The British Medical Journal has devoted an editorial to stating that an article published in popular medical journal The Lancet in 1998 linking childhood vaccination with autism “was in fact an elaborate fraud.”

Who needs medical science when you have Jenny McCarthy? Picture: AP

The Lancet had already retracted the article by Andrew Wakefield early last year, but BMJ now sought to totally discredit the “study”, which led to a decline in the triple vaccination of measles, mumps and rubella in Britain as well as in the United States and Australia.

Sadly, despite the strength of the BMJ articles - brought on by the work of Sunday Times investigative journalist Brian Deer - there will still be people who will not only ignore it but view it as further evidence of the conspiracy.

You can read more about Wakefield’s fraud here. It also goes without saying that The Lancet has a responsibility for the Wakefield paper (he’s no longer a doctor by the way, barred from medical practice on the basis of financial conflict and unethical treatment of children) because it made the serious mistake of publishing this quackery in the first place.

The decline in childhood vaccination as a result of Wakefield’s article is as much the fraudster’s fault as The Lancet’s because it cloaked him in scientific integrity.

Once a mistake is made, however, all you can do is correct it - and the bigger the mistake the more pronounced the correction should be. This is has been BMJ’s aim in publishing its editorial, along with another article by journalist Brian Deer, which found Wakefield’s article “was a fraud, moreover, of more than academic vanity. It unleashed fear, parental guilt, costly government intervention and outbreaks of infectious disease.”.

But the anti-vaccination movement is unlikely to be diminished by Deer’s findings or BMJ’s. Once you’ve fertilised a conspiracy theory it is not easy to snuff it out, especially in an age where people pick and choose sources that merely confirm their biases from a buffet of dodgy information.

To be fair to the anti-vaccination bunch in the United States, they appear to have chosen a figure head that embodies their idiocy pretty accurately. Scientologists, PETA and other wacky semi-religious groups have mildly recognisable celebrities - the anti-vaccination crew have Jenny McCarthy.

The former Playmate of the year, WWF wrestler valet and “actress” (do you remember the Jenny show?) is the face of those linking autism and vaccination in America with her Generation Rescue foundation. Apparently the fact her son has autism qualifies her to espouse unfounded and totally discredited theories on its cause (to her further eternal shame she’s dragged her ex-boyfriend and actually talented comedian Jim Carrey into this cause).

Lacking a figurehead of McCarthy’s stature for the cause in Australia we simply have to make do with the idiocy. Espousing theories that my colleague Joe Hildebrand accurately described as “almost homicidally idiotic”, the anti-vaccination lobby are based on the NSW north coast where up to 30 per cent of children are not vaccinated, and not surprisingly has led to the area having the highest rate of vaccine preventable disease.

The Australian Vaccination Network, which states that it is a parental group “advocating parental choice in whether children should be vaccinated”, takes shelter in the same language as most nutter organisations the world over: that they are martyrs to the cause of liberty. Posing clichéd rhetorical questions about freedom and posting poorly written responses to criticism seems to take up most of their time.

The fact that not vaccinating can result in the deaths of other children and the proliferation of diseases like measles and whooping cough, is apparently dwarfed by the freedom of what you might call ‘medical expression’ (on their website the AVN have been forced by the Health Care Complaints Commission to post a warning that their information should not be taken as medical advice, so what the hell is it?).

Still, banning a group like the AVN would only play into paranoid theories about governmental interest in the vaccination process (well, governments probably do have a crazy interest in kids not dying), but the broader point is that the crazy horse has already bolted with this one.

BMJ’s attempt to rectify what they know to be a catastrophic editorial decision by The Lancet are very worthy, but unfortunately almost naïve in their aims to wholly discredit Wakefield’s work. In a world where people go to the internet and ask Jenny McCarthy for advice on their children’s health, medical evidence is no vaccination to the proliferation of stupidity.

303 comments

Show oldest | newest first

    • Eric says:

      05:08am | 07/01/11

      This is far from the first time The Lancet has published outright quackery. For example, in 2004 and again in 2006, it published “studies” which wildly exaggerated civilian deaths in Iraq, in order to influence US elections.

      Once a publication goes down the path of advocacy rather than reporting, its integrity is lost immediately, and public trust eventually goes away.

    • Gonzo says:

      07:01am | 07/01/11

      “Once a publication goes down the path of advocacy rather than reporting, its integrity is lost immediately, and public trust eventually goes away.”

      Are you talking about The Lancet or about The Punch?

    • Elphaba says:

      08:15am | 07/01/11

      The Punch is opinon, not reporting/news.

    • Zeta says:

      09:47am | 07/01/11

      The 2004 Lancet study you’re referring to was later vindicated by the Iraq War Logs released by Wikileaks - the Lancet actually under estimated civilian deaths in Iraq compared to the figure confirmed by NATO command.

    • Eskimo says:

      10:58am | 07/01/11

      Lancet estimated Iraqi deaths at 655,000, whereas Wikileaks puts total deaths including coalition forces at 110,000.

    • James1 says:

      11:41am | 07/01/11

      My question wasn’t so much with the figures, but the methodology.  An epidemiological study was really not appropriate to determining casualty figures.

    • Eric says:

      03:50pm | 07/01/11

      Well, James1, your question was obviously quite valid - seeing as these allegedly epidemiology-based figures were completely wrong.

      Though I don’t put that down to methodology. Rather, it was ideology that drove the “studies”, with pre-conceived results which were calculated for political purposes.

      It’s things like this that make me lose faith in academia.

    • James1 says:

      08:38am | 08/01/11

      That was pretty much my point Eric - unless you have a sound methodology, that matches your research questions, you will never get valid results.  In this case, they didn’t use that approach - they decided what they needed the results to be, and then found a methodology to suit that result.  Hardly academic at all.  Indeed, things such as this are one of the reason I left academia.

    • UberCynic says:

      09:57am | 08/01/11

      The Lancet studies regarding Iraq war deaths were generally considered to be conservative estimates.

    • Badger says:

      04:24pm | 11/01/11

      I don’t know who the hell you are   “Eric”

      But how come you are nearly always First Cab Off The Rank ???

      Pray let us all in on the PLOY .

    • Shane From Melbourne says:

      05:17am | 07/01/11

      Hell, who listens to science anymore? Recycled water, Nuclear Power Plants, GM crops, hormone enhanced meat, even when science gives evidence that such subjects are safe and fit for human consumption, no body listens. We live in a new Dark Age where ignorance is bliss and fear is king…

    • Tedd says:

      07:06am | 07/01/11

      We live in a blinkered Dark Age in terms of over-reaction to events or study findings that are relatively small or taken out of context of their significance as was done with the initial over-emphasis on the “findings”(pah) of Wakefield’s study.  That the reviewers did not have issues with it, and that the editor of the Lancet did not, is unfortunate.

      All water is recycled - that’s why it is called the water cycle.  A lot is recycled via kidneys.

      Modern nuclear power plants are likely to be very safe, and less polluting.

      Over-emphasis, especially via media, is to be discouraged.  Just look at the recent reporting of the first cases of R. felis in australia - http://www.theage.com.au/national/deadly-catflea-disease-hits-australia-20110105-19g8p.html?from=brisbanetimes_ft - deadly with a 2% fatality rate?

    • Reg says:

      09:40am | 07/01/11

      Perhaps I’m missing the point, are you suggesting that 2% is a reasonably acceptable figure? I think NOT.  Perhaps you meant 0.002%?

    • braunman says:

      09:55am | 07/01/11

      I think part of the problem is that many people are not “in the loop” so to speak. Many of the genuine science journals require corporate memberships, putting them out of reach of many individuals. Even those that do have access, unless you’re a specialist in the field they’re neigh on impossible to understand. Hence most people don’t read the original papers, rather hear about them from third/fourth hand sources like news outlets and word of mouth.

      A perfect example is climate change research. Regardless of what you think about the validity of global warming, how many people can honestly say they’ve read the studies, or for those that have, actually understand them? Certainly not the politicians who produce climate change policy, which is the really scary thing.

    • Tedd says:

      11:08am | 07/01/11

      reg, it depends on a diseases incidence of new cases - 2% of 500,000 is a high number of deaths, but 2% of 2 cases ...

      braunman, yes many cannot understand the studies because of their technical aspects, but members of the public nor journalists shouldn’t be making assessments of individual papers - most only add fractions to new knowledge or just steer research in a slightly different direction.

      Many fields are evolving, particularly climate science, and the research is difficult with climate change as long-term patterns cannot be established over a decade or so, especially when there is concern the climate is changing in that time.

    • Grow up says:

      05:25am | 07/01/11

      Any parent who doesn’t get their child vaccinated against the wide range of diseases that are both very dangerous, and entirely preventable through vaccination, is guilty of both negligence and child abuse.

    • Toddzilla says:

      07:56am | 07/01/11

      I would go further and say that if any child who dies as a result of someone not being vaccinated (whether it be the child themselves or someone else who contracts it from them), then the parents should be charged with murder and a lower causal responsibility be allowed in a legal sense.

    • Elphaba says:

      08:04am | 07/01/11

      I think you’d have trouble proving murder.  Not that I disagree, but it would be hard.  Negligence, on the other hand, would be easy.

    • Reg says:

      08:57am | 07/01/11

      Unfortunately the long term efficiency of certain vaccinations alter.

      Hooping cough vaccination, once considered to be for life, is now conservatively rated as for 20 years. At my late age I’ve had it twice within 5 years and five years ago, most GPs would have done as mine did and dismiss it as a “bit of a throat infection.” An apology a week later was nearly too late.

      In my whole life I have never seen so many children with hooping cough until recently, strolling around in shopping centres with parents sublimely unaware that they are spreading one of the worst diseases imaginable. A reportable disease.  The severity of this infection can plant later life heart problems, just as survivors of polio are now suffering late life difficulties.

      The recent widespread outbreak of hooping cough can undoubtedly be laid at the feet of the anti-vaccination crowd.

    • AJL says:

      10:09am | 07/01/11

      Punish them through their wallets.  Withdraw Medicare benefits from these nutters, and see how soon they get their kids vaccinated.

    • Ben says:

      11:17pm | 07/01/11

      Now, for Ex-Dr Wakefield, on the other hand, you can make a decent argument on Murder-for-hire. He was paid by a tort lawyer to prove the MMR vaccine was dangerous. He fraudulently did so knowing that it would cause many children to skip vaccinations and some of them to die. It’s no different than Coke putting arsenic in Pepsi bottles. Both are homicide.

      As he did it in exchange for money, that’s 1st degree murder for hire.

      As his victims were children, that’s an executionable offence on the side of the pond where we still have such things.

      Just a thought.

    • johnie says:

      10:10pm | 10/01/11

      It’s not your child whether to inject them with Mercury and live virus

    • LC says:

      12:53pm | 30/03/11

      Johnie,

      They don’t inject your kids with the full virus, or they’d get really sick. They inject them with weakened or dead versions of it.

      They don’t use mercury anymore in vaccines. Even when they did, it was in very small amounts. You’d get 20 times more mercury from a tuna sandwich than all the vaccines you’ll need in your life.

      And before you say “allergies”, what do you think would happen if your child caught the full strength version of the virus?

      Research before you open your mouth.

    • Sherlock says:

      05:50am | 07/01/11

      The anti-vaccination push was never based on science so this latest development will make absolutely no difference to them.

      They are just a fringe group of complete kooks convinced of some great conspiracy between corporations and governments to protect the profits of drug companies. You only have to,listen to one of these people for two minutes to realise how ridiculous they are. It actually becomes rather funny when you realise that they believe they are putting forward a serious argument instead of a stream of outlandishly stupid statements.

    • Andrew says:

      10:05am | 07/01/11

      I am all in favour of vaccination, in general, but in debating this issue, you have to take into account the emotions of a parent or close relative who has seen someone die due to vaccination. Such emotions cannot just be shouted down or ignored, they have to be dealt with, with tenderness and understanding. This is a major motivational factor behind the anti-vaccination movement. A parent may even understand the simple statistics behind the need for vaccination, but still be unable to overcome their grief at the loss of a loved one.

    • Keith Hammersmith says:

      10:55am | 07/01/11

      andrew, people dying due to a vaccination is not the issue, its people that have no idea whatsoever deciding that their child that has been diagnosed with autism saying that is was the vaccine that caused it.  with no science to back it up. 
      You can find countless arguments from parents of autistic kids that just say “i think it was the vaccine”    thats their opinion and they are sticking with it.

      ask them why they think it was the vaccine,  they NEVER have a compelling reason - because there is no compelling reason,  and the only reason they can afford to maybe not vaccinate there kids is because the rest of the country is doing it and reducing the amount of disease that could be contracted.

    • Elphaba says:

      10:56am | 07/01/11

      @Andrew, it’s the way the information is presented though. 

      For the minute number of people who have lost a child to a vaccination, or the people who know someone directly, yes, I agree all the shouting and the science and the fact will not help.  But the vast majority of the anti-vaxer movement is people who are paranoid that the pharmecuetical companies are only peddling the drugs to make money.  They refuse to read the stats that say that the children that die are literally 1 in a million - something that you simply can’t predict.

      I feel for those parents, I do - but allowing groups like this to influence people is downright dangerous, with far-reaching consequences for all people.  It should be stopped.

    • Elphaba says:

      06:33am | 07/01/11

      It’d almost be laughable if it wasn’t promoting gambling with your child’s life.  Anti-vaxers bleat about the mercury in vaccinations, when you’re robably going to ingest more mercury from a couple of pieces of salmon per week.  It’s absolutely outrageous.

      In fact, I thought that most vaccines didn’t even use mercury components as a preservative anymore?  If a doc blogs on here, please let me know if that’s true or not.

      What galls me the most though, is anti-vaccinators who whine that it’s their child, and their decision.  Unfortunately, that’s not true.  The decision to not vaccinate puts other people’s children at risk, because you dilute the immunity, making the possibility of an outbreak that much higher.

      Please, tell me, how can you sleep at night, knowing you’re putting other children in the community at risk?

    • Bill Door says:

      07:16am | 07/01/11

      “In fact, I thought that most vaccines didn’t even use mercury components as a preservative anymore?”

      Mercury hasn’t been used for a decade or more in children vaccines. But hey, that just one of those little facts that the Jenny McCarthy’s of the world like to ignore.

    • marley says:

      07:21am | 07/01/11

      I’m no doctor, but I do happen to have an interest in this issue.  Mercury is only used as a preservative in a very few vaccines these days, and not at all in the vast majority of children’s vaccines.  And it wasn’t ever used in the MMR, which is a live vaccine.

    • Elphaba says:

      07:59am | 07/01/11

      Thanks guys, that’s what I thought, I just wanted to clarify it.  Jenny McCarthy is not just spreading opinion, she’s spreading downright lies too.

    • Dee says:

      09:43pm | 07/01/11

      I’m a pharmacist…and you’re right mercury based preservatives, generally thimerosal, are rarely used in Australian vaccines. Not out of media hysteria either. It’s because we tend to use single dose vaccines and there’s no need for it.

    • JS says:

      11:02am | 08/01/11

      I’m noticing a shift in the argument the anti-vax groups are putting forward. It’s subtle but I’m not seeing mercury used as much in their arguments anymore (while they won’t admit it I believe they’ve finally accepted that this isn’t the case in Australia i.e. mercury in vaccines for kids). What I’m seeing now is the use of the term ‘poison’ as a general term to explain the content in vaccines. You just have to go to the information/opinion pieces the AVN has been distributing lately. The old faithful ‘Big Pharma’ conspiracy theories are still there though. How can you have an honest, logical discussion with someone or a group that uses fear tactics and emotive language such as this to scare people into following them. I just find it sad and the fact is many of these poor parents won’t read both sides of the story. It seems that many have made their minds up already. They’re suspicious of big companies and with a group that’s feeding into this fear, there’s not much that can be done. All I can say to anyone looking into this debate is don’t just take people at their word. Keep in mind that everyone has some form of agenda. 
      I have a son with autism. I can say for certain that the vaccines he received DID NOT cause his autism, he showed signs from birth. They were subtle, were easily overlooked at the time, but with the benefits of photographs, and looking at things that happened, I know that it was present. As it is, if I didn’t know, I would still vaccinate every time. 

      Ohh, and by the way, autism isn’t a tragedy. These groups are using this condition to scare the living daylights out of people. What kind of a message is that sending to the community about people with autism. Talk about making our kids into looking like something to be scared of.

    • amba says:

      01:30pm | 08/01/11

      does anybody remember using mecurochrome? i remember when i was a kid anything i did, cuts, scratches, scrapes my folks would put that on.
      A couple of years back i remembered it and thought i hadnt heard of it in years.. a quick net search told me it was now banned for containing mercury. Surely regular usage of something like that on kids would have more harm than a vaccine…
      my almost 20month old daughter has had all of her shots, pretty much to the day that she was due for them. She has only been sick once in her life (thanks riverfire lol)
      I didnt want to put her at risk of a disease i could have prevented.

    • Bill Door says:

      07:24am | 07/01/11

      All parents who don’t vaccinate their kids should take their unvaccinated kids and go live in rural India for 12 months.

    • Reg says:

      09:05am | 07/01/11

      Too right!  I have a friend who used to be very large until she went and lived in India for a year. It wasn’t the reduced diet that turned her into a skinny little tart.

    • Michael N says:

      10:51am | 07/01/11

      Classic Reg! Is she still your friend (here’s hoping she isn’t an avid Punch reader)?

    • Reg says:

      11:55am | 07/01/11

      Oh yes, and tart in the nicest possible meaning of the word Michael. When asked why, her exact words were ... “well you try living in India for a year.”

    • HappyCynic says:

      07:29am | 07/01/11

      The first thing I thought when I first heard about the possible link (I have very mild autism) was well better to be autistic than to get polio which cripples people or tetanus or measles, mumps or rubella.  These diseases are horrifying.  A little trouble relating to other people is a small price to pay to prevent these diseases.

      Now that the link between vaccines and autism is proven to be fraud it’s even more important that these idiot “parents” (they’re not worthy of the title let alone the kids they’re responsible for) be shown the consequences of the diseases vaccines protect against.  Just a shame we can’t release a strain of measles that just targets these dumb people.  That’d change their tune pretty quickly.

    • BlackBall says:

      08:45am | 07/01/11

      Lordy HappyCynic - clearly you’ve never seen a child with severe autism.  It’s one of the most debilitating, heartbreaking disorders a child can have.

      ” little trouble relating to people” - doesn’t even begin to scratch the surface of severe autism.

      Not that I agree with the anti-vaccineers.

    • James1 says:

      09:09am | 07/01/11

      The discredited study did not claim the vaccine caused severe autism, from memory, it only claim there was a “link” with mild autism.  And no matter how you cut that cake, mild autism is better than a disease that kills up to 15% of people who contract it.  People with mild autism are still alive, people who die from measles are not.

    • HappyCynic says:

      09:19am | 07/01/11

      Severe autism is terrible, I don’t disagree.  But even that isn’t as bad as the aftereffects of polio or complications that can occur from measles.

      But I was only talking about my personal experience.

