Should children be sent home from school if they are not vaccinated?

By Grant Jacobs 09/06/2011 167


That was the question on Campbell Live’s text poll tonight.[1]

While I battle with computer code, I’ll offer this take on the Campbell Live story and let you discuss the issue.

As part of an effort to stop a measles outbreak a fifth of the children from Oratia District School–estimated to be roughly a hundred in total–were sent home because they had not been vaccinated for measles. The coverage featured interviews of some of the kids and their parents, as well as a medical health officer, closing with an interview with Dr. Nikki Turner (GP, director of Immunisation Advisory Centre (IMAC) and lecturer).

Presenting issues involving medicine or science in a limited time frame on television is no doubt challenging. It’s unrealistic to expect perfect coverage, too. I thought that overall it was well handled, but it’s still an opportunity to look at the issues involved in presenting subjects like this.

If there is one thing I would have like to have seen done better it would be to make clear the extent to which the views of the parents interviewed are representative of the overall view of all of the parents of the roughly one hundred children that were not at school.

The presentation opens with John Campbell saying some parents’ (my emphasis). Is ‘some’ one, two or three, a handful, most? There are different views. How many hold which view?

One parent with anti-vaccine views was given a fair amount of time to put her views; I’ll give an account of what she said a little later. It is a view, fair enough. But what fraction of the parents with children at home hold a similar view? I realise it’s hard question to answer, but it would help put what was presented in perspective. I’m writing in hindsight–that convenient thing–and hindsight suggests a clue.

Near the end of the presentation Dr. Nikki Turner mentions that perhaps 2-3% of people (presumably in the general population) choose not to vaccinate because they ’don’t support the science’. This would suggest the parent with the anti-vaccine views would be in a small minority of those whose children are not at school.

The presentation is clear with those interviewed representing themselves well. For example, I thought the medical officer–Dr. Richard Hoskins–did well, offering clear, concise statements.

One parent was given opportunity to say why she did not vaccinate her children. Ms. Sherry Tosh, offered a list of vaccine misunderstandings as her reasoning. She obviously sincerely believes them. I’m not doubting that or meaning to belittle her. The bigger question for my purposes is that some measure of how representative her views were of all of the parents would have been helpful. I’m of the impression that her views are a minority view.

She said she believed that the combined MMR vaccine was ’just detrimental’, compared to the single shots, going on to say ’I can’t even as an adult fathom the thought of my body trying to combat three diseases like that at the same time myself, yet alone young babies’.

Vaccines are not diseases. In the case of live vaccines the organisms are weakened (or attenuated), as is explained on the IMAC vaccine ingredients page (PDF file). Your body doesn’t ’fight off’ a vaccine in the way it might if you caught the disease itself. Vaccines induce a small response, enough to trigger production of antibodies, enabling your body to respond more promptly in future.

Ms. Tosh went to rhetorically ask if ’‘they’ were going to tell you’ which ones contained (paraphrasing): ’formaldehyde, mercury, aluminium, aborted foetal cells within the vaccine.’

The ingredient lists for vaccines are widely available on-line, for example in the IMAC brochure I linked to earlier (PDF file). I have sympathy for people who get confused by the messages that anti-vaccine promoters put out. It’s one reason I wrote Sources of medical information for non-medics and non-scientists. These ingredients are among those commonly misrepresented by those pushing anti-vaccine stances and their uses in vaccines are widely explained elsewhere.

(I lack the time to do address each of these here, but very briefly: Alison has written about the last – aborted foetal cells are not within vaccines, but cells derived from these [with permission!] are used to culture the viruses used to make the vaccines; I wrote about ‘mercury’ in vaccines when I had just started blogging [I suspect my neophyte status shows!]; aluminium is used as adjuvant, in tiny amounts, making the vaccine more effective with less antigen; formaldehyde is naturally found in your body – Alison has a few words on this, too.)

Following the in-the-field footage, they presented Nikki Turner (from IMAC) in the studio.

The interview with her illustrated another issue with presenting this sort of material in limited time on television. John Campbell referred to the worries such as those offered by Ms. Tosh, inviting Dr. Turner to respond.

It’s hard to respond to as there are too many specific points to address in too little time. You might call it ‘the Gish Gallop problem’. It’s easy for a string of (false) claims to be listed in little time. The effect of a loaded dice in a ‘he said, she said’ framework: inaccurate statements can be made (far) faster than clarifications of them. With that in mind, I thought her response excellent.

Back to that problem of the extent to which the views of the parents interviewed were representative of the total of the parents affected. Of the roughly one hundred children not at school, how many of their parents held what views? It’s easy to emphasise one extreme view, but is that representative of what is happening? (Don’t forget that John Campbell opened with saying ’some parents’.)

I thought Nikki Turner did well to bring up that surveys indicate that 2-3% of New Zealand parents choose not to vaccinate because they ’don’t support the science’. Following this, we would expect most of the parent of the ~20% not in school did not vaccinate for other reasons.

My own impression was that many if not most parents simply didn’t get on to it, for whatever reason, but now find themselves caught out. If that’s true, does that come through to other viewers?

If this is true, would these be the bigger message?: get on it, or you might get caught out.

This also reminds me of the first of the three suggestions that Julie Leask made (see the section ‘Vaccines’): make vaccination accessible. I would like to have seen this discussed.

Finally, how did the poll fare? (Bear in mind that polls like this aren’t generally terribly reliable!)

The question again: Should children be sent home from school if they are not vaccinated?

The response (no indication as to how many responded, etc.): 65% yes  35% no

Footnotes

A video is now available on the Campbell Live website.

The IMAC website has a page on measles.


Other articles on Code for life:

Sources of medical information for non-medics and non-scientists

Preserving endangered species — of gut microbes

Fact or fallacy, a survey of immunisation statements in the print media

The worm from the deep! and other stories

Immunisation, then and now

A course for all degrees: PHIL 105, Critical Thinking


167 Responses to “Should children be sent home from school if they are not vaccinated?”

  • Grant,

    You must know by now that the typical media split for two opposing points of view tends towards 50/50. :-)

    It doesn’t usually matter if one of the views is held by 0.05% of the population, it will still get it’s share of coverage for the sake of “balance”

    I find the 65% of people voting yes to send the children home quite heartening. I was worried it would be less (though it would be nice if it was higher)

  • My short answer is yes. My non-specialist impression that there have been a smattering of vaccine-preventable disease outbreaks and I don’t think it’s a stretch of the imagination to think it might be due to people not being vaccinated (although I guess could be wrong). As such schools should be doing what they can to prevent it. If parents want to get their children vaccinated so they can go to school that’s fine, I think I’m right in understanding it’s never too late? If they don’t want to vaccinate their children that’s fine too, it’s ultimately their decision but freedom to make that decision shouldn’t mean freedom from the consquences of that decision.

  • How fascinating that the anti-vaccine parent’s surname is Tosh, a word which also means nonsense.

  • Just made the mistake of checking out the comments on the Campbell Live website. Some very strange views. Usual rant by some that all you need is healthy eating to avoid infection or that you can treat with homoepathic remedies (sigh).
    Also one person suggested that those younger than 2 years ol (I think that was the age they gave) cannot catch measles due to natural immunity?????

    Some of the challenges in health information is not educating parents with new information but undoing the damage of the INCORRECT information they already have.

  • Michael,

    You must know by now that the typical media split for two opposing points of view tends towards 50/50. :-)

    Of course – you must know by now I’ve written about everything* before :-) Hehe. I’ve written about it in several posts when I started out blogging. In reference to Michael’s last post: I’ve also written on microbiomes, too :-)

    I originally based the piece focused around ‘he said, she said’, then decided that elaborating how** representative the views presented mattered more in this case, rather than “just” the ‘he said, she said’ aspect on in itself.

    * Hyperbolic exaggeration for effect…
    ** i.e. (semi-)quantitating the thing.

    (Updated to fix a tag.)

  • So why do these parents object to having their children sent home? Surely it is a measure to protect the children. Actually, since the measles vaccine cannot be expected to endow 100% of recipients with protective titres of antibodies, I think it would be better to send all the children home.

  • Mind you if they are sent home, what is their future in terms of education? Being home schooled by parents with limited understanding of science? Hardly bodes well for the childrens education.

  • So why do these parents object to having their children sent home?

    I’d guess for most it’s just that it’s caught them on the hop and they have extra work on their plate as a result rather than health-related concerns, which I’m guessing most accept. It’s why I mentioned the possibility that “most parents simply didn’t get on to it [vaccinating their kids], for whatever reason, but now find themselves caught out” towards the end. Of course I don’t know, I can only guess. It’s partly why I would like to have seen some sort of take on what the majority view of those affected was. Not that that’s easy to do with the parents of a 100 kids involved!

  • HappyEvilSlosh,

    My non-specialist impression that there have been a smattering of vaccine-preventable disease outbreaks and I don’t think it’s a stretch of the imagination to think it might be due to people not being vaccinated

    From memory, the C.L. segment mentions that none of the eight cases in the current outbreak were vaccinated. Again from memory: according to them, two of these eight were hospitalised. Now don’t trust my memory…!! :-) (Their video isn’t coming up for me, so I can’t confirm it right now.)

  • Vaccination is an organised criminal enterprise dressed up as disease prevention. Vaccines have never prevented anything, apart from health, sanity and common sense.

    “Belief in immunization is a form of delusional insanity.”
    Dr Herbert Shelton, USA

    The sooner this child abuse and money-making racket grinds to a halt, the better.

    http://www.nccn.net/~wwithin/mmr.htm

  • You will not be able to convert many people on this site, Erwin. Try finding an audience of the ignorant, gullible and fearful.

  • Hi Carol,

    Erwin is a bit of a “drive-by shooter”, isn’t he? – scraping something off his Facebook page, posting a comment, never returning. The Facebook comment he seems to have scraped this one off features an email, the body of which starts “Did any of you see this diabolical Government inspired MASS PROPAGANDA TV program” Ah, yeah, right…

  • It is laughable that Erwin thinks vaccination is a money-making enterprise. Actually, making vaccines for diseases that have been around for a long time, and for which vaccines have been around for a long time, is not a lucrative branch of pharmaceuticals at all. There’s some money in making novel vaccines, but not a lot. The best money in pharmaceuticals lies in medicines for chronic diseases. Erwin doesn’t appear to know much about the pharmaceutical industry.

  • “2-3% of people…choose not to vaccinate because they ‘don’t support the science’. This would suggest the parent with the anti-vaccine views would be in a small minority of those whose children are not at school.”

    You’re assuming that Oratia is representative of the general population but there is a high number of “alternative life-stylers” living out that way.

  • You’re assuming that Oratia is representative of the general population

    Self-evidentally 😉 It’s the reason I wrote “suggest”, not something more concrete. (For what little it’s worth, I was aware of this when I wrote it but decided to keep it simple rather than tangle it up with all the possible interpretations.)

    but there is a high number of “alternative life-stylers” living out that way.

    Thanks for that. Is there evidence that >10% of the parents there disfavour or are opposed to vaccines? (So that it might account for the majority of the parents whose children are at home. The alternative being that most of the parents didn’t get their children vaccinated for other reasons.)

    Either way, it seems to me that it comes back to that it would have been good to see some indication of how representative the views presented were of the parents as a whole – without that it’s a bit hard to know what to make of it and we’re left clutching straws as it were.

  • Folks like Erwin often promote a range of supplements as part of their ‘healthy alternative’ to vaccincations. Perhaps he would care to comment on the fact that the supplement industry is a multi-million dollar one – & that these pills & potions packed with extra vitamins & minerals are usually made by the same Big Pharma companies that he excoriates for their production of vaccines. (& I rather suspect the supplement industry is more of a money-spinner than vaccine production, too.)

  • “It is laughable that Erwin thinks vaccination is a money-making enterprise. Actually, making vaccines for diseases that have been around for a long time, and for which vaccines have been around for a long time, is not a lucrative branch of pharmaceuticals at all. There’s some money in making novel vaccines, but not a lot. The best money in pharmaceuticals lies in medicines for chronic diseases. Erwin doesn’t appear to know much about the pharmaceutical industry.”

    You are right in one thing, Rosalind:

    “The best money in pharmaceuticals lies in medicines for chronic diseases.”

    What you seem to be unaware of is that vaccination is the goose that lays the golden eggs, as they are designd and used to CREATE the chronic diseases which are the medical-pharmaceutical industry’s bread and butter, and the jam on on the bread and butter! Hence I guess the saying “money for jam” and “the benefits far, far outweigh the risks!” – the benefits being purely the financial benefits to the psychopaths, killers and idiots who make use and promote vaccines and who in my opinion should all be in jail to keep the rest of us safe.

    The point is that a healthy population would be a disaster for the medical-pharmaceutical mafia and that vaccination is the ideal tool to promote profitable ill-health. tt’s like a panelbeater getting his sons to pour oil on the bend on the road in front of his business to ensure an ongoing supply of customers.

    Governments like and promote vaccinations because sick and stupid people are so much easier to control than healthy and intelligent people. This is why governments promote their child poisoning schedules designed to impair children’s brain development. Have you ever asked yourselves why brain poisons like mercury and aluminium are put in vaccines, or sterility-inducing agents like polysorbate 80?

    Bertrand Russell Bertrand advocated the use of vaccines to induce partial chemical lobotomies and create a servile zombie population. Vaccinations are indeed used for mind- and population control purposes today. You people are just too brain-washed to figure it out. The soaring autism rates should give you a clue, but because you have invested so much time and energy in being clueless, you can’t even conceive that I could be right. I am however not concerned with being right, only in people being awake to the truth. However, if you want to take your biochemical warfare injections in the belief that they are good for your health or that of your children, go for it. I just find it a shame that so many people are so stupid that they have allowed their sense of self-preservation to be warped to the point where they allow themselves to be injected with neurotoxic, allergenic and carcinogenic poisons designed to destroy our health, our wealth and our intelligence.

  • Alison – I buy my supplements from reputable sources, not the pharmaceutical industry, whenever I have a choice. I do use pharmaceutical drugs when necessary, such as dental anesthetics when I have my teeth fixed. Some pharmaceutical products such as anesthetics and band aids are obviously helpful, but this is in my opinion not the case with vaccinations, which as far as i am concerned are an outright fraud.

