works if a large percent of the population is vacc.
      Whooping cough is an example of a vacc that doesn’t even last 10yrs. A large percent of the adult population is walking around unaware that they can catch and pass on this disease. Especially since adults are more likely to think it is a bad cold and wait longer to seek medical help than a parent would with their child. Are your vaccs up to date?

      I don’t think all children will get autism from vaccs just like not every pot smoker will become schizophrenic or cigarette smoker will get cancer. There is usually more than one trigger. A combination of factors.

      The longer this debate goes on the more I hear the same responses from both sides and it is nothing but scaremongering. Neither side seems to be rational. Vaccs kill -vs- diseases kill.

      Science has given us so many life saving advances but that does not mean that mistakes don’t happen. Everything needs to be approached with an open mind and you should always ask questions.

      Reply

    • shane says:

      04:34pm | 27/11/11

      It is a black and white argument.  For a significant majority of the population vaccines are an effective and safe, comparitively, method of preventing deadly diseases. The argument has been settled scientifically in the favour of vaccines. Anything else is hysterical scaremongering. And we do have 100 plus years of experience that shows this. Vaccines do not cause autism period.

    • Fiona #2 says:

      03:30pm | 27/11/11

      Shortly after my son received his first vaccinations, he became unwell with what appeared to be a viral type illness, unsettled, screaming at night, fevers. There were many trips to the local GP and I was always just told it was a simple virus, he’ll improve, watch his fever etc. Then one evening about 3 weeks later he began to seizure uncontrollably and basically has never stopped. He is 3 now but the seizures mean he is more like a 3 month old. All I know is - I gave birth to a bright, alert, normal little boy and his regression began right after his shots. But here’s the thing - because he did not fit the EXACT model of adverse reaction, he has never been listed as an adverse reaction. I have since met many, many other families who have a similar story. We are not whackjobs or anti-vaccers (indeed, so pro-vaccine was I that some years earlier I had allowed my daughter to take part in a vaccine trial).  Whenever I have questioned whether it could have been the vaccines I have been stonewalled by each and every single health professional I have met.

      I am still pro-vaccination overall, but what irks me is that we cannot speak up about our concerns without being told we are irrational, or lack evidence, or are selfish, or just plain stupid. I want someone to explain to me why this happened to my son - I want someone to prove to me that it was NOT the vaccine, because trying to prove that it was is like banging your head against a brick wall. I think that there are more adverse reactions than are documented, and I think we need to be open and honest about it - if this is the collatoral damage of a succesful immunisation program, then it needs to be out in the open and there needs to be better compensation for people like my son.

      Reply

    • St. Michael says:

      04:58pm | 27/11/11

      Short answer, Fiona, is that you need to specify how long “shortly after” was.  The diseases you presumably were vaccinated against have a measurable incubation period and development period.  If your child developed the condition more than the incubation period after the shot was given, he didn’t have the disease which the shot vaccinated against.

      Don’t confuse chronological coincidence with cause and effect.

    • Yobbi says:

      03:38pm | 27/11/11

      If all pro-vaccine people think they work so well,then why worry about a kid who is not vaccinated.If works as you believe then your child won’t eat sick from them.Ask doc’s to sign a form stating that if your child gets sick,dies etc from vaccine they will take responsibility.They won’t sign it as they know they are not safe.

      Reply

    • shane says:

      04:37pm | 27/11/11

      No one ever says vaccine or any medical intervention is without risk. Ask your car manufacturer to sign a document saying their safe car will never kill you in an accident.

    • I have a White Ribbon says:

      04:39pm | 27/11/11

      Logic doesn’t seem to be your strong point.

    • St. Michael says:

      05:00pm | 27/11/11

      (1) The doctor won’t sign because vaccinations don’t always confer full protection to the person receiving them.  There’s a small percentage for whom the protection simply doesn’t take, and there’s no way to predict who that will be.
      (2) I worry about a kid who is not vaccinated simply because he can function as a carrier for that disease even if he doesn’t get it.  And the kid who is not vaccinated is quite literally a lethal risk to a child who isn’t old enough to have the vaccination, which includes most kids less than one year old.

      Do some more reading, Yobbo.

    • yobbi says:

      03:11pm | 28/11/11

      IS YOBBI NOT YOBBO MORON…they won’t sign because they know they hurt people no matter what some other moron tells me,I know the truth,just like cannabis is a cancer cure and is illegal only because they can’t make profits of it.Vaccines are only for drug companys to profit not to help anyone….