    • Aaron says:

      09:43am | 07/01/11

      James1… Seriously you might want to look at what Autism Spectrum Disorders involve. Sure it great the kid is alive but if that kid ends up living his/her life unable to form a relationship with anyone, unable to cope at school because nobody knows that child’s particular way of learning, unable to communicate their “emotions” in any fashion and the many other symptoms of an Autism Spectrum Disorder, do you really think their thought is “Well my life has no meaning but hey at least I’m alive”?

    • marley says:

      09:48am | 07/01/11

      @James1 - while I agree with the points you’re making, I have to say that the mortality rate from measles is nowhere near 15%.  In advanced societies, the complication rate is 10%,  but the mortality rate is about 0.1% (1 in 1000).  In the developing world the figures are higher, but not to the level you’re suggesting.  Mind you, a 10% chance of serious complications (including pneumonia and encephalitis) would, you think, give anti-vaccine people food for thought.

    • St. Michael says:

      11:32am | 07/01/11

      It’s also notable in this debate that autism can be treated with therapy and the right kinds of behaviour therapy and attention.  Over in Perth, WA there’s a (underfunded) body called L.E.A.R.N. that specialises in precisely this, and their results are, to say the least, astounding.

      Not cured, mind you, and the kid with autism won’t ever be exactly the same as the children around him, but I don’t think you can treat the dead.

    • James1 says:

      11:44am | 07/01/11

      You’re right marley - I was actually thinking of acute measles encephalitis.  Please apply this to all my subsequent posts.

    • Aunty of Autism says:

      05:50pm | 07/01/11

      St Michael - sorry, but as an Aunt of a beautiful child with severe Autism, who has accessed therapies since he was about 2 years old, I can tell you that NOTHING (so far) can treat this horrifying disability.  SOME children with a mild symptoms do respond quite well to therapies, but for those kids on the other end of the spectrum its a different kettle of fish.

    • nicky says:

      10:12pm | 07/01/11

      I had measles and mumps as a child in the 70’s and in those days they were considered normal childhood diseases, indeed catching them and suffering some discomfort for a short time was to have the effect of strengthening our immune systems.

    • Troz says:

      01:57am | 08/01/11

      My little boy has autism and attends an autism specific early intervention centre with over 30 other children with ASD.  Interestingly, in my discussions with other parents there, NONE have ever attributed or linked their child’s autism to vaccination and strongly reject the link, and most are able to point to early signs of autism before the MMR was given to their child… as can I.

    • marley says:

      10:29am | 08/01/11

      @Nicky - well, I had all the childhood diseases (except polio) too - and ended up in hospital for two weeks with pneumonia as a complication of measles. It damn near killed me, knocked my immune system for a loop for years, so I got every disease known to man - frankly, I’d much rather have had a vaccination and a couple of booster shots to produce the same immunity I got from having the measles.

    • rufus says:

      07:53am | 07/01/11

      Anti-vaccinators are in the same cranks’ camp as climate change denialists. Both ignore the overwhelming body of evidence that doesn’t support their hunch about a ‘conspiracy’, and seize on rogue or minority science that does.

    • James1 says:

      08:49am | 07/01/11

      There is no valid comparison here.  The anti-vaccination types have no science to support their claims.  AGW sceptics can in fact draw on the work of reputable scientists and academics.

    • jf says:

      09:11am | 07/01/11

      I’m not so sure James1. It seems that the overwhelming scientific opinion is that climate change is real.

      So, I tend to agree with rufus that anyone that denies that climate change is happening is a crank and therefore in the same camp as the anti-vaccinators.

      I am also sure that rufus, as someone who accepts that ‘evidence’ based decision making is important, agrees that it is an enormously complicated issue with conflicting scientific opinion and is therefore of the view that there is no valid, empircal evidence that mankind is responsible for climate change.

    • TheRealDave says:

      09:56am | 07/01/11

      So your wanting to draw a parallel between outlandish claims, faked/doctored evidence, number fudging, secret agreements and emails, funding dependant research grants etc

      Sorry, which side of the Global Warming, sorry I mean Man Made Climate Change…nope, sorry again, now its just ‘Climate Change’ debate did you sit on?

    • St. Michael says:

      11:03am | 07/01/11

      The Punch really ought to allow images.  I had a nice screenshot from Red Dead Redemption all set to put here indicating that a Thread Hijack was now in progress.

      But, proving that I’m all about doing as I say and not as I do, and at risk of causing a thread explosion and eventually the arrival of Godwin’s Law and/or Redeker’s Rule ... it’s not really the point that a large number of “scientists” believe climate change is real.  Science is not a democratic exercise.  Real science, as opposed to junk science, depends on one thing: a hypothesis capable of being tested under laboratory conditions and the results of which can be reliably replicated.  “A large number of scientists” believing something is also a rather silly grasp at legitimatcy, too, since many of them aren’t qualified in the notional area that climate change is meant to occupy.  It doesn’t really matter that your airconditioner repairman believes your PC is running too slow because it has a virus; he might have some very limited knowledge which crosses both fields, but he doesn’t have any substantive knowledge in the field that would allow him to make an informed guess anyway.

      Also, there’s been plenty of examples of where the “overwhelming scientific opinion” was proven to be utterly wrong.  To be juvenile about it, the overwhelming scientific opinion used to be that the Earth was flat (and they still have some idiots out there who believe that, too).

      To be more disturbing about it, a very substantial proportion of the scientific community believed eugenics was a valid science, too—including a number of luminaries who are now seen as the ‘fathers’ of their fields.  Interestingly, their beliefs in eugenics were quietly excised from their biographies, mostly because this little thing called World War 2 happened and the fact those beliefs were used by one country to justify its ethnic cleansing policies.

    • Great big Lab says:

      12:58pm | 07/01/11

      Mikey
      “a hypothesis capable of being tested under laboratory conditions”
      climate change?
      Let’s go find a planet exactly like ours, bring it back and put it in a laboratory. Then we can play with it, you know add some CO2 and once and for all see if climate change is real.
      Great idea. - Where do we put the laboratory though?

    • St. Michael says:

      01:09pm | 07/01/11

      @ Great big lab: I appreciate what you’re getting at, but it also illustrates perfectly why we have to be really, really careful before we jump into climate change as orthodox science.  For the most part, it isn’t, and whether climate change is manmade, out of control, or simply part of the overall cycle of the planet over billions of years changes depending on how far you go back on the historical record.

      Possibly a better way of putting my point is that you have to find some method to eliminate all the other possible contributing factors before you can make a case that a particular thing is in a relationship of cause and effect.  That’s precisely why climate change isn’t capable of proper scientific scrutiny.

    • nicky says:

      10:10pm | 07/01/11

      It is complete rubbish to group anti-vax with climate change denialists - I would say for both myself and many many others I know that the opposite is true.

      Wakefield was just the tip of the iceberg - for those who choose to look into t there are absolutely loads of studies condemning the safety (or rather not) of vaccines

      Just one article I was reading this evening and thought worth mentioning to add to this discussion:
      http://www.whale.to/v/rapp.html

    • St. Michael says:

      01:42am | 08/01/11

      @ Nicky: oh dear.  As a source you come up with a blank interview between John Rappoport and his mysterious omniscient source, a psuedonymous “John Randall” who, despite being retired and having his pension, still feels his career might be affected if he reveals the truth about vaccinations?

      Given the way the interview is written, I seriously doubt that interview ever took place or that any such individual exists.  It doesn’t sound to me like two distinct people speaking.  Number one, the source doesn’t talk like a scientist would.  He talks like a journalist.  Number two, Rappoport’s source occasionally responds to questions in BIG CAPITAL LETTERS like this.  Rappoport’s other articles OFTEN CONTAIN THE SAME EMPHASES IN BIG CAPITAL LETTERS like this, though in those cases Rappoport’s the one who’s writing it.

      References, any notes to indicate an identity, anything verifiable at all? Zip.  The interviewer is John Rappoport, whom Wikipedia, uninformed tool of the Illuminate such as it is, faithfully reports (check the links) that Rappoport’s other interests as a “journalist” also include the sale of audio CDs on magic, past-life regression, and the development of paranormal abilities.  He advocates alternative medicine.  He also is said to be an authority on conspiracies and global cartels.

      His other published books are on the “Suppressed Truth” of the Oklahoma City Bombings and variously other conspiracy theories, together with my personal favourite, “The ERA of MAGIC RETURNS!”

      Although I note your strident suggestion that climate change deniers can’t be lumped in with anti-vax folks.  Unfortunately for your argument, Rappoport is exactly that - a climate change denier: http://www.facebook.com/topic.php?uid=108820229160887&topic=59

      He also seems to think cold fusion was a hit and Eugene Mallove was knocked off for political reasons: http://www.greatdreams.com/mallove.htm (Rappoport’s article is a bit down the page.)

      Sorry, Nicky, but yer boy’s a crank who invents supersources.

    • margaret says:

      09:46am | 08/01/11

      You have shattered me to the core , Rufus .....I AM a climate change denier , preferring to leave the management of the planet to God : I am most definetely a PRO immunisation advocate and feel that , in the interests of public health and the well-being of ALL children , the practise should be mandatory .......ANYONE who feels otherwise should be taken to visit all the pioneer cemeteries within our homeland and learn how , in many instances , ENTIRE FAMILIES were wiped out IN A DAY , by these ” so called ” minor illnesses .....

      The dedication of the medical profession and the diligence of caring parents over the decades have enabled these diseases to be brought under control BUT , the laxity prevelant in sections of society today have enabled a resurgence to occur ..

      SO , Rufus , it appears that I have a foot in both camps .....and also a certificate to assure one and all that I am far from being a crank ....mind you , there ARE days , whilst reading the newspapers , that I become very CRANKY .....does that count ?????
      ..

    • Brian says:

      06:36pm | 08/01/11

      The main difference between the antivaccination and antiAGW crowds is that one is based off a single, now proven fraudulent study. The other is based off a minority of scientific opinion, but still one which has many followers and can provide legitimate figures and testing methods to back it’s numbers.

      So can the global warming supporters, and clearly one is wrong, but both sides can make valid arguments.

    • marley says:

      08:09am | 07/01/11

      I think one of the problems is that people under the age of 40 have no understanding of how serious some of these childhood diseases can be.  I’ve had younger people argue that we needn’t bother with the measles vaccine, for example, since it’s just a mild disease that needs nothing more than chicken soup and a few days in bed.  Well, that’s simply not true of course, but the sheer success of mass vaccinations over the last forty or fifty years has meant that current generations have no idea of what these diseases are really like, of how infectious they are, of how sick your child can become, and of how common the chances of complications are.

    • Rev says:

      08:44am | 07/01/11

      Your analysis is about as scientific as that of Wakefield, who funnily enough does not fall into your neat <40 category.  Nor does Jim Carrey…though he can be forgiven for being under the spell of the under 40 spawn known as Jenny McCarthy.

      But hey, it is pretty easy to blame the ‘young’ for the ills of the world, because we all know you did it better wink

    • Reg says:

      09:19am | 07/01/11

      I think you do Marley a disservice Rev.

      He-she-or it, is pointing out the mis-placed innocence of the young who have never encountered a community rampant with disease. Polio, pre-Salk, was the terror of the community and if it returned now you’d seen queues all night long seeking help.  Unfortunately this same diminished sensitivity applies to the horrors of war. Now they think it’s a game or a movie.

      But you’re right about one thing, yes, Salk and others did do it better considering the relative lack of facilities compared with those today. Not that I consider under 40 as young, they should actually know better by that age. How old did you say you were?

    • marley says:

      09:42am | 07/01/11

      @Rev - I wasn’t trying to lay blame on the younger generations - I was simply musing that, because they hadn’t seen or experienced these diseases first hand, they don’t appreciate just how nasty they can be, or how serious the issue of vaccination is for those of us who most definitely do remember what getting measles was like.

    • Rev says:

      10:21am | 07/01/11

      Reg - I spent over 5 years of my 20s in Africa volunteering, and I’m well aware of the effects of many diseases that are unfortunately still prevalent in the 3rd world.  Is my age still relevant?  You’ve completely missed the point of my first comment.

      marley made a blanket statement that lumped everyone born post 1970 as ignorant on the topic of childhood disease, which is utter crap.  It would be about as reasonable as me stating everyone over 40 doesn’t know how to use a computer etc.

      I don’t personally know a single person under 40 who doesn’t consider measles serious.  Does this mean there are people who do?  Of course, because to find total agreement on an issue is a pretty hard thing to do. 

      But hey, stereotyping people is good clean fun, right!?

    • Reg says:

      12:32pm | 07/01/11

      On the contrary, those who have never lived in a community where deadly disease stalks the street day and night, ARE fairly ignorant of the terror it represents. In this country that probably means pre-Salk and 1970 is not a bad threshold to pick. To my knowledge there are still people to this day living in iron-lungs as a result of Polio.  Immaturity does represent a threat and people do not like having their opinions challenged, especially the “young” who know everything.

      It is the potential for the mutation of viruses that represent the greatest threat. The mutation that can accelerate and render current vaccines useless. For those who don’t believe in evolution, this is not a problem. They can call it a punishment from God.

    • Rev says:

      02:00pm | 07/01/11

      Reg - I’ve never suggested the young know everything, that is your opinion.  It just further reinforces the view that you feel the need to stereotype an entire demographic because it suits you.  Would you suggest the old know everything too?

      As I mentioned before, I don’t know anyone who doesn’t consider measles, for example, to be a dangerous illness.  Every child I know is vaccinated.  Yes, there are people who (wrongly, IMHO) believe vaccines are dangerous.  There are also people who believe in Scientology, Australian cricket, and Oprah.

    • Jane says:

      02:19pm | 07/01/11

      Something even scarier to contemplate, one of teh worlds most deadly diseases - smallpox - no one under 40 has been vaccinated against it because it has through mass vaccination removed from the popultion. It still exists in labs and there are still cases of scientists contracting it as they work with the disease. If it was ever to get out again (remember its a very close cousin to monkeypox which is currently killing people) the death toll would be scary because 1) lack of immunity and 2) no doctor could easily recognize it any more.

    • Reg says:

      07:02am | 08/01/11

      Rev you seem to have misunderstood my reason for my putting -young- in inverted-commas. Young meaning those who have not experienced a rampant uncontrollable community virus such as polio. People living in India would doubtless be driven by a more emphatic dynamic.

      Those who would resist appropriate community vaccinations threaten to reduce present stability to that of a third-world country. Children particularly, have not had time to build up the natural resistance that comes with advancing age.

      I see some reference to immunization claiming the credit for health improvement that is actually a result of clean water and more appropriate diet.  Well now isn’t that a bit simplistic? Wouldn’t any thinking person start there? First eliminate the obvious, such as starvation and dirty water, then address the problems that remain. Should we wait for a polio outbreak or something worse, before we choose to take steps to ensure that those who resist vaccinations are held to account?

      I’ve just been reading about Amish communities breaking apart over something as simple as the acceptable width of a hat-band and I wondered by comparison what their attitude was to immunization.

      Just curious.

    • Nightingale says:

      11:25am | 08/01/11

      I can somewhat agree with you marley,

      I’m 23, studying nursing, and it still amazes me that even though we are being TAUGHT about the danger of these diseases, some students are still against vaccinating their child (now this does make me wonder what the hell, you are going to be working in a hospital, full of diseases, and go home to cuddle your unvaccinated child - are you an idiot!?!?!)

      I can say I am in a different boat, I completely understand the importance of these vacs, my amazing grandmother was a polio victim, but one of the lucky ones who only suffers from a slight shortening of one leg (as she has gotten older it has started to affect her ability to walk), but her stories of having to be in braces for several years, the taunting, and stories of other not so fortunate children, to me, shows the need for the vacs, I mean, the positive far outweighs the negative, you may as well be betting on if you child will have a bad reaction to if they are going to run out onto a busy road, you never know, you can only try and do what is best for them, not some pathetic crusade that has no factual backing… but that is my own opinion :p

    • Reg says:

      06:48pm | 08/01/11

      Most interesting Nightingale. I have a friend who survived polio at age ten in 1952. At age 20 she developed MS and then again later, more serious MS that left her totally blind for two extended periods. In her opinion polio was the initiator of her life-long debilitation. She tells me of two wards in a Melbourne hospital that are still full of polio sufferers who have basically never been out of their breathing machines in 50 or 60 years. We don’t hear much of that.

    • cencoastal says:

      08:19am | 07/01/11

      Yes because the real evil in this world is not vacinating our kids.I can rest at night knowing that this will stop them getting cancer and aids. Perhaps we should wait for the next 50 years to pass and then see what the experts say.

    • Elphaba says:

      08:27am | 07/01/11

      Oh, I see.  You’d rather they dies before they were 5 years old, rather than in their 70s an 80s.  Of course, that makes perfect sense!

      If vaccination didn’t work, how come kids in Western countries don’t get polio anymore?  And in undeveloped countries, they do?  I’d love you to tell me the answer.

    • bella starkey says:

      08:29am | 07/01/11

      I don’t know how not being vaccinated will stop your kids having bum sex with hookers after sharing a needle and then getting a dodgy blood transfusion. But ok! You sleep easy!

    • Steely Dan says:

      08:31am | 07/01/11

      @ cencoastal

      “Perhaps we should wait for the next 50 years to pass and then see what the experts say.”
      I’m not going to eat or drink for 50 years, because by then all nutritionists might be Breatharians.

    • Bill Door says:

      08:43am | 07/01/11

      Guess who? Vaccinations have been going on for more then 50 already. If there was a link between vaccinations and autism there would be evidence of it by now.

      “The latest UNICEF report, titled “Progress for Children”, shows more than half the 191 U.N. member states are meeting child vaccination goals. Nevertheless, 1.4 million children under five die needlessly each year from measles, whooping cough, tetanus and other preventable diseases.”

    • Terry says:

      08:44am | 07/01/11

      @Bella

      “Bum sex with hookers after sharing a needle and then getting a dodgy blood transfusion” - WTF

      I’m pretty sure most of us can avoid this little problem because we are educated and have common sense.

    • James1 says:

      08:53am | 07/01/11

      Indeed cencoastal, it is far, far better to allow your child to contract a disease that carried a 15% chance of mortality (measles), than subject them to a vaccination which has killed maybe a couple of people who were allergic to it.  That makes total sense.

    • bella starkey says:

      09:02am | 07/01/11

      @ Terry: I dunno, if you come from breeding stock so stupid they think vaccines cause aids and cancer there’s a good chance you have very little common sense at all.

    • NicoleG says:

      09:05am | 07/01/11

      concoastal, have you ever had a child who has suffered any of these diseases? Well I have and I can tell you now, it’s freighting. My eldest son is 21 now and when he was 7 he contracted meningitis. He nearly died. The vaccine wasn’t available then and had it been available, he would have been vaccinated, therefore he wouldn’t have contracted it. It’s people like you who need a good foot up the arse.

    • Likes Joining Dots says:

      10:11am | 07/01/11

      Nicole G says:

      ‘It’s people like you who need a good foot up the arse.’

      I think that’s one vaccination (GFUTA) that was taken early and has been effective ever since.

    • cencoastal says:

      02:21pm | 07/01/11

      As I didn’t actually say I was against vacinations thanks for the assumptions. Bella since we are obviously now on a personal basis might I say you have very nice eyes.
      Yes there is no vacination for cancer and aids, perhaps that was my point.

    • Austin 3:16 says:

      05:46pm | 07/01/11

      perhaps ?

