Inaccurate reporting of scientific evidence perpetuates myths

By Aimee Whitcroft 15/03/2010

A guest post from the Immunisation Advisory Centre, following recent reports in the press questioning the safety of the Gardasil vaccine.

Recently we have seen more examples of vaccine safety surveillance data being misinterpreted by both members of the public and the media.  This misinterpretation of adverse events following immunisation (AEFI) data can perpetuate fear and confusion in our communities. Sensible safety surveillance data has been presented in a manner that claims the HPV vaccine Gardasil is the cause of many serious, adverse ‘reactions’.   This is false.

Nothing has changed recently regarding the safety profile of Gardasil, the vaccine used in the HPV immunisation programme.  It has an excellent safety record, is used in over 100 countries across the world, with tens of millions of doses delivered and not one death attributed to the vaccine.

In New Zealand, unexpected, unexplained or severe events following  immunisation are recorded and reported to the Centre for Adverse  Reaction Monitoring (CARM). Any member of the public or health professional can do this.  Recorded data is used to check for any possible warning signs of new or unexpected concerns that might related to a vaccine.  Deciding if an event is caused or linked to a vaccine is determined only after careful investigation.

Claiming that all adverse events reported after immunisation were caused by the vaccine is wrong, and shows no understanding of the monitoring system. In regards to Gardasil, some ‘serious adverse events’ such as fainting episodes or infection at the needle site were associated with having an injection and are not linked to the vaccine itself.  Giving blood or receiving other injections can cause the same events.

With large numbers of people vaccinated there will always be coincidental (and adverse) events occurring at the same time as an immunisation visit. Careful scientific review and use of large international databases and studies are used to determine whether rare events may or may not be linked to vaccines.  The NZ safety surveillance system is one part of a broad international monitoring system for vaccine safety. The HPV Immunisation programme will have significant benefits for our community’s health – Australia has already experienced a dramatic reduction in genital warts after only three years of HPV vaccination.

Having the choice to receive a free vaccine against cervical diseases and genital warts is a privilege, denied to many women in countries who cannot afford this vaccine. It is important that people considering taking advantage of this free vaccine are given information that is understandable and, most importantly, factual.

NZ vaccine surveillance data is there for a purpose, as a part of the international surveillance of a vaccine’s safety profile. Misuse of this data leads to scaremongering, creates an environment of fear, and promotes myths that can affect the health of our community for a long time to come.    This has happened with other vaccines in the past, and has lead to many children being unnecessarily put at risk.   We hope not to see this again.  Gardasil is an excellent vaccine with robust scientific data to support its use.

Dr Nikki Turner, Director, Immunisation Advisory Centre.

Helen Petousis-Harris, Director of Research, Immunisation Advisory Centre.

0 Responses to “Inaccurate reporting of scientific evidence perpetuates myths”

  • As an interested layman I’ve attempted to write about these issues in relation to the Gardasil vaccine in the past but have run up against my own lack of understanding of the epidemiological principles as a barrier to effective communication. Would it be possible to have another post (or a series) breaking down the procedure for evaluating the data gathered by systems like CARM and VAERS (USA system)?

    It seems to me the public merely sees scientists dismiss adverse reactions as unimportant while the press give us the personal stories of those who think they have been affected by the vaccine. I know which one I find more emotionally compelling.

  • I remember that when I wrote a piece on Gardasil last year, I went & read all the various bits & pieces of product information. Various anti-vax websites & letter-writers were claiming deaths & severe illness from the vaccine. It turned out that the deaths ‘associated’ (in a temporal sense) with the vaccine included car accidents – with equal frequency in the vaccinated & non-vaccinated groups. And serious illness included cancer & TB…

  • Good to see this Nikki. I’ve been following the misleading reports on vaccines for a few years now. It’s galling to watch people state as facts things that simply aren’t and cause—sometimes considerable—damage.

    For what it’s worth, I considered writing with the same general theme partly using the misleading statements in a local chiropractor’s advertisement to try dismiss all drugs, including the Gardasil vaccine program, as a starting point. You’re much better placed than me to do this, so this is nice to see! (I’ve mentioned this very briefly in a recent article; I’ll link my earlier article to your article here in a moment.)

    As a chiropractor with an “anti-drug” stance I’m not surprised in what he wrote (he’s written related things previously), but I see a wider problem in that some of the same nonsense is in the mainstream media and the public as you say.

    I wrote somewhere some time ago that if people knew where some of these claims originally came from they’d be embarrassed to repeat them. I wonder how many people realise these things almost certainly originate not from “the public” or “alternative scientific views” but from people promoting “anti medicine” stances, often with clear vested interests in promoting that, and certainly not from trained people impartially looking at the actual data?

    A point to be had there is that journalists should be more aware of the original source of these claims.

    (As an extreme example, I recall Orac once tracing an anti-vaccine claim back to an anti-semitic conspiracy-theory website that, if I remember rightly, had it in the context of a vast Jewish plot to wipe out the non-Jewish members of society! Credible source…. no.)

  • Helen,

    Sorry I left your name out.


    A key point to remember—I think—is that they are reporting systems. Among other things, the reports need to be verified. I recall reading that one wit trying to illustrate that anyone could file a report for anything to VAERS apparently filing a report that she (not he!) was transformed into The Incredible Hulk… 🙂 This is linked in a lot of places, but here’s one source:

  • Quite so Grant,

    One of the problems of extrapolating the numbers gathered by these systems is weeding out the implausible events as well as events that have been reported multiple times by different parties. When I reviewed the Gardasil Post-licensure Study last year I took pains to note that the only criteria for reporting events was proximity in time to the vaccination. I neglected to mention the painstaking work undertaken to verify each reported case so that’s a good point to emphasise.

    Re: the Hulk link, Tara seems to have been mistaken; the article Orac links to is here:

    and was written by one James R. Laidler apparently referring to himself in the Hulk anecdote. I think he would be surprised to learn that he is actually a woman.