    • St. Michael says:

      03:30pm | 28/11/11

      It was a typo.  ‘o’ is next to ‘i’ on the keyboard.

      Although given your attitude I’m thinking it was a serendipidous error.

    • Mikeymike says:

      05:39pm | 28/11/11

      “they won’t sign because they know they hurt people no matter what some other moron tells me,I know the truth”  What you have stated is a position of faith, not of science.  You are therefore making medical decisions based on your faith.
      “just like cannabis is a cancer cure and is illegal only because they can’t make profits of it.”  Do you mean that plant products can’t be used as a basis for patent-able medications?  I’m sure that’s news to the developers of the many opium based pharmaceuticals.

    • I have a White Ribbon says:

      04:36pm | 27/11/11

      The article could have been a little shorter and still made its point. To wit;

      Anyone who chooses not to have their child vaccinated is an irresponsible moron.

      Many of you are just saying this nicely so as not to offend the morons.

      Do you think they care about the offence you would feel when your child contracted a disease from their unvaccinated child?

      Reply

    • Rachel Laurel says:

      05:36pm | 27/11/11

      With verbal abuse, physical abuse, child abuse and moral abuse,, responsible parents are usually much more dangerous than irresponsible parents. They are arrogant aggressive brainless pushy ultraconservative competitive show off   bullies of children. They usually vote Liberal and National.

      Reply

    • Rachel Laurel says:

      05:39pm | 27/11/11

      Responsible parents are angry parents, aggressive parents, show off parents, abusive parents, violent parents, brainless parents , and nasty parents.
      They are responsible for Coalition Governments!

      Reply

    • rb says:

      06:03pm | 27/11/11

      I think that there is a spectrum when it comes to vaccs.

      At one extreme are the anti-vaccs. Stubborn, prepared to twist stats to fit their belief, uses fear and name calling.

      At the other end are the pro-vaccs. Stubborn, prepared to twist stats to fit their belief, uses fear and name calling.

      In the middle are those that have questions. And when they are unable to make an educated dicision they do nothing. Not because they have sided with anti-vaccs.

      The fact that they are asking questions should show that they are truely concerned about the welfare of their children. Calling them irresponsible, uneducated or morons does nothing to help.

      Reply

    • marley says:

      06:52pm | 27/11/11

      @rb - you’re wrong about the spectrum.  There is overwhelming evidence supporting one end of your “spectrum” and nothing but anecdote on the other.  Pro-vaxers dont have to twist statistics.  The real statistics are there, and quite easy to locate for anyone who really wants to do the research.

      The problem is the mindset that says that any immediate risk to the child (ie a reaction to the vaccine) is more important than the longer term risk (death, disability, serious illness) of not taking the vaccine. Frankly, I regard it as an abdication of parental responsibility - the mindset that, if I vaccinate my child, and something goes wrong (1 in 100,000 chance) I’m responsible, but if I don’t vaccinate my child and he gets the disease and something goes wrong (1 in 1000 chance) I’m not responsible.  So, the parents get to escape any responsibility and the child ends up in hospital or deaf or worse.

    • Vicki PS says:

      07:20pm | 27/11/11

      There’s no credit in continuing to ask questions when you won’t accept the answers: when you would rather believe an outlandish lie than the simple truth.  That’s not being responsible, it’s psychopathology.

    • stephen says:

      07:53pm | 27/11/11

      I remember getting jabbed on my arse for penicillin, and it hurt like hell.
      But that’s only cause I saw the thorn before it went in.

      Best tell the kids, the lolly starts now.

      Reply

    • Mandy says:

      06:24am | 28/11/11

      “They don’t love their children less, but do they think they love them more than those of us who help protect what doctors call “herd immunity” by stamping on our fears and going through with vaccination?”

      A friend’s vaccinated daughter recently came down with measles. When my friend asked her doctor why - since her child had her MMR shot only a year and a half ago - he said the MMR vaccine only ‘works’ in 80% of cases. To declare the ‘herd’ immune to any infectious disease, I’ve read that 95% of it has to be vaccinated against it. If a vaccine only works in 80% of cases how can this ever be achieved? This doesn’t take into account those not up-to-date with booster shots etc. How many other shots have similar success rates and therefore fall short of achieving herd immunity even when the whole population receives the vaccine?