    • John says:

      08:22am | 07/01/11

      There’s an excellent book by Carol Tavris and Elliot Aronson titled
      Mistakes Were Made (But Not by Me) which highlights an all too common fact about just how irrational and dogmatic some people are.

      At some point we all make a bad decision, do something that harms another person, or cling to an outdated belief.  When we do, we strive to reduce the cognitive dissonance that results from feeling that we, who are smart, moral, and right, just did something that was dumb, immoral, or wrong.

      Whether the consequences are trivial or tragic, it is difficult, and for some people impossible, to say, “I made a terrible mistake.” The higher the stakes—emotional, financial, moral—the greater that difficulty. Self-justification, the hardwired mechanism that blinds us to the possibility that we were wrong, has benefits: It lets us sleep at night and keeps us from torturing ourselves with regrets. But it can also block our ability to see our faults and errors. It legitimizes prejudice and corruption, distorts memory, and generates anger and rifts. It can keep prosecutors from admitting they put an innocent person in prison and from correcting that injustice, and it can keep politicians unable to change disastrous policies that cost billions of dollars and thousands of lives. In our private lives, it can be the death of love.

      Mistakes Were Made (But Not by Me) examines:

        * Why we have so much trouble accepting information that conflicts with a belief we “know for sure” is right.
        * The brain’s “blind spots” that make us unable to see our own prejudices, biases, corrupting influences, and hypocrisies.
        * Why our memories tell more about what we believe now than what really happened then.
        * How couples can break out of the spiral of blame and defensiveness.
        * The evil that men and women can do in the name of God, country, and justice—and why they don’t see their actions as evil at all.
        * Why random acts of kindness create a “virtuous cycle” that perpetuates itself.

      Most of all, this book explains how all of us can learn to own up and let go of the need to be right, and learn from the times we are wrong—so that we don’t keep making the same mistakes over and over again.

    • Doc Scooter says:

      09:12am | 07/01/11

      Firstly, that first link of yours is to an opinion blog, not a reputable news source.
      Second, Hannah Poling suffered from a rare mitochondial disorder.  If the vaccines didn’t trigger her encephalopathy, the next time she developed a fever from a cold it could have been triggered.
      Third, the level of evidence required by the Vaccine Court is a balance of probabilities, all they had to do was prove that there was more than a 50% chance the vaccine triggered it - it is not a scientific forum, it is a legal one.
      And lastly - the Autism Omnibus hearings, where the Vaccine=Autism lobby presented its best four cases saw every one of them thrown out.

    • Steely Dan says:

      09:18am | 07/01/11

      @ Ryan

      Even stranger still that you didn’t mention that Hannah’s condition affects a whopping “0.0057 per cent of the population” - and that it wasn’t actually caused by the vaccine, it was genetic!

    • James1 says:

      09:20am | 07/01/11

      I like the way you cite a couple of cases where there was an adverse reaction to vaccines, but you fail to mention that measles has a mortality rate of up to 15%, as well as the 1 million plus children who die every year from diseases like measles, tentanus, and whooping cough.  Furthermore, none of the stuff you cite shows that MMR vaccines result in autism 15% of the time.  After following up your links, I futher disovered that they both refer to a single case, and the CDC does not in fact say that the vaccines caused anything, but that it “might” have triggered a mitocondrial disorder.  Given that you are talking about a single case where someone might have been affected by this vaccine, against the millions of lives saved by it every year, I wonder about your own ability to analyse data and draw valid conclusions.  But hey, why let facts and statistical analysis get in the way of what you want the think?

    • Ryan says:

      09:23am | 07/01/11

      I wonder Leo, do you think the US Federal Government and the CDC need that, how did you put it “medical evidence is no vaccination to the proliferation of stupidity”. I wonder if you will make a public apology to all those people you obnoxiously insulted in this article.

    • Ryan says:

      09:42am | 07/01/11

      As usual the filth comes out to discredit, I have no problems with vaccines, I have a problem with people attacking and carrying on like there is no problem when there obviously is. I have an even bigger problem with someone calling someone stupid for raising said concerns.
      What people decide to do is their decision they need to make based on ALL the evidence, not some jaundiced disgusting societal view that they can shame people into a specific choice.
      A recent and most disgusting article tried to point to a whooping cough outbreak as being caused by unvaccinated people, no evidence, no research just point the finger, and yet the outbreak down in Adelaide was found that almost all of the infected children had been vaccinated.

      Just tell the truth for a change and you might actually get people on side again. How about the government give us a 100% written guarantee on the safety of all prescribed vaccinations when the child is born.

    • Ryan says:

      09:46am | 07/01/11

      @Steely Dan: and if it was genetic and not caused by the vaccinations then why the massive payout? This was no disability pension.

    • Steely Dan says:

      09:48am | 07/01/11

      @ Ryan

      Don’t pretend DocScooter, James1 and I aren’t here, Ryan…

    • Ryan says:

      09:55am | 07/01/11

      @Doc Scooter: so doc, in your medical opinion (and obviously you would be willing to stake your medical license on this) then, you 100% guarantee that the vaccines did NOT cause autism in Hannah Poling? You know for a FACT that the US Federal Government paid out a huge sum of money for nothing?

    • Ryan says:

      10:23am | 07/01/11

      @Doc Scooter: please provide us with the evidence that states that “the level of evidence required by the Vaccine Court is a balance of probabilities, all they had to do was prove that there was more than a 50% chance the vaccine triggered it” I looked for it but cannot find it.

      FYI - here is the entire document of the findings of the court, I cannot find an inference there to your claim of evidence, what it does say is that the CDC decided not to defend this case… http://www.uscfc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/CAMPBELLSMITH. DOE77082710.pdf

    • Steely Dan says:

      10:23am | 07/01/11

      @ Ryan

      “I have no problems with vaccines, I have a problem with people attacking and carrying on like there is no problem when there obviously is.”
      If that were true, you would have started your comment with something like: ‘People with rare mitochondrial disorders shouldn’t have certain vaccines’.  We already know that not everyone can receive vaccinations.  And it would be irresponsible of GPs to hold out on giving vaccines to kids unless they were tested for Hannah Poling’s genetic disorder (which affects just three other people in the world).  What is the ‘problem’ as you see it? 

      “I have an even bigger problem with someone calling someone stupid for raising said concerns.”
      What valid concerns are the anti-vacc lobby raising that need to be addressed? 

      “What people decide to do is their decision they need to make based on ALL the evidence”
      That’s fine, but if you think that Leo Shanahan not alerting the general public to the fact that 4 of the billions of people on this planet should not be vaccinated because it might aggravate their existing mitochondrial disorder is sloppy journalism or sinister, you’re out of line.

      “A recent and most disgusting article tried to point to a whooping cough outbreak as being caused by unvaccinated people, no evidence”
      North Coast Area Health Service Director of Public Health, Paul Corben:
      “The very clear picture we have on the North Coast is that communities with lower vaccination rates are the hardest hit by this outbreak. On a per capita basis, there have been seven times as many cases in the Byron Shire where less than 68% of toddlers are vaccinated as there have been in the Port Macquarie-Hastings area where over 94% of 2 year olds are fully vaccinated.”
      http://www.ncahs.nsw.gov.au/news/fullstory.php?storyid=622&siteid=142

      “yet the outbreak down in Adelaide was found that almost all of the infected children had been vaccinated.”
      Source?  Most of the the deaths have been from infants under 8 weeks old (when the pertussis vaccine is given). http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/breaking-news/fourth-baby-dies-of-whooping-cough/story-e6frea73-1225925534708

      “How about the government give us a 100% written guarantee on the safety of all prescribed vaccinations when the child is born.”
      No medication can be given a 100% written guarantee.  There will always be exceptions.  It’s up to the govt to weigh the risks and benefits, and the current vaccinations pass the test.  We’re better off with them.

    • Ryan says:

      10:27am | 07/01/11

      @James1: your response was quite bizarre, did you cut and paste that from a handbook on defending vaccines. Where did I make any reference to the MMR vaccine.. please be specific, let alone make any claims on said vaccine.
      Secondly where did I specify (and be specific again) that people should not vaccinate.
      Normally I wouldn’t find the need to defend myself from such obvious and blatant baseless accusations but since Steely Dan wanted me to reply I thought I might show your rabid reply for what it is. Apology now?

    • Steely Dan says:

      10:30am | 07/01/11

      @ Ryan

      “and if it was genetic and not caused by the vaccinations then why the massive payout?”
      Because it aggravated the existing condition.  The government was sued because it clearly made her worse off.  The govt wasn’t aware that it would do so, but they’re the ones who recommended the vaccination, hence the pay out.  Unless the US govt health officials are morons, they’ll be recommending that Hannah Poling’s disorder be added to the list of people who shouldn’t get that vaccination.

    • Doc Scooter says:

      11:53am | 07/01/11

      @Ryan - Re burden of proof in vaccine court:

      From the establishing legislation:
      “Compensation shall be awarded under the Program to apetitioner if the special master or court finds on the record as awhole -
      (A)that the petitioner has demonstrated by a preponderance ofthe evidence the matters required in the petition”
      http://www.hrsa.gov/vaccinecompensation/authorizinglegislation.pdf

      “A preponderance of evidence has been described as just enough evidence to make it more likely than not that the fact the claimant seeks to prove is true.”
      http://law.jrank.org/pages/9341/Preponderance-Evidence.html

    • James1 says:

      12:07pm | 07/01/11

      Okay then Ryan.  Ignore the stuff I say about getting vaccines or not, what do your links prove beyond one person having a preexisting mitrochondrial disorder perhaps being triggered by a vaccination?  Is this really evidence that vaccines are dangerous?  A single, isolated case of a very rare disease being triggered by a vaccine that saves millions of lives? Why should the author have mentioned one isolated case?  Are you going to apologise to him for throwing a red herring into this in an attempt to discredit him?

      As for the rest of your confused rambling, I am not sure what point you are trying to make.  If you agree that vaccines are a good thing, and should be undertaken, what is it we are arguing about again?  And why are you trying to cast doubt on the validity of getting vaccines?

    • Bitten says:

      12:41pm | 07/01/11

      Ryan = owned.

    • Ryan says:

      01:03pm | 07/01/11

      @James1: please post proof that the mitochondrial disorder was indeed the reason for the Autisim.
      The point of my “ramblings” as you put it (lets not even go into your bizarre rant) is that you cannot just come out and accuse people of stupidity when there is indeed a precedence of a payout with regards to vaccines and autism. There are clearly risks with vaccination, as there are clearly risks with not vaccinating, as there are clearly risks with exposing your child under six months old to the general public.
      My issue is with how rabid people have become with the anti-vaccination lobby, how do you expect to win people over by acting in an offensive and confronting manner?

      I am still waiting for you to point out where I claimed to be anti-vaccination, also to where I referenced the MMR vaccination oh and your apology.

      Lets hope the infantile comment after yours was not you, I couldn’t imagine that you could hold an adult discussion and then post something so poorly childish as that.

    • Steely Dan says:

      01:20pm | 07/01/11

      @ Ryan

      “please post proof that the mitochondrial disorder was indeed the reason for the Autisim.”
      I recall seeing a New Scientist article on this somewhere…
      If you’re really going to challenge the diagnosis that Hannah Poling’s “features of autism spectrum disorder” were the result of her existing rare mitochondrial condition in combination with the vaccine, I’ll play petty too, and ask you to provide me with evidence that she has autism.

    • Bitten says:

      02:14pm | 07/01/11

      Now now, no tears Ryan. Accusations of childishness aren’t actually the knockout punch fragile egos imagine them to be.

    • notSue says:

      02:41pm | 07/01/11

      @Ryan.  Just another point or two about pertussis (whooping cough). Under 6 months the typical “whoop”  is not present, making diagnosis difficult. Also, the disease tends to be less obvious in the daytime (when most people visit their doctors) but is the devil’s own bastard at night, adding to the difficulty of GPs recognising it. It often takes a bloodtest to confirm the diagnosis.  Couple those facts with the tender age of the infants and their barely functional immune systems, and the mortality/morbidity rates are easily explained.

    • Ryan says:

      03:24pm | 07/01/11

      @Steely Dan: well Dan, if she doesn’t have autism then she just pulled off the best payout for autism in history from the “National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program”. Now if vaccines were so safe, why do they even have a “National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program”?

      What I would like to see admitted is that the worldwide vaccination program is based on statistics and that some of you will have an adverse reaction to the vaccine and develop permanent injury if not death but in the overall scheme of things its better for society if that happens and its just tough luck if you happen to be one of the unlucky ones. Is this not reality?

    • James1 says:

      03:39pm | 07/01/11

      Thanks Doc - was going to post the same thing from New Scientist. 

      Ryan, I am still struggling to understand your point.  Personally, I do not care if people choose to put their children in danger by not immunising them - that is their choice.  I just had a major problem with the deceptive way you attempted to use “evidence” in your post, when in fact it didn’t support your argument at all.

      I will apologise for thinking you are anti-vaccine as soon as you make it clear what your point is.  Again, if you are pro-vaccine, what is it that you are trying to say?  In your first post, you come across very anti-vaccine, and seem to accept the anti-vaccine arguments at face value on the basis of a single case.  A couple of us take you to task for it, and question the evidence you present, and suddenly you are not against vaccines.  Any objective analysis that incorporates the evidence would conclude that vaccines are positive, yet you questioned this being the case.  So again, what is your point?

    • Steely Dan says:

      03:50pm | 07/01/11

      @ Ryan

      “Now if vaccines were so safe, why do they even have a “National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program”?”
      For rare cases like Hannah Poling’s - where vaccination is not suitable for the child.  Wasn’t that obvious?

      “What I would like to see admitted… Is this not reality?”
      What I’d like to see admitted is that there’s a real chance that driving cars will kill or maim lots of people but in the overall scheme of things it’s better for society if that happens and its just tough luck if you happen to be one of the unlucky ones.
      Sorry, Ryan, that’s an unfair comparison.  Not driving cars wouldn’t kill many people at all.

    • Ryan says:

      04:20pm | 07/01/11

      @James1: sorry I have read over my original post and again I don’t see where I came out as anti-vaccine (in context of the article at hand).
      Anyway to set your mind at ease, it would be very hypocritical of me to be claiming anti-vaccine when my own children were immunised.

      The point I have been trying to make is that the rabid attacks on those people who wish to question something or even decide to make a personal choice need to stop, there are some cases where there are valid concerns and people need to be informed not strong armed into their decisions, you should not be telling people what to do and certainly not attacking them for their informed choices.

      And no offense mate but this statement is just as confusing to me “I just had a major problem with the deceptive way you attempted to use “evidence” in your post, when in fact it didn’t support your argument at all.” What was I being deceptive about? I stated a fact that there has been a payout on a Vaccine - Autism link, the circumstances surrounding this as has been pointed out to me is that they really only had to mildly prove this which I agree does weaken the impact of said payout.

    • Kate says:

      09:55pm | 07/01/11

      “certainly not attacking them for their informed choices.”
      Ryan - THAT’S THE WHOLE POINT. These people are not informed. The original study was fraudulant. There is no strong proof that vaccines and autism are linked, except perhaps if you are one of a half dozen people, so basically one in a billion, with Hannah Poling’s condition.
      As to you misrepresenting evidence, your original post insinuates that the vaccine gave Hannah Poling autism. It did not. The vaccine triggered an underlying condition. An incredibly rare underlying condition.
      Though from your general tone and sarcasm, I’m not surprised that you’re demanding undeserved apologies from others with all the grace and decency of a twelve year old boy who’s had his playstation taken away.

    • Ryan says:

      07:50am | 09/01/11

      @Kate: but you see Kate, vaccines have been shown (even if powerful drug companies have managed to destroy the poor man who dared to study it in the first place) now in a court case that they can and have caused autisim, in this case it might be a rare condition, in other kids, who knows, people need to keep an open mind and not go destroying doctors that dare to stand up and say something that might impact on the drug companies profits.
      I wonder if you would have had the same reaction to thiomersal these days Kate?

    • marley says:

      08:38am | 09/01/11

      @Ryan - not sure what your point is about thimerosal, Ryan.  If Kate or you yourself are over the age of about 20, you probably had childhood vaccines containing it.  Interestingly, though, since they removed thimerosol from childhood vaccines, the autism rate has gone UP.

    • bella starkey says:

      08:40am | 07/01/11

      FYI I had two vaccines this week and I’m pretty sure I have autism now. Also I have an upset tummy today so I probs have IBS also. And my nose was runny too so I got the flu from the flu vaccine.

    • Ryan says:

      12:10pm | 07/01/11

      Making light of autism is a little tasteless don’t you think?

    • Just Sayin' says:

      04:04pm | 07/01/11

      I’m pretty sure that autistic people wont care.

    • Belle says:

      10:19pm | 07/01/11

      @Ryan: I don’t believe Bella is making light of autism. More like making light of people who draw a very long, weak line of reasoning to conclude vaccines cause harm.

    • Johor says:

      08:42am | 07/01/11

      90% of the vaccination business is a scam that will one day see people in court. Everything is geared to feed financially off people’s fear of illness, especially is it is their children’s illness. Then it build up to a situation where big pharm gets into gear to produce tons of vaccine - AT GREAT EXPENSE FOR RESEARCH & PRODUCTION AND LABOUR - and then has to sell the stuff. And who to but health departments also running with the fear.
      All the time there is no research, consequently no vaccines for those areas that might benefit mankind if vaccines were available, not just for stupidity but for greed, control freakism and the rampant osculococcus pandemic - more terrible in terms of human happiness than any other.
      Ref 1: osculation, from L. osculum = mouth, kiss
      Ref 2: The ‘KISS’ principle and stupidity.

    • ZSRenn says:

      09:45am | 07/01/11

      K.I.S.S.?
      Keep It Simple Stupid
      Maybe you should listen to your own words
      and thanks for proving the article so correct.

    • Likes Joining Dots says:

      11:38am | 07/01/11

      thanks Sarah -  that was gold (albeit rather vulgar gold)

    • Johor says:

      08:52am | 07/01/11

      Scrolling through the comments above it is very clear how effective big pharma aqnd health departments have been in brainwashing the public. In the kingdom of the blind nobody realy knows what is going on. Or perhaps they are all running away from common sense. As TS Eliot put it, “In a world of fugitives, he person taking the opposite direction will appear to run away.” Perhaps the kooks are those still thinking for themselves.
      And will someone PLEASE EXPLAIN the nature of the danger posed by a non vaccinated child to one who has been vaccinated. If danger still exists what has the vaccination actually achieved other than a few dollars profit for big pharma and smug satisfaction for the public servants in the health? departments.

    • Elphaba says:

      09:08am | 07/01/11

      Johor, you need a tinfoil hat to keep in all your thoughts.

      The less children that are vaccinated, the greater chance a disease can take hold in a community.  The overall decline in vaccinations means that means more children are not vaccinated, which increases their risk of catching a disease.  If a disease breaks out, and can survive, then it could possibly mutate into a more virulant strain that is resistant to vaccination - putting us back at square one.

      If these disease can’t get a toehold - ie, all possible incubators are resistant to it, then it will die.

      Make sense?

      As for your ‘big pharma’ paranoia - honestly, this isn’t the United States.  Get a grip.