  • This article has been written with such confidence. Could you please visit my daughter and present to her your hard copy evidence that she has not been effected by this vaccine. Prove to her that what she is now suffering from is purely coincidental, an underlying unresolved personal issue or an undiagnosed illness that the doctor still cannot diagnose. Oh sorry that has already been done. Try proving what has actually caused her extreme fatigue, migraines, aches and pains, pins and needles, cold sweats, a very sore arm from the jab, fevers, extreme mood swings, depression, suicidal thoughts and the list just goes on. Explain to her what her future holds now and be there for her everyday to support her now that her life has so drastically changed, and mine for that matter. Support her now that her sporting future has been taken away so quickly. Sit beside her as another day passes and she cannot attend school because she is so sick. Listen to her as she complains of what is sore today and how she cannot eat. This all started after her first vaccine and she deteriorated rapidly after her second. Prove to her that what you are saying is true. Genital warts? Maybe the use of condoms has helped prevent alot of this. Who knows? There are many answers that can be given for this but do not use Gardisil as one of them when many of us know it is not true. Those women living in countries where this vaccine is unaffordable, they should count themselves extremely lucky!
    As for reporting to CARM? I mentioned my concerns and Gardisil being the cause of my daughter’s illness to her doctor and quickly it got brushed under the carpet so how can you get true numbers from this as he and many other medical practitioners are doing the same and not sending off reports to CARM. I want proof, not your opinion when you have not spent the time with girls who are now sick.

  • My daughter wishes also to respond but at this stage chooses not sign her name. This is what she has to say:

    Excuse me i dont mean to be rude but you don’t even know what you’re talking about.
    You haven’t experienced what we have experienced. Being a victim of this stupid gardisal vaccine myself. I’ve lost alot because of it and you think it’s safe and no one’s died from it, well thats where you’re wrong. There’s been deaths throughout several countries and enough in new zealand to show that it’s not healthy for all teenage girls.
    I am 16 turning 17 and my life has changed dramatically ever since i took the first vaccine. I can’t play sport at my best any more because I’m too weak and my muscles and joints are sore, my arm I got the injection in goes numb quiet regularly. I am constantly tired, some days more then others. My appetite has decreased to nearly nothing a day. ‘Ive lost interest in alot of things I loved, I’m moody more than usual. Always sick and drowzy, more anti social now, never use to be. Was always socialising and out there. After my second vaccine it all went worse, I was in bed 6-7 weeks out of our 8 week holiday, sleeping. Couldnt eat or drink, had no energy to do anything. What a holiday that was ay. I even pushed myself away from family and vice versa. I’ve made some progress towards my health but there isn’t much i can do to rebuild all that I have lost. I am now struggling to keep myself together and not lose it, I am struggling to keep my motivation towards netball and all my favourite sports and hobbies that I am good at and love doing. It’s not easy.
    Tell me, do you still think there is nothing wrong with gardasil and the things it does to young teenage girls and how it effects there lives??
    You wouldn’t know what it’s like unless you’ve experienced and felt what I and some other girls effected by this vaccine have felt..

    Thank You

  • Nikki Turner and others pushing this vaccine – please do your research – your response to the hundreds of girls now presenting as the young woman above – is lacking humanity and real concern – instead you are speaking off a well versed speal card that every parent around the world is hearing when it comes to their daughters

    remember please that these parents were PRO vaccination they supported you and the MoH totally by buying into the program to keep their daughters safe – and NOW look – and you all show NO real concern for the damage done to these girls – you all still continue to deny that their illness is caused by the HPV vaccine

    Dr Diane Harper herself was interviewed IN NZ ON public radio and warned NZ not to proceed because of all the adverse affects presenting over seas – you do us all a dis service all of you

    you are pushing a vaccination on to young girls it was never tested for – the facts are that HPV alone does not cause cervical cancer its in all the medical journals – and the HPV vaccination was never designed to be ANTI CANCER VACCINATION –

    six women in the US have done the research YOU should be doing – your vow as medical practioners is to do no harm and yet you have put at risk thousands of young girls

    the HPV16 virus is present in many young girls, as a matter of interest – it clears itself usually – concerns are now being raised over the fact that over 200 girls in the US are now presenting with abnormal pap smears – this is totally unusal in this age group

    On breakfast you said that adverse reactions like GB syndrome and others are common in the population at large and cannot be connected to the vaccine – my question to you Dr Turner is – really – in this young age group – I don’t think so – you are protecting your own self interests and doing great harm – you articulate well and convey a professional air that gives false security to mothers who want to ‘protect’ their daughters – but you are mislead – the HPV vaccine is dangerous and ineffective – and I believe we will start to see a rise in cervical cancer in younger women in the coming years – the death toll will triple all thanks to your inability to really look and be in your humanness – rather than your professional mask

    Dr Harper also stated that gardasil only protects for 5 years or less – and offers no real protection – you can read her latest interview, direct from her mouth in the huffington post – she is asked why she is speaking out like this – and her answer – so that she can sleep at night

    all of you need to take a leaf out of her book and stop protecting your own self interest and start taking the claims of girls like the one above seriously – mothers know – the girls themselves know that what is happening to them is directly linked to the vaccine – do you even know what is in it – its ingredient list – would you eat a cake with those toxic substances in it – no you wouldn’t but you would gladly inject it into young girls – none of whom are your daughters – and then deny that those toxic ingredients could ever do damage – its insane and its sad

    I am glad schools around the country are taking the welfare of their girls to heart – something that the MoH is not – your agenda goes against the grain of do no harm – vaccines have become a scared cow that needs to be protected at all costs – that not one death amongst the many – not one adverse affect amongst the thousands has been linked to the vaccine – not a single one – i find that so odd –

    and for your correspondences information – car crashes resulted with the woman/girl who had received her vaccination fainted at the wheel – since then – its been advised that girls/women are kept for observation for 30 min – as a precautionary measure – get your facts right

    it has been suggested that given all the vaccines to date and that usually only 10% of the population ever report to CARM or the US equivalent there could be as many as 1.5 million – MILLION !!!! girls affected world wide – emotive – no fact – just like the girl above

    informed choice is about both sides, parents and girls are entitled by right to hear both the pros and the cons, the west coast school was correct in not letting it happen in their school – and writing the adverse reactions in their news letters – something the MoH neglects to do

    you people are pushing this vaccine – you have a mandate from government who as bought into the world wide trend – we know that sales of this vac was not high so one way pharmaceuticals have of making money is through guaranteed sales is sell to governments – and NZ bought into it – but you are not being vigilant in protecting the health of young girls – instead you are downplaying them and is anyone following up these girls to see how long they are debilitated for – I bet not

    please heed the warnings – stop protecting vested interests and start making the concerns of young girls like the one above and other concerned parents a priority

  • Chrissy,

    I’m sure any sensible person would be sorry to hear about what your daughter and you have been through but your comments here serve to highlight just how hard it is for scientists working in contentious fields like this one to talk about their work.