      Reply

    • St. Michael says:

      11:41am | 28/11/11

      Your ‘friend’ was misinformed or didn’t hear the doctor right.  Alternatively, if that’s what the doctor said, he’s so out of touch your friend should really consider getting another doctor.

      MMR has three components, not one.

      Against measles, MMR is effective 94-98% of the time.  Against mumps, 97%.  Against rubella, 95%.  In the US they do two MMRs, and the second is meant to catch those who weren’t rendered immune the first time round.

      Therefore: herd immunity.  Because all of those numbers are above the 95% rate you cite as necessary.

      Source: http://www.vaccineinformation.org/measles/qandavax.asp

      Although I must say your reading is incomplete.  Herd immunity doesn’t require 95% vaccination as you think.  The CDC, which more or less is the pre-eminent authority on immunology, indicates that depending on the disease, it’s between 75 and 95 percent vaccination required to create herd immunity (Pertussis - whooping cough - is the only one that takes 95%.  And it’s no surprise, given whooping cough vaccinations only last 10 years or so, that we hear more about it now than we do stuff like polio or smallpox.)

      Source: http://www.bt.cdc.gov/agent/smallpox/training/overview/pdf/eradicationhistory.pdf  (See slides 16-17).

    • marley says:

      01:33pm | 28/11/11

      There’s very clear evidence that you need two MMR shots to achieve a reasonably high level of immunity.  Canada and the US introduced the measles vaccine at about the same time, and saw similar drops in the incidence of the disease.  Incidence began to creep up again in the 80s (if memory serves).  The US introduced a booster shot; Canada didn’t.  Result:  for the next few years, until Canada got its act together, it had a significantly higher incidence of measles than did the US.

    • Liz1 says:

      06:42am | 28/11/11

      I am a mother (several years ago) whose child suffered a seizure shortly after receiving the measles vaccination.  Last week I met another whose child was recently paralyzed down one side immediately following a vaccination. My daughter’s medical records carry a warning about potential risks. Humans can be allergic to anything, so medical procedures really should be by choice and not blanket coercion.

      We were shocked to hear a similar story, years apart, within a 500,000 population zone. Are there more we have not heard about?  This does not sound like “1 in a million” to me.

      Anyway, we were very fortunate our daughter was not permanently disabled as a result.

      With the government about to strong-arm parents into vaccinating their children (which I agree is a good thing for the majority), consideration must be given to the small minority who may experience adverse and even unreported adverse reactions.

      These children and their parents must not be flippantly removed from the equation. It is simply horrid and nasty to suggest that people don’t want the needle for their children because of a momentary sting. That is a cruel and hurtful assumption.

      If parents are to be “blackmailed” by governments into any medical procedure that subsequently goes badly wrong, the government must accept full responsibility for both short-term or long-term outcomes.

      If there is familial history of adverse reaction to vaccinations, no matter how minor, parents must be entitled to opt out, rather than place their children at risk.

      The ideal situation would be a pre-vaccination test to see if a child may be potentially allergic, before the full whammy is inflicted upon a youngster who has no say whatsoever.

      Reply

    • Fiona #2 says:

      07:00am | 28/11/11

      I completely agree (see my comment above). I think there are more children who have been adversely affected than is reported - this doesn’t mean as parents that we are against a vaccination program, it just means we want to be heard!

    • marley says:

      07:46am | 28/11/11

      I think if you look up any medical website, you will find advice as to which children should not be vaccinated because of the kinds of risks you mention.  Egg allergies, for example, is an absolute warning sign, and no one would suggest that such children should be put at risk.

      As for side effects - febrile seizures after a vaccination certainly occur more than once in 1 million - but in most cases, the situation resolves itself.  The risk of death or permanent disability is really quite low.

    • Fiona #2 says:

      12:22pm | 28/11/11

      We found out my son has an egg allergy well after his first immunisations. No-one gives a 2 month old egg, and no-one tests for egg allergies either.

    • carla says:

      05:20pm | 28/11/11

      I agree and have asked many doctors whether I can get a test done to see which vaccination my daughter reacted too=and no such luck? They said they dont do any testing for allergic reactions to these vaccines! Seems bizzare that they cant do it for vaccintaions but can test for just about everything else.