    • Appalled says:

      09:09am | 07/01/11

      The more people able to catch the virus, the more people infected, the more the virus spreads.

      For the main virus diseases, there are all the youngsters under 1 who’ve not been vaccinated yet, and then all the 4-6 year olds due a top-up or extension. The most vulnerable put at the most risk.

      In the case of flu vaccines, the more people able to catch the virus, the more people infected. Means the virus has more chance to mutate, and “get ahead” of the vaccines.

      Unvaccinated people/children pose a serious risk of transmitting disease to others who have no say in the matter.

      Inflicting the reutls of foolish folk-lore on innocent children.

      Plain selfish and plain irresponsible.

    • bec says:

      09:11am | 07/01/11

      It’s not the danger posed to vaccinated children. It’s the danger posed to children who are too young to be vaccinated, or people who are immunocompromised (those undertaking bone marrow transplants, chemotherapy, HIV/AIDs, etc).

      Do whatever you want if you live in a yurt in the middle of the desert. When the consequences of your actions externally affect the whole community, then you need to re-evaluate your decision to live among people.

    • Ella says:

      09:16am | 07/01/11

      An unvaccinated child is not a danger to a vaccinated child, but is to another unvaccinated child i.e. one who is too young to be vaccinated, one who is immuno compromised, or already sick. Your child might get measles and be fine but the 3 month old baby she passes it on to might not fare so well. The only way we can prevent the illness in the baby, who is too young to be vaccinated, is to ensure a sufficient proportion of the population are vaccinated to prevent epidemics.

    • DH says:

      09:23am | 07/01/11

      The danger is that the non-vaccinated child passes the virus to a child that isn’t fully vaccinated (you know, like a baby under 6 months), and then that particular baby has a fully hard time of it and possibly dies.

      Did that particular nugget of common sense just knock your tinfoil hat off? Sorry about that.

    • Steely Dan says:

      09:24am | 07/01/11

      @ Johor

      “Scrolling through the comments above it is very clear how effective big pharma aqnd health departments have been in brainwashing the public.”
      That’s just what somebody infected with a brain slug would say.

      “will someone PLEASE EXPLAIN the nature of the danger posed by a non vaccinated child to one who has been vaccinated”
      They pose a risk to people who for various medical reasons cannot receive the vaccines. 

      Hey, there’s a hole in the “big pharma” marketing campaign - why didn’t they brainwash us into thinking that every child could receive vaccinations?  That’s money down the toilet!

    • Shane says:

      09:28am | 07/01/11

      Johor, go do some research into polio, measles, mumps, german measles, whooping cough and flu rates prior to the development of vaccines, then watch the rates dramatically decline almost instantly after the large-scale distribution of the vaccine, and then get back to me.

      Cheers.

    • HappyCynic says:

      09:43am | 07/01/11

      Pharmaceutical companies profits are irrelevant to the entire discussion.  The rates of infection may be low but they are not eradicated yet.  All it takes is one non-vaccinated kid from India, for example, who’s carrying the measles bug, to come in contact with your child and then your child is in a world of pain and for what reason?  So you could gain some smug and silly satisfaction of “screwing” big pharma out of a handful of dollars?

      When the diseases are completely eradicated you may have a leg to stand on with your silly anti-vaccine stance.  Until then you’re deliberately placing your child in harms way just to save a few dollars.

      Your greed and selfishness is mind-blowing.

    • Ryan says:

      09:50am | 07/01/11

      @DH: what is clear then is that people with babies under 6 months old are behaving irresponsibly exposing them to other children. It should be mandated that children under 6 months old should not be taken out of the quarantine of their home under any circumstances.

    • marley says:

      09:55am | 07/01/11

      And another thing.  Vaccines are not 100% effective.  There’s about a 5% failure rate for things like the MMR.  That doesn’t mean you get a reaction, it just means you don’t develop the antibodies to fight off the disease.  So you’re vulnerable.  That doesn’t matter much if everyone around you is vaccinated, because the disease can’t get a foot hold and spread to you.  It does matter, though, if 30% of the people around you aren’t vaccinated, because things like measles spread like wildfire.

      And maybe you don’t care if your 14 year old son gets the mumps because neither he nor his friends were vaccinated, but your odds of having grandchildren just faded dramatically.

    • Bill Door says:

      10:26am | 07/01/11

      @Johor

      Herd immunity: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herd_immunity

      The reason Smallpox no longer exist in the wild is before of vaccinations.

      I now have a question for you. Why is it that childhood diseases are more prevalent in countries with less herd immunity than counties with much higher rates of herd immunity?

    • notSue says:

      11:58am | 07/01/11

      @bec, “It’s not the danger posed to vaccinated children. It’s the danger posed to children who are too young to be vaccinated, or people who are immunocompromised (those undertaking bone marrow transplants, chemotherapy, HIV/AIDs, etc).”
      Absolutely! You hit the nail on the head!  My daughter contracted whooping cough before the age of 6 months, thanks to it’s re-emergence as endemic in the community, due to people not vaccinating their children.(Her pre-existing condition prevented her being immunised at that point). The pertussis nearly killled her, (and was agonising for us as parents, watching her suffer) and for two years after her recovery from the 8 wek initial illness, she whooped every time she caught a cold.Her doctor believes she has emphesemic changes to her lungs now as a permanant reminder.

      Those in the community who don’t understand the danger they place their *own* child under by not vaccinating (and I’ve nursed one if the last cases of tetanus in this country, a horrendous disease I hope we never see rampant again) will hardly get the argument that they are placing others at risk. They’re just too plain stupid and pigheaded. I wish the law *could* do something about them!

    • DH says:

      05:40pm | 07/01/11

      @Ryan: Like I mentioned above, some do what they can to ‘cocoon’ their newborn from unneccesary contact with the general populace as long as possible… but 6 months?  I’d like to see you try that!  Still, if you want to pay me 6 months paternity leave, I’d gladly sit tight here for a while. ;o)

    • notSue says:

      06:46pm | 07/01/11

      @DH and Ryan. Remember, it’s not just the newborn who are in danger. It’s the immuno-compromised..and those whose immunity has run out,or never eventuated, especially with whooping cough or rubella. I was one of those unlucky enough not to develop antibodies to rubella the first time I was immunised. I didn’t find out til after my first child was born. Thank the Universe I didn’t contract it whilst pregnant! (as we all know, it causes deafeness and often blindness as well in utero). The second dose covered me for my subsequent two pregnancies, for which I am eternally grateful.

    • Lila says:

      03:05am | 08/01/11

      @ Ryan, so are you recommending homebirth to go with that 6 month quarantine? After all in Adelaide the deaths of un-immunised babies was caused by adults who had not renewed their vaccination and who were working in the hospital that these children were born in.
      Not as you incorrectly asserted earlier.

    • jim morris says:

      08:53am | 07/01/11

      I started the Stop Stupidity; Now! group on facebook a couple of years ago and you are all welcome to join. While you are at it you can also join my other group MAFLA (movement against five letter acronyms). The satisfaction of knowing you are doing your bit is immeasureable.

    • Elphaba says:

      09:38am | 07/01/11

      *giggle* grin

    • Reg says:

      11:47am | 07/01/11

      Congratulations. I’m a smidgen concerned that your satisfaction is immeasurable. Why bother? You can’t stop stupidity, it’s the base-line.

      Pretty obviously those who refuse to take part in community health schemes would welcome restriction for their failure to do so. Which causes me to wonder whether certain of the private schools in our illustrious community discriminate against the non-immunized. I know of one large private North Shore school that is totally opposed to immunization and it’s a hot-bed of diseases such as hooping cough.

    • Ella says:

      09:07am | 07/01/11

      Unfortunately, this didn’t start with the Wakefield study and is unlikely to finish with it. There were groups passing round misinformation about vaccines in the 70s too. As a result my mother didn’t have us vaccinated. She changed her mind after I almost died aged 3 from a bout of measles.

    • Joan says:

      09:07am | 07/01/11

      If these vaccines caused autism, you’d think that loads more people would have autism.  The fact that Gen X had extremely high vaccination rates, but low levels of autism shows that it probably isn’t the vaccine.  I thought it was a gene that cause it, anyway…

    • Michelle says:

      12:50pm | 07/01/11

      Joan - where do you get your facts?? Autism is in in it’s highest statistic’s since the first diagnoses was formed.  1 in 68 Boys are at risk of Austim and the rate for girls is catching up far!  I do not know which school of learning you came from but that is far from low levels of Autism - considering 10 years ago it was 1 in 150 for boys.  To all the people out there I think you all have the nerve to talk about Autism when clearly most of you have not referred to having or knowing someone with it.  My 5yr son is autistic and I can tell you - it is hell - When he was diangnosed my husband and I Grieved as if we had lost our son, I am not going to state my position on Vaccination, my husband and I have given up EVERYTHING to try and help our son, every day is a battle just to have him achieve things that a typical parent takes for granted,

    • St. Michael says:

      12:57pm | 07/01/11

      Has the rate of diagnosis for *autism* gone up, Michelle, or is it the rate of diagnosis for *autism spectrum disorder* that’s gone up?

      There’s a difference.  Any references?

    • Elphaba says:

      01:05pm | 07/01/11

      @St Michael, you beat me to it.

      The diagnosis of autism has changed dramatically, due to the goalposts being reset with the autism spectrum.

    • Michelle says:

      01:38pm | 07/01/11

      I think you both are missing my point - A comment was made that there is a low rate of autism and if you have read this article on other Australian Papers - they refer to Autism as a “Rare Condition” Yes obviously as time goes on we move the “goalpost” children who ten years ago should have been diagnosed with Autism where instead being treated for Global development delay and other Neuro conditions, as time goes on therapist, teachers, parents are picking up symptons earlier than years ago - granted. 
      My issue was as a parent with an autistic child (who would have been put in the Global Development basket years ago) I have issues with people who are not parents, grandparents, teachers, doctors or therapists with autistic children giving their opinions on something they have no direct relation with.  It is like me going onto a forum on Breast cancer because someone says their cancer was caused by a certain brand of Bra - I have never had breast cancer nor do I know anyone who has/did have; therefore my knowledge is limited yet I get on and challenge their opinions and give mine? - Unless you are directly involved - please stop posting, Austim is not a ‘class’ illness effects people of all levels most parents of autistic children research 24/7 information on their childs illness, we have many therapists, doctors, paed involved and in our case we also have some wonderful specialist’s based at Harvard in the US who work with our son.

    • St. Michael says:

      02:28pm | 07/01/11

      I’d accept that if the debate were about how to recognise or treat autism, Michelle, but it isn’t.  The issue here is that people are saying vaccination causes autism, which you’re staying silent on and which the medical evidence—both from the journal that published the study and the one that investigated the original study—now says it’s both a baseless conclusion and motivated by fraudulent intentions.

      I rarely agree with Joan, but part of her argument does have a strong logical appeal: if Gen X had high vaccination rates but low levels of diagnosed autism that logically suggests vaccines aren’t connected with autism.

      As it is, more eminent medical minds have said expressly that there is no link, and never was, for medical reasons rather than just logical reasoning, so it’s a moot point.

    • marley says:

      02:44pm | 07/01/11

      @Michelle - I don’t have direct experience with autistic kids (except for an old friend with an autistic son).  However, I don’t feel that should prevent me from offering an informed opinion on a link between vaccines and autism.  I’ve read quite a bit on the subject, and I believe I’m as qualified as a speech therapist or the child’s grandmother to address the scientific aspects of the argument.  Obviously, I don’t have any qualifications whatsoever to address the emotional ones, and wouldn’t presume to do so.

    • Aunty of Autism says:

      06:16pm | 07/01/11

      Gen X’s vaccination rates are nothing compared to the current generations. Our kids are given around 30 vaccinations before they hit 2 including those for simple things like Chicken Pox (which doesnt work btw !).
      Michelle - my thoughts are with you, and I for one CAN understand your difficutly and pain.
      xxx

    • marley says:

      10:57am | 08/01/11

      @Aunty - 30 childhood vaccines under the age of 2?  Well, I’m not sure where you’re living, but not in Aus.  The NSW schedule calls for 13.

      More to the point, those Gen Xers who got 6 or 8 vaccines, got an immunological load of something like 3000 bacterial and viral proteins or polysaccharides, compared with less than 200 in the current schedule.  That’s thanks to massive improvements in vaccines.  So the modern infant is getting better protection with fewer immunological components than his parents.

    • JS says:

      12:32pm | 08/01/11

      @Michelle That’s insulting. People can comment even though they haven’t lived or don’t know someone with ASD. The argument also isn’t about whether ASD is tough or not. I’m a mum of a child with autism and I also work with children with a range of disabilities so I think that qualifies me to comment here. When my boy was diagnosed a few years ago the stats were 1 in 10000 children (not 1 in 150 as you’ve asserted so I don’t know where you got your facts from) would be diagnosed with autism (that was 2006 in Australia - the figures you’re quoting I’m pretty sure are US figures for 2010). Now it’s 1 in 100 which was the latest figure I saw quoted (for Australia). Joan was referring to Gen X which is the generation I’m part of. Children born after 2000 aren’t part of Gen X, I think they’re Gen alpha (not sure if that’s right), so I’m not sure how you’ve refuted Joan’s argument. When I look at this huge increase, what’s happened in the last 5 years to explain this rise. It has to be something else.

    • Aunty of Autism says:

      09:47pm | 08/01/11

      Marley - sorry for my “blunder’..you’re right..it’s not 30, it’s actually 24 !

      Birth - Hep B

      2 Months - Hepatitis B (hepB) 
      Diphtheria, tetanus and whooping cough (acellular pertussis) (DTPa)
      Haemophilus influenzae type b (Hib) [See footnotes c & d]
      Polio (inactivated poliomyelitis IPV)
      Pneumococcal conjugate (7vPCV)
      Rotavirus

      4 months - Hepatitis B (hepB) 
      Diphtheria, tetanus and whooping cough (acellular pertussis (DTPa)
      Haemophilus influenzae type b (Hib) [See footnotes c & d]
      Polio (inactivated poliomyelitis IPV)
      Pneumococcal conjugate (7vPCV)
      Rotavirus

      6 months:
      Hepatitis B (hepB) ]
      Diphtheria, tetanus and whooping cough (acellular pertussis (DTPa)
      Haemophilus influenzae type b (Hib) [See footnote c]
      Polio (inactivated poliomyelitis) (IPV)
      Pneumococcal conjugate (7vPCV) [See footnote e]
      Rotavirus [See footnote j

      12 months:
      Hepatitis B (hepB) [See footnote b]
      Haemophilus influenzae type b (Hib) [See footnote d]
      Measles, mumps and rubella (MMR)
      Meningococcal C (MenCCV

      18 months:
      Chickenpox (varicella) (VZV)

      And of course, as you can see, those 24 vaccinations also include the triple antigens of Diptheria, Tetanus and Whooping Cough, and the MMR.

      Source : http://www.health.gov.au/internet/immunise/publishing.nsf/content/nips2  April 2010

    • marley says:

      11:13am | 09/01/11

      @Aunty - you’re counting the diseases, not the vaccinations.  A single shot will cover multiple diseases - Infranrix Hexa, for example, covers diphtheria, tetanus, typhoid; polio;  Hib and Hep B.  You don’t count it as six vaccinations.

      And I stand by my point that the immunological load of all those vaccines is far lower than that in the smaller number of vaccines of 20 years ago.

    • Aunty of Autism says:

      06:56pm | 09/01/11

      Sorry Marley..I am NOT counting the diseases. I have copied and pasted from a govt website outlinging the current (2010) vaccination schedule. If I was counting the diseases, it would actually be more, because I have included the triple antigens of MMR and DTP’s. Our children (if we follow the recommended vaccination schedule) have 24 injections of vaccine before they are 2. That is the fact..and THAT is what some anti-vaxers take exception to. Personally my kids are pretty much fully vaccinated (before you start attacking) - but they were spaced out a LOT longer than was recommended because I take objection to the sheer amount of vaccines we subject our kids to.

    • marley says:

      07:44am | 10/01/11

      @Aunty - here’s a link to the NSW website.  The column on the right lists the actual vaccines - and I count 13.  One vaccine, as I mentioned, covers 6 different diseases - you don’t need separate shots for HepB, polio, diphtheria/tetanus/pertussis and HiB.  One shot covers the lot.

      http://www.health.nsw.gov.au/PublicHealth/Immunisation/programs/prog_schedule.asp

    • DH says:

      09:13am | 07/01/11

      Yes yes yes yes yes. Great article. After some recent experience with this whole debate was going to write about it myself, but you beat me to it.  This is why I’m not a journalist…

      We’ve been through the whole thing with our 4.5 month old recently. Sadly it’s not just a simple case of a one-off vaccination, but for under 6 months it’s a 3-pronged approach over that time period; they’re not ‘safely’ vaccinated against things like Whooping Cough until after their final shot. So even if you do the right thing and start them on the vaccination process, it’s still 6 months of being wary because you know there are so many stupid people out there who haven’t vaccinated their kids or themselves (yes adults need boosters because their childhood one runs out after about 10 years or so I think). 

      So we did a spot of ‘cocooning’ for the first 2 months, ensuring all visiting family members had the booster shots, but even then some decided they didn’t need it. So we banned them. Probably came across as totally paranoid parents, but I couldn’t give a rats. My wife actually got Whooping Cough when she was pregnant and it wasn’t pleasant. To see a baby go through that… well, I’ll go to any lengths to avoid it.  Still, it’s annoying I have to continually explain our wary stance to friends and family who should know better.

      That goes for people turning up to see a new baby with a cough or a cold. Seriously, how stupid are you? Even if the baby avoids it, giving it to the parents just makes their job raising a newborn even harder. Think!

      On a side note, the vaccine situation in the UK isn’t anywhere close to being as awesome as we have found NSW Health’s to be. My parents were due to fly over from the UK for Christmas and we asked them to get the relevant booster shots - which they were happy to do - but apparently England doesn’t have any!  NSW pushes the shots for close family members, and parents and grandparents even get them for free, but England doesn’t even recognise a need for it. With the outbreaks of Whooping Cough here and in California recently, it’s only got to be a matter of time before there is an outbreak over there and they are woefully underprepared. 

      Ironically, in the end my folks had to fly to Ireland to get the shots. Then just before Christmas they got snowed in at Heathrow and had to cancel their whole trip to Oz. So I guess doing the right thing doesn’t always work out…

    • gus says:

      09:14am | 07/01/11

      One of my grandmothers lost four of her eight children to childhood diseases.I also remember newspapers publishing daily figures of polio infections and death.
      that was before vaccines were available.

    • James Hunter says:

      09:29am | 07/01/11

      I wonder how these anti vacination parents would feel if their kids get polio ? proud of themselves ? Bloody rabbits.  a lot of rabbits on the north coast son !!
      I am immune deficient as I had the misfortune to choose the wrong parents ! However one of the reasons that I still live is that every vacination that is available I have it. I may not benifit as much as others but I can say the effects for me of havingthe fluvax every year are dramatic.
      What is dangerous is the ability of ignorant people to believe anything that is dressed up in psudo scientific jargon. Piffel. The real imformation is there the internet and the state libraries are there for all.
      Still, some people still believe in witchcraft and others religion so maybe there is no hope.