    Sadly, sometimes young people get ill or exhibit the sort of constellation of symptoms you talk about for no good reason. When something horrible happens we naturally look for a cause, but how do you know your daughter wouldn’t have had to deal with the same problems even if she didn’t get the gardasil? We can’t do that experiment in your daughter’s case but In science we have a set of tools and tests to let us see how a medicine effects people. In this case of gardasil 12 000 young woman were part of a trial – half of them got the vaccine and the other half got a fake injection. You can read the results of that trial here but the short story is that woman who received the real injection were no more likely to have an adverse effect that woman who got a placebo. Those results meant the vaccine went in public health programmes across the world and authorities continued to monitor its safety and there is no evidence to suggest that Gardasil is causing major adverse effects.

    I realise just posting this comment runs the risk of reinforcing the stereotype of the cold, uncaring scientist but, in this case we are talking about a vaccine that has been given to thousands of New Zealand woman. Surely we should be able to expect that newspapers report not on personal anecdotes but on the scientific evidence for the vaccine’s safety. Failing to do that raises groundless fears and, much worse, can make parents think their decision to have their daughter vaccinated is to blame for her illness. There is nothing uncaring about wanting public health decisions to made based on evidence.

  • Unity1 has covered much of what I have wanted to say also, thankyou. To David, I know my children and my daughter who is effected by this is a certainty. She has played rep Netball now for 7 years and played any other sport she can participate in. An all round wonderful athlete. I have always referred to her as a wound up energiser battery as she used to get up in the morning and still have that same energy when she decided to go to bed at night, usually later than most. She would have a huge appetite and I always wondered where she could put it. Her teachers and friends have all commented about how she has so drastically changed from being a very sociable girl who would get in your face with an awesome sense of humour to one that does not want to be around people and have such an angry personality now who finds it very hard to concentrate. You could say to her the grass is green and she would bite your head off and continue with an argument. The same would happen if you would say good morning to her. Would she have been this sick had she not had the vaccine? Once again I am certain, without a doubt NO! To hear of the car accidents and suicides related to the trial group, such a high number too, after living with my daughter and her extreme exhaustion and depression, I so understand these poor girls. They would have been driven to it as this vaccine does effect the brain and the way it functions. I have experienced this with my own daughter since her second jab.
    The only foreign thing that she has put into her body has been HPV. Prior to this she was as I have stated above. To everyone who is pushing this vaccine, how would you like to, out of your own pockets support these girls financially. My daughter is now unable to hold down any type of work at present whereby she used to get out there and boss everyone around when she did.

  • I work at the Immunisation Advisory Centre as well, and would like to respond to Chrissy and Unity 1’s comments:

    To Chrissy and her daughter:
    We would never mean to imply that what is happening to Chrissy and her daughter is not serious, stressful and life changing. As a parent I can understand, although not fully appreciate the distress you are going through now. My daughter suffered from infantile seizures, and we went through a long period of time worrying about her future. There has never been an explanation as to why, we just hope that she remains healthy. I want to convey my own hope that you will get through this as soon as possible.

    This opinion piece was not a personal attack upon you or the situation you are in with your family. The primary reason for writing the piece was that the reporting of adverse events had been misrepresented in the press, and that fact still remains.

    It is too easy to present adverse event reporting (as opposed to the investigation that follows a report) as evidence of some link that may or may not be there. While none of this of course helps in a real sense, no one can say with any certainty what has happened to your daughter. Her symptoms have also occurred with other girls of her age without a vaccine having been given, so that can’t be excluded as an explanation in her case, although that provides no answer – which is what is really needed.

    In response to Unity 1

    In no way do we ‘push’ vaccines upon anyone. We said that having the free vaccine is a choice, and we do believe it is a privilege to have that choice. It is however a choice, we believe the data supports making this choice, but not everyone will agree.

    ‘…vaccines have become a scared cow that needs to be protected at all costs – that not one death amongst the many – not one adverse affect amongst the thousands has been linked to the vaccine – not a single one – i find that so odd –‘’

    It was never claimed that no adverse events were linked to Gardasil, but it was stated that no deaths have been linked directly to the vaccine. You may find it odd that no deaths are associated to the vaccine, I myself find it very reassuring.

    lesliecarolbotha- I’m sure you are upfront about being one of the authors of this report. I look forward to reading the material.

    Theo Brandt

  • David – firstly I understand that you are in a difficult place – firstly your stance is one of not hearing what chrissy is saying and you talk over her by inferring that her daughter ‘could’ have got ill as a matter of course – that people get these things with no reason – respectfully david that is old school thinking if you understand whole systems and how they work – nothing arises by accident every thing is connected – this maybe medicines biggest blind spot – to think that something arises out of the blue with not reason

    the reason chrissy’s daughter got ill was because she took a vaccination with toxic substances in it that is detrimental to the body and her body had a ‘natural’ adverse reaction to it – simple – however you won’t hear that – and neither will any other medical or scientific person – please – you need to stop and listen to what these mothers and the daughters are saying – AND take them seriously – rather than dismiss their statements in favor of protecting the vaccine

    yes millions of girls around the world have now had this vaccination – and millions are suffering adverse affects – its common knowledge that only 10% report at any given time – scientifically derived ‘ stats not my own – thus the figure of 1.5 million is probably closer to the mark – and like chrissys doctor, doctors are dismissive as well – this is a huge wake up call to all you medical people to stop and listen to truly start hearing these people who trusted you with their health in the first place – this is your challenge

    learn about whole systems – start with eco systems as a model – nothing in an eco system is erroneous – everything in these systems work together – the body is like that to – this will be the way of the future – not the old mechanistic victim based model of today – we are not under attack from virus or illness/disease that somehow materialize in our bodies for no apparent reason – that is victim based health care –