  • Erwin,

    “but because you have invested so much time and energy in being clueless, you can’t even conceive that I could be right.”

    Actually every now and then I take a step back and ask myself if people such as yourself could be right. The problem is, when you look at the evidence there is nothing to support your argument other than inaccuracies, emotive appeals and playing on people’s fears.

    “I just find it a shame that so many people are so stupid that they have allowed their sense of self-preservation to be warped to the point where they allow themselves to be injected with neurotoxic, allergenic and carcinogenic poisons designed to destroy our health, our wealth and our intelligence.”

    As usual, you use insults and no facts. The suggestion that vaccines destroy our health and intelligence go against facts that show that (ignoring diseases of excess) our health has never been better nor has our intelligence. Life expectancy has also increased.

  • According to Parliament’s Health Select Committee’s recent
    Inquiry into how to improve completion rates of childhood immunisation…

    Relatively low deprivation is also linked with low immunisation coverage rates. The highest rates of decline during the Auckland school-based HPV immunisation programme were among New Zealand Europeans at schools in low-deprivation areas.

    Oratia District School is a 500 pupil school in a rural setting on the fringe of West Auckland. The area is predominantly European (86 percent)… the School’s demographic is 80pc European and wealthy (decile 9). According to StatsNZ the area has significantly higher education levels than ave.

    By way of comparison, the next closest school appears to be Glen Eden with 30 percent Europeans and on the downside of average wealth-wise at decile 4.

    In other words, Oratia students mostly come from wealthy, educated, European families.

    Oratia was one of the earliest Europen settlements in New Zealand with recorded European occupation in the Oratia area since the 1830s. The Oratia District School was established in 1882.

    It’s interesting to read the School’s latest newsletter #17 dated …9th JUNE 2011 PRINCIPAL’S CORNER Kia ora tatou. Over the last fortnight 6 of our students and one parent has been diagnosed with measles. We have received notification from the Auckland Regional Public Health Service that 70 of our students have to stay home because they are unimmunized…. A reminder that unimmunised children or children not shown as immunised in our school records should not attend school until Wednesday 15th June 2011.

    So, some apparent facts… it’s 70 students, not 100. so it’s 14 percent, not 20 percent. 1:7,, not 1:5

    The 70 include unimmunised children or children not shown as immunised in our school records. In other words, some may be vaccinated but the school hasn’t been given evidence of that. So it is less than 14 percent who are not vaccinated.

    You write, I thought Nikki Turner did well to bring up that surveys indicate that 2-3% of New Zealand parents choose not to vaccinate because they “don’t support the science”. Following this, we would expect most of the parent of the ~20% not in school did not vaccinate for other reasons.

    Firstly, as a scientist, you’ll appreciate that Nikki would have been talking about averages over the whole country… it would be wrong to apply an average to a single school… according to the select committee Oratia fits the profile of a school where higher objection/rejection rates could reasonable be expected. Given the higher incomes, one would expect a higher education level, so therefore more critical thinking and research.

    In her ‘private evidence’ presented to the Health Select Committee on University/IMAC letterhead in November 2010 (but dated by her Nov 2011) Nikki Turner said, As of mid‐ 2010, immunisation rates for fully immunised at the age of 2 years were approximately 87%. There has been a lot of excellent progress in the past few years. However immunisation ‘decline’ rates remain around 5 – 6 %, and are much higher in some areas.

    In evidence to the Health Select committee Nikki Turner stated by way of email that NZ rates for 4 year olds off the NIR as of 1 November is 70%. In further evidence she said that no one knew the vax rate for older children! So an 86 percent+ vaccination rate for school age children appears to be considerably higher than average.

    Grant, science should be about discussing fact…

  • Thanks for your comment, Ron.
    Evaluation by a private researcher of the data gathered via a large survey of children and youths by Germany’s top health authority the Robert Koch Institute – RKI – also showed that the more highly educated parents are, the less likely they are to vaccinate their children, it seems because a higher education provides them with the tools to evaluate data even if written in technical language.

    The evaluation of the data by this private researcher also showed that vaccine free children are in all respects healthier than vaccinated children. One highly significant finding was that of the vaccinated children, 5% suffered from a scoliosis (abnormal curvature of the spine), while none of the vaccine free children did. Also, a significantly higher number of vaccinated compared to vaccine free children required speech therapy.

    It s also interesting to note that the RKI published many findings from its KiGGS study, but none related to vaccination, and that the RKI attacked this private researcher a qualified mathematician and statitician – for misrepresenting data!

    The RKI vowed to refute the findings of the private researcher in Germany’s most prominent medical journal, the “Deutsches Aerzteblatt’, but never did!

    I am currently translating this researcher’s article ‘Impfen macht krank’ – ‘Vaccination causes ill-health’ – and will publish the translation including the translated graphics on my ‘Vaccination Information Network’ (VINE) on Facebook.

    The original German article can be found here:
    http://www.gesundheitlicheaufklaerung.de/impfen-macht-krank

  • Ron,

    The figures my article uses are those given in the Campbell Live presentation, as should be clear. You’re welcome to discuss the precise numbers with them.

    Interesting as the exact values might be, they’re not relevant to my point.

    I wrote about what was presented during the show, i.e. not whatever might be shown now.

    If anything, what you write helps to make my point that (ideally) it would have been useful to have some way for viewers of their show to learn how representative the views presented were of all of the parents with kids at home as a whole.

    you’ll appreciate that Nikki would have been talking about averages

    I’ve already explained this.

    it would be wrong to apply an average to a single school

    No, it’s typical of how “working” estimates are made. You’re doing something similar yourself. (FWIW: Mine was not an attempt at making a serious estimate, but to illustrate that given that the values might be different to what could be read from the TV presentation, it would have been useful to know on the show how representative the views presented were of the parents affected as a whole.)

    The 70 include unimmunised children or children not shown as immunised in our school records. In other words, some may be vaccinated but the school hasn’t been given evidence of that.

    In other words, there would be expected to be fewer (not more) parents with “anti-vaccine” views amongst those parents whose children are not at school than there would be if we did not consider this. (i.e., this plays the other way that you seem to think it does.)

    “Hand-waving” possibilities (like those presented in my article and the comments, including your’s) emphasise that some kind of indication of how representative the views presented in the show would have been useful. It’s why I brought it up: to illustrate the need for something indicating what was representative in media presentations, not to argue over the precise values.

  • Grant said, The 70 include unimmunised children or children not shown as immunised in our school records. In other words, some may be vaccinated but the school hasn’t been given evidence of that.

    In other words, there would be expected to be fewer (not more) parents with “anti-vaccine” views amongst those parents whose children are not at school than there would be if we did not consider this. (i.e., this plays the other way that you seem to think it does.)

    Grant, I think you’ve misunderstood my point… I said, “So an 86 percent+ vaccination rate for school age children appears to be considerably higher than average.” The + relatesto the vaccine status unknown…

    You said, “Hand-waving” possibilities (like those presented in my article and the comments, including your’s) emphasise that some kind of indication of how representative the views presented in the show would have been useful. It’s why I brought it up: to illustrate the need for something indicating what was representative in media presentations, not to argue over the precise values.

    Your post was predicated in 20 percent unvaccinated… we now know that the is a somewhat smaller percentage… that means that the mothers views become more representative of the actual unvaccinated. You shoud have noted that whilst one person was doing most of the speaking, there were a number in the room supporting her. Just as an aside, the lady concerned lived directly opposite the school and her house and the school is mainly surrounded by orchards…

    I noted Nikki Turner said there were 60 deaths per year from measles before the vaccine was introduced… I have NZ’s data doing back to 1893. There were an average of 8 deaths a year over the 30 years before the measles vaccine was introduced into NZ… the highest number in any individual year was 31 in 1942, and 30 in 1952. The previous highest was 163 in 1939…

  • While I’m still on-line: I meant some time ago to present a “lite” summary of a paper that shows that unimmunised children are worse off than immunised children, except that Orac beat me to it. It’s well worth reading if you haven’t already.

  • Ron,

    Grant, I think you’ve misunderstood my point

    No, what I wrote it stands on it own whatever else you were writing. (Note also there’s nothing about the vaccination rate in what I’ve written there either.)

    Your post was predicated in 20 percent unvaccinated…

    No, I’ve already explained this to you.

    You wrote that means that the mothers[’] views become more representative of the actual unvaccinated

    … which is not what I wrote about. You’re still making it about the values, despite that I’ve already told you my point was: “the need for something indicating what was representative in media presentations, not to argue over the precise values.” I doubt that could be clearer, and I’ve put it in several variations to you. It’s not if the views in the media report were representative or not in itself, or what the precise values are, but that there is no way for viewers to learn if the views presented in the report are representative.

    You’re welcome to your own sidelines, but however fascinating they may be in themselves, fussing about the precise values is not what I wrote about and trying to pin that on me is—to be frank—silly.

    I do think that you are trying to put a number to things emphasises what was my point – that there is a need for something to indicate what is representative in the media presentation as after all that’s exactly what you’re trying to do (accurately or not).

  • Unfortunately Orac’s reference is to another report, not the actual scientific paper. Nevertheless, s/he provides some interesting graphs. Without having seen the paper, it is worth noting another recent report from Germany showing significant under reporting of measles in Germany. http://www.aerzteblatt.de/int/article.asp?id=81469

    From personal experience I’m aware of doctors not diagnosing or suspecting measles and other vaccine preventable disease in vaccinated children but doing so in unvaccinated children.

    I’ve always argued that doctors should not be able to see a child’s vaccination status on their computers until AFTER a history has been taken and provisional diagnosis made. I saw a case of a child who was vaccinated with MeNZB who was misdiagnosed because the doctors (both GP and in the hospital) believed she was protected because she’s been vaccinated… appropriate treatment was not given and the patient died… to their credit the doctors apologized to the family, but that didn’t bring their child back.

  • What we can say is that from wtching Campbelllive again, there were two mothers interviewed and they have at least 4 children… so of the less than 70 unvaccinated children they represent 4/70 or at least 6 percent…

  • Going back to the original question “Should children be sent home from school if they are not vaccinated?”, this is of course a matter of opinion which depends largely on whether or not one believes that vaccinations benefit children.

    I agree with Dr Herbert Shelton’s statement that “Belief in immunization is a form of delusional insanity.”

    Because of this, I am of the opinion that if we lived in a sane world, this question wouldn’t even come up, because nobody would be vaccinated. As it is, we have to face living in a world which has become a mental asylum run by its worst inmates.

  • Erwin,

    Quoting yet another “expert” of dubious background?

    From Wikipedia regarding Herbert Shelton

    “Shelton attended Bernarr Macfadden’s College of Physcultopathy in Chicago and interned at Crane’s Sanatorium in Elmhurst, Illinois. He also attended Lindlahr College of Natural Therapeutics for post-graduate work and served at Lindlahr’s and Sahler’s Sanatoriums. Shelton later continued post-graduate work at Peerless College of Chiropractic in Illinois and served an internship at Crandall Health School in Pennsylvania.”

    “In 1927, he was arrested, jailed and fined three times for practicing medicine without a license. These arrests continued periodically through the next three decades while he continued to lecture and campaign for his ideas.[2]
    In 1932, Shelton was jailed repeatedly for practicing medicine without a license. Found guilty of violating the Medical Practice Act, he served 30 days on Rikers Island.
    In 1942, Shelton was charged with negligent homicide and “treating and offering to treat a human being without a state medical license” for starving a patient to death.[2] The case was never tried and charges were dropped.
    In 1978, another patient died at one of his schools, this time apparently of a heart attack. After a two-year-long court battle, Shelton lost the lawsuit for negligence and was bankrupted by the judgment.[2] The school closed as a result.”

    “By 1972, at the age of 77, he was completely bedridden from a degenerative neuro-muscular disease believed to be Parkinson’s disease.[2] He died thirteen years later, unable to improve his own health despite many attempts.”

  • Re. the RKI study I seem to recall either that, or a very similar study. However, the hypothesis as to why higher educated people tended not to get vaccinations I seem to recall was that such people were more likely to have computers and more likely to look up things online regarding their health or whatever but, in general, lacked the critical thinking skills to sift through the significant amount of bullshit that’s on the web.

  • Ron,

    Unfortunately Orac’s reference is to another report, not the actual scientific paper. Nevertheless, s/he provides some interesting graphs.

    You’ve just shown us that you haven’t read his post, yet chose to dismiss it out of hand with “faint praise”. Orac doesn’t use the report: he used the research paper as he explained – and the research paper is cited. You’ll also want to understand the internal controls the paper used – they matter.

    From personal experience

    Personal experience, or citing a single case, are anecdotes and anecdotes have limited value as you know.

    What we can say is that […] so of the less than 70 unvaccinated children they represent 4/70 or at least 6 percent…

    So? This doesn’t resolve if those presented in the coverage are representative of the parents whose children were sent home. We’re still at the same point; it doesn’t move us forward. BTW, you can’t get your ‘70’ from their coverage – you effectively pointed out that yourself earlier. (And I doubt the typical viewer is going to do a head count, as you have by playing the video back. Good documentary coverage should present things, not leave viewers trying to riddle them out.)

    You’re trying way too hard, Ron. It’s very very simple. There is nothing in their report indicating what the overall views of the parents are.

    But your digging at numbers does reinforce the I was raising point that something indicating the overall views of the parents would have been useful.

  • Grant said, “Good documentary coverage should present things, not leave viewers trying to riddle them out.)

    You’re trying way too hard, Ron. It’s very very simple. There is nothing in their report indicating what the overall views of the parents are.

    But your digging at numbers does reinforce the I was raising point that something indicating the overall views of the parents would have been useful.”

    Grant, it wasn’t a documentary… it was Campbell Live…

    The figure of 70 is not mine… it is the School’s on their website, in there 9 June Newsletter to parents…

    By the way, I did not rubbish Orac’s article, and I did read it… and I followed the link to his reference which was not the original paper, but another commentary…

  • Ron

    “I’ve always argued that doctors should not be able to see a child’s vaccination status on their computers until AFTER a history has been taken…”

    Standard medical practice is that a full hisory requires questioning the vaccination status of an unwell child. This was the case even before computers.