    • Jane says:

      02:42pm | 07/01/11

      Maybe we should change teh marketing from “protect your kid” to “not vaccinating your kid could see you kill someone elses”. Might get it through to the hippes.

    • guy lee hanlon says:

      09:41am | 07/01/11

      there is vaccine against stupidity.
      vote labor

    • Amy Sturt says:

      12:09am | 09/01/11

      We must all be freaking geniuses in NSW….

    • cencoastal says:

      09:46am | 07/01/11

      I was merely making the point that for all the diseases we have a vacination for their are millions we dont. Also what happens when the disease mutates to overcome our vacinations. Like we have seen with bacteria in hospitals.
      As a parent I never wish illness on any child,  the heartbreak of standing by while your children suffer is not something anyone should go through.
      I only question where it ends and at point we become too dependent on artifical drugs just to be able to breathe the air in public.

    • braunman says:

      10:27am | 07/01/11

      The reason we don’t have medicines for all known diseases is that, well, there’s limited research funds to go around, so only the most common ones will get targetted. There’s also the danger of natural selection. If everyone is immunised against a particular virus, then the strains that survive that virus will be more resiliant and dangerous. For example I’m currently being given a very strong antibiotic for a stubborn sinus infection, and the associated info sheets tells doctors to use this antibiotic as a last resort for that very reason.

      If a disease mutates then a new vaccine is developed, simple as that. Take the annual flu jab for example. The very reason it’s done annually is that the virus mutates quickly, so the typical vaccines used every year are targetted to the predicted strains. The company my employers go to for corporate immunisation publish information on what particular strain of flu they’ll be immunising against, along with other technical info I can’t even begin to understand.

    • Bill Door says:

      10:45am | 07/01/11

      Go and look at you families genealogy. 100 years ago people were having 12 children and more than half would die before they reached the ago of five. This no longer happens day in the west. Unfortunately it still does in third world countries were vaccination rates are low.

      Smallpox no longer exist because of vaccinations. Australia is now considered measles free and as such a child’s first MMR vaccinations has been moved from 12 months to 18 months. There hasn’t been a polio outbreak sine the mid 1950’s.

    • marley says:

      11:55am | 07/01/11

      @cencoastal - I think you’re confusing two different things.  Vaccines are not the same as antibiotics - they are not drugs designed to kill bugs the way an antibiotic does.  Instead, they stimulate the immune system to build defenses should it ever encounter those bugs.  In other words, the vaccines stimulate the body’s natural immune system.  The body creates immunities based on the genetics of the virus or bacterium in the vaccine - without making you or your kids go through the process of actually getting the disease first.  This is a pretty good thing.

      As to “resistance” - well, the strain of mumps or measles or whooping cough may shift (in fact, I believe that’s one of the issues with the resurgence of whooping cough) but the vaccine still gives you a decent level of immunity.  And it’s quite easy to reformulate vaccines for any variant.  Look at the annual seasonal flu shots, which differ from one year to the next for precisely that reason.

      So with vaccines, we’re not talking dependency.

    • Bitten says:

      12:47pm | 07/01/11

      marley you really are too kind to a muppet. cencoastal suffers from the same malady all muppets do: take 1/5 of the facts about an issue (any issue), read off the back of a bus shelter, mix with a little talk-back radio (or opinion blogs - the post-millenium version) and you wind up with a waffle of nonsense that you think sounds intelligent because it uses some big words.
      How anyone with half a brain could confuse the science of vaccines with the science of antibiotics is astonishing.

    • cencoastal says:

      01:27pm | 07/01/11

      Thanks but I am aware of the difference btween antibiotics and vacinations. I belive you may have confused my statement. For the record I am pro vacinations. I do however believe that nothing should ever be accepted without question. As I stated above I just wonder where it all ends. As mentioned elsewhere these disease are living organisms with the ability to change and evolve. Are we now in the process of creating new super diseases?  Stronger and tougher to overcome our natural immunity. Look at the evolution of the cold virus for example.

    • Bitten says:

      01:42pm | 07/01/11

      You certainly are aware. Now. Muppet trying to save face = hilarious.

    • marley says:

      02:20pm | 07/01/11

      @Cencoastal - many of the vaccines are not in fact “living organisms.”  The Salk polio vaccine, for example, is a killed vaccine.  So are most flu vaccines and the Hep A vaccine.  Diphtheria and tetanus are toxoid vaccines, not living organisms.  Even most live vaccines aren’t the same as the actual disease-causing organism.  So the actual vaccines are not going to cause mutations.

    • cencoastal says:

      03:28pm | 07/01/11

      Correct, it is the disease/virus that mutates/evolves depending on your point of view.

    • marley says:

      04:06pm | 07/01/11

      @cencoastal - well, we’ve had the diphtheria vaccine for over 80 years, the Salk vaccine for 55, the measles vaccine for 45 - how much different are the diphtheria, polio and measles bugs than they were before vaccines?  Hmm, that would be, not a lot.

    • Andrew says:

      09:59am | 07/01/11

      PETA are right about mulesing, though: it is horribly traumatic and even kills a significant number of lambs, presumably through physical shock. Anyone doing anything comparable to a human would almost certainly be imprisoned if apprehended, and a lamb’s capacity to suffer physical agony, I assert, is no less than a human’s. What is also significant about this is that people are prepared to live with such abominable states of affairs as long as no one raises a stink about it.

    • Markus says:

      10:27am | 07/01/11

      While the continued effort to breed merino that naturally do not grow fleece on their behinds continues, mulesing is necessary to prevent sheep in Australia from dying a painful and horrifying death from flystrike.

      Both the RSPCA and AVA (Aus Veterinary Association), who have a lot more credibility than the celebrity-dominated PETA, admit that mulesing is currently the most effective way of preventing flystrike and breechstrike in sheep.

      Similar to the very small precentage of children that have an adverse reaction to vaccines, a “significant number of lambs” killed in the process is probably a fraction of the estimated 3,000,000 sheep a year that would be affected by flystrike without the procedure.

    • Trisha says:

      09:22am | 08/01/11

      Have you ever seen a sheep with flystrike??  If you had you would not be seeing this.  My FIL has this problem with his sheep in VIC - its pitiful to see.  so next time you eat lamb, remember that mulesing got the lamb to your plate and not the fireheap.

    • Sir Richard Pumperloaf says:

      08:56pm | 08/01/11

      @Andrew-Anyone who does not take measures to prevent flystrike in their sheep should be apprehended and imprisoned. It is agony for the sheep, a horrible way to die. Not mulesing is an “abominable state of affairs”.

    • rod harrison says:

      10:13am | 07/01/11

      That’s bullshit.
      The survival rate from mulsing operations is 100%
      The real enviro criminals in this piece are PETA and people of that ilk
      who’s prefer unmulsed sheep suffer the alternative - fly strike and being eaten alive by maggots.

    • Andrew says:

      10:33am | 07/01/11

      I have personally assisted with mulesing and seen lambs die, so I can’t agree with you on that one.

    • sean the sheep says:

      03:03pm | 07/01/11

      If the lambs die, you are doing it wrong. You can also use Tri-solfen which is a pain killer, andrenalin and an antiseptic combined. It’s bloody good stuff and should be made available for human first-aid. I’ve been waiting for someone on my mulesing cradle to cut themselves so we can try it out, fortunately has happened yet.
      If you don’t agree with mulesing, go and crutch a fly-blown sheep, as the bits of maggots fly you might change your mind..

    • Just Sayin' says:

      04:14pm | 07/01/11

      I’ve never seen mulsing, but I’ve seen fly blown sheep.  A friend determined which stinking, putrid, but still living carcasses could be saved and he took care of them.  I took care of the others with a 22.  Nothing could be worse for a sheep than a fly blown death.

    • Reasonable says:

      10:16am | 07/01/11

      What I like is that those do-gooders who don’t vaccinate their children were probably vaccinated themselves and lived a disease-free childhood.

    • fatalberton says:

      10:19am | 07/01/11

      OK, so if vaccines are perfectly harmless, and there is concern that a child might contract a disease prior to being vaccinated, then can someone please explain to me why kids need to be 3, 6 or 12 months old before they receive them? Why don’t we just inject them all at birth, or through the womb?

    • St. Michael says:

      11:19am | 07/01/11

      Do you have the faintest idea how a vaccine works?

      For your edification: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaccine

      In short: a vaccine is a weakened version of a virus.  Its strength on injection is such that the human body can defeat it, whereas the body’s immune system is far less likely to defeat a fully-formed, full-strength version of the virus.

      In utero and at very early ages the baby’s immune system is not fully formed or able to cope with illness.  Even a weakened version of the virus is likely to seriously harm or kill at that stage.  Injecting it at that point really is putting the baby at risk.

      Please stop going to the Jenny McCarthy school of immunology.

    • fatalberton says:

      03:33pm | 07/01/11

      Thanks for the reply St.Michael. Previously I had not considered wikipedia to be a particularly credible source, but will take that on notice.

      Not sure why you felt the need to personally attack me at the end.

      Try not to be so judgemental in future.

    • Austin 3:16 says:

      05:51pm | 07/01/11

      A 2005 study in the Nature Journal found that Wikipedia scientific articles were comparable to the Encyclopædia Britannica.

      Vaccination would be in a scientific field?

    • Dan says:

      10:21am | 07/01/11

      Why has ignorance become so fashionable? It now seems any air-head or conspiracy theorist (often the same thing) can formulate an opinion without any facts to back it and according to its prejudices and a large proportion of our population believes it. If you try to explain the stupidity of the opinion, you are villified as an ‘elite’ or something similar. It was not much more than a hundred years ago that ‘miasma’ was thought to be the cause of cholera. Educated, scientific thought and research proved this not to be the case, but many people refused to believe contaminated water was the main cause. Now we have ample scientific proof of the benefit of vaccination and we still have boofheads who refuse to believe it (and all this could apply to the anti-flouride brigade as well). I sometimes despair!

    • St. Michael says:

      11:15am | 07/01/11

      One explanation: the information age gave human society too much to process, and we are now in an Attention Economy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attention_economy

      Another: human beings are psychologically inclined to seek reasons for why things happen.  And we are also inclined to confirmational bias: once we draw a conclusion, we tend to seek out information that confirms our opinion and ignore that which contradicts it.

      One of our biggest mechanisms for seeking reasons is chronological coincidence: if things happen at the same time, we think that one causes the other.  Jenny McCarthy’s prime reasoning for why vaccinations cause autism is that a few weeks after her kid was vaccinated, he began to show symptoms of autism.  What she missed or ignored is that, regardless of whether the kid is vaccinated or not, autism usually shows up at that age anyway.  It is just a coincidence.

      Wild conspiracy theories are actually a symptom of a deeper psychological issue, IMHO.  For the most part they are a coping mechanism.  They reassure a wild-eyed, frightened person that in fact there are reasons for why things happen, that stuff does not just happen randomly in the universe.  Believing that the government was responsible for 9/11 and that the Twin Towers were a controlled detonation is, in a twisted way, a lot more comforting for some nutballs than the alternative which is that 9/11 amounted to a cascade of unfortunate events which resulted in a massive number of deaths.  That is both the beauty and terror of the universe, that sometimes bad shit just happens despite all the odds being against it, and many people simple can’t cope with that.

    • Dan says:

      12:52pm | 07/01/11

      Thank you St Michael. A plausible explaination. But I still despair.

    • kerrie o'rourke says:

      10:27am | 07/01/11

      dammed if you do
      dammed if you don’t

    • St. Michael says:

      11:04am | 07/01/11

      Unfortunately, in order to write a haiku, you need 3 lines, one image, and 11 syllables.

    • St. Michael says:

      01:03pm | 07/01/11

      Actually it’s 19 syllables, come to think of it.  For example:

      Poster kerrie o’rourke
      Typing random sentences
      Confusing everyone

    • Andrew says:

      03:16pm | 07/01/11

      Nono, a haiku is 17 syllables (mora, actually) in the form 5-7-5.

      No vaccine you say
      Alas, your children have died
      Now who is to blame?

      I wrote an entire lecture in haiku once.  Took about 5 days to prepare for 2 hours of material, but was quite well received by my Japanese exchange students wink

    • St. Michael says:

      03:56pm | 07/01/11

      ...So I really should’ve written it:

      kerrie o’rourke posts
      strunk and white turn in their graves
      all sense is absent

      Better? smile

      Although at least you’ve got some dedication to your work, sir. smile

    • Davido says:

      10:28am | 07/01/11

      I disagree. It is essential to our society that people CAN CHOOSE whether they vaccinate or not. The comments on this site sound like they come from the Chinese Board of Censorship.

    • HappyCynic says:

      10:54am | 07/01/11

      Sure and people CAN CHOOSE to not look both ways before crossing a busy street.  But if they get hit by a car who has to pick up the tab?

      Choosing to vaccinate against a disease not only prevents your child from getting the disease but also prevents your child from being a carrier who passes the disease on to other children.

    • Elphaba says:

      11:07am | 07/01/11

      @Davido, it is only a choice when it applies to your child.  It is not a choice when your decision as a parent, puts other children at risk.

    • Bill Door says:

      11:51am | 07/01/11

      @Davido You do not have the choose to endanger others.

    • Davido says:

      12:01pm | 07/01/11

      Sorry - but FREEDOM is much more important than this.

      If people choose not to vaccinate then surely it is their problem. Those who vaccinate will be safe right? And as to the cost to society, that is why we have semi-compulsory private health insurance.

    • St. Michael says:

      12:32pm | 07/01/11

      @ Davido: Good old American FREEDOM doesn’t mean much unless it has RESPONSIBILITY attached to it.  Even the much-vaunted US freedom of speech does not, by law that’s over a hundred years old, justify a person shouting “Fire!” in a crowded theatre and then claiming the protection of the First Amendment.

      Same with immunisation.  So long as your freedoms do not hurt others, there’s no problem with them.  But refusing to immunise is basically degrading herd immunity, which is basically the best weapon human civilisation has against diseases that, in the past, have wiped significant portions of the population off the map in the past few centuries or so.  If enough idiots exercise their FREEDOM to not immunise, herd immunity is lowered to the point where a disease can spread unchecked through a population, because it has enough places to “jump” to that will harbour it.

      You have an individual freedom.  But society at large has a freedom from smallpox and other assorted diseases, and that’s a freedom I value more highly than yours.

    • Elphaba says:

      12:35pm | 07/01/11

      @Davido, it has been discussed about that immunisation cannot happen straight away, and parents of children younger than six months potentially pay for the ignorance of anti-vaxers.

      The decision to not vaccinate deliberately endangers others.  In other situations, its called criminal neglect and is able to be prosecuted.  This is no different.

    • Bill Door says:

      12:42pm | 07/01/11

      @Davido"Those who vaccinate will be safe right?”

      Babies who are not old enough to be vaccinated and people with immune deficiencies, such as myself,  will not be OK.

    • Shane From Melbourne says:

      12:56pm | 07/01/11

      You may have the right to choose not to be vaccinated (or your children not to be vaccinated if exercising your rights as a parent) but the state has the right to quarantine you or your child for a period of time for the greater protection of society. Individual rights do not trump the greater good of society at any time.

    • Davido says:

      01:58pm | 07/01/11

      Perhaps we could tattoo a serial number onto those who choose not to vaccinate. That would teach those dangerous renegades a lesson!

      My advice to those rabid commentators above is this: grab your passport and head off to one of those fun loving countries where you get to do as your told. I dont know, maybe China or North Korea or Burma would welcome you with open arms.

      You might then appreciate how valuable a free choice is.

    • St. Michael says:

      02:20pm | 07/01/11

      @ Davido: I’d gladly accede to your request—as long as you agree to grab a passport and hop on a plane to one of those funloving countries where such diseases as we immunise against are prevalent, such as Kenya, or pretty well half the African subcontinent.  Then I’m sure we’ll have a common frame of reference to discuss the matter.

    • Bill Door says:

      02:30pm | 07/01/11

      @Davido

      The issue of vaccinations is a serious one. You have shown by your ridicules comments that you are not a grown up.

      Our society works because it is government by rules. For example, road rules, restaurant regulations, building regulations etc. I’m sure you would be the first to complain it your neighbours exercised their right to choose an unregulated and unhygienic septic system.

    • Elphaba says:

      03:07pm | 07/01/11

      Davido, your ridiculous comment shows you know nothing about how vaccinations work or how valuable they are.

      But seriously, if you want to keep looking stupid, go nuts.  It gives me endless enjoyment.

    • Davido says:

      03:23pm | 07/01/11

      Lets clear up a massive failure of logic. If you choose to immunise yourself then from a health perspective it is irrelevant what others do.

      The decision to not vaccinate only endangers others who - guess what - have made the same decision!

      Oh dear, this article really does show that ignorance and totalitarianism go hand in hand.

      And finally, some real controversy,  if you believe that people who do not immunise are idiots then is it not a good thing that these idiots will wipe themselves out? Surely this is natural selection at work!?

    • Elphaba says:

      03:34pm | 07/01/11

      @Davido, you still fail to address people who have compromised immune systems because of chemo, or other reasons.

      Are they acceptable collateral damage so you can preserve your right to be ignorant?

    • Elphaba says:

      03:37pm | 07/01/11

      @Davido, and babies too young to be vaccinated.

      Your unvaccinated child catches whooping cough and survives.  Your unvaccinated child passes whooping cough onto your neighbour’s newborn, who’s immune system is so compromised, it kills them.

      That’s ok by you?  Man, I thought I was selfish, but you take it to a whole oher dimension…

    • Erin says:

      03:49pm | 07/01/11

      Davido - Incorrect.

      The decision not to vaccinate also endangers those who are too young to be immunised, those who due to genetic conditions or allergies can not be immunised, those who have suppressed immune systems, and even those who have been vaccinated.  By allowing a disease to flourish in an environment where some are vaccinated and others not will simply create and environment which encourages the evolution of the pathogen, ultimately into a form which is incompatible with the vaccine strain, meaning all persons, vaccinated or not, are susceptible.

      If diseases didn’t evolve, there would be no need to get a new flu vaccine every year.  But diseases do evolve.  Mutations occur which make survival easier for some strains and they go on to infect the population.  The evolve based on pressures present in the environment, such as the presence of vaccinated hosts.  Having an unvaccinated host ensures the pathogen has a greater opportunity to mutate in to vaccine resistant strain.

      Yes you are free to choose not to vaccinate.  But educational institutions, day cares, friends and family are also free to choose to cut of your access to them if your choices are likely to impinge on their wellbeing or the wellbeing of those they are responsible for.

    • Bill Door says:

      03:57pm | 07/01/11

      @Davido

      I don’t even know why I bother. But it has been pointed out several times today that babies under 6 months are not vaccinated and people with immune deficiencies are also at risk. Why do you not get this?

      btw, your last comment makes on sense as there will always be people who will not vaccinate their children despite being vaccinated themselves.

    • Davido says:

      09:07pm | 07/01/11

      Erin - nicely cribbed from Wikipedia. Like freedom and choice, Wikipedia is something you wont have access to in Burma… or Australia if people like you have your way.

      Obviously some people cannot be vaccinated.

      But guess what? I am not willing to be FORCED to have medical treatment against my wishes in order to protect LESS than 1% of the population against the chance of contracting a disease. And the even remoter risk of dying from it.