    I mention this because from what i have seen while following this sad sorry mess that is gardasil – is that the only way some of these girls are getting their health back is to step out side of their trusted belief framework and seek alternative health, homeopathy or naturapths have helped many girls get their health back because they see the body as a whole system not a collection of parts

    also please do not undermine mothers/women’s intuition about her own child – we know – it may not be along scientific lines of analysis but we know and we are most often right

    what I really want to point out here, and its not intended to be judgmental or dismissive of you – is that the onus here – from everything I have heard – is that the vaccine is safe and dismiss any claims otherwise, which means the mothers and girls concerns are NOT being taken seriously

    i am a writer primarily – about anything that interests me and nothing specificially – but I’ve written on this topic more than any other because I intutively felt when I first heard about it that it was bad news and I have been proven right – however my point in saying this is that I am a nobody in the scheme of things and yet I found out so much info about the so called tests – studies etc

    for a start the placebo you mention was not the ‘normal’ placebo it contained alluminium which unbalances the entire test – this substance provokes reactions not normally seen in saline based placebos – you should have known this – you are the scientist here – so number 1 – the test was skewed re adverse affects

    number 2 HPV viruses alone does NOT cause cancer – the tests were not looking for cancer per sae they were testing for lesions – its a common fact in the profession that the HPV viruses is in everyone from babies to elderly at some time in their lives, the body’s immune system can usually clear this

    yet this isn’t what is commonly included in the facts either by MoH or merck

    please re read the link posted by another guest re the presentation given to the FDA last monday –

    there are many things at issue here – people are waking up and educating themselves, they don’t like having their concerns ignored or dismissed – not being heard is recipe for dissent – they trusted a profession that has and is blatantly turning their backs on them and dismissing their concerns in favor of supporting a drug/vaccine/company that has dubious background –

    I will refer you to my articles where I have gathered the research for others and put it in one place – the first part deals with NZ and the death of the first NZ gardasil victim – please don’t dismiss this as unproven – read the article – it will never be proven under the current medical system

    Part I
    HPV vaccination Gardasil kills three New Zealand girls and debilitates hundreds of others

    Part II – this one has more research in it including the paper where I get the information written above
    Gardasil – Dodgy Science – Follow the money trail

    Part III – is about how more young girls are now showing positive pap smears AFTER the vaccination – and please don’t dismiss this – as something that may be occurring in the population in general – its not its occurring huge numbers of post gardasil vaccinated girls and should be of concern to you and the MoH
    Gardasil – Will it cause a Cervical Cancer pandemic?

    and the latest a press releases about the women presenting evidence to the FDA which – when you do your research as we have will discover the many vested interests within these organizations – which in and of it self we don’t trust their ability to be impartial – it also includes a link to real investigative reporting by a timaru herald reporter also shocked and concerned at the lack of support given to the girls and mothers now suffering as a result of gardasil

    Women’s Voices Expose HPV Vaccine Dangers

    its not my intention to bombarded you with information – however if you are able to be open within yourself as a human being firstly then as a scientist secondly these articles will give you enough of the true picture that many parents are now discovering in order for you to hopefully change your stance and stop dismissing and invalidating the rising concerns and start seriously looking at doing no harm

    with respect
    jenese james

  • unity,

    I should say that I’m not a medical scientist and don’t purport to have a privileged viewpoint in this debate. All I’m arguing is that the public discussion about these contentious scientific issues should have a certain standard of evidence. The best available scientific studies suggest Garadisil presents a very limited risk. That doesn’t mean we should ignore the testimony of Chrissy and her daughter, it just means we shouldn’t accept unbalanced reporting of their stories.

  • Theo – with respect free will choice includes giving all the facts – the pro’s AND the cons – this is not happening mainly because the adverse affects are being dismissed and downplayed

    the young girl in this forum displays an adverse reaction that is increasingly common in ALL gardasil girls now experiencing debilitating health – the only thing these girls have in common apart from their illness is that they ALL had the HPV vaccination

    I want to refer you to one of my earlier writings – I ask you to read it because what TV news did was visit the same sites as I did – they saw the same information that I did they knew there were girls dying they knew there were more girls presenting with debilitating illness that were not just simple sore arms and fainting because ‘girls’ are afraid of needles – and yet they deliberately chose to omit that information and played up the safety of the vaccine – thus they gave all parents a false sense of security – in normal street language its called lying

    Gardasil What TV One news did NOT tell you

    Thus free will choice – in order to truly BE free will has to include all the information even the down side

    also for your interest – this article has incredible research info and Merck’s own warnings that are NOT being taken into consideration

    Gardasil Ingredient caused sterility in lab rats

    one of the big things to come out of all of this for me personally is how fear based it all is – trust is placed in chemical interventions rather than strengthening the bodies own natural defenses naturally or even trusting the bodies innate and miraculous ability to handle such things – with little understanding of how synthetic chemicals affect the body as a whole system

    the world is changing, the understanding of natural health is rising and gardasil and other vaccinations to my mind are helping to show people that natural is best – trusting the body’s natural integrity over chemical intervention is the way to go

    no one is listening – the vaccine is given sacred status – no links are made – just like the early days of thalimoinde – and many other drugs that have now been recalled after they proved to be dangerous – today in NZ the people poisoned by the DOW chemical company – only a few are still alive most having succumbed to horrific cancers and birth defects, still have no official recognition of a connection – that is what I mean by odd – it is in NO way reassuring in a wider sense – its rather suspicious

    however I thank you for acknowledging the concerns voiced in this forum and your heartfelt attempts to hear what is being said

    please follow the links, read the articles with as open a mind as you can – debate is essential but open and honest – communication is the way to do it – thank you and david both for providing such a forum

    jenese james

  • David – my apologies – my mistake – but please read the articles and don’t dismiss them as unscientific – Part II has scientific papers referenced if that is what you need

    the evidence against gardasil is proving to be better scientifically than the evidence for that is the point – the point being is that the evidence for gardasil which professionals are basing their defense upon it is dodgey to say the least – thats the crucial point

    thus dodgey scientific evidence + rising tide of debilitated young women whose lives are wrecked = chaos and the program should be stopped before more damage is done to more trusting young girls

    the science is so dodge that we don’t know what its going to do to the boys who line up to have it – we know that the girls who have been affected are high performance athletic type girls with a possible higher than normal testosterone count and that this may be reacting to the chemicals in the vaccination – so it remains to be seen how it affects the boys

    we also don’t know how this will affect a young girls reproductive health – it was never tested that long – it was tested for only a couple or three years at max before it came on the market – we do know and its in the report given to the FDA that menstruation does affect it

    I will acknowledge that the idea in principal i.e a vaccine to prevent pre cancerous legions – and thats what it is – it isn’t a anti cancer vac as some are thinking it is – is a wonderful idea – but its application is causing a lot of harm more harm then its protecting and its this that is not being acknowledged

    jenese james

  • hi Jenese, I’m not sure how referring to your own writing somehow provides me with the alternative view. Adverse events are not being down played, they are reported and recorded. The difference is that you see a clear relationship between the event and the vaccine, where I do not. I still think you miss the point slightly in stating that:

    “the young girl in this forum displays an adverse reaction that is increasingly common in ALL gardasil girls now experiencing debilitating health – the only thing these girls have in common apart from their illness is that they ALL had the HPV vaccination”

    they have lots in common, in that they all had an equal and unfortunate chance of being struck by such a cruel and inexplicable disease or whatever it is that has occurred. they have that risk in common with all people, and given their age, gender will have a particular risk factor associated with those factors. If you look at ALL girls of that age, do those who have had Gardasil experienced this more?I would say not.

    as an aside, the use of aluminium in the placebo makes it more balanced not less. A placebo by definition has no therapeutic effect, but should be as close to the thing in interest as poss. Being injected with saline is different to saline with aluminium. hence comparing the vaccine (which has aluminium) with aluminium containing saline is the best comparison- the only difference is the vaccine.