    You seem to be implying that doctors should make a provisional diagnosis without taking a full history!

  • Regards Orac’s article you did dismiss it out of hand – you clearly didn’t read it before making disparaging comments about it. Seeing you need some help about what it covers, look for the sentence: “But, as is my wont, I need to see the actual study, rather than a news report. So, as they say, let’s go to the tape.” It spells out very directly that he’s working from the research papers doesn’t? The words ‘the actual link’ are directly linked to the paper. He makes numerous references to the research paper throughout his article and cites passages from it, passages that would hardly come from a news report. You very clearly never read it.

    Regards ‘documentary’, I wrote ‘documentary coverage’ – a style not a complete show – you’re changing the word meaning. Documentary = ‘using pictures or interviews with people involved in real events to provide a factual record or report’.

    Regards the 70 figure, you’re playing with alternative meanings again. I did not say you made it up, just that you wrote in your comment – for goodness sakes!

    No more nitpicks, twisting word meanings or tit-for-tat nonsense, please. I’m asking you not to degrade into your usual trolling and game-playing – stick to substantive things please.

  • “such people were more likely to have computers and more likely to look up things online regarding their health or whatever but, in general, lacked the critical thinking skills to sift through the significant amount of bullshit that’s on the web.”

    I guess that means that educated people who vaccinate their children may similarly have been influenced by bullshit websites like Sciblogs, HappyEvilSlosh?

  • Michael Edmonds – What does Dr Herbert Shelton’s background matter? To me, the persecution of Dr Herbert Shelton illustrates that the medical mafia hates competition to its slash/burn/poison monopoly and will hound and vilify anyone who threatens its money-making rackets. Likewise, Harry Hoxsey was persecuted for treating cancer patients with herbal remedies, and Dr Wakefield for daring to report parents’ observation that their children had become autistic and suffered bowel disorders following MMR. Dr Eva Snead MD was deregistered because she dared to fight the fluoridation of San Antonio, Texas, and Dr G Lanctot MD resigned under pressure from the Quebec Medical Council after book ‘The Medical Mafia’ became a bestseller.

    This quote sums it up quite well:

    “We live in a world ruled by corporate interests and agendas that are not in the best interests of the citizens of this planet. The type of mercury used in vaccines has never been safety tested by the Federal Government for toxicity in humans. This is an unconscionable oversight failure at best, and at worst it is an example that we have left consensus reality to be created by liars, cheats, killers and the junk scientists they employ.”
    Dr Kenneth Stoller
    Autism, Vaccines, Mercury and the Culpability of the American Association of Pediatrics

  • “I guess that means that educated people who vaccinate their children may similarly have been influenced by bullshit websites like Sciblogs, HappyEvilSlosh?”

    Nice try, saying a lot of things on the internet are bullshit is not the same as saying everything on the internet is bullshit.

  • Erwin Alber

    “What does Dr Herbert Shelton’s background matter?”

    It matters because it gives sense of the man’s belief system and understanding (or lack thereof) of medicine.

    “Herbert Shelton illustrates that the medical mafia hates competition to its slash/burn/poison monopoly”

    Again you imply that this “medical mafia” is poisoning us yet our mortality has never been lower or our average life span higher.
    The facts do not bear out your beliefs!

    Again you provide a list of a few delusional people who have some medical and/or scientific training, while ignoring the fact that the vast majority of scientists and medical practitioners disagree with them.
    DO you really believe that all these people who are trained to understand science/medicine are engaged in a huge conspiracy? Such conspiracies fly in the fact of the scientific method and the Hippocratic Oath.
    You comments continue to be devoid of facts and have dropped to the level of slinging insults or referring to crank whose beliefs fly in the face of science and common sense.

  • Also I think it is worth pointing out that on sciblogs, bloggers will post opposing views and only block posts if they become abusive.
    Compare this to most alternative medicine or other pseudoscientific blogs where the first hint of a dissenting view is typically blocked or erased.
    I find it completely hypocritical of such woo peddlers to moan that their views are being suppressed when they themselves suppress dissenting views, while scientific blogs post dissenting views

  • StuartG, Can you explain how knowing the vaccination status of a patient before making a diagnosis might be helpful?

  • Grant, regarding Orac’s article…. I said, “Unfortunately Orac’s reference is to another report, not the actual scientific paper. Nevertheless, s/he provides some interesting graphs. Without having seen the paper, it is worth noting another recent report from Germany showing significant under reporting of measles in Germany. http://www.aerzteblatt.de/int/article.asp?id=81469

    Can you explain how this is disparaging? I read every word of it… S/he have a reference with URL… I checked it out and it went directly to another report, not the study itself… hence my comment. Have you seen the full study?

  • Ron,

    I have already explained this to you. (I note you’ve decided not to refer to that in your reply and instead travel in a circle back to your earlier statement. Argumentative and I would say trolling – strike one down. I’m not going to deconstruct your wording re disparaging – I have no interest in playing tit-for-tat. Please limit yourself to things that are substantive.)

    Here is what I wrote again, with the link added for your benefit:

    Seeing you need some help about what it covers, look for the sentence: “But, as is my wont, I need to see the actual study, rather than a news report. So, as they say, let’s go to the tape.” It spells out very directly that he’s working from the research paper[s] doesn’t? The words ‘the actual link’ are directly linked to the paper. He makes numerous references to the research paper throughout his article and cites passages from it, passages that would hardly come from a news report. You very clearly never read it.

    If you want the paper with the figures already embedded in it, either get the PDF or read the PMC version. Orac does earlier in his article link to a news report.

  • I had been lead to believe that there had been a significant increase in the number of measles cases and deaths resulting from reduced vaccination following the publication of Wakefield and 12 other scientists study in The Lancet in 1998.

    I looked at the blog Grant refers to above… I’d already seen Leaske’s article in Nature, but hadn’t followed up her data.

    Take a look at this from the UK NHS.
    http://www.hpa.org.uk/web/HPAweb&HPAwebStandard/HPAweb_C/1195733811885

    Note that there has not been an increase in deaths as a result of a drop off of vaccination… Now look at a breakdown of deaths by age…
    http://www.hpa.org.uk/web/HPAweb&HPAwebStandard/HPAweb_C/1195733811885
    Note that there has only been a single death between 1991 and 2008 due to confirmed measles…

    Note the official caveat…

    “In 2006 there was one measles death in a 13 years old male who had an underlying lung condition and was taking immunosuppressive drugs. Another death in 2008 was also due to acute measles in unvaccinated child with congenital immunodeficiency whose condition did not require treatment with immunoglobulin. Prior to 2006, the last death from acute measles was in 1992.

    All other measles deaths, since 1992, shown above are in older individuals and were caused by the late effects of measles. These infections were acquired during the 1980s or earlier, when epidemics of measles occurred.”

  • HappyEvilSlosh said, “you never heard GE propenents burning down organic crops yet the latter group are constantly bitching about their choices being taken away.”

    That’s because organic crops don’t threaten the environment or other people’s crops. But you do see anti-organic farming folk libel organic farming…

  • For clarity – my reference to Leask was with respect to her suggestions for her three steps governments might take to address vaccination concerns. (Make vaccination accessible; target communication to those where it might make a difference; keep the health professionals on board.), not something about measles cases increasing due to reduced vaccination. (Point is, Ron’s tangent isn’t linked to my reference to her or, for that matter, anything else I’ve written here!)

    It’s long being a problem with those pushing anti-vaccine views to point only at death rates and ignore case rates. Modern emergency care means death rates are low; the rate of infections (and thence complications) is another matter. It’s a case of ‘cherry picking’ – selecting data to suit what they want to say. The same website Ron cites has tables of cases of measles. If you look at them you’ll see there was a large increase in the number of cases – just enter ‘measles cases’ in the search box on their website and it’ll bring up lots of pages to explore.

  • EA: Hoxsey was taken to task because his ‘remedies’ weren’t doing anything for the people he was ‘treating’. And we’ve talked about Wakefield before – his ‘research’ didn’t show any such link, & in fact he Made Stuff Up, or in other words, was found to have committed scientific fraud.

  • EA: What does Dr Herbert Shelton’s background matter?

    So it wouldn’t matter to you if someone was a scammer or fraud? From what I’ve seen on your Facebook site, that would seem to be the case!

    EA: Dr Wakefield for daring to report parents’ observation

    There’s nothing ‘daring’ about publishing observations. Case studies are routine, but Wakefield rigged the books, as it were – scientific fraud.

    Anecdotes have limited value; parent or patient reports have further problems. Consequently case studies have limitations; not that they are not useful—they can be—but that they have limitations. Testing the anecdotes is the essence, not reporting them.

    Regular readers will know that I’ve a few post on the ‘Wakefield saga’. He now appears in public forums alongside outright conspiracy theorists, which speaks for itself.

  • saying a lot of things on the internet are bullshit is not the same as saying everything on the internet is bullshit.n
    I was just pointing out that things can cut both ways, HappyEvilSlosh. Whether something on the internet is bullshit really comes down to preferences. You may e.g. consider the CDC a reputable source of information, while I consider much of the information provided by this medial mafia outfit highly suspect. In fact, I consider much of the CDC information deliberate misinformation, to e.g. promote pseudo-scientific frauds such as vaccination.

  • OK, Grant… I’ve gone back over Orac’s article and have found the point at which we are talking passed each other…

    As you point out, you have followed the link where he said;

    “But, as is my wont, I need to see the actual study, rather than a news report. So, as they say, let’s go to the tape.”

    I followed the link in his previous paragraph where he provided a link and said, “All of which is why it’s pretty amusing that just such a study was recently reported in Germany. Can you guess what it found?”

    Having seen the actual study now, we can discuss this from the same page…

    I am intrigued that all this kerfuffle and claims around proof relates to a retrospective study involving 13 453 subjects aged 1–17 years from non-immigrant families. 0.7% of them are stated as being not vaccinated. The introduction to the paper says, “Achieving high rates of vaccinated persons additionally results in the so called herd immunity.”

    So we have 99.3 percent of this cohort vaccinated, and yet we see no apparent evidence of herd immunity… Don’t Orac’s interpretations contradict the so called herd immunity theory?

    Table 1 shows that the only demographic with a statistical difference is in 1-5 year olds with 1.1 percent unvaccinated (CI (0.7 to 1.7)).

    Data on sociodemographic characteristics, vaccine preventable diseases, and infections were collected from a parent questionnaire. Lifetime prevalence calculations for pertussis, measles, mumps, and rubella were based on the question: “Has your child ever had … ?”

    Children and adolescents were defined as unvaccinated if at the time of the KiGGS survey no documentation existed for any vaccination against diphtheria, pertussis, tetanus, Haemophilus influenzae type b, hepatitis B, poliomyelitis, measles, mumps, or rubella.

    The parent questionnaire also collected data on the following infections: cold/flu-like infection, tonsillitis, herpesvirus infection, bronchitis (not when asthma was present), gastrointestinal infection, cystitis and/or urethritis, purulent conjunctivitis (bacterial conjunctivitis). The parents of children up to age 11 years were also asked whether their child had ever had croup. From these data, the median number of infections for the preceding year was calculated for every study subject…

    A standardized, computer-assisted personal interview (CAPI) of the accompanying parent by a doctor yielded data on medical diagnoses of atopic disorders (allergic rhinoconjunctivitis, atopic eczema, bronchial asthma) and several other diseases. The questions were:
    “Has a doctor at any time diagnosed your child with disease X?” Subjects for whom at least one atopic disorder ever was reported were assigned the characteristic “atopic disorder.”

    “In spite of any attempt to rule out misclassifications we cannot entirely exclude the possibility that some children without a vaccination card were vaccinated”

    “No doctors’ diagnoses of bronchial asthma were reported for unvaccinated children aged 1–10 years.”

    Now, Grant, I know I’ve cut and pasted a reasonable amount of the paper… my point is this.

    1. This was a survey of parents and did not involve medical records or the parents/child’s doctor.

    2. The study is based on recollection/self reporting over a period of 17 years.

    3. There is no evidence that any of the diagnoses were confirmed. We know, in the case of measles, that the vast majority of measles diagnoses (and others such as the flu) are not supported by scientific testing.

    4. The most accurate question, the one relating to the previous 12 months, where memory is freshest, showed unvaccinated were less likely to be infected (although the very low numbers suggest statistical probabilities would be unreliable.)

    Grant, can you respond to these questions please?

    As a scientist, what does this survey of parents involving memory recall extending over 17 years prove?

    As a scientist, how much weight would you place on the outcomes of this study?

    Ron

    To remove doubt, here is the original article in pdf as suggested by Grant. http://www.aerzteblatt.de/v4/archiv/pdf.asp?id=80869

  • “saying a lot of things on the internet are bullshit is not the same as saying everything on the internet is bullshit.”

    I was just pointing out that things can cut both ways, HappyEvilSlosh.

    Whether something on the internet is bullshit really comes down to preferences. You may e.g. consider the CDC a reputable source of information, while I consider much of the information provided by this medial mafia outfit highly suspect. In fact, I consider much of the CDC information deliberate misinformation designed to e.g. promote pseudo-scientific frauds such as vaccination.

  • Grant said;

    “EA: What does Dr Herbert Shelton’s background matter?

    So it wouldn’t matter to you if someone was a scammer or fraud? From what I’ve seen on your Facebook site, that would seem to be the case!”

    Grant, would it matter to you that the CDC and others have charged that the lead author of key studies “proving” that MMR did not cause autism, Dr. Poul Thorsen, of committing fraud and that he is in the process of being prosecuted through legal courts? Would that change your views of his studies?

  • Our viewpoints obviously differ, Grant, which is why we have difficulty finding common ground. You may e.g, consider Shelton and Wakefield frauds and scammers, while I respect and admire them.

    You may in turn respect and admire people like Louis Pasteur and Dr Paul Offit, while to me they are fraudsters and scammers.

    As the Latin saying goes, de gustibus non est disputandum – there is no arguing about tastes.

    Going back to Shelton’s statement “Belief in immunization is a form of delusional insanity”, it is in my opinion the truthfulness of the statement that matters, not who said it. After all, even Adolf Hitler stated some pertinent truths, like e.g. in his book Mein Kampf:

    “If you wish the sympathy of broad masses, then you must tell them the crudest and most stupid things.”