      And I dont need to. Do some research and check out the threshold rates required for diseases to achieve herd immunity. Currently more than 9 out of 10 children are FULLY immunised in Australia. This far exceeds the threshold for almost ALL diseases.

    • marley says:

      10:46am | 08/01/11

      @Davido - no one is forcing you to be vaccinated, or to have your kids vaccinated.  But if you or your unvaccinated kid transmit measles or whooping cough to my grandson, who’s too young to be vaccinated,  then be prepared for my lawsuit against you.  Ah, the wonders of democracy.

    • WombatQueen says:

      01:03pm | 08/01/11

      Davido, you seem to be confusing your right to choose your own health care with your right to choose the health care of someone else, in this case a child.

      You have the right to stop eating. If you stop feeding your child you will go to jail for neglect. Similarly, you have the right as an adult to stay away from higher learning. However, if you don’t ensure your child gets an education you will have them taken away from you. You can neglect your own medical treatment all you like, if you do so to a child then people are going to question whether you are a fit parent. You do not have the right to do anything you like when it comes to others, even when the others are your own children.

      Society decides where a parent’s individual rights end and the child’s individual rights begin. Society says that children should be safe, fed, housed and schooled and laws are in place to protect those rights for children. If society decides that a child has a right to a childhood free of preventable diseases then society has every right to expect you to vaccinate your child.

    • Davido says:

      12:40pm | 09/01/11

      WombatQueen - I was waiting for the child neglect argument to raise it’s very ugly head.

      This argument - which says not vaccinating a child with child neglect is of course scraping the bottom of the barrel.

      And to be honest I think it is so absurd that I dont think I could do it justice in this forum.

      Essentially, freedom means being at liberty to take risks and make your own assessment of those risks. When you have a child in your care you are the decision maker and you bear the responsibility for making decisions on behalf of that child. Substituting the State as the decisionmaker is unacceptable, unpractical and lets face it, unnecessary.

      If you let the State become the decisionmaker for you, then it is all over for liberty. Maybe the next time you want to watch something on TV you cant because the State will decide what you watch. Maybe the next time you want to vote for a different party - you cant. The State will decide for you.

      Unless you can demonstrate a proven inability to make decisions in a child’s best interests by a parent… then that parent should be free to choose. They should also be free to choose without being labelled idiots.

    • Bilbo says:

      09:57am | 10/01/11

      @Marley; unfortunately the failure of a person to immunise which has a causal nexus to your unimmunised relative contracting a disease which is in turn fatal will not lead to relief in a court of law. This is because, as it stands, one member of the community DOES NOT, in the ordinary course of things, owe a duty of care to others. The tort of nrgligence is grounded upon a duty of care and a failure of that duty. By the way, my point is not about immunisation (which I like most other informed persons understand as being crucial) but rather a the tort of negligence as the inability of the citizen to use this legal doctrine as an incentive for others to have themselves or their children immunised.

    • Macon Paine says:

      11:37am | 10/01/11

      Davido, Hopefully after reading the posts of others above you will have learned about vaccination by now but I fear not. Perhaps that is Darwin at work.
      “This argument - which says not vaccinating a child with child neglect is of course scraping the bottom of the barrel.’
      It’s a fair point though. If someone has the chance to mitigate the threat from many dibilitating and in many cases fatal diseases but they choose not to because they are worried about a non existant link between vaccines and autism (links debunking this have been provided ad nauseum on this page) then that indicates they are putting the child in undue risk. Which could be argued is a form of child abuse or neglect.
      ” And to be honest I think it is so absurd that I dont think I could do it justice in this forum.”
      It’s not absurd, you just dont like it.
      “Essentially, freedom means being at liberty to take risks and make your own assessment of those risks.”
      Correct. But If people chose not to vaccinate in this day and age (when the science is clear about its benefits) we can only conclude they have faulty reasoning skills and probably aren’t exactly the sharpest tools in the shed.
      “When you have a child in your care you are the decision maker and you bear the responsibility for making decisions on behalf of that child.’
      Yes, here are the decisions. 1) Dont vaccinate and risk exposing your child (and others in the community) to horrible diseases. 2) Vaccinate your child and protect them (and others in the community via herd immunity) from horrible diseases. Very simple.
      “Substituting the State as the decisionmaker is unacceptable, unpractical and lets face it, unnecessary.”
      The state is not the decision maker. You still have a choice. But if you dont vaccinate you made the wrong decision, science is clear on this. Perhaps it’s an IQ test though.
      “Unless you can demonstrate a proven inability to make decisions in a child’s best interests by a parent… then that parent should be free to choose.”
      Not vaccinating is proof itself of an inability to reason and make decisons in the child’s best interests.
      “They should also be free to choose without being labelled idiots.”
      Free to choose? Fine, but if people make an idiotic decision they should be labelled as such.

    • Davido says:

      05:10pm | 19/01/11

      To summarise the incredibly clever arguments above…

      You dont agree with me: you must be stupid
      - sorry but this is not the case. The majority are not always correct. Most people believe that when you add 20% to a number and then subtract 20% you return to the same value. Wrong of course. Most people believe that if you cut hair it will only grow back faster darker, and thicker. Wrong again… but try telling people that!

      The scientific evidence shows vaccination is safer than not vaccinating:
      1. the choice still involves a subjective element of risk assessment.
      2. science can, has and will continue to get things wrong. It was once thought that stress caused ulcers. This was completely wrong. It took an Australian - who incidentally was ridiculed for many years - to prove it was caused by bacteria.
      Not vaccinating endangers those who cannot vaccinate
      1. the proportion of those who cannot vaccinate is said to be less than 1%. Let us not overstate their case.
      2. there are other effective methods of minimising risk for those people.

      Not vaccinating endangers the community
      1. most choices you make hurt someone else. The fact that I choose to eat instead of donate that money to someone worse off hurts that person.
      2. not if herd immunity has been reached. Which it has in Australia.
      3. this argument overstates the case - not all vaccines protect against the transmission of a disease. Not all people who contract a disease die or transmit the disease.

      Not vaccinating your child is neglect
      - it depends on your definition of neglect. If you draw your definition that wide I can see a lot of people being neglectful for various things. Maybe letting your child play in the park is child neglect.

      Not vaccinating creates an economic burden on the community
      - that is what insurance is for. It is semi-compulsory in this country if you hadnt noticed.

      At the end of the day the free thinkers must do the thinking for all the sheep out there.

    • LC says:

      07:18pm | 30/03/11

      @Davido,

      Yeah sorry. I’ll tell you another good reason to vaccinate. Aside from this whole thing called herd immunity, there is also this thing called MUTATION. If your child contracts measles, and the virus mutates, this new virus can infect everyone regardless of whether or not they were vaccinated against the original virus. And to top it all off, you’ll waste the medical community’s time and resources in order to both find a cure and a vaccine for this new strain.

      And should something like this happen, the parents of the unimmunized child should have the book thrown at them. It’ll also spell the end for all this vaccination hysteria, so I suppose that’s one plus.

    • kerrie o'rourke says:

      10:32am | 07/01/11

      only a bullet.
      45 just to make sure

    • Old Clive says:

      10:44am | 07/01/11

      This problem started long ago and one of the stories, I repeat stories that has caused major problems is the theory of evolution, the only credible influence this wild theory has, is or are all the missing links who think it is true. Of course all the secular humanists and atheists will dispute this, but most of these people have been to university and studied arts degrees which also is part of the problem.

    • HappyCynic says:

      11:03am | 07/01/11

      WTF does the theory of evolution have to do with vaccines and anti-vaccination crackpots?  Either you’ve posted on the wrong thread or you’re off your meds

    • Steely Dan says:

      11:10am | 07/01/11

      @ Old Clive

      “Of course all the secular humanists and atheists will dispute this, but most of these people have been to university and studied arts degrees which also is part of the problem.”
      And not one of them put their tinfoil hats on before they venture out of the house.  No wonder they’re all falling for the claptrap of the New World Order overlords (and their overlords, the UN’s Satanic Illuminati Reptoid Division).

    • St. Michael says:

      12:19pm | 07/01/11

      @ Steely Dan: Thanks for reminding me, as the holder of a university degree I forgot that my annual fees for my local branch of the Illuminati are due.  At least I don’t have to go to our local graveyard, the Freemasons down the street accept the cheque for me, it’s a nice service they provide.

      Although I must confess I haven’t been to a meeting since the last guest speaker from the Templars—there’s only so many times you can talk about Rennes-Le-Chateau and what’s buried at Rosslyn Chapel, you know?

    • Steely Dan says:

      01:23pm | 07/01/11

      @ St Michael

      I just pay the fees at the servo.  The owner is an Elder of Zion.  And a JP, he’s a handy member of the community.

    • St. Michael says:

      01:42pm | 07/01/11

      @ Steely Dan: Do you know if he’s got any spare black robes he could get to me in a hurry? Mine got a bit stained when the goat from my last candlelit sacrifice ritual pooped on it, and it wouldn’t do to turn up to my next session with the “Hail Satan” embroidery all stained.  I’d take it to the laundromat, but I think the attendant might be onto me.

    • Steely Dan says:

      02:43pm | 07/01/11

      @ St. Michael

      From memory he keeps a stash of them behind the swap’n'go gas bottles out the front, in case of emergencies.  Just leave $10 back there.  Though the last time I saw JFK he told me an overnight soak in Napisan should do the trick.

      And the laundromat attendant?  My guy can fix that too (wink*).

      * That wasn’t me saying wink, that was me winking.

    • St. Michael says:

      04:08pm | 07/01/11

      @ Steely Dan: Yeah, Elvis told me the same thing on stain removals; he had similar problems with chocolate.  But I’ve already tried Napisan and it’s not helping.

      Never mind, $10 for the use of a regulation black robe isn’t that expensive.  I’ll just ring up the guys at Area 51 and ask them to give me a lift down there in the captured UFO on their way home from their meeting with Adolf at the South Pole.  Thanks for the help!

      (PS: You can actually generate emoticons on here.  For Mr. Winky ( wink ) it’s semi-colon followed by a right bracket. )

    • Carl Palmer says:

      10:49am | 07/01/11

      Great article Leo, I agreed wholeheartedly.
      My wife is in the medical game so we get to mix with nurses’ doctors’ professors etc. Whenever this topic comes up for discussion all of these good folks scratch their heads and can’t work out why anyone would not get vaccinated. Is there a risk, yes, but it’s miniscule, the overwhelming majority of people benefit. If you were concerned surely you’d ask your GP and if you were still worried you’d get a second and third opinion, surely.

      The scary thing is that these people have kids, drive, work & vote.

      Finally I cannot understand how anyone would ever consider buying one pill on the net, you would have to be insane or brain dead.

    • Eleanor says:

      01:50pm | 07/01/11

      this is very true. I remember once, when I was starting a new medication and was concerned about potential side-effects, the pharmacist said ‘look, if you could only see the whole list of potential side-effects from taking generic paracetomol, you’d never take OTC painkillers again.’

      I’d much rather run the risk of my future children developing side-effects from vaccinations than endure the ‘side-effect’ of death from serious illness.

    • DocBud says:

      11:38am | 07/01/11

      I don’t understand, I thought peer review was an absolute guarantee that a paper was true and accurate.

    • Reg says:

      02:06pm | 07/01/11

      No Doc, you’re confusing this with the Biblical guarantee. No vacillating now!

    • Autism Dad says:

      11:38am | 07/01/11

      Yes, please keep drawing attention to this cover-up or what? There are many sides to this story and what Dr Wakefield was researching was very plausible. Don’t think for one moment he went out of his way to fraud. Medicos jab your genetically at-risk child, they go home in their Merc or Lexus and you are left with an autistic child that very few medicos unless sincere will bother to help you after that. I heard Dr. Wakefield defending himself on the Radio this morning. He states this study has been replicated 5 (five) times by others since. My toddler son was not reaching his milestones, but got his cocktail of vaccines and after that no medico was interested to know why he had a dystended tummy with bowel issues and blood and protein in his urine and then said… “Oh, it’s because of his autism!”  and left it at that! So, yes Well done to those that keep frauding! Please, when continuing to report on this story, publish the independent science (unpaid for by big Pharma) that supports environmental insults like toddler vaccines and excess folate supplementation while pregnant do not cause autism in at-risk individuals?. I’m certainly waiting to see the real science. C’mon this is half the story - Be real!

    • bella starkey says:

      11:46am | 07/01/11

      Andrew Wakefield was being paid by lawyers to produce results that would support their case.

      There is nothing independent about that.

    • Steely Dan says:

      12:01pm | 07/01/11

      @ Autism Dad

      “There are many sides to this story and what Dr Wakefield was researching was very plausible.”
      Lots of things are plausible, AD.  Contact with labradors could increase risk of colon cancer.  But until somebody can show that it’s reasonable to assume that there’s a relationship - and that the relationship is causal - there’s no good reason to put down Rover.

      “Don’t think for one moment he went out of his way to fraud.”
      In light of the evidence of Wakefield altering info on people’s medical histories, I think I’m safe thinking the guy’s a fraud.

      “Medicos jab your genetically at-risk child, they go home in their Merc or Lexus”
      Being paid well to do a job is not a smoking gun for medical laziness, ineptitude or fraud. 

      ” “Oh, it’s because of his autism!”  and left it at that! So, yes Well done to those that keep frauding!’
      Wait, where was the fraud?  You weren’t happy with your son’s treatment, therefore… elaborate global medical fraud?

    • MrMac says:

      12:03pm | 07/01/11

      I have empathy for your situation having various interaction with autistic people.

      What Wakefield was researching was plausible, but he did not research it -or present his limited case series - plausibly.  It would be interesting what the medical fields - epidemiologists, pathologists, autism experts etc - think of the 5 papers Wakefield referred to.

      Yes, toddler vaccines are an insult, albeit a very small one, mainly on the lymphocytes to stimulated them to produce antibodies and cells capable of recognising the proteins of the infectious agents.

    • Richard says:

      12:03pm | 07/01/11

      Look, I am in favour of vaccination, but I don’t think the hateful rhetoric against anti-vaccination inclined people is useful, fair or warranted. My step-father’s family was impacted terribly by a vaccination gone wrong. His brother had a severe reaction to a vaccine which left him mentally retarded. The condition brought on by the adverse vaccine reaction later claimed the brother’s life the age of 15, after more than a decade of severe handicap which negatively affected every aspect of their family’s happiness.

      My step-father is now staunchly anti-vaccination, and I don’t begrudge him that position, or insult his intelligence to hold it, when I take into the context the tragic events of his childhood.

      Statistics are one thing, but a personal experience is quite another. Talk to any Dr. and they will admit that these types of severe, life destroying reactions to vaccinations do occasionally occur. Please try not to be insensitive to those poor few who have lived through it, and would have preferred in hindsight to have taken their chances with whooping cough or measles.

    • St. Michael says:

      12:27pm | 07/01/11

      I don’t think anyone is denying there’s a very slight chance of a bad outcome from a vaccination, Richard.  I think the issue is more with (a) blowing that risk out of proportion, (b) connecting vaccination to things when there’s no causal connection at all, and then (c) resorting to conspiracy theory to explain why a number of reasonable people say that people who propagate (a) or (b) are wrong.

    • Elphaba says:

      12:41pm | 07/01/11

      But personal experience should not rule the debate until such time as that personal experience overwhelms the scientific evidence.  The evidence says time and time again that vaccines work.

    • Ryan says:

      01:28pm | 07/01/11

      @Richard: hear hear!

      @Elphaba: wow if we applied that logic to thalidomide, we would still be trying to prove its damage on unborn children. I wonder, had thalidomide been introduced today, with the now very powerful drug companies behind it, whether doctors who claim it causes damage to foetesus would be deregistered, accused of being liars and claimed to be quacks.

    • Elphaba says:

      01:39pm | 07/01/11

      @Ryan, WTF?

      The number of people with side effects from vaccines is minimal.  The number of babies born with birth defects due to thatlidomide was completely obvious.  In fact 4 years after it went on sale, it was withdrawn because the horrors were so pronounced.

      How are the two related?

    • Elphaba says:

      01:40pm | 07/01/11

      @Ryan, to clarify, I know that thalidomide is still on the market for its use in cancer treatment, however it’s definitely not being used on pregnant women anymore.

    • bella starkey says:

      01:49pm | 07/01/11

      Funny you should say that Ryan.
      The doctor who discovered the link between birth defects and Thalidomide was struck off in later years because he falified a study about another drug in aid of a compensation law suit.

    • marley says:

      01:51pm | 07/01/11

      @Ryan - thalidomide is an interesting example - and actually, it’s a good one, though not in the sense that you think.  Did you know it wasn’t licenced in the good ole US of A?  It seems the regulators weren’t satisfied that sufficient testing had been done for possible side effects. And they were unfortunately proved correct when it became apparent that mothers who took the drug were delivering abnormally high numbers of deformed babies.  It didn’t take those countries who had licenced the drug very long to establish a causal relationship.

      Now, vaccines have been in use, in some cases, for over 100 years.  The more common vaccines appeared in the late 20s through to the mid 60s.  So we’ve got 50 years’ experience with them, and we still have no evidence of a causal relationship to autism.  Because there isn’t one.

      And did you know it’s back on the market again?

    • Lord Soth says:

      01:58pm | 07/01/11

      I agree that people who have suffered through such personal experiences may have a different outlook on the issue, but that doesn’t mean we should let personal experinces guide how we do everything in life.  If we did, personal experiences would say that no-one should eat peanuts because we’ll all die of anaphylaxis or no-one should. swim in the ocean because we’ll all be eaten by sharks.  Everything we do in life has a level of risk associated with it, but vaccination has a massive benefit associated with it that far outweighs the very small risk.  However, it is this very small risk that some people strenuously want to cling to…and these same people quite happily strap their kids into the car and take them for a drive where they are at far greater risk of injury or death…and some of thes people will speed and some of these people won’t even strap their kids in!

    • St. Michael says:

      02:10pm | 07/01/11

      @ Ryan: The irony is that when William McBride, an Australian doctor, discovered the thalidomide effect on unborn children in 1961, it was via his letter to the Lancet that the issue first came to light.  Subsequently, as indicated, thalidomide was proven to cause birth defects.

      McBride wasn’t so lucky when he falsified data and manipulated results in 1981 alleging that Debendox caused birth defects.  His own coauthors in the study protested that the figures were manipulated.  He, too, testified in lawsuits against the maker of the drug.  He eventually was struck off for his lies, though they reinstuted him in 1998.

    • St. Michael says:

      02:22pm | 07/01/11

      Also, by final comment: thalidomide wasn’t a vaccine or an antiviral agent.  It was a sedative.  The comparison is not a good one.

    • Jane says:

      03:10pm | 07/01/11

      @Ryan,
      Saying Thalidomide caused the disabilities is like saying Oxygen causes cancer both is true but depends on the chemical compesition at the atomic level and how it is “made” (ie which electron each atom bonds to).

      It was only one atomic layout of the Thalidomide chemical that caused the reaction.
      “It was soon discovered that only one particular optical isomer of thalidomide caused the teratogenicity. ” http://medlibrary.org/medwiki/Thalidomide

      We now have the ability to seperate out the bad architecture which we didnt back then. However the chemical now has a bad rep and people are terrified of it.