    I think that claiming mother’s intuition (or father’s- we do have it…sometimes) is tricky. We can’t defend or attack it- it is what it is. I can’t see how their intuition has been proven or not in these cases, acknowledging intuition doesn’t give it any great claim to truth or accuracy.
    I have started to look through your articles, and will talk about them when I get a chance.

    cheers Theo.

  • Hi theo

    referring you to my writing is so that you don’t have to do the research its all there for you not my own work but others thus the time consuming job of searching the internet is already done for you – thus an abundance of data is all in one place in a coherent fashion also read the comment sections and follow the links

    it is the right of all parents to have all the information even the ones that show adverse affects – could a parent sue if they discover that all this information was withheld or down played ?

    my point is that rather than dismissing the rising adverse reactions which everyone in the profession is doing that they actually stop saying what you are saying and look at what IS happening – listen to what the mothers and the girls are saying and act on it rather than dismiss it by saying that these girls are just exhibiting signs of illness that can occur in the population at large in general – also what I said to David – in whole systems things do not arise in isolation – but then thats another debate entirely

    these girls and parents are saying NO it only happened after the VACCINATION – thats to many voices saying the same thing to be isolated pockets or incidences – or random occurrences – these are clear clutches of illness – and that is not being given validity and all these girls/women want is to be heard not dismissed – they are now left with serious health problems that put in financial terms will be a drain on the system as there will be an increase of these illness occuring

    if human lives are not worth that much these days then surly understanding how this will impact on the MoH health budget should illicit some response – but then thats a question more for politicians – I mention this because climate change never got the action that was necessary until the Stern report put it all in financial terms then and only then did reality start to dawn – sad but true

    be interested to hear your comments after you read the articles – it will take some time I imagine


  • I think Unity1 / Jenese misses the point but is a very good example of the what science communicators are up against.

    The point Theo makes is that if you compare rates and types of illnesses between vaccinated and non-vaccinated groups then you would see significant differences if Gardasil was causing the types of adverse reactions claimed by the anti-immunisation movement. The fact is that large studies doing exactly this are not finding Gardasil increases your risk of anything except fainting and perhaps, questionably, blood clots (over 90% of immunised women who developed blood clots in a JAMA-published US post-licensure analysis had a known risk factor for blood clot, namely oral contraceptive use).

    Although I empathise with parents like Chrissy (who should report her case to CARM directly if she feels this strongly that her daughter’s health issues are related to vaccination), the problem with always jumping to the conclusion that it’s the vaccine means other factors get overlooked. My daughter’s case provides a very straightforward example. She started having seizures a few days after a series of childhood immunisations. I’ll admit I did wonder if these were reactions to the vaccines she’d had. However, I sought medical help and she was admitted to hospital. It look a very experienced nurse – the sort who’s been doing the job for years and has seen everything – to think to check her ears. She had the remnants of an undiagnosed inner ear infection which was not causing fever but the pain from which was causing her to convulse. After a short course of antibiotics she was fine.

    The pharmacovigilance surveillance system we have in New Zealand is important and part of a wider international network to continously look for unexpected events and trends, and to enable safety issues to be identified and action taken when needed. A consequence of being open and transparent is that data is open to misinterpretation by lay people and the media.

    I think Professor Jones summed it up in his excellent interview by Jim Mora on Radio New Zealand: if there was a real problem with this vaccine we would all know about it. I don’t believe anyone has anything to hide here.

  • Linn,

    Although I empathise […]

    I agree. I was going to point out earlier that I think it helps not to try focus on “your favourite answer” (the vaccine in her case), but on trying to learn all the possible answers so that you might eventually learn which one is the cause. If you focus too much on one thing, you might miss what might help. (Having said that, as Theo was saying earlier, sometimes you just never get the answer, which must be frustrating, but that’s life too.)

    A consequence of being open and transparent is that data is open to misinterpretation by lay people and the media.

    I’ve been ruminating about this on my own for quite a while. It’s a double-edged sword.

  • I sympathise with the young women (and anyone else) developing these symptoms. They sound very similar to those of an extremely talented friend of mine who suffered similar symptoms albeit without having had any vaccinations around the time that she became ill – and was eventually diagnosed with Chronic Fatigue Syndrome. It is quite possible for healthy and bright young women to develop unusual symptoms without having to link them to vaccinations. Indeed, this approach is quite dangerous because if we decide we know the cause, without it being verified scientifically, then we stop looking for the cause ans then miss the opportunity to understand the real cause of the symptosm/disease.
    The evidence I have seen given on here as “proof” of the vaccines cause of these symptoms is anecdotal and lacks the rigour of science. some of the web links used contain propaganda-like information which remind me, ironically of some of the sights that deny that AID is caused by HIV and that climate change denying.
    It is important that scientists show sympathy/empathy for those who are ill, but if we allow non-scientific reasoning to deter us from pursuing the real causes of disease we do not help anyone.
    And while I realise the methodical approach of scientists can seem somewhat cold, I don’t the quite franky pseudoscientific and oddly patronising arguments provided by unity1 a better alternative.