    • Lori says:

      08:24am | 28/11/11

      I was denied the measles vaccination as my parents were very anti-drugs of any kind. Mum had been prescribed thalidomide for her morning sickness, and refused to take it, so I was lucky there!
      However, I caught measles and it developed into “brain fever”, presumably meningitis, and was not expected to survive.
      I am now profoundly deaf and have only partial sight, a direct result of the measles.
      Because I lived, I am not a “measles statistic”.
      There are presumably many more adversely affected by diseases when they are not vaccinated.
      Disease statistics focus on deaths.
      Anti vaccine statistics focus on adverse reactions, including a mild rash and temperature.

      Reply

    • marley says:

      01:43pm | 28/11/11

      @Lori - measles, as you found out, can be a terrible disease.  The risk of a serious side effect is one in 10, of encephalitis is 1 in 1000, and of death, 2 in 1000.  And that’s in modern, western societies.  When I read people arguing that they’re not prepared risk a 0.00001% chance of a side effect from the vaccine, but are prepared to risk a 10% chance of their kid being sick enough to need hospitalization, I wonder where common sense went.

    • Helen says:

      09:58am | 28/11/11

      Stephen Jay Gould, the wonderful science writer, wrote an essay in which he recommended anti-vaxxers take a stroll through a cemetery in an old part of town and note the proliferation of gravestones for babies and young children. Of course that wasn’t his whole argument (he was awesome - RIP gould) but it drives the lesson home that, even apart from lack of plumbing and sewage, communicable diseases claimed many young lives. These days it’s a huge thing to lose a child; back then it was the norm to lose more than one.
      Lest we forget.

      Reply

    • Luce says:

      10:30am | 28/11/11

      It’s unfortunate that the people who really suffer due to such self indulgent and irresponsible decisions are the children, who have no say in what happens to them. Bleating on and on about freedom of choice doesn’t change the fact that children have died from such carelessness.

      Reply

    • RyaN says:

      11:14am | 28/11/11

      If there is no reason to be concerned about the safety of the vaccines then I am sure the government will issue a 100% written guarantee on their safety and its effects.
      Not only that, I expect that Roxon and her family will be standing personal guarantor on the safety of the vaccines and that if something does happen people are within their rights to sue her and the government individually for full compensation, without limits now or into the future.

      Reply

    • St. Michael says:

      11:27am | 28/11/11

      Still running this argument, are we, RyaN? I thought you’d learned your lesson from the past three columns on vaccination the Hunch has run and in which you kept getting drubbed over this.

      But hey, I’ll repeat what I said to you last time you raised that stupid argument: no vaccine is 100% safe, and they’ve never been pronounced so.  Rather, they’re 99.999999999999999% safe, but the one person who does suffer an adverse event would therefore have the right to sue the government for it.

      The odds against an adverse event are so high it’s on a par with winning first division Lotto.

      There isn’t a reason to be concerned about the safety of vaccines.  Not sufficient reason to forego them and rather see the rise of those old time favourites measles, mumps, rubella, diptheria, polio, and tetanus, to name a few.  All of them kill.  Their vaccines have never killed any single person.

      You are making an emotive argument that twists the statistics on vaccine safety and risk versus benefit.

    • Luce says:

      11:49am | 28/11/11

      Fine. Although if you choose not to vaccinate your child and they contract whooping cough, and pass it onto a baby who is not old enough to be vaccinated, and that baby subsequently dies, the mother should be well within her rights to sue you for full compensation. YOUR ACTIONS caused the death of her child. That only seems fair, given your ridiculous proposition..?

      p.s. that situation has and continues to happen because of self righteous people such as yourself. There are very few certainties in medicine, not because of the incompetence of the doctors, but because the human body is such an unpredictable thing. There is no vaccine that they can guarantee will be 100% safe for everyone. That’s not how nature works. But anyone with half a brain will weigh up the enormous benefits of everyone being vaccinated with the minor minor risk of an adverse reaction and come to the conclusion the risk is worth it. Then there are those who arrogantly and smugly take for granted that they don’t live 100 years ago when people were dying regularly from diseases most children now will never encounter in their lives, almost purely because of the advent of vaccines. You sound like a spoilt teenager. Seriously. Grow up.

    • James1 says:

      12:01pm | 28/11/11

      There is no point in arguing with RyaN.  He tells his children to never call the police because there are occasionaly accidental shootings, and apparently applies this logic to vaccination as well.