    • WombatQueen says:

      01:23pm | 08/01/11

      It must be devastating for a family to have a child adversely affected by a vaccine. I honestly feel very sorry for your step-father’s family. They have every right to be devastated and upset by the brother’s death and I can understand it influencing your step-father’s opinions.

      I think the only way to counter anti-vaccine opinions based on anecdotes like this is to point out how many more people would be grieving for lost children if there were no vaccinations. There would have been a higher chance of your step-father losing his brother to measles, polio or mumps than in dying from a reaction to the vaccine. Your step-father could have lost many more members of his family to prevantable diseases too if vaccines had not been available. His brother unfortunately suffered the less likely death between the disease and the prevention. An actual death has more impact than the ‘possible’ deaths he could have otherwise had so emotionally it will have more impact on a person’s opinion on vaccines.

      The rational argument against your step-father’s position would be to ask him how many other family members he would be willing to lose if there were no vaccinations. He could use pre-vaccine morbidity rates to figure out how may family members would have died instead of (or in addition to) his brother. How many of his children or grandchildren would never make it to their fifth birthday if there were no vaccinations and no herd immunity? However while this argument is a logical summation of the risks, only a complete arsehole would ever use it against a grieving person. Which is why emotional anecdotal evidence is so hard to argue against.

    • Kika says:

      12:54pm | 07/01/11

      I can understand why Jenny McCarthy is against vaccines. Her son has autism which is a really serious handicap. They may not ‘look’ as handicapped as others, but being unable to fully engage with ‘life’ in general must be heartbreaking. Especially when parents dream of how their kids will grow up and go through all the mile stones when in reality something horrible happens and they realise that some of these dreams may not come true. 

      I reckon it’s easy to find a scapegoat for when things go wrong like that. And I reckon she’s done that by blaming vaccinations for why her son has autism. The fact is vaccines are for the most part very very safe. They are so important not just for one child, but everyone.  And yes, there is a very slight risk that there will be side effects and reactions. Naturally if your injecting a small amount of disease into a living organism that organism may react to it. And sometimes that reaction can be really bad. But so can the effects of polio and measles and mumps.

      I think parents who don’t vaccinate are selfish. They think of their own projection of the future under the guise of ‘thinking of their child’ instead of thinking about their own childs REAL health, other children’s health and the health of the community. How many stories have you heard of kids getting sick at a child care centre with an easily preventable disease? I’ve even heard of measles making a return! MEASLES!!!

      Guess what, all these diseases like Mumps, measles and polio were eradictated for a reason. They are awful, horrible diseases that make you very very sick!! Even life threatening in children.

      These people don’t understand that when they make the decision not to vaccinate they may think that by not doing so the risk is very low of their child getting these diseases so they will opt out of vaccinating. Well guess what? The reason why the risk is low is because for years and years we have all been vaccinated to make sure that these diseases are being passed around! But courting that risk you are effectively opting ‘yes’ into bringing these germs back into existence again!!!

    • Bill Door says:

      01:37pm | 07/01/11

      Before Jenny McCarthy settled on vaccinations as the cause of her son’s autism she claimed that he was a “crystal child”/“Indigo children”. These are children, usually disabled, that have supernatural powers or abilities. She has always looked for a scapegoat.

    • Terrin says:

      01:06pm | 11/01/11

      Um, crystal/indigo children don’t posses supernatural abilities. In actual fact, if you do more research into them, you might find indigo children were named as such by aura colour, but many of them live fine in society, and are not handicapped, though some are told they have mild aspergers. The ‘supernatural’ powers they are said to wield… are to help ‘lighten’ the world. Yep, kinda like Buddhist monks/nuns do, but aren’t monks/nuns. In fact, many of them don’t know/care whether they are or not! The reason many people feel they don’t realte well in society is that on some level, they’re annoyed at society. Crystal children are a whole different kettle of fish, and not as much is known about them. So, I agree with her looking for a scapegoat, but I don’t agree with her saying he’s a crystal or indigo… it’s a bit offensive to the community that are/are related to crystal or indigos.

      And yes, not vaccinating your kid is quite selfish. Not getting yourself vaccinated is quite selfish as well. Think of your loved ones! What if you get a nasty disease you could have taken a vaccine to prevent, and pass it on to a loved one who couldn’t take the vaccine?

      Unfortunately, where one vaccine is concerned, I disagree with it. Chicken pox. It just doesn’t seem to fully immunise you. There was an outbreak at a school my husband worked at, and three teachers contracted it. Two had had the vaccine. Both I and my husband had chicken pox as children, and neither of us, even though we’ve had contact with people who have the disease, have contracted it again, yet two people who had the vaccine contracted it. And as said above by someone, it doesn’t fully cover you. It seems that unfortunately… the best vaccine against chicken pox… is chicken pox, best as a child. The chances of getting any of the strains later on are very very low, from memory, about 12% or less. My ex got adult chicken pox, and it hit him really hard, harder than it hit any kid I’ve ever known. I know chicken pox can be bad in some kids, but it’s absolutely awful in adults. I think my parents had a harder time with my chicken pox than I did, tbh.

      The other vaccines… I have no problem with. In fact, when my partner and I are ready to have children, I plan on sitting down with my doctor and making sure all my shots are up to date. I’m not taking any chances with my kids, or my health when having them. It might be a bit hard on me (I’ve been known to have reactions like headspins, nausea, fever, etc, in fact, I was the first person at my local clinic to have any reaction to the cervical cancer vaccine and was monitored for a while before being given the all clear to go home. The next jabs for it were fine, however), but where my kids are concerned, my health is paramount when carrying them. And their health is what matters most when they are born. I won’t put them at risk. However, I won’t put them in cotton wool… if they want to play in the mud, let them. Didn’t do me or my parents, aunts and uncles and grandparents any harm, did it? (It’s also said to help strengthen their immune system, not living in a virtual clean room as some people tend to do when they have children. I got sick all the time living with my father and stepmother, who was an absolute clean freak, than I did with my mother, who didn’t use antibacterial cleaners every two days on every surface. A clean house is a lived in house, not a clean room. You don’t have to clean the house from top to bottom every two days to avoid getting sick. A good diet, vaccinations and a bit of exposure to some everyday germs will make sure of that.) I guess you could say there’s a fine line, but vaccinations are a must.

    • Lord Soth says:

      12:57pm | 07/01/11

      Just send the non-vaccinators to live in Kenya or Rwanda and see how well their kids fare without vaccinations.  Better that then them putting my vaccinated kids at greater risk!

    • St. Michael says:

      01:14pm | 07/01/11

      I just want to say that’s one of the most awesome user handles I’ve ever seen.  I presume you’re Lord Soth before they shoehorned him into Ravenloft, though? smile

    • Coach says:

      01:40pm | 07/01/11

      Great work Leo, I’m glad you brought attention to the findings of the study.  I thought it would have been featured more prominently in the papers today instead of how Paul Hogan sees himself as the Brad Pitt of advertising but meh what can you do.

      One thing you forgot to mention is that Jenny McCarthy found a cure for her son’s autism…. well either that or he didn’t have autism at all.  But if it’s the former maybe she could advocate getting your kids vaccinated and then if they then become diagnosed with autism she can share the cure?

    • JR says:

      03:03pm | 07/01/11

      Absolutely correct - some of the ridiculous comments on here prove it.

    • Steve Price says:

      03:19pm | 07/01/11

      I don’t trust those scheming pharmo buggers one bit. Not only are they trying to drive up the price of medications, those bastards were behind 9/11! My mate down the pub also reackons they shot JFK and kidnapped Elvis. If you don’t want to your kids to get autism, do like I do and knock the vacinations up yourself. I use two parts balsamic vinegar to one part bat’s piss and I’m fighting bloody fit! Get it in ya!!!

    • Reg says:

      05:02pm | 07/01/11

      I am disappointed that you fail to credit the Pharmaceutical Industry with recycling the Elvis store-house of mendicants and although vinegar certainly has its place, I am somehow suspicious that you fail to tells us which type of bat’s piss to incorporate.

      The FDA was indeed successfully pressured to accept Amiodarone without adequate testing under threat of its withdrawal from current North American users. What we should be questioning is a drugs’ success rate relative to its failure in other areas. When a blanket warning against side-effects includes everything under the Sun, it is worse than useless, it would be better if a more effective indicator was provided to the public. Do YOU know the half-life of any medications you’re on?  Since Amiodarone I do, and for good reason.

    • sean the sheep says:

      03:23pm | 07/01/11

      In defence of Jim Carrey,  if Jenny McCarthy said she would have sex with me if I agreed with her views, I too would become momentarily stupid.

    • Erin says:

      04:04pm | 07/01/11

      Having read all of the comments it seems to me that the following is true / necessary:

      1) It is awful to have an autistic child
      2) Vaccination has prevented hundreds of thousands of children from developing debilitating illnesses.
      3) Some parents are concerned that there is a link between vaccination and autism.
      4) Some persons have indicated that this link may be due to the vaccination having an effect on a pre-existing condition or genetic pre-dispostion resulting in autism.
      5) The community would benefit from further research into what these pre-existing conditions or genes might be, keeping in mind that the broad spectrum of autism makes it likely that there is no single cause.  Research should then be conducted on effective means of screening these people out.
      6) I have learned that in most cases, autism is apparent by the age of 5.
      7) Parents who are scared of immunisation should have a right to refuse vaccination prior to the age of 5, and after should there be an identified and medically verified reason for doing so.
      8) Children who are unvaccinated should be unable to attend day care, pre-school, school, any public playgroup, and required to notify the parents of children they wish their child to interact with of their unimmunised status.

      The above, to me, seems the most scientific means of dealing with the matter.  Sure, question the authoritaw.  But “first do no harm”.  If you want to spend more time looking into whether there are any credible links, do so in a way that minimises the risk of deadly diseases being reintroduced to the populace.

    • OchreBunyip says:

      06:01pm | 07/01/11

      If the vaccinations continue to work as intended then the only casualties will be those who are not vaccinated. Humans are not immune to evolutionary pressures no matter how smart they think they might be; perhaps this is one way to weed out the terminally stupid genes from our gene pool?

    • guy Lee Hanlon says:

      06:13pm | 07/01/11

      just eat a cane toad with barbecue tomato sauce and chicken salt or alternative eat chicken,chips and cola.

    • Andrew C says:

      10:16am | 08/01/11

      Not knowing much on the topic I’ve taken a hr to do some basic research - given 99% of people here are pro-vaccine, I figured I’d look at opposing views.

      What I found:
      1) It’s dangerous to be anti vaccine on this site - personal attacks are commonplace if u disagree with the status quo (eg. St. Michael - telling fatalberton to “stop going to the Jenny McCarthy school of immunology” after he professed his ignorance and asked a basic question).
      2) Jenny McCarthy’s site is not anti-vaccine.  It implores readers to do their own research, it asks the government to “green” vaccines (take out all the bad stuff like mercury), asks why in the US kids get almost 30 vaccines whilst in Denmark and Sweden for example, the number is in the low teens, and emphasises that no research has been done on the “combination” impact of so many vaccines been given to a child in such a short space of time.  My summary of the site is that she/they support vaccines, just not as many and not so many at once.  That sounds quite logical and not stupid as everyone (who probably haven’t even looked at the website0 seems to imply
      3) I had a look at Wakefield’s Lancet study expecting to find a definitive conclusion linking the MMR to vaccines.  I thought this quote stood out the most: “We did not prove an association between measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine and the syndrome described.”  Fraud or no fraud, he never concluded the two were definitively linked.
      4) Accusations levelled at Wakefield state his research was supposedly to help parents of autistic children sue the big pharma companies - but by then these manufacturers were indemnified and couldn’t be sued.

    • marley says:

      09:07am | 09/01/11

      I think you need to do a bit more reading.

      1)  Yes, there have been some peremptory responses on this thread. I could argue, equally, however, it’s dangerous to be pro-vaccine.  Look at the comments from Ryan and Davido, and tell me how civil they are.

      2) Jenny McCarthy claimed for quite a long time that vaccination caused her son’s autism.  She’s backed off that claim now, but it certainly was on her website a year or so ago.  She’s shifted her ground a bit, as the evidence has built up against her claims.  However, she most certainly has been anti-vaccine in the past, she has a record of posting information which is biased, inaccurate or misleading, and her endeavours have resulted in a decline in immunization rates back home in California.  I’d say she’s pretty anti-vax. 

      As for “greening” vaccines, of course American childhood vaccines don’t contain mercury and haven’t for years, not that mercury has any link whatsoever to autism. 

      3) As for Wakefield, he was claiming a link between the MMR (measles bacteria in the gut) and a supposed gastrointestinal disorder symptomatic of autism.  Only he faked the data.  And his paper, and the subsequent speeches and publicity he got, resulted in the vaccination rate in the UK plummeting and measles making a serious comeback there.

      4) Well, the US certainly has a vaccination compensation program;  the UK has one as well, but at the time of Wakefield’s study, compensation was minimal, so class actions were being launched against the manufacturers themselves.  Neither the British nor American schemes preclude the actual manufacturer being sued - but the standard of proof in the American vaccination court anyway, is lower than that which would be needed in a regular civil court, and the legal costs to the claimant are minimal, so most claims go through that scheme.  And it is a fact that the solicitors who hired him most definitely did have a legal action underway for vaccine damage.

    • Austin 3:16 says:

      10:34am | 09/01/11

      What you should have found is:
      -  it’s dangerous to be stupid on this site

      -  McCarthy’s site is quite anti-vaccination, by implication rather than out-right statement. But having viewed the site I fail to see how it can be seen as anything other than anti-vaccination. Further I didn’t see one single mention on Jenny’s site on how to get your hands on a couple of hundred children and run a double blind study on the effectiveness of vaccination vs the side effects. What Jenny seems to want you to do is read some carefully selected articles on her web-site.

    • Aimee says:

      10:41am | 08/01/11

      Is there a reason why the three vaccines (Measles, Mumps, Rubella) are put into one vaccine? I know many parents who object only to having the three put together but not to a single vaccine against each disease?

    • marley says:

      09:29pm | 08/01/11

      Well, why not?  Would you prefer to give your kid three jabs, or one?  The antigen low is pretty small.  There’s a very low incidence of side effects.  The vaccine is quite effective.  There’s no evidence whatsoever that the triple shot carries a higher risk than three single shots.  So why inject your kid three times when one will do?

    • Davido says:

      03:57pm | 09/01/11

      The reason is simply cost. In Australia (unlike other countries) you can only get Rubella as an individual vaccine.

    • marley says:

      07:10pm | 09/01/11

      @Davido - quite wrong.  The rubella vaccine in Australia is contained within the MMR - look up Priorix - the approved childhood vaccine for measles, mumps and, yes, rubella.

    • Davido says:

      05:07pm | 19/01/11

      Marley - read it again. Of the three vaccines - you can only get Rubella as an individual vaccine.

    • HeatherG says:

      11:52am | 08/01/11

      There is falsification on both sides.

      [Please read my entire post before answering; I am not necessarily anti-immunisation].

      My second son, now 18, was almost killed by the Triple Antigen (note: NOT the MMR), after my first son had a severe reaction to it. As a result, I have chosen not to vaccinate my younger children as there were no extant allergies, etc, to explain the reaction my elder sons had and there was no guarantee the younger ones would not have reacted similarly. They are in their teens now and have rarely been ill, thank goodness, and I always make sure they are kept home when necessary.

      Fair enough, all medications have their side effects and we were a part of that small percentage, sometimes shyte happens, fortunately due to the reaction with my first son I was on the ball and therefore noticed my son had stopped breathing before he actually died. But, what bothers me about this is not that fact: it is that 2 different doctors, 20 months apart, point blank, refused to include either of my sons as a part of the “side effect” statistics, even though both acknowledged the vaccinations were the cause. The second doctor gave me the honest reason: “We can’t go scaring people; they will stop vaccinating.”

      Please note I am not suggesting people don’t vaccinate, I am simply pointing out there are liars on both sides of the debate, and neither help the issue—sometimes it is, in fact, dangerous to vaccinate, however few and far between these may, in fact, be.

      The other “flipside” to vaccination is that we have, as a society, forgotten how to quarantine. We go to work when ill (and often get lambasted when not) and take drugs to reduce symptoms so we can do so without any consideration for who we’re passing our illnesses to. In the event of a highly contagious, non vaccinatable [it’s a word now wink ] disease we have no “first defence” because of this. Vaccinations give a veneer of false safety against things we actually have very little defence for.

      I would like to see more actual, non-biased research (ie, not funded by the AMA—a doctor’s trade union—anti-vaccination self-interest groups or drug companies) into the real rates of side effects, historical disease pathology (ie, did vaccinations really reduce the disease or simply assist an already happening process in cases such as smallpox or polio? Studies claim both but all the studies I have read—on both sides of the issue—have been flawed and/or biased, so the “true” answer is “we don’t know”). How about some real scientific study with no “fear based research”, looking for the actual evidence?

      It would also be nice if both sides would quit the hysterical ad hominem attacks with illogics such as “your [unimmunised] children make my [immunised] children sick.” If the immunisation protects the individual from the disease, that won’t happen, so the fear mongering is unnecessary. Also, if the media stopped using the extremist words “epidemic” and “pandemic” when between 2 & 200 cases of a notifiable disease appear, that would help. The Spanish flu that killed 20,000 people in the United States alone was an epidemic. 3 cases of whooping cough (caused by a bacterium that many people carry—immunised and not—without even knowing it) is not. Deaths are always tragic, but fearmongering does not help.

      Another reason for such a clear-minded study would mean that children, such as my own, whose lives are, in fact, threatened by the immunisation itself, would not be swept under the scientific carpet and new types of protection against such diseases could be researched. Falsifying statistics meant that MY kids could not be immunised at all, whether I wanted to or not. Think about it.

    • marley says:

      08:04pm | 08/01/11

      Statistics are interesting things, and can be twisted to suit one’s preconceived beliefs. So, you will see a lot of stats showing that mortality rates from a lot of diseases dropped before vaccines were introduced.  Quite true.  Antibiotics and better medical reduced the impact of quite a few infectious diseases in the early to mid 20th century.

      But hardly the whole story.  Look at the incidence rates of those same diseases.  And they only dropped after the introduction of vaccines.  And that’s a fact.

      And yes, you are quite right that a small proportion of kids can’t be vaccinated because they have allergic reactions.  So, you’d need to hope that everyone around them is vaccinated, or they’re going to be vulnerable to all those diseases.  And if the vaccination rate drops, your kids are amongst the vulnerable.  Think about it.

    • Austin 3:16 says:

      10:26am | 09/01/11

      Why not just look at child morality rates prior to vaccination compared to after vaccinations became common.

    • HeatherG says:

      12:40pm | 09/01/11

      @Marley: I have seen stats that do, and stats that don’t. I read the studies themselves to get context. Both sides have valid concerns, and both sides are guilty of twisting statistics. It’s frustrating.

      @ Austin 3:16:  That’s just the thing: I do, and have done, just that. Historically, child mortality rates have fluctuated wildly (for example, during some parts what we now erroneously call the “dark ages” archaeology and extant records show that, for example, the UK region had much lower child mortality rates than Victorian era Great Britain. We haven’t had long centuries of “high child mortality” and a sudden 20th century drop. It has always been up and down—and that doesn’t just apply to children). It is too simplistic to state, even during periods of high mortality, that these were caused simply by now preventable disease. Child mortality, and disease prevention, can demonstratably be shown to have improved during periods with better nutrition, for example. Famine is a higher disease risk than non vaccination, even during the modern era (again, please note I have NOT stated we shouldn’t vaccinate).