  • perhaps its better stated Linn that we both might just be missing the point

    the point being is that none of these mothers or their daughters were actually ANTI ammunition thats a judgment and an assumption a wrong one as it happens all of them were PRO vaccines, PRO immunization which is why they got their daughters vaccinated in the first place –

    they were like you supportive of doing the right thing, didn’t know that there were dangers trusted implicitly that the MoH/Doctors etc would never do them deliberate harm – they were people who trusted and if the truth be known distrusted those who sought to tell them the dangers lurking in these things – and lets face it everything has some form of ‘danger’ even vaccines

    another point not often given is that these girls and their mothers have NO vested interests in speaking out – none – their only concern is for their daughters health debilitation is to be heard firstly and secondly taken seriously – as this ‘phenomenon’ of badly injured girls increase where ever this vaccination goes then parents are doing what any one would do in their position – they are speaking out – joining forces and pulling together to get it stopped because their interest is in the health and well being of their daughters and they don’t want to see other girls going through what theirs have

    on the other hand this particular vaccine has millions of dollar profit margin – its listed on the stock exchange – its BIG busine$$ now – so there is mass vested interest in denying everything – admittance of any adverse affect resulting in death would be bad press – we would all be surprised at how well money talks – but then again some of us wouldn’t – and the company that is behind this already has blood on its hands with its other medications which it also lied about how well tested it was – couple just these things together and already a disturbing picture and trend start to be seen

    ‘Lay’ people can read and think also and no one is ‘jumping’ to the conclusion quite often the link between the two has taken a long while to be connected – remember that all these people were PRO vaccination why would they jump to the conclusion that something they themselves trusted and believed in would harm their daughters – its only been through speaking out have all these girls been able to see the same things occurring in other girls all around the world – which is why the mothers cared enough to form groups to present all their research and its extensive – gathered over years to the FDA

    what all these ‘lay’ people are actually realizing is – is that the medical profession has 1) let them down horrifically – 2) not bothering to listen and take their concerns seriously enough to really look at the stats arising and 3) and patronizing them by statements like

    -“I think Professor Jones summed it up in his excellent interview by Jim Mora on Radio New Zealand: if there was a real problem with this vaccine we would all know about it. I don’t believe anyone has anything to hide here.”

    there IS a REAL problem with this vaccination and YOU are hearing about it !!!
    But its being trivialized, dismissed invalidated at every turn – thats my point

    the facts are that all over the world this vaccination is not getting the support – in NZ many schools are opting out and girls and parents themselves are not supporting it and this is grass roots activism – this is where real change occurs – simultaneous to this however I am noticing a rise of media interviews – if not promoting it then certainly not giving the fuller picture that is evolving in the real world

    and thats another point missed – informed choice – why only give the minor reactions when there is clear evidence that it can cause death and can cause severe reactions – why are these not mentioned or minimized or ignored – thats a point that seems to by pass everyone in the profession

    lets get real here

    your selling a product – in this case a vaccination – the government which the MoH is part of has invested millions of dollars in this vaccination – therefore it is being sold to the public, it is being marketed to a particular audience and to be successful it has to reach as many of its target audience as possible – so it stands to reason why REAL warnings can not be given – if there were – it might scare people out of taking it – and that wouldn’t be successful – and the government would be stuck with a vaccine that no one wanted and therefore would loose millions of dollars it had invested

    remember again all these parents and girls were PRO VACCINATION – PRO – pro pro – they wouldn’t have taken it if they were anti – making major assumptions when anyone tries to point out a danger or try to warn that there is something amiss by labeling those people ‘anti’ whatever is an old way of shifting the argument of making it moot – these parents supported the MoH their doctors, they trusted, this can’t be said enough apparently because its simply not getting through – now for all their support they get dismissed and called names, their voices are trivialized and their concerns are rubbished with idealized facts- and worse – their daughters have been reduced to stats on a page that is analyzed in a corporate room somewhere by a disinterested group of people hell bent on keeping their product viable

  • opps typo – I guess you figure that it should be immunization – interesting spell check alternative though

  • Unity/Jenese,

    but please read the articles and don’t dismiss them as unscientific

    With all respect, some of the claims in your articles are unscientific.

    Your articles are so long I haven’t time to address all the many claims you present (I have work to unfortunately), but just a quick sampler:

    You refer to 7% from the VAERS database, as if this were confirmed cases. This is a database of reports, not a database of confirmed cases. You cannot quote numbers in there as “findings”.

    You quote a number of other people that cite a number of claims as if they were credible. Their concerns are widely explained as being incorrect elsewhere if you read around.

    For example, you quote a mother as asking: “Why on earth do these pharmaceutical companies put such things as borax (used here in NZ, amongst other things, as ant poison [no longer allowed to the public] and a component of detergent) and alumin[i]um into their vaccines?”.

    As a straight-forward question it might almost be a fair question, but it’s framed it as if it were a credible (and hence, knowing) report of poisons, it just isn’t credible if you checked.

    (As an aside, it would be helpful if you would give sources. The first instance of this quote I can find is on your website. As a consequence I am unable to verify it’s original context.)

    I haven’t time to give a full answer, but a general point is that it is the amount that determines if something is toxic or not, not if that “some” of it is there.

    You can see the amounts of each ingredient in Gardasil in the ingredient list available at several places, which you list yourself. (The “science” you’ve added to your ingredient list is horribly out of context, e.g. not one of the descriptions you give states the amounts you need for the effects you propose and relate this to the amount in the vaccine. You’ve also left out the main ingredients, the antigens.)

    A mcg is one millionth of a gram. 1 x 10 ^ 6. It’s a tiny amount.

    In the cause of sodium borate, Garadasil contains only 35 micrograms: 35, one-millionths of a gram!

    I haven’t an accurate figure for the toxicity of sodium borate in humans, nor time dig deeper, but a number of chemical safety forms quote a LD50 (lethal dose in half of the cases) of 2.660 grams for rats. That’s the same as the amount in 76,000 vaccines. (0.5 mL doses.) Humans can have different responses to rats, but this does indicate that you’d have to take a lot (hundreds or thousands) of jabs all in one go before you got enough sodium borate to harm you.

    Likewise, the amount of aluminium (actually Aluminum Hydroxyphosphate Sulfate) is tiny: 225 one-millionths of a gram. It’s an adjuvant, a compound that, if you like, sends an “over here” signal to the immune system “asking” it to focus on the location where the vaccine is. Using it, less of the actual antigen needs to be included in the vaccine.

    Another quote you give refers to “heavy metal poisoning”. I think you need to clarify, as none of the listed ingredients would be considered to be “heavy metals”, even in the looser way that medics seem to refer to this. (Incidentally, one of the components of the “natural” “detox” “remedy” you quoted is in fact a “heavy metal”.)

    Your writing suggests that you seem have got swept up with the emotive pleas and have not checked the soundness of the complaints. Further you have added a lot of misinformation that a little checking might have prevented.

    You seem to have a lot of energy for this. Could I suggest you reserve some of your energy for fact-checking from reputable sources? It’s an essential practice of any writer who wants to be considered credible. It can take a long time if you’re not familiar with the sources, and some people find it tedious (I don’t), but it avoids embarrassing yourself and misleading others.