      While we are at it, though, RyaN, should you choose not to immunise your children against, say, whooping cough, can you sign a guarantee for me that if your children infect anyone, you will accept financial responsibility for their sickness?

    • rb says:

      12:46pm | 28/11/11

      People have to get over the assumption that whooping cough is only passed on by un-vacc children. The vacc only last 6 -10 yrs. This means that a large percent of the adult population is un-vacc and unaware they pose a danger to a new born. Every sneezing, coughing adult at the supermarket or the bus stop should be considered a risk. Why isn’t the government saying more about the risk of un-vacc adults and booster shots.

    • marley says:

      03:00pm | 28/11/11

      @rb - good point.  I wonder how many of those commenting on this thread are up to date themselves with their shots.  Might be a good time for some to make an appointment for a booster.

    • shane says:

      03:15pm | 28/11/11

      Don’t go outside then RyaN. You have more chance of being hit by lightning than being injured by a vaccine.
      You don’t get risk vs benefit do you?

    • RyaN says:

      04:32pm | 28/11/11

      @The Punch Moderators: Are you seriously going to let this regular troll James1 who regular makes incorrect and false assumptions on personal characters then uses that to attempt to tarnish their opinion.

      For example, if I decided to do what he regularly it would be unacceptable to write:
      “Please people don’t listen to James1 he is a neo-Nazi who hates gays and old people and regularly cooks up little girls pet bunnies.”

      It is a pathetic well discredited and tiresome tactic.

    • RyaN says:

      04:51pm | 28/11/11

      @Luce: Firstly, the assumptions you make are again incorrect. When last did you have your last booster shot for pertussis Luce?
      I know mine is up to date since people around me have recently had babies.

      Secondly, if your child has not yet been vaccinated and contracted whooping cough that would be YOUR fault as a poor mother who didn’t take the medical advice of the hospital and the doctors who advised you to stay away from people until the child was old enough to be vaccinated. So that would make you liable would it not. Perhaps the state should be allowed to sue you for medical costs as a bad mother who did not stay away from public places as advised.

      Oh and speaking of sounding like spoiled children, did you read your post?

    • St. Michael says:

      05:46pm | 28/11/11

      Wow, RyaN.  You found 2 cases of a government bureaucracy that was too gutless to put the issue of MMR-caused autism to a court and risk a stupid judge going the wrong way.  That totally destroys the decades of work on vaccinations, proof that Wakefield made up his results, and millions of successful vaccinations that didn’t cause autism.

      Get some new material, champ.

    • St. Michael says:

      05:55pm | 28/11/11

      Also, RyaN, darling, I had a look over your ‘new’ link.  You might want to reread it, because it contains this tract:

      “The panel said that the judgement was specific to the particular case and should not be seen as a precedent. It underlined in particular that the ruling had no relevance to the question of a link between MMR vaccine and autism.”

      In other words, your own link has nothing to do with MMR = autism.  The tribunal itself said it had no relevance to that stupid argument.

      Also note it was a tribunal made up of two doctors and one lawyer.  One doctor thought the epilepsy would have happened anyway (i.e. he disagreed) but was overridden by the majority.  Thus: the doctors didn’t agree, and the lawyer just plunked down a “pay out” decision.  Wow.  So convincing.

    • Mikeymike says:

      06:06pm | 28/11/11

      Name one activity that is 100% safe.

    • RyaN says:

      10:07am | 29/11/11

      @St Michael: “In other words, your own link has nothing to do with MMR = autism.”
      Did I say that MMR = autism, nope I did not.

      At the end of the day it doesn’t matter what it is, there needs to be a requirement that parents should not have to fight for years to get some help with their child that has been physically damaged by a vaccination.
      There should be full compensation and payout without the need for courts and lawyers if any child develops long term complications within 10 days of a vaccination period. If you really wanted to put the anti-vac people out of business then that is your solution, at least parents know then that you are willing to stand by your convictions on the relative safety of vaccines.

    • Jason Todd says:

      11:39pm | 29/11/11

      RyaN - The continued problem with your plan is 10 days is a pretty long time for complications to result, and in order to be enforced, you would have to prove causation. Namely, you would have to prove it was the vaccination that precipitated the condition rather than the condition occurring around the time of the vaccination.