      The only point I was really making is that I have often been called “stupid” for not vaccinating my younger kids in the off-the-cuff manner some of the comments have been to others, because it is widely misunderstood that the statistics on BOTH sides of the debate are not accurate, because all studies (that I have read), have shown bias. All I would like to see is an objective study done by someone who is not being paid by an interest group, on any side, and allow for the fact that there are valid concerns, on both sides. I have tried to be responsible, to both society and my own children (it is all very well to say that mortality & morbidity rates are only, say, 1 in 1000, but statistics don’t matter when your child is that 1).

      It surprises me that anyone could be threatened by that. Isn’t the truth the most important thing here? Shouldn’t we find the correct, true rates of side effects so that alternatives can be sought for those who cannot use current methods? The only way any drug company would be willing to develop new types of alternatives is if it is shown that there is a need for it. However, in instances like my sons, those figures are not being recorded. As a result, there are children who could be immunised IF those alternatives were available—but refusing to include morbidity statistics by a few members of the “pro” camp in order to not scare poeple out of vaccinating have left parents like myself, who wish to use an alternative, if available, without any recourse but to not immunise at all (as my OP states, I did so, twice, and almost lost a child as a result. Should I have taken the same risk with my other children, given we could not find a cause that could have been anything other than the vaccination itself? The doctor said “no.” As a result, those children are at risk of contracting these preventable diseases and I regularly get dirty looks and snarky comments from teachers who couldn’t be arsed listening to exactly why those children haven’t been vaccinated).

      If people were really concerned about herd immunity they would look at these alternatives.

      It is true, that old saying: “Figures don’t lie, but liars figure.” :D

    • marley says:

      08:05am | 10/01/11

      @Heather - well Heather, I have looked at American, Canadian and British records on infant and child mortality, and, irrespective of what was going on in the pre-industrial era, there was most definitely a precipitous drop in the infant mortality rate starting in the late 19th century.  The first element was the elimination of puerperal fever through the introduction of antiseptics, and of course diet played a role, but the introduction of vaccines most definitely did coincide with a further drop in child mortality.  Do you seriously think that improved hygeine and diet actually accounts for the fact that the child mortality rate in 1955 was something like 30/1000 and now it’s under 5/1000?

      I’ve also looked at American, Canadian and British data showing the incidence of diseases like diphtheria, whooping cough, measles and mumps over the course of the 20th century.  The mortality rates for all of these diseases were clearly in decline before the advent of most vaccines; the incidence of these diseases, however, was not in decline.  And you only have to look at the date vaccines were introduced, and then see the precipitous drop in incidence rates within a couple of years.  And you know what, countries that introduced the vaccines a couple of years after the US did, saw a decline in the diseases a couple of years after the US did as well - coincident with the introduction of the vaccine, not better diet. 

      These are unambiguous facts, easily confirmed by checking the statistics on infectious diseases and child mortality rates published at the time.  There is absolutely no twisting of statistics, because the statistics are what they are.

      As for risk levels, there is plenty of scientific data about the risk levels of particular vaccines.  No vaccine is 100% safe, and no scientist or doctor would claim otherwise.  But if the risk from the vaccine is 1 in a million of a serious side effect, and the risk from the disease is 1 in 10 (measles, for example) then an informed parent will choose the vaccine (obviously not if the child is allergic to eggs or has had previous issues with vaccines). 

      And if your children haven’t been vaccinated because of allergies, obviously, you’re amongst the group of people who’d better hope that all their friends and relatives are vaccinated.

    • Kerryn says:

      12:49pm | 08/01/11

      Autism is treatable.  Death from a disease that could have been prevented with a vaccine isn’t.

      I think I know which one I’d prefer.  Are us on the autistic spectrum (I’m an Aspergers woman) so undesirable you’d rather risk death over us?

      I know the vaccine link is false, but there are still people risking their children’s lives over this.

    • JS says:

      09:18pm | 08/01/11

      Well said Kerryn. Certain members of the organised anti-vax groups are using ASD to create fear in the naive. Shame on them for pushing their agendas and pretending that they have the best interest of the community at heart. It’s making our kids with ASD look like they have some kind of tragic disease. What kind of message is this sending out to other people in the community. That someone with ASD is to be pitied, someone to be scared of. My son has ASD, and like all other kids he is wonderful, funny, happy and I’m proud of him. He just sees the world in a different way. It’s that simple. I wouldn’t change him for anything in the world. Good on you Kerryn for speaking up, reminding us all that people with ASD, Aspergers or any related condition are human beings who are not walking labels. So people, stop being so frightened of autism. Stop also singling it out as ‘the thing you don’t want your child to get’.

    • Steven Cousley says:

      01:39pm | 08/01/11

      I hope all of the concerned adults here are up to date with their booster shots. After all, you are aware of the risk to all of the unvaccinated children.

    • Mel says:

      05:53pm | 08/01/11

      the anti-vac folks are seriously stupid and scary. They are parenting young children and constantly exposing them to harm. Pure ignorance and stupidity, and all because Jenny said so - and her kid probably never had autism anyway….

    • Fabroosh says:

      10:03pm | 08/01/11

      “Pure ignorance and stupidity”..Mel ? Jenny McCarthy’s son is diagnosed with moderate to severe Autism. I know who the ignorant and stupid one is.

    • JS says:

      02:30pm | 09/01/11

      Thank you Macon for the link to the interview. I have a new respect for Tracey Spicer. It was fantastic. The anti-vax lobby really need a new spokesperson if they are planning on getting any respect. Ms Dorey is the wrong person for the job. Although I think she’s a self-appointed spokesperson.

    • DD says:

      02:06pm | 09/01/11

      If vaccinations cause autism, show me the autism clusters around the vaccination clinics.  My younger brother is autistic.  He was the first autistic child to attend our primary school back in the 80s.  So out of the hundreds of kids in the area who had the same vaccinations, only ONE child had autism.  (On top of that, my father noticed signs he wasn’t quite right when he was a very young baby - brother developed differently to me, etc).

    • Shane says:

      05:10pm | 09/01/11

      Interesting how this is not cover by journalists &media;.......

      not sure if the vaccine against stupidity has kicked in yet…...

      hope it does soon…this is a very serious matter dealing with lives

      so back in 2009, this happened & then Lancet comes out with a reply.

      ‘‘Dr. Wakefield is the co-author, along with eight other distinguished scientists from institutions like the University of Pittsburgh, the University of Kentucky, and the University of Washington, of a set of studies that explore the topic of vaccinated versus unvaccinated neurological outcomes using monkeys.

      The first phase of this monkey study was published three months ago in the prestigious medical journal Neurotoxicology, and focused on the first two weeks of life when the vaccinated monkeys received a single vaccine for Hepatitis B, mimicking the U.S. vaccine schedule. The results, which you can read for yourself here (http://fourteenstudies.org/pdf/prim...), were disturbing. Vaccinated monkeys, unlike their unvaccinated peers, suffered the loss of many reflexes that are critical for survival.

      Dr. Wakefield and his scientific colleagues are on the brink of publishing their entire study, which followed the monkeys through the U.S. childhood vaccine schedule over a multi-year period. It is our understanding that the difference in outcome for the vaccinated monkeys versus the unvaccinated controls is both stark and devastating

      Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/028109_Andrew_Wakefield_Jenny_McCarthy.html#ixzz1AWGKvvLQ

    • Mira says:

      09:16pm | 09/01/11

      I have a son who has severe autism and lost his ability to speak,and eat solid food and he suffers from various disabilities. Autism is some sort of inflammation of the brain, they don’t know why it happens.  I dont blame vaccines, I have no answers, but until they can tell me why this happened to my son, I cannot vaccinate my daughter until she is older, and stronger.  I have watched my son digress to a point where he is disabled.  We are desperate parents, with no answers.  I think you should not be so strong in your self-righteous judgement of parents who have disabled children.  I am not anti-vaccines or pro-vaccines, I just want answers and am trying to do what is best for my children when we live with a condition that noone can tell us why it happened, everyone has their theories but in the end I have to watch my son looking at the floor day after day -  when once upon a time he could say mum and now he lives in silence.

    • Jayne says:

      12:18pm | 20/01/11

      @Mira If you don’t blame vaccines then why haven’t you vaccinated your daughter? Girls have less chance of having autism than boys so the chances are your daughter will be ‘neurotypical’. I can empathise with your situation. I have a boy with ASD and a global delay and he is non-verbal. I also have a daughter who is ‘neurotypical’. Both my kids are fully vaccinated and I would do so again without hesitation. I know how tough it is and the desperation you can feel at times. I wonder if you’ve done testing on your boy to determine how well he is physically. Does he have gastrointestinal issues such as an impacted bowel, does he have low zinc levels, what’s his heavy metal levels like etc? It’s definitely worth investigating as it may surprise you and the improvements can be immense when any physical health problems are addressed. Look into the biomedical treatments. Also, look forward with hope. There always is hope even when things seem hopeless. Good luck.

    • random says:

      08:33am | 10/01/11

      The Cause of Autism has been proven - it is passed down from the parent/s and occurs due to a hormone imbalance in the parent/s brains as their brain cells die from watching too much TV, staring at screens displaying crap from the internet, or posting their non-expert opinions. Oh, and that post natal overdose of the Wiggles probably doesn’t help either, i had to sit through half an hour at a “friends” place once and that made me feel pretty crook.

      Speaking of expert opinion, anyone notice the lack of any comments from people who work in these areas or have real learning or expertise? thats because they are busy doing their jobs. So rely on them, they are probably smarter than you, sure as eggs they are better trained than you, plus, they get paid to keep up with all the reputable stuff happening in their field of expertise, so that you don’t have to. If you really think your doctor is wrong, get another opinion. From another doctor, not from @random on the interweb.
      go read your kid a book or boot them out the house for the afternoon. Remember how different your childhood was to their artificial lives, and hey, you turned out pretty good….

    • Fabroosh says:

      09:13am | 10/01/11

      And so Random, your opinion is based on what ??? You clearly are no expert either, with the bullsh*t you’ve just posted. Autism is a REAL disability. It is NOT because of TV or because they are not read to. You have NO IDEA about the daily lives led by parents of kids with Autism. You have NO IDEA about the lengths they will go to just to hear their child say the word MUM. Go away.

    • Blanche says:

      12:08pm | 10/01/11

      I agree Random has no idea of what autism ia really about. It is a terible disability for a child to have. Not all cases are from vaciine damage but the vast majority are. My eldest two son were vaccine damaged and have suffered terribly. None of my younger children and none of my grandchildren are vaccinated and are as healthy as healthy can be. You cannot put toxic muck directly into a children blood stream and not expect a bad effect on the body.

    • Luke says:

      12:34pm | 10/01/11

      Ok… so if i choose not to vaccinate i’m irresponsible?
      It is a human right to refuse medical treatment. It is also the parents who are responsible for thier own children. Hence they can choose to refuse medical treatment to thier child.
      I choose to vaccinate my children. I give everyone the right to refuse it.
      In fact, i INSIST that they have that right. You mocking thier decisions only makes them decide harder against what you see is “ideal”.
      This… “we are going to help you weather you like it or not” tone this author has is the scariest thing I’ve read in some time…

    • malohi says:

      09:21am | 13/01/11

      Isn’t choosing whether you will or will not eat a human right. It is also the parents who are responsible for thier[sic] own children. Hence they can choose not to feed thier child. I choose to feed my children. I give everyone the right to refuse it.
      Isn’t choosing whether you will or will not self harm a human right. It is also the parents who are responsible for thier own children. Hence they can choose to harm thier child. I choose not to harm my children. I give everyone the right to refuse it.
      Isn’t choosing whether you will or will go to hospital if dying a human right. It is also the parents who are responsible for thier own children. Hence they can choose to not take thier dying child to hospital. I chose to do this for my children. I give everyone the right to refuse it.

      Fortunately Australia has adopted the Convention on the Rights of the Child, Making the child’s rights paramount… not the self indulgent rights of the uneducated bogan who has a problem with authority.

    • bob says:

      10:06pm | 10/01/11

      I stopped trusting in the mainstream media long time ago, adam and eve were perfectly healthy and god didn’t need to vaccine them. why is the world death rate rising so rapidly?

    • marley says:

      09:01am | 11/01/11

      The number of deaths is rising, because there are more of us.  And because we’re older.  That’s because we live much longer, by the way.

    • Blanche says:

      10:08am | 11/01/11

      Living longer but in what condition? People are living longer because they have pace makers fitted and are pumped full of drugs with all the horrific side effects. I believe quality is always better than quanity. I am sure that the aluminium in flu vaccines is to blame for much of the dementia we see today. My father is 92 and has never had any vaccines (except for the smallpox jab which he was forced to have). He is on no medication whatsoever except for herbs and homeopathy and is alert and physically active. He always says if you want to remain healthy stay away from doctors and their drugs.

    • marley says:

      12:01pm | 11/01/11

      Well, we can trade anecdotes if you like - my mother is 93, had the smallpox jab, plus diphtheria and tetanus when she was in the Air Force.  She’s on a couple of pills, none of which have any side effects that we’ve ever noticed.  And doing just fine, thank you very much.  But she sure does see her doctor regularly.

      And both our parents are alive today because they survived the childhood diseases of 80 or 90 years ago, which so many children did not.  Child mortality is a fraction of what it was even 50 years ago.

      And there’s something called the HALE (healthy life expectancy) which gives you the average number of years you can expect to live as a healthy person.  It’s obviously shorter than the actual life expectancy - but it’s still over 70 years here.  That’s longer than total life expectancy a generation ago.

    • Darren Parker says:

      10:25am | 13/01/11

      And the same thing is happening with Global Warming studies. They’ll all be refuted in the next few years

    • Blanche says:

      10:26am | 13/01/11

      Many childhood diseases were dying out way ahead of vaccines you only have to look at the graphs. Good food, better living conditions and good hygiene have given us the 70 years plus life expentancy we have today. Unfortunately too much of a good thing could reverse this as people become lazy, over weight and unfit.

    • marley says:

      12:33pm | 13/01/11

      @Blanche - take another look at those graphs.  The death rate was dropping away before the advent of vaccines, but the incidence of the diseases most definitely was not.  Cases of measles, whooping cough, mumps and diphtheria only started declining when vaccinations were introduced, and not before.  The measles rate in the USA pre-vaccine averaged something like 300/100,000 right through the first half of the 20th century, with cyclical ups and downs.  The vaccine was introduced in the early 60s and the rate dropped to under 25/100,000 in five years.  And polio was stopped in its tracks by the introduction of vaccines.

    • Blanche says:

      09:50pm | 13/01/11

      @Marley - doesn’t this show you that the answer to dis-ease in the body is good clean healthy living and not pumping the body with vaccines. A good lifestyle is what makes these illness not life threatening. The vaccines only work for a few years then the person is no longer immune, whereas catching mumps or measles gves life time immunity. I am of the generation where we were sent to measlse parties, caught the measles were nursed correctly with tepid bathing, herbs and homeopathy plus given good foods rich in Vitamins A,C,and D to boost us up. It is health education we need not vaccines. As far as I know no mass vaccine programme was given for scarlet fever but that has died out. Vaccines prolong the life span of a disease as no natural immunity is gained to hand down to the next generation. In the Polio out break in the early fifties it was the poor kids in our street that got it. They were the ones with outside toilets with no hand washing. They had little food mainly bread and jam or dripping and little fresh fruit which was still in short supply after the war. The rich kids in my part of town played with these kids but did not catch the disease from them. You will always have disease where there is poverty and poor lifestyle.

      It is all about choice and I agree that vacines should be available free to all who want them but likewise those who choose not to vaccinate should have their right to refuse respected. If vaccines work then the vaccinated have nothing to fear from the unvaccinated. We have to weigh things up and having seen so many cases of vaccine induced autism and cot deaths from vaccines I know where my family stand on this.

    • marley says:

      11:56am | 14/01/11

      Blanche - No.  If measles returns, your unvaccinated kids will get it, because it’s highly contagious.  Kids caught it in the 50s and 60s, when arguably they were living cleaner than nowadays.  So what, you say?  It’s a mild disease.  Except that it isn’t.  1 out of 10 of the kids that get measles will get a serious complication - pneumonia, otitis, etc - 1 out of 1000 will get encephalitis - and two out of 1000 will die.  That’s in healthy populations with good diet and sanitation, by the way - recent outbreaks in Switzerland, France and Italy all have those kinds of numbers attached. 

      I had measles myself as a kid - got pneumonia and spent two weeks in hospital.  And I did not come from an impoverished background. 

      As for polio, you are quite incorrect.  Polio became a problem with the introduction of better sanitation.  Prior to that, infants were exposed, got a mild form and were protected.  With better sanitation, children got exposure later and the disease often had much more serious effects.  That was one of the frightening things about polio in the 50s - it didn’t discriminate by social class.

      As for vaccine-caused autism, well, no one anywhere has established a link.  And the one study I know of on SIDS and vaccine involved a deliberate misrepresentation of the facts.  It alleges that when the Japanese stopped vaccinating infants for pertussis, the SIDS rate went down.  It didn’t.  It went up.  There are several studies which show that the vaccines in fact have a protective quality against SIDS.

      And, as others have pointed out, if you choose not to vaccinate your kids, you risk infecting those who cannot be vaccinated because of allergies, immune issues or because they’re too young; and those for whom the vaccination failed (about 5%).  If you want your own child’s illness, and that of other children, on your conscience when there are readily available preventatives, so be it. 

      And the measles vaccine, providing you have the first two shots and the booster, is pretty much good for life.  And you don’t have that 1 in 1000 risk of brain damage from measles encephalitis, either.

    • Thommo says:

      10:10am | 06/02/11

      I was vaccinated for Whooping Cough and still almost died from it.

    • LC says:

      10:22am | 05/06/11

      So take a guess at what would happen should you have caught the full-strength version of that virus…

 

Facebook Recommendations

Read all about it

Punch live

Up to the minute Twitter chatter

Anthony Sharwood

#markwebber just wasted petrol faster than everyone else in monaco #f1

Anthony Sharwood

In my sports column on The Punch tomorrow: why Eurovision was easily the best game on the weekend. Mummy bloggers, you'll like this one!

Daniel Piotrowski

The Logies could learn a lot from Eurovision #lamethings#sbseurovision

Daniel Piotrowski

RT @ellehardytweets: Already despondent about the next fifty one weeks. #sbseurovision

Recent posts

The latest and greatest

Abbott’s crass logic: trash the Parliament in order save it

Abbott’s crass logic: trash the Parliament in order save it

An email was sent to almost every politician in Australia this week saying that someone should cut off…

Our special forces don’t always need special treatment

Our special forces don’t always need special treatment

We admire them, but we’re not entirely sure why. We allow them to operate in the shadows; we rarely…

A good holiday is about unrest, not rest

A good holiday is about unrest, not rest

Like a fat full-stop, it lay in my hand. A small orange – not exactly fresh, but purchased anyway…

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]

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