    While I’m writing, regards: “HPV Alone Insufficient to Cause Cancer”, this is not saying that you have to block something else as well in order to prevent the cancer. What matters is not if HPV infection is sufficient to cause the cancer on it’s own, but if blocking HPV infection (using the vaccine) is sufficient to prevent the cancer.

    Enough for one night. Haven’t read your latest comment.

  • Unity1 you claim scientists are not listening to those suffering these terrible symptoms but it is you who is not listening. You have made up your mind that the vaccine is harmful based on spurious information and are not willing to listen to the science based answers given here.
    Furthermore you insult the dedicated scientists working hard to find treatments for disease by claiming that those with these symptoms are not being listened to and the statistics ignored. Most scientists study diseases because they are dedicated to improving humankinds lot and advancing science. If there were indications that vaccines caused these sorts of response scientists would be responding. If you are really interested in making a difference for these people perhaps you should consider studying science and contributing in a positive way to finding a solution for these challenging medical conditions. If you are going to criticise science you need to understand it first.

  • I take all your criticism on board and leave this with one last comment

    you are simply not listening not hearing and i’ve seen this behavior before, and heard the same arguments with 245T – DDT – Dow chemical company – agent orange and more recently GE and Depleted Uranium – the entrenched indifference is alive and well

    luckily the world is changing and people are waking up and turning towards more balanced forms of health care that treats the whole system and doesn’t rely on synthetic means – or fear based medicine – ironically they are doing so out of a failure of allopathic health to – ironically – listen

  • Jenese/unity1,

    you are simply not listening […]

    I did listen (read, really): I replied to what you wrote. I would encourage you to look at what I have written and think it through. That you won’t listen to my reply, but write this instead says that you are unwilling to look closer at the claims made, that you are unwilling to test the claims (including your own) to ensure that they are correct.

    If you wish to describe yourself as “free lance researcher”, as you do in your profile, you do need to accept criticism and research your material.

  • The concerns expressed by representatives of the “Immunisation Advisory Centre” make sense. Damage control is after all essential when the “vaccines are safe and effective” image is under threat. When Dr Viera Scheibner’s finding that vaccination is the leading cause of cot deaths made headlines, New Zealand’s medical establishment designed and came up with a study which showed that vaccines prevent cot deaths. When parents became alarmed about media reports linking autism to vaccinations, the medical establishment responded with a flurry of studies which showed there was no such link, in keeping with a decison to “deny everything and admit nothing” made at a secret conference at Simpsonwood, USA.

    ‘Deadly Immunity’ by Snr US Attorney Robert F Kennedy Jnr.

    ‘The Truth Behind The Vaccine Cover-Up’ by US neurosurgeon Dr Russell Blaylock MD

    Dr Andrew Wakefield has been hounded and vilified for daring to suggest that the MMR may be causing autism and bowel disorders.

    In 1977, 10 babies died in a Toronto hospital after a disinfectant containing Thiomersal,- which contains 49% ethyl mercury – had been dabbed on their umbilical cords. Yet, Thiomersal continued to be added to increasing numbers of childhood vaccines, for injection into babies and young children. When Thiomersal in vaccines was making media headlines, linking it to the horrendous increase in autism cases, the mainstream media assured parents that mercury was good for babies!

    ‘Mercury Vaccine Injections Good For Babies’

    This is the state of today’s vaccine science, Robert F Kennedy Jnr rightly calls it ‘junk science’ and ‘tobacco science.’

    The IAC’s Sciblog defends vaccine safety. ‘Vaccine safety’ is an oxymoron similar to ‘military intelligence’ or ‘medical ethics’. There is no such thing as a safe vaccine, because the outcome of any vaccination is not predictable. Neither doctors nor parents know in advance whether a child will survive the vaccination relatively unscathed, or whether it will be afflicted by asthma, allergies, eczema, disturbed feeding, digestion, breathing or sleeping, neurological disorders such as ADHD or autism, resulting in learning and behaviour problems; or diabetes, MS, leukaemia, cancer, brain damage and others, or death.

    “Our society is littered with milliions of children who have been harmed in one way or another by vaccines. Also, let us not forget the millions of parents who had to watch helplessly as their children’s lives have been destroyed by devastating vaccination programmes.”
    Dr Russell Blaylock MD

    “We are slowly but surely destroying the intelligence of our future generations with vaccination. Vaccines have never protected anyone. Vaccination is child abuse and a crime against humankind.”
    Dr med Gerhard Buchwald, Germany

    As for Gardasil, there is no evidence whatsoever that this vaccine prevents HPV or cancer. This vaccine is concocted by Merck, a firm with a long-standing involvement in biological warfare, including biological warfare against civilians (better known as vaccination).

    Merck was recently found to have employed ghost writers to come up with safety studies for Vioxx; Merck then paid “reputable” doctors to put their name to these “studies.” This drug reportedly killed some 55000 people before it was pulled from the market.

    So, Gardasil is safe? Give me a break. Effective? – yes: as far as causing severe reactions, ill-health, disbility, facial outbreaks of genital warts, hair loss and deaths is concerned. .!/album.php?page=2&aid=96078&id=69667273997

    Historically, vaccination is a failed attempt to prevent illnesses such as smallpox and other infectious diseases. When Edward Jenner’s horrible cowpox vaccine failed to prevent smallpox, this barbaric racket was kept going because it was too lucrative a scam to cancel it; admitting failure would also have involved too great a loss of face, so this ugly money-making racket was kept going and eventually evolved into today’s multi-billion organised criminal enterprise Nikki and Helen are working for.

    Except for its historical links and except as a figment of the imagination in some people’s belief system, vaccination has nothing to do with disease prevention. The claim that vaccines prevent diseases is pseudo-science designed to fool the masses. Vaccination involves the injection of chemical and biological agents into the human organism, in order to spread ill-health, NOT to prevent it.

    “Do not take any vaccinations. This is the standard deceptive way you are given the establishment’s biological warfare infections.”
    Dr William D Kelley

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

    “When I looked into it further, I was shocked to find that this whole vaccine business was indeed a gigantic hoax. Most doctors believe that vaccines are useful, but when you look at the proper statistics you find that this is not so.”
    Dr A Kalokerinos, Australia

    Pretty much everyone knows better than to trust e-mails from Nigeria. It is unfortunate that vaccination, a 200-year-old scam of (now) global proportions, is still supported by many unwary people – an impressive testimony of the thorough brain-washed via unrelenting propaganda we have all ben subjected to.