    He obviously didn’t refer to vaccinations when he said this, but he might as well have done so, because his statement fits the idiotic claim that “vaccines prevent diseases” perfectly.

    So does this quote attributed to Hitler’s propaganda minister Joseph Goebbels:

    “If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”

  • If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it.
    This would appear to aptly reflect the philosophy of some of those in the anti-vaccination movement, considering the number of fibs I’ve seen concerning the contents of vaccines.

  • “Also I think it is worth pointing out that on sciblogs, bloggers will post opposing views and only block posts if they become abusive.”

    It’s up to the respective owners of VINE and Sciblogs to determine policy for their respective pages. I have turned VINE into a sanctuary for like-minded people to share ideas, experiences and information.

    I tolerated opposing views on my ‘Vaccination Information Network’ (VINE) Facebook page for a long time, but eventually had to ban provax views because a bunch of provaxers were turning my Facebook page into a venue for troll parties. It’s bad enough with all the provax pseudoscience pervading society, without it spilling onto my basically anti-vax information Facebook page. I however commend Sciblogs for allowing opposing views, but if it was decided to ban such views it would be your prerogative and entirely within your rights.

  • “Hoxsey was taken to task because his ‘remedies’ weren’t doing anything for the people he was ‘treating’.”

    Your statement shows that you know little or nothing about Hoxsey and his treatments, Alison. I suggest you watch the video ‘Hoxsey cancer cure’
    http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7909198950622077145#

    “And we’ve talked about Wakefield before – his ‘research’ didn’t show any such link, & in fact he Made Stuff Up, or in other words, was found to have committed scientific fraud.”

    He didn’t claim a link, but only suggested that further research should be done, as he was ethically required to do. As far as i am concerned, it was the fact that vaccination is scientific fraud that got him into conflict with the mafia that runs this scam. Wakefield did nothing wrong. In my eyes he is a shining like of scientific integrity and a REAL doctor. I suggest you check this out:
    Wakefield Lecture – Shows BMJ Editor’s & Deer’s Fraud Allegations Were Fraud Themselves
    Posted on April 24, 2011
    http://childhealthsafety.wordpress.com/2011/04/24/brilliant-wakefield-lecture-shows-up-bmj-editors-deers-fraud-allegations-were-fraud-themselves/

  • EA: Whether something on the internet is bullshit really comes down to preferences.

    Nope, it comes down to if evidence backs the statements or not.

    EA: Our viewpoints obviously differ, Grant, which is why we have difficulty finding common ground.

    Nope, I’d say it’s because our standards of evidence differ. You seem to have no standards of evidence at all (!) and favour whatever statements—unjustified by evidence or not—that you believe shore up your existing beliefs. (A similar problem of ‘grabbing’ anything that shores up beliefs exists with others working from an ideological position on other issues, e.g. creationists for an obvious example.)

    there is no arguing about tastes

    That’s not a position I hold. See above.

    (For what it’s worth while I agree with most of what Paul Offit says, there is at least one specific conclusion on a web page of his that I read that I have some doubts about [I’d have to read back to remind myself the details, but from memory it was the association of congenital rubella with schizophrenia with an associated deafness]. Scientists typically doubt findings first, rather than just accept them at face value first; I’m not alone in this. It comes from the key thing being testing rather than reporting as I was saying earlier.)

    if it was decided to ban such views it would be your prerogative and entirely within your rights.

    I can’t imagine any science site banning people en-mass based on their viewpoint. They might ban individual writers based on how they treat others. I object, for example, to writers who repeatedly bait others, offer snarky remarks and are constantly argumentative. Likewise those only purpose seem to be to attack the person (blogger) writing—rather than subject matter—might not be welcome. That sort of thing makes it unpleasant for everyone.

    My own impression of your banning people was because you couldn’t face the number of people opposing you, that there were too many for your liking. I’m rarely over your way, but it seemed to me that few of those people abused anyone, they did point out your errors, etc. Most even seemed very polite. I would be more inclined to believe your reasoning if you removed individual offenders for mistreating others not a blanket ban, which has a rotten smell to me.

  • Alison,
    “considering the number of fibs I’ve seen concerning the contents of vaccines”

    fibs? I think you are being very kind with your terminology, Alison

    Erwin,
    “I tolerated opposing views on my ‘Vaccination Information Network’ (VINE) Facebook page for a long time, but eventually had to ban provax views because a bunch of provaxers were turning my Facebook page into a venue for troll parties. It’s bad enough with all the provax pseudoscience pervading society, without it spilling onto my basically anti-vax information Facebook page. I however commend Sciblogs for allowing opposing views”

    In my experience, websites only tend to ban opposing views when they fear such views are more robust and will threaten the status quo.

  • EA: He didn’t claim a link, but only suggested that further research should be done, as he was ethically required to do.

    Inaccurate. It he said it was his opinion that there was a link in interviews with the media. He was not “ethnically [ethically – sorry] required to do” that – there was no evidence backing his statement. It’s not hard to argue it was unethical of him to posit or give creditability to a link that had not been demonstrated that would obviously create fear. (A claim, not incidentally, that plays into the hands of what he was paid to do; favour a replacement one-vaccine shot of over the multivalent MMR vaccine.)

    Someone (Michael?) recently posted the relevant portion of the interview on this website. (I haven’t time to track it down – have to continue working.)

  • Grant – I’m sorry I didn’t make it clear that I was referring to Dr Wakefield’s paper published in the BMJ, which the BMJ later retracted, obviously under pressure from the medical mafia that provides its advertising revenue.

    I ddn’t say that DR Wakefield was “ethnically”, but that he was “ethically” required to report what he had found. If he hadn’t truthfuly reported what the parents had told him he would have been guilty of scientific misconduct. So, basically he was punished for being honest, but it’s all coming out in the wash and I can only hope that the damage the lies of the medical mafia including the GMC will cause irreparable harm to the vaccination racket and destroy any dwindling remnants of confidence into vaccination some parents may still have.

    I won’t hold me breath while waiting though, because I realise how deep the brainwashing goes with many people, as is also evident from many of the comments on Sciblogs.

  • Ron,

    I’m getting tired of your silliness.

    Your excuse is silly, but also typical of you. (You had not read the article at the time; had you actually read it, it would have absolutely clear what he was writing from as I’ve already explained twice.)

    Now, Grant, […]

    Grant, can you respond to these questions please?

    As a scientist, […] (Twice)

    Owning to your tone, with the silly baiting, it’s not going to happen. (Not at this time at any rate.)

    As I have repeatedly asked you, write about the subject – that means including not attacking or baiting others writing here, or writing snarky remarks, etc. If others can do it, so can you. See also my comment to EA.

    Seeing you still seem unable to learn this – strike two.

    That done with, most of the “questions” you ask were explained Orac’s blog post: there’s no sense in me spending time repeating them. It’s the same reason I never reviewed the paper on my blog in the first place – there was little that I could add. (I note you’ve ducked the main conclusions to nitpick though — that’s telling, I think.)

  • Some of you may (or may not) be interested in this exchange by an ardent provaxer called Twylla Buggs and myself.. Twylla’s comment shows why I ban provaxers’ comments from VINE: they are mostly such obvious nonsense that Shelton’s observation that “Belief in immunization is a form of delusional insanity” springs to mind.

    . Twylla Bugg http://antiantivax.flurf.net/ learn a little something about chemistry. As I’ve repeated before, the reason we know carbon dioxide is safe for us to breathe in and out all day is because of how it is bound. Carbon MONoxide is not safe because of how it binds to our hemoglobin. These are the same reasons ETHYL mercury is safe (even though it is only in the preservatives used in flu vaxxes now, and why we know METHYL mercury is not safe and would never be used in vaccines. Of course, you don’t understand properties of even water or saline, so this is why you ignore the fact that we actually can determine what is safe to use in vaccines.
    http://www.facebook.com/vaccines/posts/152027961535179

    Twylla, I suggest you study the Thiomersal (49.6% ethyl mercury) Safety Data Sheet, particularly the Toxicological Information’, as follows; the route of entry discussed is INGESTION, ingestion, which – if anything – is less harmful than INJECTION:

    Toxicological Information ‘
    Routes of Entry: Inhalation. Ingestion.
    Toxicity to Animals: Acute oral toxicity (LD50): 75 mg/kg [Rat].

    Chronic Effects on Humans:

    MUTAGENIC EFFECTS: Mutagenic for mammalian somatic cells. May cause damage to the following organs: kidneys, liver, spleen, bone marrow, central nervous system (CNS).

    Other Toxic Effects on Humans:
    Hazardous in case of skin contact (irritant), of ingestion, of inhalation.

    Special Remarks on Toxicity to Animals: Not available.

    Special Remarks on Chronic Effects on Humans:
    May cause cancer based on animal data. No human data found. May cause adverse reproductive effects(female fertility – post implantation mortality, fetotoxicity)and birth defects. May affect genetic material

    Special Remarks on other Toxic Effects on Humans:
    Acute Potential Health Effects: Skin: Causes skin irritation. Eyes: Causes eye irritation. May cause chemical conjunctivitis.

    Inhalation: Causes respiratory tract irritation. May cause allergic respiratory tract irritation. Exposures to high concentrations may produce unconsciousness with cyanosis(a bluish discoloration of the skin due to deficient oxygenation of the blood) and cold extremities and may also affect the cardiovascular system (rapid pulse). Acute exposure to high concentrations of mercury vapors may also cause kidney damage and affect behavior/central nervous system, peripheral nervous system and autonomic nervous system, and liver and cause gastrointestinal effects (nausea, abdominal pain, vomiting).

    Ingestion:
    Harmful if swallowed. May cause gastrointestinal tract irritation with nausea, vomiting and diarrhea, headache. Exposure to high concentrations may affect respiration and cardiovascular system which may produce unconciousness with cyanosis, cold extremities and rapid pulse. May also cause central nervous system effects and/or neurological effects, and may affect the urinary system (kidneys),and liver.

    Chronic Potential Health Effects: Skin: Prolonged or repeated skin contact may cause skin sensitization, an allergic reaction. Inhalation and Ingestion: Repeated or prolonged exposure may cause cause kidney
    damage, and may affect the liver, and bone marrow.

    Chronic exposure to mercury vapors: behavior/central nervous system and peripheral nervous system (depression, irritability, nervousness, weakness, ataxia, fatigue, tremor, jerky gait, limb spasms, personality changes), metabolism (anorexia, weight loss) and cause gastrointestinal disturbances which is collectively referred to as “aesthenic-vegetative syndrome.” Chronic ingestion may cause accumulation of mercury in body tissues and may result
    in salicylism which is characterized by nausea, vomiting, gastric ulcers, and hemorrhagic strokes

    http://www.sciencelab.com/xMSDS-Thimerosal-9925236

    Now, if it is okay with you to get your child (if you have one) injected with a Thiomersal-containing flu shot, go for it. I would refuse such an injection (or any other vaccination for that matter) for any child of mine, even if I was paid a million dollars.

    In the 1970s, ten babies died in a Toronto hospital after a disinfectant containing Thiomersal was dabbed on their umbilical cords! Yet, the maniacs in charge of devising childhood vaccines continued to add Thiomersal to the increasing number of vaccines added to the national child poisoning schedule.

    “We live in a world ruled by corporate interests and agendas that are not in the best interests of the citizens of this planet. The type of mercury used in vaccines has never been safety tested by the Federal Government for toxicity in humans. This is an unconscionable oversight failure at best, and at worst it is an example that we have left consensus reality to be created by liars, cheats, killers and the junk scientists they employ.”
    Dr Kenneth Stoller
    Autism, Vaccines, Mercury and the Culpability of the American Association of Pediatrics

  • Erwin Alber
    “I won’t hold me breath while waiting though, because I realise how deep the brainwashing goes with many people, as is also evident from many of the comments on Sciblogs.”

    One of the techniques commonly used by cults to brainwash people is to isolate them from people with different views and surround them with those who repeat the same ideas over and over until they believe them
    If I recall correctly you have closed your VINE group off to dissenting views?
    How decidedly ironic that you accuse those on sciblogs of being brainwashed when by closing off your own site to dissenting views you set up conditions far more suitable for brainwashing that the open discussions on sciblogs.

    I think one of the reasons that scibloggers would never ban you is that you do most of the work for us showing how irrational, and quite frankly hypocritical, your anti-vaccine views are.

  • EA: If he hadn’t truthfuly reported what the parents had told him
    I rather think you haven’t read all the relevant literature here. Wakefield didn’t truthfully report what at least some parents told him. Again, once more, with feeling: He.Made.Stuff.Up.

    On the Hoxsey ‘cure': medical reviews of 400 patients treated by Hoxsey didn’t find any verifiable cures. Not one. You’d think, if his ‘treatment’ using salves, purgatives, laxatives, douches, & vitamin supplements was any good, there’d have been living proof of it. (Guzley GJ (1992). “Alternative cancer treatments: impact of unorthodox therapy on the patient with cancer”. South. Med. J. 85 (5): 519–23. doi:10.1097/00007611-199205000-00012. PMID 1585205)

    Nor did the 77 case histories he submitted to the National Cancer Institute help his case – it seems that only 6 of his claimed cases of cancer had been confirmed by biopsy.

    I find it sadly ironic that alt-med folks frequently complain about the side-effects of modern cancer therapies, when the Hoxsey regime, for example, saw patients burned by the caustic salve, spending hours on the toilet (an unavoidable side-effect of regular use of laxatives – another would be becoming malnourished if the gut contents are moved through too quickly for proper nutrient uptake), & making some fairly significant dietary changes for no good reason.

  • Grant, would it matter to you that the CDC […]

    Thorsen was not convicted of scientific fraud, but financial fraud – it’s not the research that he misrepresented but the invoices. He’s not a main author either; they’re not “his” papers.

    There’s a explanation with more detail on Science-based Medicine.

    You seem to be trying to throw up one thing after another in a bid that one might stick to try create an argument rather than contributing anything positive.

    Furthermore, you should your homework first. That these are so easily put right shows that you don’t analyse what you offer, but push an agenda. That, in turn, shows you’re no analyst despite styling yourself as one. It also shows the extent that you are anti-vaccine, despite past denials.