      Otherwise you will have parents who notice symptoms of a long term condition prior to the vaccination period (eg : Early signs of autism) but will then hold off formal diagnosis until after the vaccination period when they can claim “Long term condition! Government pays!” Even though it is well documented that vaccinations do not cause autism.

    • Shenanigans says:

      11:34am | 28/11/11

      as with everything in life there is risks, getting in your car or on a bus or a train is putting your life into yours and other peoples hands, getting a vaccine is again taking a risk, working as a tradie is putting your life in your hands, even using kitchen appliances is taking a risk. everything in life has risks involved yet you all choose to take these risks, sometimes without even knowingly doing so, yet you will deny a vaccine that could potentially save your child because of a tiny risk, your logic and reasoning astounds me

      Taking risks is what makes us humans evolve and move on. if taking a vaccine carries a risk of a severe reaction so be it, but the small risk is worth it compared to the detrimental effect getting the disease or virus could cause. could the anti-vaccine group say that in the event that there is a guaranteed vaccine for AIDs or cancer, that it will cure you and or prevent you getting it, but it carries a small chance of disability or death that you will deny it and carry on silly because of all the thousands it saved, one died or received a disability.

      Reply

    • Helen says:

      12:43pm | 28/11/11

      Well said Shenanigans, also
      (1) Not all of the child illnesses attributed to vaccinations by parents are actually due to the vaccinations. As someone said upthread, correlation isn’t causation. And as for autism, that theory is dead in the water, along with the career of its conman scientific pusher.

      (2) There will be a much higher incidence of disability or death once lowering rates of vaccination mean that more children get the actual diseases. Measles, for instance, can result in permanent brain damage. Polio leaves people permanently disabled and now they are discovering post-polio syndrome. And all to avoid the chance in a million your child might have a bad reaction? isn’t death or disability from an avoidable disease a bit of a “bad reaction”?

    • Curious says:

      12:36pm | 28/11/11

      If vaccination of your child is your choice, and my child becomes sick because of your choice, do I have the choice to have you charged with attempted homicide?

      Reply

    • James Hunter says:

      02:39pm | 28/11/11

      I am amzed at how many ignorant stupid people there still are in this world that would rather put their childs health at risk then have them vacinated.
      If these idiots had lived when the sight of people in wheel chairs and bobbling round on leg braces was common sight because of Polio they may think differently
      Quite simple their children should not be allowed to go to school with out just as you can not take your dog to a boarding kennel without a vac certificate,
      Wonder if these bright sparks vacinate their pets ?
      Wonder if they would refuse a Rabies shot if bitten by a rabid dog ?
      Wonder if they stupid enough to get pregnant without a german measles shot ?
      If ever there was a reason for compusory sterilisation then this is it !

      Reply

    • Yobbi says:

      03:22pm | 28/11/11

      every dog i had vaccinated died within weeks of having shots.. I do not vaccinate my dogs anymore and last 2 without needles are still alive 8 yrs on,So no I don’t believe they work on any human or animal.

    • St. Michael says:

      04:28pm | 28/11/11

      @ Yobbi: *sigh* I take it you’re aware that human and canine physiology has about as much in common as chalk and cheese?

    • Helen says:

      08:24am | 29/11/11

      Oh for heavens sake Yobbi. If canine deaths following vaccination were as regular as that then we would certainly have heard about it by now. Poor pet care is the probable explanation, as being owned by you was the common fact here.

    • carla says:

      03:37pm | 28/11/11

      My daughter had a reaction to her vaccinations at 8weeks old- she had several seizures and no it was not febrile. It was the scariest thing in my life to go through and I will not risk giving her another dose. There are parents out there like myself that have made decisions because we have seen the outcome. Would you really give your daughter/son another shot after seeing a reaction to the vaccination? I think Not- To me its a warning sign and something far worse could happen if you vaccinate again. People have a right on there own decisions. it is a hard one for a parent either way.

      Reply

    • St. Michael says:

      04:32pm | 28/11/11

      “To me its a warning sign and something far worse could happen if you vaccinate again”

      ...and your statistical, empirical basis for that belief is…?

      I’d still give the shot, mostly because I know it’s a one-in-a-million chance and because I’d rather seizures than the horror that is polio, diptheria, tetanus, measles, mumps, or rubella later on.  You really ought to have a look at what these diseases do before you choose to roll the chambers like this.