    You’re also well off the topic of my article; hard to see much value in continuing.

  • I ddn’t say that DR Wakefield was “ethnically”, but that he was “ethically” required to report what he had found.

    Typos happen. (Corrected.)

    If he hadn’t truthfuly reported what the parents had told him he would have been guilty of scientific misconduct. So, basically he was punished for being honest,

    Go get the original transcripts. He went beyond just what the parents said.

    I won’t hold me breath while waiting though, because I realise how deep the brainwashing goes with many people, as is also evident from many of the comments on Sciblogs.

    What a straw man argument.

  • “I think one of the reasons that scibloggers would never ban you is that you do most of the work for us showing how irrational, and quite frankly hypocritical, your anti-vaccine views are.”

    I allowed provaxers to comment on VINE for a long time, for the very same reason, Michael, only in the opposite direction, that is their ludicrous comments provided parents visiting VINE with a very good incentive to avoid or stop vaccinating!

    One of the main reasons I ended up banning provax comments was that I ended up spending most of my time refuting the same nonsense and idiocies over and over, so that I no longer found time to look for new information and to post it.

    Now, everyone is happy, except I guess some of the people I banned, but I figure that they should be grateful that I provided them with an opportunity to find some real meaning in their life instead of pushing the medical-pharmaceutical mafia agenda.

  • Alison – we just have to agree to disagree. I totally support Dr Wakefield and what he is doing, whil he’s obviously in your bad books.

    Also, if you had cancer, I dare say that you would opt for conventional cancer treatment, while I would opt for alternative therapies. I believe in freedom of choice.

    What I object to is the medical-pharmaceutical mafia restricting our health care choices under the guise of it being “for our own good”, such as restricting people’s access to herbs, vitamins and other supplements, as is happening in the USA where FDA agents/thugs raid vitamin and supplement manufacturers and organic farmers, and in the European Union where there is now a virtual ban on herbal products. To me, this is outright medical fascism which has no place in a free society.

    If provaxers want to get themselves and their children jabbed, that’s up to them. However, why should my taxes pay for medical interventions I abhor and consider crimes against children and humankind? But, I guess I just have to accept that we are all living in a mental asylum run by its worst inmates.

  • “Go get the original transcripts. He went beyond just what the parents said.”

    He may have done Grant, That’s his prerogative and duty as a doctor and a thinking human being. Unfortunately, in most cases the two don’t necessarily go together.

  • Oh for the umpteenth time, Erwin – it was not Wakefield’s ‘prerogative’ to make stuff up. Why is that so hard to understand?

  • EA: Twylla’s comment shows why I ban provaxers’ comments from VINE

    At most it’d show why you might ban that one writer, not the whole group.

    Curiously, this is the same issue I picked up on in the Campbell Live coverage: that presenting the views (actions, whatever) of one person of a group doesn’t meaningfully represent the group without some stuff showing what is true of the group in question as a whole.

    Is her comment really *that* offensive? It could be worded a little more kindly, but your supporters write much more harshly, even with outright rudeness. It seems you mainly just disagree with her conclusions, so I’m left thinking you’ve banned a group because their conclusions differ from yours rather than anything else.

  • Alison – that Dr Wakefield didn’t “make stuff up” is entirely your (mis-)interpretation. As far as i am concerned, Dr Wakefield acted correctly and with integrity at all times. By the way, ALL the parents whose children he is supposed to have abused support Dr Wakefield 100%! How interesting. It’s also interesting that apart from I think one parent, none of the parents involved in the controversy was allowed to give evidence to the GMC. Hence the title of Martin Walker’s excellent book ‘Silenced Witnesses’ (Vol I & II).
    http://uncensored.co.nz/2010/12/13/review-silenced-witnesses/

  • EA: That’s his prerogative and duty as a doctor

    Nope. What Alison said. You accepting unethical practices, too. (I’m harking back to the earlier point about people’s history, etc.)

    EA: One of the main reasons I ended up banning provax comments was that I ended up spending most of my time refuting the same nonsense and idiocies over and over, so that I no longer found time to look for new information and to post it.

    You’re saying you’ve banned them because their views opposed your own, and you couldn’t muster up a defence, not because they were treating others badly (e.g. trolling).

    You could have just let their comments stand if time was an issue. Some bloggers do that, just basically let commenters talk amongst themselves.

    Besides you’ve spent a lot of time here… 😉

    restricting our health care choices under the guise of it being “for our own good”,

    This isn’t quite true. These efforts don’t stop consumer choice, as such, they curb those producing or offering the remedies from acting badly. This is no different to how businesses offering investments and loans, etc., are treated.

  • “Is her comment really *that* offensive?”

    It’s not that it is offensive, Grant. It’s just that title of my Facebook page is ‘Vaccination Information Network’. If I was to allow provaxers’ comments, I would really have to amend the title to ‘Vaccination Information and Misinformation Network’, which would make it sound too unwieldy.

    BTW, The exchange between Twylla and me didn’t take place on my Facebook page, but here:
    http://www.facebook.com/vaccines/posts/152027961535179

    Twylla Bugg had been banned from VINE some time ago, because her comments were bugging me. Eradicating provaxers from VINE is the next best thing.to eradicating vaccination from this planet, which I am regretfully unable to do.

  • GJ:

    “You are accepting unethical practices, too. (I’m harking back to the earlier point about people’s history, etc.)”

    I can’t change what people have done and may be guilty of, Grant. That doesn’t mean that I condone unethical practices. .

    “You could have just let their comments stand if time was an issue. Some bloggers do that, just basically let commenters talk amongst themselves.”
    I don’t like to let misinformation stand unchallenged on VINE, Grant, as silence can be interpreted as assent by others. VINE users just have to accept that it is no longer a forum for vaxers to argue with antivaxers. There are other Facebook pages where they can do that, or they can create their own. The thing is that I was losing parents who wanted to know about the cons of vaccinations, but instead found a wall cluttered with tedious debate. Now that I have purged VINE, I get over 100 new subscribers every week. The total now stands at 15,150 users.

    “restricting our health care choices under the guise of it being “for our own good” – This isn’t quite true. These efforts don’t stop consumer choice, as such, they curb those producing or offering the remedies from acting badly.”

    Grant, prescription drugs kill hundreds of thousands of people in the USA alone each year,, yet virtually nothing is done about it. Yet , there is this huge push to regulate herbs, vitamins and other supplements! What is going on???? As J D Rockefeller, who financed drug and surgery based modern medicine (but only used homeopathics) said: “Competition is a sin!”

    “Since Americans spend so much money on health care, they should be getting a high quality of care, right? Unfortunately, that’s not the case. Of the 783,936 annual deaths due to conventional medical mistakes, about 106,000 are from prescription drugs, according to Death by Medicine. That also is a conservative number. Some experts estimate it should be more like 200,000 because of underreported cases of adverse drug reactions. ”

    http://www.naturalnews.com/009278.html#ixzz1P2yc5yfX

  • EA:

    If it were information, it means you’d have to allow all views and aweigh the evidence for each. If you only allow one perspective, then you’re fostering misinformation – essentially lying by omission.

    (This is much the same thing cults do: block out alternative views so their followers only hear the leader’s desired message without the critical analysis that comes from all views being presented and the evidence for/against each being weighed.)

    You should change your title to the Vaccine Misinformation Network 😉 Not VINE, but VaMN (read: a Germanic-sounding ‘damn’). Sorry, couldn’t resist… :-)

    So you really are just banning them because their views differ from your own, contrary to what you wrote earlier. You’d have done better to simply say that up-front. I’m always amused how much effort it takes those with an ideology to slowly move to telling the truth about their motivations.

  • EA: That doesn’t mean that I condone unethical practices.

    You wrote approving of him doing it – that is condoning it.

    EA: VINE users just have to accept that it is no longer a forum for vaxers to argue with antivaxers.

    So VaMN (hehe, sorry…) users have to accept it’s not a place for getting to the bottom of things, only a place for a very slanted view on things.

    EA: Now that I have purged VINE,

    So you’re the Stalin of the anti-vax world. Who knew? At least you’re finally talking straight (as best as I can tell).

    EA: Grant, prescription drugs kill […]

    You’re side-stepping. (Shifting goalposts, etc.) I guess you accept my point then.

    False comparison, too – but I haven’t time to deal with it. I’ll leave that for anyone else with time on their hands.

  • Grant, what a fascinating response. Firtsly as far as I’m aware Thorsen has not yet been tried, so I wasn’t aware he’d been convisted.

    Secondly, the link you provide is fascinating… let me quote…

    “So it was about a year ago when an financial fraud investigation was being undertaken in the case of Poul Thorsen, a Danish investigator who had contributed to two large Danish studies, one of which failed to find an association between the MMR and autism in the immediate wake of Andrew Wakefield’s falsified data suggesting such an assocation and one of which failed to find an association between mercury in the thimerosal preservative in vaccines and an increased incidence of autism. At the time longstanding anti-vaccine propagandist Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. tore into Thorsen with abandon before he was even indicted or charged (he was only under investigation at the time) as though, even if he actually did commit fraud, such fraud invalidated the two large studies regarding MMR and autism and thimerosal and autism with which he had been involved. Did it?”

    Can you advise what conviction for fraud, or indeed even charges, have been laid in a Court of Law? As far as I’m aware, there are only uncontested accusations published in the BMJ… no criminal investigation, no indictment, no charge, no conviction… just accusations published in the BMJ.

    By the way, Erwin… the paper written by Wakefield ad 12 others in 1998 was not published and retracted in the BMJ… it was published and retracted in The Lancet.

  • Here is a nice one for you:

    Purifying an image: Baxter Healthcare, Pharmaceutical Fraud and Blood Money

    international | consumer issues | feature

    Thursday May 12, 2011

    by Damien M

    GREAT PLACE TO WORK-2011 Best Workplaces Ireland
    This letter to Baxter International was inspired as a response to the Irish Independent Best Workplaces in Ireland award. Seeing that the company seemed so good, the author decided to check for himself and did a little background research. What he came up with surprised him and will probably surprise you.

    http://www.indymedia.ie/article/99767

    As far as I am concerned, you lot support pharma killers and bandids and the idiot doctors and junk scientists they employ. . Eeek!!! I need to have a shower and wash out my mouth with soap after talking to you lot! :-(

  • RL: Grant, what a fascinating response.

    Ron, what an incredibly childish response. Certainly sarcasm doesn’t suit you. Indicted/charged – I don’t have a problem correcting errors. They happen; I’m busy typing these comments in between work.

    I do have a problem with silly, childish, combative, abusive, etc. behaviour on my blog, though. Should I make childish remarks about ‘convisted’? It’d be in the same league, that is – pathetic.

    No further chances left.

  • EA: As far as I am concerned, you lot support pharma killers and bandids and the idiot doctors and junk scientists they employ.

    Whatever happens there has nothing to do with us. Don’t attack people with ad hominem, please.

  • Grant, you people are supporting a system which is beyond recovery from evildoing and corruption.

    Also, wasn’t your being critical of Dr Herbert Shelton whose statement I posted an ad hominem attack of sorts?

    You crticised Dr Shelton’s background, yet you provide information by recovered heroin addict Seth Mnookin. I have nothing against him being a recovered heroin addict, but just want to point out that I find your stance somewhat hypocritical.

  • “By the way, Erwin… the paper written by Wakefield ad 12 others in 1998 was not published and retracted in the BMJ… it was published and retracted in The Lancet.”

    Oops! Thanks for the correction Ron – I did know that – my apologies for the lapse of attention.

  • Erwin Alber,

    “What I object to is the medical-pharmaceutical mafia restricting our health care choices under the guise of it being “for our own good”, such as restricting people’s access to herbs, vitamins and other supplements, as is happening in the USA where FDA agents/thugs raid vitamin and supplement manufacturers and organic farmers, and in the European Union where there is now a virtual ban on herbal products.”

    What some governments are doing are attempting to introduce some level of quality control into the “natural” remedies field.
    I have a colleague who works for an analytical company. He was given a natural remedy to test by someone who had bought it overseas and was feeling ill after taking it for some weeks. The sample came back with high levels of lead and other toxins.
    Regulating natural remedies so that people know exactly what they are seems like a good idea to me.

    You said the following to Grant:
    “You crticised Dr Shelton’s background, yet you provide information by recovered heroin addict Seth Mnookin”

    Actually I was the one who criticised (Dr) Shelton’s background but you seem to have missed the point. My criticism was that his training was in dubious areas and that he was then prosecuted for practicing medicine without a licience. Your criticism of Seth Mnookin is an attack on his personal life and on the fact he had an addiction. Not really relevant to his scientific views.
    Some of Shelton’s ideas were good, the idea that raw vegetables and fasting could be healthy for example, however, like most quacks, he took a good idea and extrapolated it to ridiculous extremes – assuming that such dietary regimes could cure all disease, and therefore assuming that other treatments were unnecessary and unhealthy, and opposing treatments like vaccines.

  • EA: Grant, you people are supporting a system which is beyond recovery from evildoing and corruption.

    You’re welcome to present your ideas, strange as they may be to most of us, but attacking people in this manner is a bit childish. Raise your game, eh?

    EA: Also, wasn’t your being critical of Dr Herbert Shelton whose statement I posted an ad hominem attack of sorts?

    It wasn’t me who wrote that.

    There is an important difference to addressing the actions or proposals of a person compared to attacking the person themselves through speculating on their character or motives (i.e. ad hominem).

    You’re speculating on his character because he was an heroin addict. That’s ad hominem.

    One way to test it might be to ask if the substance of the objection is germane to the issue at hand. In what way would someone’s history as a recovered addict be germane here?

    EA: You crticised Dr Shelton’s background, yet you provide information by recovered heroin addict Seth Mnookin. I have nothing against him being a recovered heroin addict, but just want to point out that I find your stance somewhat hypocritical.

    This portion of your words is hypocritical: “I have nothing against him being a recovered heroin addict,” as you just objected to him being a recovered heroin acid in the previous sentence!

    In my (limited and anecdotal) experience those that do recover fully from addiction are—for the most part—tremendous people, as they’ve been through a hell of lot.

  • Ron,

    I’m blocking your latest and any further comments from you to this thread.

    [Ron sends me messages saying silly things when his comments here result in moderation.] Anyone who mouths off at the referee or competition judges is almost invariably considered a right tosser, right? Do you really think abusing the blogger (or moderator) is a bright idea?

    The bottom line is you’re such an idiot that even with the amount of rope I give you—and I give you plenty—you still manage to hang yourself each time. You know the deal by now – respect others and write like an adult. My blog wasn’t set up as a forum for you to carry out some silly personal vendetta against me. I’m going to add a new twist: any messages complaining to me, and I’ll block your comments on whatever thread you’re writing on instantly. Understood?

    I know of some science blogs that take no comments at all. All I ask for reasonably adult conversation. I think that’s not a bad line. If you can’t meet that standard then tough for you, there’s just the rest of the WWW for you to play in.

  • Erwin Alber,

    “I don’t like to let misinformation stand unchallenged on VINE”

    You have got to be kidding!!
    By keeping “pro-vaxxers” out you are guaranteeing that only misinformation can be found on VINE.

    As I said earlier the first thing that is done by cults when they want to indoctrinate someone is to remove all dissenting views.

    As far as I can see a lot of Twylla posted makes sense and while being quite matter of fact I wouldn’t class it as rude.
    On the contrary I would consider some of the comments you make here much ruder, e.g.

    “As far as I am concerned, you lot support pharma killers and bandids and the idiot doctors and junk scientists they employ. . Eeek!!! I need to have a shower and wash out my mouth with soap after talking to you lot!”

    Oh and by the way, washing ones mouth out with soap is traditionally a punishment for someone who tells lies. How decidingly appropriate you feel the need to wash your mouth out with soap after posting here.
    Could it be possible that subconsciously you recognise you aren’t telling the truth in your comments here?

  • Oh dear, we’re not STILL seeing posts about thimerosal are we? Thimerosal hasn’t been used in vaccines for years now. Furthermore, Erwin, quoting an MSDS is meaningless as evidence of toxicity. The first and highest rule of toxicology is that The Dose Makes The Poison. In toxicology, everything ALWAYS comes down to dose. Remember that the poison considered the most toxic of them all, Botulinum A, is used in Botox. Yes, at a low enough dose, even the poisonous of them all is harmless and even (if you want to look strangely expressionless) beneficial. On the other hand, you should try reading the MSDS for table salt and see how grim it sounds!
    Erwin, I strongly suggest you leave toxicology to those of us who are genuine, qualified toxicologists Wannabe toxicologists generally make asses of themselves.

  • Hi everyone.

    I know this stuff gets under people’s skin, but I’d ask if people could either lighten the tone or just let it go. Substantive stuff is useful, veiled pot-shots really only add noise 😉

    As for me, I’ve moved on and am more focused on the report of a collapsed building in Christchurch and other news coming in from there.

    While I’m writing – if you want to contact people in Christchurch please use texts. Calls are being put out to keep the landlines free.

  • “Thimerosal hasn’t been used in vaccines for years now.”

    Rosalind, comments of this sort are the very reason why I have banned provaxers from my Facebook page because I object to my visitors to VINE being misinformed. As with virtually everything provaxers state, your comment is wrong:

    “Do the 2010-2011 seasonal flu vaccines contain thimerosal?
    The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved several formulations of the seasonal flu vaccine, including multi-dose vials and single-dose units. Since seasonal influenza vaccine is produced in large quantities for annual immunization campaigns, some of the vaccine is produced in multi-dose vials, and contains thimerosal to safeguard against possible contamination of the vial once it is opened.”
    http://www.cdc.gov/flu/protect/vaccine/thimerosal.htm

    Click on this link to see the ‘Table of Approved Influenza Vaccines for the U.S. 2010–2011 Season:
    http://www.cdc.gov/flu/protect/vaccine/vaccines.htm

    I shudder at the thought of parents being stupid enough to give their child or children a flu shot, and at the thought of pregnant women getting the flu jab on the recommendation of idiot doctors.

    “I can’t think of anything more insane than to vaccinate pregnant women.”
    Dr Russell Blaylock MD, USA

    Which (Australian) childhood vaccines contain thiomersal?

    The current National Health and Medical Research
    Council (NHMRC) Australian Standard Vaccination
    Schedule for children under the age of 5 years
    includes only one vaccine that contains thiomersal.
    This vaccine is monovalent hepatitis B vaccine,
    which contains 25 micrograms of thiomersal per
    dose. However, a thiomersal-free product is now available.

    http://www.health.gov.au/internet/immunise/publishing.nsf/content/161A07AA9F13BE32CA25719D001833FC/$File/uci-myths-guideprov-thiomersal.pdf

    This government/pharma propaganda piece then goes on to assure parents that mercury in vaccines isn’t a problem:

    There is no scientific evidence that thiomersal in vaccines causes any adverse health effects in children. However, the possibility exists that vaccination of newborn babies, particularly those who have a low birth weight, with repeated doses of thiomersal-containing vaccines, may result in levels of mercury that are above the recommended guidelines. Theoretically, such infants may therefore be at risk of adverse effects from mercury.

    Absence of evidence is – as the saying goes – however not evidence of absence.

    Also, on examining the hexavalent (six-vaccines-in-one injection) childhood vaccine Infanrix, Australian researchers found traces of mercury, even though mercury wasn’t mentioned on the package insert.

    Mercury in vaccines from the Australian childhood immunization
    by DW Austin – 2010 – http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20391108

    “We live in a world ruled by corporate interests and agendas that are not in the best interests of the citizens of this planet. The type of mercury used in vaccines has never been safety tested by the Federal Government for toxicity in humans. This is an unconscionable oversight failure at best, and at worst it is an example that we have left consensus reality to be created by liars, cheats, killers and the junk scientists they employ.”
    Dr Kenneth Stoller:
    Autism, Vaccines, Mercury and the Culpability of the American Association of Pediatrics

  • “As I said earlier the first thing that is done by cults when they want to indoctrinate someone is to remove all dissenting views.”

    I guess that explains why Dr Wakefield was deregistered by the leadership of the Cult of Vaccinology, Michael.

  • Andrew Wakefield was deregistered for fraud and unethical practices, and there is no getting around that.
    It’s interesting how this thread has wandered from the original question posed in the headline. Should unvaccinated children be sent home from school? Whether or not you believe in vaccination for yourself or your children, is there anyone who seriously believes that an unvaccinated child should NOT be sent home from school? The school is only trying to do its best for children. Are dissenters from vaccination saying that their children should be allowed, or even required, to go to school and be exposed to pathogens? If said child gets very ill and perhaps dies, or transmits the disease to someone else who is harmed, does the parent agree that the school is in no way responsible, and that legal and moral culpability rests with them?

  • The school is only trying to do its best for children. Are dissenters from vaccination saying that their children should be allowed, or even required, to go to school and be exposed to pathogens? If said child gets very ill and perhaps dies, or transmits the disease to someone else who is harmed, does the parent agree that the school is in no way responsible, and that legal and moral culpability rests with them?
    Both good questions, Rosalind. As you say, the school would only be trying to do its best for all its children. My own feeling would be that it is the parents’ responsibility.

  • Are these people freaking serious?!?!?!? Big Pharm, and the globalists are poisoning everyone and the Zombies refuse to look at the proof?!?!? Oh, it’s just some conspiracy nut WHATEVER people, WAKE UP!!!!

  • I’m still inclined to the view that unless protective antibody titres have been demonstrated, vaccinated children should be sent home too, since unless you measure the antibodies, you never know whether any particular individual is susceptible or not.
    Speaking for myself, I have no idea whether my vaccinations against polio or tetanus ‘took’, although I do know I have good vaccine-induced immunity against Rubella, Rabies and Q Fever.

  • Ron

    Sorry about the delay in replying – work takes precedence over blog reading!

    “Can you explain how knowing the vaccination status of a patient before making a diagnosis might be helpful?”

    Since you are the one implying that not taking a routine history during a medical consultation is helpful, you are the one who is required to provide an explanation.

    The school is merely doing its best for its pupils. If there is a pupil with active measles then any non-immunised people at the school are at risk. There is much less risk for those who have previously been immunised.

    Also, as a hypothetical example, what if one of the pupils, or teachers, or parents, (or other relatives…) were immunocompromised, say under treatment for cancer or with an organ transplant, then measles could be lethal if transmitted to that person. Who would take responsibility then?

    Having previously been in the same situation myself and having had to make the hard decisions, I commend the school for its actions.

    Rosalind

    I agree about the antibody titres, but they cost ($15.53 at my local lab!) Also, it can take considerable time to get the results back unless someone will authorise non-routine runs at the lab.

  • Erwin:
    I shudder at the thought of parents being stupid enough to give their child or children a flu shot, and at the thought of pregnant women getting the flu jab on the recommendation of idiot doctors.

    I’ve done both of these things, one twice, and we’re all doing fine thank you for asking as well as insulting my intelligence. A woman I know who got swine flu during pregnancy didn’t do so well, though, and had to be hospitalised for some time. I’ll take my chances with a can of tuna’s worth of mercury any day, and seeing as I don’t eat tuna, I don’t think I’m at any inflated risk.

    But if you’re convinced the world is run by mentally incompetent conspiracists I expect you don’t see many of your fellow citizens as equally capable of coming to sound conclusions as yourself. It must make it hard to make friends.

  • Erwin Alber,

    Another example of how you cherry pick your information. The same links that you use to challenge Rosalind’s comments state

    “Since 2001, no new vaccine licensed by FDA for use in children has contained thimerosal as a preservative, and all vaccines routinely recommended by CDC for children younger than 6 years of age have been thimerosal-free, or contain only trace amounts of thimerosal, except for multi-dose formulations of influenza vaccine. The most recent and rigorous scientific research does not support the argument that thimerosal-containing vaccines are harmful.”

    And

    “Seven of the 8 vaccines contained no detectable levels of Hg (less than 1 ppb); however, 1 vaccine (Infanrix hexa) tested positive for Hg at 10 ppb. ”

    So while Rosalind appears to have been incorrect in stating that no vaccines currently contain thimerosal, your links show:
    1) Thimerosal is no longer added to new vaccines
    2) Those few vaccines that contain it have it present at low levels (10 ppb) Note also that the study showed mercury levels at 10 ppb not specifically thimerosal.
    Compare this to canned tuna which has 120 ppb, and you will see the levels in the few vaccines are incredibly low.

  • “For whatever it’s worth I have previously summarised a paper comparing blood levels of mercury in children and surveys of possible sources. The main source they found was ocean fish, esp. tuna.”

    It sounds more like a red herring to me, Grant, and by the smell of it a rotten one!

  • “Compare this to canned tuna which has 120 ppb, and you will see the levels in the few vaccines are incredibly low.”

    I do EAT the odd tuna sandwich Michael, but there’s no way I would let anyone INJECT me with anything that’s got mercury in it! As far as I am concerned, it’s a completely different kettle of fish!

    Do however feel free to get as many mercury-laden shots as possible. Just remember though that people who get the flu shot five years in a row have a ten-fold risk of getting Alzheimers. I fear you may not even be able to remember me next time we link up! :-(

  • I’m sorry Trouble, but if you vaccinate you are by my definition neither sane nor intelligent, but you are of course free to disagree.

    As for the woman who had to be hospitalised with swine flu for some time, I’m surprised she’s still alive because doctors like to kill such people by witholding life-saving Intravenous Vitamin C. Here’s the story of one who got away by the skin of his teeth: http://www.3news.co.nz/Living-Proof-Vitamin-C—Miracle-Cure/tabid/371/articleID/171328/Default.aspx.

    “But if you’re convinced the world is run by mentally incompetent conspiracists I expect you don’t see many of your fellow citizens as equally capable of coming to sound conclusions as yourself.”

    Correct. We obviously live in a mental asylum run by its worst inmates.

    “It must make it hard to make friends.”

    Not really. I have lots of like-minded friends as well as 15,000 supporters of my ‘Vaccination Information Network’ (VINE) on Facebook. I invite you to drop in for a visit some time! :-)

  • EA: I do EAT the odd tuna sandwich Michael

    The study I referred to uses measures of *blood levels* of mercury, as I pointed out. That’s not about eating or injecting. If anything naïvely you might guess this measure would favour injected sources, but actually ocean fish, esp. tuna, easily show the stronger link to higher mercury levels in blood.

  • Erwin, I think I’ve said this to you elsewhere – it almost beggars belief how rude you are to other commenters here. while we may disagree with your points I don’t see anyone describing you as insane, murderous etc, yet these are terms that you seem to throw at others at the drop of a hat. I think you’re extended a great deal of courtesy here; it reflects poorly on you that you seem unable or unwilling to return the favor.

  • Alison – as far as I am concerned, vaccination is child abuse. Some people in the vaccination game know what it is all about, and some don’t. I confess to not having much time or sympathy for people who support or condone this racket, as in my opinion they are either idiots or criminals.

    After the war, the German people accused of looking the other way while Jews and gypsies were rounded up. Only a few spoke out in protest. Now, many of us are looking the other way while children’s health, lives and intelligence is being destroyed with vaccinations. I am speaking out about it and i admit to not being nice about it. Why should I, when doctors are crippling and killing children with toxic injections? The spirit of Joseph Mengele is well and alive, in spite of the Nuremberg laws. I sincerely hope that the leaders of the vaccination racket will one day stand in a court of law to answer for their crimes. There is an arrest warrant out for Henri Kissinger in France and Spain. I look forward to the day when arrest warrants will also be issued for all vaccine policy makers.

  • Alison,

    “Erwin, I think I’ve said this to you elsewhere – it almost beggars belief how rude you are to other commenters here.”

    Yes, Alison, but we’ve been here before with Erwin. It’s fairly standard practice for Erwin to become ruder and ruder, as people effectively challenge his views.
    Notice for example, how he has given up trying to introduce any of his so call “facts”. The last few posts have been insulting, emotive and as HappyEvil Slosh just pointed out we’ve been Godwinned though his mention of Nazis.
    It is clear to me that Erwin does not understand and is fearful of science. When people resist his “facts” he resorts to bullying to try and push his view (I think your posts to trouble are exceedingly rude).
    It is little surprise to me that you censor your VINE website. It is the typical response of pseudoscience websites who want to avoid dissenting views in order to indoctrinate their “followers”

    I just waiting for him to start talking about the mind controlling nanomachines they put in vaccines. That was a classic!