    • RyaN says:

      05:03pm | 28/11/11

      @St. Michael: So now you are going to go off half cocked and attack the parents of people who have fallen into your statistic of “The odds against an adverse event are so high it’s on a par with winning first division Lotto”.

      On top of that you have the offense and the nerve to attack carla with offensive statements like “..and your statistical, empirical basis for that belief is…?”

      How about its her child who suffered seizures, not yours so you don’t give a shit if her child dies hence your statement “I’d still give the shot”.
      Are you a doctor St. Michael, because if you aren’t you shouldn’t be dispensing medical advice either.

    • St. Michael says:

      05:49pm | 28/11/11

      “On top of that you have the offense and the nerve to attack carla with offensive statements like “..and your statistical, empirical basis for that belief is…?”

      I don’t see carla complaining about it, RyaN.  White Knight much?

      It’s a valid criticism.  Subjective experience is singular.  Empirical and statistical evidence is much stronger.  I’ve told you before that chronological coincidence does not mean cause and effect, and you’ve yet to produce one reliable study that proves any of the antivax stuff you spout.

    • marley says:

      06:14pm | 28/11/11

      If your child has had a serious adverse reaction to a vaccination, I doubt there’s any doctor who would suggest you give her another shot.  Some people are allergic - it’s that simple.  But that doesn’t mean your other kids shouldn’t get their shots.

    • Carla says:

      06:40pm | 28/11/11

      I have better things to do then to try and get u to understand my point of view- st Michael!
      I have made my decision purely because of what has happened to my daughter.
      I think every one has the right and have there reasons to whether they vaccinate or not.
      I am fully vaccinated my self and have had the booster.
      I have educated myself and know that if I choose to vaccinate again there could be a far worse outcome.
      I have also enquired with doctors to see if we can narrow down the vaccinations/ spilt them up or do testing to see which one she had a reaction too. They say they can’t!
      We can test for reactions on just about everything but not vaccinations?

    • RyaN says:

      10:12am | 29/11/11

      @St. Michael: “Empirical and statistical evidence is much stronger. ” So provide some independent evidence that hasn’t been funded by big pharma.

      Regardless, you didn’t answer the question, are you a medical professional dispensing medical advice or not?

    • St. Michael says:

      11:28am | 29/11/11

      I don’t have to, RyaN.  Vaccines are proven safe in the overwhelming number of cases.  Nothing you say is going to change that.  And you don’t have to be a doctor to point that out, either.

    • whateva says:

      10:30am | 29/11/11

      Love how you pro vaccination sites either delete my comments or choose altogether not to post them when I start talking to you in science terms about what constitutes real science.

      Reply

    • mark says:

      11:47am | 29/11/11

      I can tell you right now, vaccines arent completely ‘dead’, otherwise the body just processes them. They have active DNA in them, which usually mutate. Sometimes the mutations dont affect you, sometimes, they screw with u in minor ways. I got autism soon after I had my injections, which took me years to counter. My wifes dad was pumped full of vaccines and hes sick with other things now, and the vaccines past through his genes and now affects his kids in several ways, not my wife tho. My brother in law’s kids had vaccines, 1 of them almost died in hospital from it. A friend of mine almost died from vaccines too. another friend was sick for an entire term of school a few years ago. Those vaccines are not dead, and do affect kids, minorly or majorly, and can be passed on hereditarily. Its absolute BS that vaccines are harmless, and the middle class are smarter then the lower class, and dont soak in everything the doctor tells them!

      Reply

    • LC says:

      01:25am | 01/12/11

      ...and instead they’ll listen to the likes of a softcore porn star for medical advice rather than someone who’s spent the best part of a decade researching the area to get licensed to do their job.

      Not sure how that constitutes “smart”, but OK.

    • Erin says:

      01:20pm | 30/11/11

      I know, isn’t it terrible? I mean, heaven forbid parents opt for good nutrition, knowledge of how the diseases work and progress and what nutrients and other factors are needed to stop their severity, and avoid injecting their children with vials of poison in the name of ‘prevention’... shame on them! Why can’t they just take the jab and eat crappy food and then blame everybody else when their malnourished children become deathly ill like the rest of us do? How dare they think they can choose what goes into their children’s bodies and educate themselves! Sheesh!