    Erwin Alber, you are the perfect reminder why sciblogs and other such sites are necessary. You remind me why scientists need to be more active in science communication.

  • Well, here is a stunning documentary I dare say you’ll find interesting to say the least! Happy viewing – and keep in mind that the FDA is the agency that approves the vaccines so many parents foolishly allow to be injected into their children! :-(

    It’s ALWAYS about the MONEY – NEVER about science! :-(

    I look forward about your feedback.

    Burzynski: Cancer Is Serious Business

    by BurzynskiMovie

    http://vimeo.com/24821365

    UPDATE: THIS FILM WILL STAY ONLINE FREE UNTIL JUNE 20TH – DUE TO SUCH HIGH DEMAND!

    For more information: burzynskimovie.com
    Go here to get the DVD: burzynskimovie.com/​index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=107&Itemid=88

  • Alison & Michael,

    He should really stick to the standards we usually have around here, rather than whatever he might set on his own forum. The appropriate thing to note what usual on a forum and adopt it. I have to admit I’ve been toying with either closing this thread or putting EA under moderation.

    [Added later.] Thinking about why Erwin has shifted his tone and it occurred to me that (in part) he might be trying to ‘show himself up’ for his ‘followers’. Checking his site he’s linked to a comment here, making himself out to have taken a “provaxer” down. I’d correct the inaccuracies myself, but I first would like Erwin to behave better!

    Erwin,

    This may be a style that suits you and your followers, but you’re on my site. I ask for a higher standard of discussion here. I have asked before: could you limit yourself to substantive stuff, please. Put it another way: show some self-control, or I’ll be obliged to exert the control myself!

    Also, could you please not spam the comments. Discussion is one thing – cutting and pasting from your forum, emails, things you’ve seen elsewhere, etc., is another. You have your own site for that. (Bear in mind, too, that you’re increasingly off topic. My article was about the merits of the media presentation, not a general take on ‘anti-vaccinists’ or the use of vaccines or whatnot.)

  • Apologies for my inaccuracy re thimerosal. However, thimerosal amounts in childhood vaccines in recent years have been negligible to nil, yet the incidence of autism shows no sign of abating, which undermines the claim by Wakefield et al that thimerosal is the cause of autism.

  • BTW, Erwin, whatever your views of the rights or wrongs of vaccination, do you think a school does the right thing to send a child home rather than risk having them exposed to a highly infectious disease to which they have no immunity? If not, why not?

  • Sorry “Rosalind” All your doing is spewing the rhetoric garbage they taught you in med school or online. I suppose you thyink Fluoride is also good for the human body…..GTFOH!!!

  • Scott, I think you have mistaken this for VINE. If you have something to add to the discussion then please do. But obnoxiousness doesn’t cancel out facts here. I am interested in Erwin’s answer to Rosalind’s question.

  • Rosalind,

    The concern about thimerosal that parents, etc., with “the anti-vaccine concerns”—for want of a better phrase—expressed was with childhood development – autism arises early in development. Hence the focus, at least in the USA, was on removing thimerosal from the childhood vaccines, which has been done. I believe the situation is the same here. The study I pointed to shows you get more mercury from other sources. Taken with the dosage issues you mention, these make his objections weak.

    (Just as an aside my understanding is that there is a case for autism to arise prenatally. I hope I’ve elaborated on this in one of my earlier posts.)

    Patriot4America,

    Lift your standard please; this isn’t Erwin’s place!

    Ron,

    However well-tempered your latest comment is I have to be consistent – you get to start over in a new thread. It’s a pity in some ways as the objections you raise are worth bringing up so that they might be corrected for other reader’s benefit, but ‘them’s the breaks’ as the saying goes.

    His objections aside, Ron wishes to express that he doesn’t agree with much of what Erwin has presented here.

  • Patriot4America, what you need to understand is that there are numerous substances, of which fluoride is one, which are beneficial or even essential at some doses but toxic at much higher doses. Other examples include chloride, sodium, iodine, iron, copper, zinc, vitamin A, vitamin D, cholesterol (although if you eat no cholesterol, your body will make its own)…the list goes on and on. So in answer to your impolitely phrased remark, yes, I do think that a certain amount of fluoride is extremely beneficial to the body, in particular to tooth enamel. On the other hand, I wholeheartedly agree that fluoride can be toxic in excess. The ‘debate’ (using the word advisedly) is whether the dose received via water fluoridation is in the beneficial range or the toxic range, and the scientific evidence is overwhelming that it is in the beneficial range and well below the toxic range.

    In toxicology, the DOSE is the alpha and the omega. As Paracelsus said, “the dose makes the poison”. There is a safe dose range for EVERYTHING (yes, even ionizing radiation) and there is a toxic threshold for most things, too. Even oxygen and water are toxic in excess.

    Erwin, I’d still like to know the answer to my question: Do you think the school was wrong to send unvaccinated children home rather than allow them to be exposed to measles?

  • I think the bigger question is, why don’t people trust science anymore?

    Maybe…
    1. It’s been wrong before (asbestos, 245-T, etc)
    2. Potential corruption (by funders, politicians, government departments, etc. AFTER the scientists release it)
    3. Public’s lack of time to research evidence, so decide based on perceptions (easily swayed)
    4. ‘The man’ – science is cold, establishment, authoritarian.

    New Agers present a much more attractive image – peace and love. True they don’t do rigorous tests, but then they don’t make as many “scientifically proven” promises the way science does. Little wonder they earn more trust.

    Maybe science is antiquated and out of alignment with how society thinks now? Many other industries are having to adapt to survive – music, journalism, museums, etc. Has science made any radical, fundamental changes to try to gain the public’s trust?

  • John,

    “Maybe science is antiquated and out of alignment with how society thinks now?”

    So what is the alternative? Do we reject science and all that it has provided us with and start consulting astrologers, homeopaths and crystal healers?
    I suppose it would at least help with our overpopulated world by drastically increasing the mortality rate.

    I think science communicators are trying new ways of communicating science, e.g. blogs and youtube etc, however, you can only change the style of delivery so much without skimping on the substance.
    Do you have any suggestions on fundamental changes that could be made to gain the publics trusts
    (Having said that from a recent NZ survey it appears that trust in scientists in NZ is reasonably good anyway (I’ll see if I can find a link)

  • “An interesting link, Erwin Alber,”

    ????

    I don’t consider th link particularly interesting, Michael:
    http://vimeo.com/24821365

    The video one can access with it is however IMO fascinating – actually, “stunning” would probably be a better word to describe it. .

    “…but what does it have to do with vaccinations?”

    Michael, I have already mentioned that one should “keep in mind that that the FDA is the agency that approves the vaccines so many parents foolishly allow to be injected into their children”.

    Do Ihave to spell everything out twice for you?

    Let’s say that the cancer industry is one tentacle of the medical-pharmaceutical octopus (or rather monster), while the vaccine industry is another, and the AIDS industry one more. In the middle of it all are the regulatory agencies such as the FDA who regulate these money-making rackets. That’s why I wouldn’t touch a vaccine with a barge pole. A vaccine is like a blowfly: you don’t know where it comes from and what nasties it harbours.

    I knew that the FDA is utterly corrupt, but seeing these psychopaths in action on this video, particularly pursuing their evil agendas in the court room, almost makes me believe that there may be something to David Icke’s shapeshifting reptilian humanoids hhypothesis after all! At least, these people are completely devoid of humanity – unlike Dr Burzynski, who to me seems a real human being. I say all power to him, and may the evildoers behind vaccination and in the FDA fry in hell!

  • I’d suggest that discussion on John’s question be kept on the new thread – it’ll be easier on everyone; in one place and al that 😉

  • Erwin – I asked a friend who does this sort of science what he thought about Burzynski and he came back (amongst a long response refuting a lot of the science) with a point I’d like you to address. I know you haven’t really bothered to answer any of the questions you’ve been asked, but I’m asking anyway.

    What do you make of the toxic side effects for the doses at which Burzynski administers his “antineoplaston” (that’s not actually a real word, but when you’re making stuff up you might as well go whole hog); including seizures and brain swelling. Aren’t these the sorts of side effects you have such a problem with in other treatments?

    I’m also curious about why he charges so much for his treatment, but I guess he has to pay for his infomercials about how everybody else is in it for the money somehow.

  • “show some self-control, or I’ll be obliged to exert the control myself!”

    I’ll try my best but I’m not sure that I am capable of it, Grant. I appreciate that this is your page and that you are perfectly entitled to put on whatever restraints you want, so if you feel like banning me, I suggest you go ahead, because I have better things to do with my time than to argue with people who are unlikely to budge from their provax stance.

    I however dare say that your page would be incredibly boring without my presence, but that would obviously be your problem, not mine.

    Any way, what did you think of the cancer video? Didn’t it rattle you to see how utterly evil and corrupt the FDA is, an agency which regulates childhood vaccines? Especially as it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to realise that the same corruption also permeates vaccine manufacture and vaccine licensing.

    But, as a peace offering, and to soothe the headache and smoothe the ruffled feathers I may have caused, here is a provax 60 Minutes item, just in case you haven’t seen it yet. It’s a disgusting hatchet job, but interesting just the same:

    I think this video will be more your cup of tea and right up your alley, because it shows some demented health professional who rabbits on about dangerous dieases and provaxers and deluded parents with no brains but full of grief over the deaths of their babies whose lives they beieve could have been saved f everyone in Moronland had followed the VCPSM – Vaccine Child Poisoning Schedule for Morons.

    The video also shows Viera Scheibner walking off in disgust about the farcical nature of the 60 Minute item. The reporter was incredulous when Viera asserted that she knows more about vaccines than most doctors. That’s in my opinion nothing to boast about, as anyone who knows that vaccination is a fraud knows more about vaccination than the average doctor.

  • Apologies for my inaccuracy re thimerosal. However, thimerosal amounts in childhood vaccines in recent years have been negligible to nil, yet the incidence of autism shows no sign of abating,

    There is a simpe explanation for this, Rosalind. Thiomersal is only one of many brain poisons (neurotoxins),in vaccines which cause neurological disorders, including autism.

    .. which undermines the claim by Wakefield et al that thimerosal is the cause of autism>

    Please show me a single reference to where Dr Wakefield et al claimed that thiomersal has something to do with autism. As far as I am aware, they reported parents observation that their children became autistic following vaccination with MMR, which never contained any mercury.

    I was going to add one or two more sentences, but then remembered Grant’s request for restraint, so decided to desist. :-)

  • Erwin – what do you make of Viera Scheibner’s claim that “Only children who are vaccinated get autism”? If she’s so wrong about that, what makes her reliable on anything else?

  • /Please show me a single reference to where Dr Wakefield et al claimed that thiomersal has something to do with autism./

    Like this one from a Scottish paper in 2004:

    “Dr Andrew Wakefield, the scientist whose research in 1998 raised the first fears that the MMR combined jab could be linked to children developing autism, welcomed the decision to remove mercury from the jab as a victory for parents.

    He said: “It should never have been there in the first place. Despite how they try to sell it, there is evidence that there is an association between mercury in vaccines and childhood disorders.”

    Sadly, he doesn’t actually say what the evidence is.

  • “BTW, Erwin, whatever your views of the rights or wrongs of vaccination, do you think a school does the right thing to send a child home rather than risk having them exposed to a highly infectious disease to which they have no immunity? If not, why not?”

    In short: no. The children play together after school anyway, so why bother? This is just chicanery, and yet another way for the medical mafia to discriminate against non-vaccinating parents and to put pressure on them to vaccinate.

    Measles may be a very contagious, but IMO not a particularly dangerous disease. I and everyone else of my age group had measles when we were children and I don’t know of anyone being harmed by it. If I had children again, I wouldn’t hesitate to sent them to a wild measles party, which is why I also wouldn’t hesitate to send them to school during a measles outbreak.

    The only thing I would be worried about is that it may be a vaccine measles outbreak, as one doesn’t know what dangerous filth is in the vaccine the children were injected with and which is doing the rounds.due to the vaccinated children
    now shedding vaccine viruses and other contaminants.

    As far as I am concerned, the heath authorities are in the wrong because they are making truants out of the children they are telling to stay at home.

    Not only do the so-called health authorities poison the children they vaccinate. but they are also depriving the children of parents intelligent enough to protect their children against this medical assault of their education.

    In Graz, Austria, a boy who was vaccinated against hepatitis B at school became almost totally blind as a result. The matter went to court and the court decided that the medical officer of health was at fault because she had failed to inform the student of the possible risks of vaccination, thereby depriving the boy of his right to informed consent.

    If this principle was applied to New Zealand, it would turn out that that every vaccination in New Zealand schools is an illegal act.

    In fact, the incident in Graz prompted the court to also examine the legality of school vaccination programmes. The health authorities argued that these are carried out under the authority of the state, but the court found against this. It found that school vaccination programmes are private sector commercial ventures and declared school vaccinations in Austria illegal!

    This was a huge victory as far as non-vaccinating Austrian parents are concerned, but already the Austrian vax mafia is mobiliising to reverse this humiliating defeat and to reintroduce vaccination programmes into schools. I sincerely hope that they fail in this also.

    I have always felt that the medical-pharmaceutical mafia should not be allowed to use educational facilities to inflict its vaccine child poisoning programmes on students. I also feel that vaccinations should not be paid for with taxpayer money. This means that if a parent wants to vaccinate their child, they should take their child to their doctor and pay for the vaccination in full out of their own pocket. I can’t see why any of my taxes should go towards subsidising what I consider child abuse.

  • Erwin – this is going to sound crazy, but the only info I can find on the Austrian case is an article written by a German homoeopath. Are you able to point me to the court case or to any media coverage of the changes. Or even some of the information advising schools about the changes. I’d be keen to find out exactly what they are being advised.

  • Are you getting your information from whale.to again, Erwin? A couple of flaws with your story. If the child was at school then he wouldn’t have been the one to be told about possible complications; the information would have gone to his mother. And secondly, he could not have been warned about blindness as a possible side-effect because it’s neither listed on the information accompanying the vaccine, nor has it been identified in VAERS reports (& goodness knows, they’re incredibly unselective, as has been discussed on others of Grant’s posts.

    You say that in your opinion measles is ‘not particularly dangerous’ and that you don’t know of anyone who has been harmed by it. Unfortunately data will trump anecdote every time. Erwin, large numbers of children in developing nations die of measles every year (& where vaccinations are available, that number is greatly reduced). Is this a case of out-of-sight, out-of-mind as far as you’re concerned?

  • I used to work with a woman in her 20s who had caught a vaccine-preventable disease, I believe it was measles, as a baby. It damaged her corneas and she was almost completely blinded by it.

    Measles used to mean quarantines even in first world countries in the first half of the 20th century: see this artifact.

  • Papango – he probably means this: http://www.laleva.org/eng/2011/06/austrian_court_affirms_school_vaccinations_not_obligatory_lack_of_informed_consent_is_malpractice.html. I note that the court didn’t find in-school vaccinations ‘illegal’, but that the schools/medical officers of health needed to take more care with informed consent.

    On my previous comment – while VAERS doesn’t appear to mention hepB-related blindness, the NIH does note that optic-nerve neuritis is a very rare (& treatable) complication of the vaccine. The frequency of this neuritis seems to be much less than the frequency of serious complications of measles.

  • It looks like Erwin translated that article into English just recently. So I’m sure he can point us to evidence for its claim that:

    “The Federal Social Welfare Office acknowledged the bilateral optic atrophy (destruction of the optic nerve) to be vaccination damage as a result of the hepatitis B vaccination.”

    Don’t worry if it’s in German, Erwin. I have a couple of German friends at work who can translate for me.

  • Erwin Alber

    The video regarding Dr Burzynski does indeed raise some questions about the FDA’s dealings with him. However, the possible poor choice by the FDA and the Texas Board of Medical Examiners does not automatically mean that every drug approved by the FDA is therefore suspect.
    Nor does it mean that existing drugs used for the treatment of cancer are not useful. Many of them also result in documented cures of various forms of cancer.
    I notice that the only medical professionals and scientists interviewed for the documentary actually supported Dr Bursynski’s work, and that the only purported criticisms of him by medical professionals were described second hand by others. Hardly a balanced approach to a documentary.

    As you have mentioned an AIDS industry in your comments perhaps you could give a brief description of your views on the causes of AIDS?

    Especially as it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to realise that the same corruption also permeates vaccine manufacture and vaccine licensing.
    If you can provide a documentary that provides relevant evidence that vaccines went through a corrupt approval process then feel free to post it, otherwise your point is invalid.

    Do Ihave to spell everything out twice for you?

    Your rudeness and petulant comments only confirm to me that you feel you are on the back foot when posting on this blog. Most of us manage to discuss our views without being rude, perhaps you might try to do the same?

  • As you have mentioned an AIDS industry in your comments perhaps you could give a brief description of your views on the causes of AIDS?

    Reverse vampires. Betcha.

  • Erwin said /Measles may be a very contagious, but IMO not a particularly dangerous disease. I and everyone else of my age group had measles when we were children and I don’t know of anyone being harmed by it./

    I do. I remember, as a child, seeing a girl in Auckland who was in the process of dying of Subsclerosing Panencephalopathy (SSPE), a devastating and ultimately fatal brain degeneration caused by Measles. It is a ghastly disease, a terrible way to die and a terrible way to lose a child. I would not wish it on my worst enemy. It is a rare sequel of wild-type Measles infection, but an awful one. As far as I can determine, a case of SSPE as a result of live, attenuated Measles vaccine has never been confirmed.
    I also remember having Measles, which was a miserable experience, and being terribly ill with Whooping Cough, which can result in brain damage in babies. I have seen farm animals dying of Tetanus and it is terrible, the exact same neurochemical mechanism as strychnine poisoning and just as agonizing. I know adult men who have been through appalling pain after catching Mumps, which in adult men causes orchitis (inflammation of the testes). One of the men, in his early 20s, lost the fertility of one testis as a result, but was very lucky in that he did not lose fertility of both. If a pregnant woman catches Chicken Pox during embryogenesis, there can be congenital deformities and of course Rubella is similarly capable of causing birth defects. There are excellent reasons why vaccination is preferable to wild-type infection.
    Measles may not, in your opinion, be a particularly dangerous disease, but I think the scientific facts show that your opinion is sorely mistaken.

  • Just heard on the news this afternoon that there is a measles outbreak in Auckland – 17 infected, 3 hospitalised

  • The medical officer gives some rough figures as to the rate of complications to measles in the video. A link to video is in the Footnote at the end of the article.

    From 5:45 in the video the medical officer says that 30-40% of cases have significant complications.

    The rate of ‘problems’ from measles is much higher than very rare issues from the vaccine.

    [Quick edit because I forgot to edit a bit!]

  • sorry being a bit thick today. The report in the news involves the school Grant was talking about.
    You are way ahead of the general media Grant :-)

  • The media is responding to the ARPHS putting out information today. Grants intro was about school kids being sent home from school.

  • Despite all assurances by the CDC and other such sources of misinformation, SSPE can also be caused by the measles vaccine, Rosalind:

    “Stacey Berry, of Atherton, Manchester was 13 when she had a booster jab in November 1994. Days later she started having fits, “stopped smiling, and stared into space.” She was diagnosed with the brain disease SSPE and given two years to live. She died in November 2000, aged 19. A post mortem examination concluded the disease was a “rare complication” of the vaccine”.”–Media
    http://www.whale.to/vaccines/sspe1.html

    As I have said, measles didn’t cause me or anyone else I knew during my school years any harm, even though virtually all chidren got measles in the 1950s. What you believe is up to you, but I wouldn’t hesitate to send any child of mine to a measles party.

    What on earth makes you think that the information on package inserts is accurate? The Infanrix vaccine package inserts e.g. don’t mention that the vaccine contains traces of mercury, as only some ingredients are listed, so why conclude that vaccines don’t cause blindness, deafness or anything else, just because it isn’t listed as an adverse reaction? The again you appear so blinded by by your beliefs that you would argue that vaccines don’t kill babies even though cot death IS listed on some package inserts.

    Also, what makes you think that all adverse events are described in the medical literature? To argue that they do is as idiotic as claiming that a species of insect can’t exist unless it has been classified and listed by entymologists.

    I found this with a quick search on the internet:

    Hepatitis B reaction—aneurysm, near death, cortical blindness …
    My son had a reaction to the hep B vaccine at 3 days old, had a 2nd shot at 2 months old … He was diagnosed with cortical blindness, has severe reflux, …
    http://www.whale.to/vaccines/hepb3.html

    Spastic quadriparetic cerebral palsy with microcephaly, cortical .
    29 Dec 2003 … Jonathan’s story From: Tammy Carrington My husband and I live in East Texas in a town called Diboll (about 125 miles NE of Houston).
    http://curezone.com/forums/fm.asp?i=368588

  • “The rate of ‘problems’ from measles is much higher than very rare issues from the vaccine.”

    Not to mention the high incidence of health problems caused by the vaccine.

    http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=69678803997&set=a.69670973997.94644.69667273997&type=1&theater

    http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=476865308997&set=a.69670973997.94644.69667273997&type=1&theater

    Also, if doctors in their appalling ignorance fail to administer vitamin A to measles patients, the blame lies IMO less with measles than with clueless doctors. But, I guess they can’t realy resort to something safe and effective like vitamin A, as t would turn measles into a truly harmless disease, and where would then the need for vaccination programmes be? It would after all be like killing the goose that lays the golden eggs! I can just hear a vaccine manufacturing company executive muttering: “We may be evil, but we are not stupid!”

  • “Just heard on the news this afternoon that there is a measles outbreak in Auckland – 17 infected, 3 hospitalised”

    Good grief, one could almost think that it’s Ebola, rather than measles! My worst fear about this is, that the hospitalised chiidren may die because the staff fails to administer Vitamin A. But then, deaths provide statistics which are very useful to get the idea across to parents that measles is a deadly disease, so why bother with vitamin A?

  • “On my previous comment – while VAERS doesn’t appear to mention hepB-related blindness, the NIH does note that optic-nerve neuritis is a very rare (& treatable) complication of the vaccine. The frequency of this neuritis seems to be much less than the frequency of serious complications of measles.”

    Aren’t you getting the diseases respectively the vaccines a bit mixed up here, Alison?

    The Austrian boy was blinded by a hepatitis B vaccination, an issue you address in your comment, but for some to me unknown reason, you end up switching to measles at the end of your comment.

    ???

    Also, the Austrian court fined the medical officer of health because she was found guilty of having failed to inform about the possible adverse effects of the vaccination she injected the boy with.

    According to the article, the court decision resulted in a ban of school vaccination programmes, at least in their present form. The medical authorities are caught in a dilemma: how can they provide truthful information to parents (or students) which would enable them to give informed consent? The obvious answer is that they can’t. They now have a choice of telling parents lies and providing them with the skewed statistics designed to make vaccines look safe and effective when they are not, or else to kiss their vaccine child poisoning programmes goodbye. I sincerely hoe it’s the latter, as falling back on their usual brainwashing tactics is not likely to work anymore and will only result in having any remnants of confidence some parents may still have in vaccination programmes down the proverbial toilet. As Lincoln once said,

    “You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can not fool all of the people all of the time.”

  • Half asleep whilst waking this morning – National Radio reports two further schools in the Auckland area who have pupils with measles. Non-vaccinated pupils have been sent home for their own safety. (Epsom Girls and ?)

    The Auckland MoH also reported very high non-vaccination rates in the Oratia area, but I wasn’t awake enough to remember the percentage & can’t find it online.

    Isn’t it amazing how we get outbreaks of measles only in areas where there are low vaccination rates. 😉

  • Though I may regret this, I’m curious about how Erwin decides what’s poison (vaccines) and what’s a miracle cure (Vitamins A and C). From what I’ve seen, the most obvious distinction is things that the medical profession likes = poison, and things which they don’t like = miracle cure. I hope it’s something a little more sophisticated than that.

    Vitamin A is a chemical that at high enough levels can cause birth defects if you take it during pregnancy, and those levels are pretty easy to hit.

  • Vitamin A can do a lot worse than causing birth defects, Trouble, and was very likely the cause of the death of Mertz in Antarctica, a death which left Douglas Mawson to struggle back to base alone in an extraordinary tale of survival. Mawson himself also showed signs of Vitamin A poisoning.
    Vitamin D is also a poison at high enough doses and is used to kill mammalian pests such as possums in this country under its more scientific name, cholecalciferol.
    The simple reality is that just about anything that can be But then, as I’ve already said, oxygen and water are also poisonous IN EXCESS. Sit down and drink 14 to 18 litres of water quickly and you stand a very good chance of dying.
    Vitamin C owes its innocuous nature to the fact that it is water-soluble and therefore very rapidly excreted.
    I don’t know how Erwin decides what is poison and what is beneficial, but I’m sure it is not a scientific, logical decision process.

  • Rosalind, Trouble

    I wonder if Erwin applies the “natural is good, artificial is bad” philosophy when deciding what is a poison and what is not?

    It’s not a particularly accurate philosophy given that Nature is very capable of creating some of the most posionous toxins we know of.

    I’m sure Erwin’s explanation of what he considers is a poison and what is not, will be very enlightening.

  • Erwin, vitamin A is used in the measles vaccination programmes in developing countries because vitamin A deficiency is rampant there. It aids the immune system and is essential for growing children.

    Also, vitamin A *is* considered for the treatment of young measles sufferers in New Zealand.

  • Maz asks /If vitamin a is so dangerous then why is there no legislation preventing liver to be sold…/

    Vitamin A is not “so” dangerous. The whole point is that just about anything that can be absorbed but not immediately excreted, including essential substances such as Vitamin A, Vitamin D, iron, copper, zinc, selenium, iodine, chloride, sodium, etc etc etc is toxic IN EXCESS and completely innocuous, or even essential, at lower doses. At a high enough dose mercury can certainly harm or kill you, but the amount of mercury in a thimerosal-containing vaccination is nowhere near a harmful level. At a high enough dose fluoride can make you very ill indeed, but the amount of fluoride in water is nowhere near a harmful level.

    This is what toxicologists mean when they say “The dose makes the poison”. For some reason, many people seem to be intellectually incapable of understanding this concept. I can’t understand why people struggle with this concept because to me it is self-evident.

    As I have pointed out before, both oxygen and water are toxic in excess, but I don’t recommend that you try doing without either on the grounds that they are ‘poisons’.

  • pregnant women eat liver the same as anyone

    Actually, it’s not recommended that they eat very much. It’s not health-warning sticker level, because not many people eat buckets of liver, but it’s there if you read the food info you get while pregnant.

  • If vitamin a is so dangerous then why is there no legislation preventing liver to be sold by butchers and restaurants and consumed by any one.
    Because vitamin A tends to accumulate in carnivores (being as they are at the top of the food chain) & your average butcher doesn’t stock polar bear or husky liver among his wares.

  • 4 hospitalised out of 50 confirmed cases. A “benign” disease? Somehow I don’t think so. When will the madness end?

  • Simon,

    When will the madness end?

    Looking the noisy few commenting on the article I linked and the recent 60 Minutes program you could start to wonder! Even though they’ll be the classic ‘noisy minority’ it’s shame that these ideas gain ground at all really.

  • Hi Grant, I saw your comments on the 60 Minutes page and just want to say good on you and thanks. You posts/comments are eloquent, informative and you’re much more, erm, polite than I would be (too much time spent on Respectful Insolence, I think!).

  • Hinterlander,

    Thanks for that. I have to admit sometimes I wonder why I do (!), but I if the odd person follows the links I provide then I guess it’ll be worth the effort.

    As for being polite part of it will simply be that I’m a bit ‘over’ the fuss and the things be offered are the ‘same old same old’. It is disappointing that some are choosing to overlook the research that has cleared things up (e.g. the work surveying possible links between vaccination and autism) but I guess that comes with the territory.

    I read (well, skim) Orac’s articles, but I have to admit I’ve long given up on the comments over there.

    Rhianna’s comments there are excellent.

Site Meter