      Reply

    • amba says:

      03:16pm | 30/11/11

      yikes, well my daughter was immunised according to the schedule, practically to the day that each shot was due. There was only 1 shot that i considered not doing (being chicken pox as i dont see it as a usually fatal disease and having had it as a child remember only that it was uncomfortable) After speaking to friends that have vaccinated and a few that hadnt as well as my daughters doctor, the nurse that administers the shots and a chemist I decided to give her the shot. Oh and there was the extra one that she just got as the vaccine had been updated for extra strains of the illness. She got that within a week of it becoming available.
      She is 2 and a half now. Happy and healthy as well.

      On another note, does anyone else remember chicken pox parties? i remember when i was a kid as soon as another kid in the neighbourhood got a few spots, most of the parents in the street would send their kids around to expose them.

      Reply

    • BaSH PR0MPT says:

      10:32am | 02/12/11

      You should have noted that Dick Smith bought a full page ad in the Australian to out anti-vaxxers, especially the Australian association run by a conspiracy theorist crazy American woman who pushes her agenda everywhere she can. All anti-vaxxers are either unintelligent and don’t understand logic and reasoning, or have a mental illness. It’s usually hand in hand with ‘big pharma’ conspiracies, freemasons, ufo’s, and other nonsense. The more you dig, the less scientific their arguments get; not that they’re scientific to begin with.

      It is IMPERATIVE the media fights anti-vaxxers and not be a soap box for them to preach their life threatening nonsense. People should check out whatstheharm.net, especially people who lack solid understanding of medical things, or believe in ‘alternative medicine’ or any other ‘healing’ or ‘powers’.

      Education is the only solution before loss of lives grows more and more as herd immunity decreases. To be honest, as a civil libertarian, I feel that vaccination SHOULD be compulsory, either that or transmission of illness that could be vaccinated against should be a criminal offence, where the parents are charged with GBH or manslaughter if their inaction causes their child injury or death, which is a VERY real threat on their childrens lives.

      It’s fine to have zany beliefs, but it’s not fine to gamble your childs life and future based on your lack of schooling or understanding of the issue.

      Reply

    • Lynx says:

      02:18am | 03/04/12

      CDC estimates that 1 in 88 children in the US has been identified as having Autism Spectrum Disorder.  Mmmmm Hmmmmmm.

      Reply
 
Comment

Facebook Recommendations

Read all about it

Punch live

Up to the minute Twitter chatter

Anthony Sharwood

antsharwood 26 May 12 09:27PM

Dementor doing a good job for sweden #sbseurovision

Anthony Sharwood

antsharwood 26 May 12 09:11PM

Ukraine song pinches chord progression from The Verve's Bittersweet Symphony. Fo real #sbseurovision

Anthony Sharwood

antsharwood 26 May 12 09:00PM

RT @GerardDaffy: @antsharwood all the talk over there is the grannies will win.they entered to get a church built,feelgood story

Anthony Sharwood

antsharwood 26 May 12 08:57PM

These peole insult my grandmothjer, who was born in minsk, belarus #sbseurovision

See all tweets

Recent posts

The latest and greatest

We don’t deserve this huge, exciting scientific project

by Claire Connelly

41

We don’t deserve this huge, exciting scientific project

I’d like to be able to say that sharing the world’s largest radio telescope with South Africa…

Mining money talks the loudest in Australian politics

by Laurie Oakes

60

Mining money talks the loudest in Australian politics

When North Queensland Liberal MP George Christensen got the idea of launching a new political organisation…

Please enter your password

by Lucy Kippist

39

Please enter your password

Help! I’ve succumbed to a crippling modern illness that can strike at any moment. Symptoms include:…

Nosebleed Section

choice ringside rantings

From: They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

Michael S says:

"A teacher at Geelong Grammar had criticised her for using words that were too long, which had left her confused and had made her doubt her ability to write essays. She became ''quite distressed'' when her English marks began to fall." I can sympathise. My scholastic mentors conveyed to me a causal relationship… [read more]

From: Welfare for breeders is a bonus for everyone

Change Up! says:

I have no problem paying my taxes. As a single, childless person on a very decent income, I can afford it and not have my life severely altered. Plus I understand that my taxes paying for things like schools, childcare and infrastructure is ultimately a good thing. A better community is better for me… [read more]

Light weight

Gentle jabs to the ribs

They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

A private school girl’s family is sueing her elite, extremely expensive private school for not… Read more

243 comments

Newsletter

Read all about it

Sign up to the free daily Punch newsletter

Subscribe to The Punch RSS feed