    Luckily, this support is now crumbling more than ever before, partly because the swine flu hoax and the swindle flu vaccine swindle has woken up even supporters of vaccination to the fact that “immunisation” is a massive deception.

    “People think as a herd; people act as a herd; but they come back to their senses one by one.”

    Vaccines may be free of charge to users, but they, as well as their administration, the propaganda to advertise these poisons and the money paid to schools for their participation in vaccination programmes such as Gardasil, are fully tax-payer funded. I am disgusted to think that some of my taxes are used to pay for this government-supported child abuse. I therefore look forward to the day when New Zealand will not only be nuclear free, but also vaccine-free.!/pages/Vaccination-Information-Network-VINE/69667273997

  • I think the responses here reinforce my first comment, that the science behind the safety statistics should be more widely discussed. That it is not sufficient to observe a correlation and announce that it proves causation.

  • “Misuse of this data leads to scaremongering, creates an environment of fear, and promotes myths that can affect the health of our community for a long time to come.”

    “Gardasil is an excellent vaccine with robust scientific data to support its use.”

    Nikki Turner et al tell me how do you sleep at night?

    Chrissy I feel for you and your daughter so much, not only are you having to live everyday with a sick daughter, you are having to put up with being dismissed as a liar and now, despite obviously being pro- vaccine, you are being placed in the “anti”-vaccine basket.

    I chose not to vaccinate my 3 daughter’s and am happy to be called “anti”-vaccine because I know there won’t be any “unfortunate chance of [my 3 daughter’s] being struck by such a cruel and inexplicable disease or whatever it is that has occurred [to Chrissy’s daughter after receiving the Gardasil vaccine]” and will remain happy healthy girls because of my decision.

    Please parents explain to your daughter’s that the best way to protect themselves against cervical cancer is to ensure they keep a healthy diet and lifestyle, don’t smoke and respect their bodies by practicing abstinence ultimately, if not use protection, this way not only will you protect your daughter’s against cervical cancer, but many other illnesses also and they will be in no danger of a lifelong adverse reaction to the gardasil vaccine, which has no guarantee of protecting them against anything!

  • Just further to AImee’s point about Wishart’s work: the “science” in his paper was never really accepted by the scientific community. The recent formal retractions, etc., are more about the fraudlent and ethical aspects of what he did.

  • erwinalber,

    There is a saying in some circles on the WWW that “if someone cites, they’ve instantly lost the debate”?

    It’s a very, very discreditable site!

    It’s a shame it no longer has it’s “mission statement” page. It was very>/i> strange and a dead giveaway.

    I’m not trying to pick on you, but it pays to check sources carefully. Furthermore, it pays to check “the other side” to claims. You’ll find, for example, that Orac and others have written about Kennedy’s claims and Kennedy’s claims didn’t come out looking good. Here’s one starting point:

    About Gardasil and preventing cervical cancer: there are good links between the viral infection and the cancer, and good evidence that the vaccine blocks the viral infection.

    If the viral infection is required for the cancer to occur, it’s a given that blocking the viral infection will block the cancer.

  • I was about to make the point about, Grant, but you beat me to it. As for Mr Alber’s claim that the smallpox vaccine doesn’t work – interesting that smallpox is now extinct in the wild, & that its decline can be linked to the widespread uptake of an effective vaccine. (Jenner’s work was useful in helping to demonstrate that vaccination is effective but his ‘vaccine’ was hardly prepared using standard techniques.)

    Incidentally the CDC has put out the most recent edition of data on the epidemiology & control of vaccine-preventable diseases:

  • “Interesting” that scarlet fever (once THE most feared childhood illness) declined at the same rate as all the other illnesses despite there never being a mass vaccination campaign, “interesting” that all the other “vaccine preventable” illnesses had declined dramatically – thanks to better hygiene practices, better access to clean water and the introduction of sewage systems – well before the introduction of mass vaccination. “Interesting” that the worst smallpox disaster occurred in the Philippines after a 10 year compulsory US program administered 25 million vaccinations to its population of 10 million resulting in 170,000 cases and more than 75,000 deaths from ‘smallpox’, in a country having only scattered cases in rural villages prior to the onslaught of vaccines. You would know of course, being such a learned group, that only 10% of the entire population of the world were ever vaccinated with smallpox vaccine?

    I do hope that the CDC includes a healthy diet and lifestyle in their data on the control of “vaccine preventable” diseases, as it is a well known FACT that this is the very best way to protect yourself and your children from illness. I also hope they include information for parents on how to best handle natural childhood illnesses when the vaccines fail (as they so often do in the States despite there being over 95% coverage, have you noticed the latest outbreaks of mumps in highly vaccinated populations?), or will parents just have to seek alternative help as most doctors these days firstly can’t even diagnose something as obvious as measles and secondly don’t seem to have a clue how to treat children with it without making them a whole lot worse!

    “Interesting” that in the 1960’s measles was classed as nothing much more than a bit of a nuisance which most children had as a right of passage, leaving them immune for life, but now, after 40 years of vaccination measles is a “serious and potentially deadly disease”,

    This extract is from a paper by Christine Miller BM B.Ch, of the National Institute for Medical Research, London published in 1967 one year before the measles vaccine was introduced on a wide scale.
    “MEASLES is now the commonest infectious disease of childhood in the United Kingdom. It occurs in biennial epidemics in which the total number of cases usually exceeds half a million, and between these peaks there is a continuous substantial incidence. There is no doubt that most of these cases in England today are mild, last only for a short period, are not followed by complications and are rarely fatal. Physicians consider that measles is so mild a complaint that a major effort at prevention is not justified”.

    So why has it changed so dramatically, is it the vaccine which has made the virus more virulent, or is it just made out to be such a severe illness to help sell the vaccine? But just like the Gardasil vaccine, how can parents truly weigh up the risks/benefits ratio when the adverse reactions from the vaccine are being ignored or played down and the risk of the illness is being exaggerated to the point of hysteria!

  • Michelle, no one here has accused Chrissy (or anyone else criticising vaccines) of being a liar. Such aggressive and emotive comments have no place here. If fact, most people have tried to be as sensitive as possible while trying to explain that science does not support the idea that vaccines cause disease.
    As to how Nikki Turner sleeps at night, I assume she sleeps well, knowing that she is doing a good job trying to dispel irrational rumours and misconceptions being circulated about a potentially life saving vaccine.

  • Darcy Cowan says: “I think the responses here reinforce my first comment, that the science behind the safety statistics should be more widely discussed. That it is not sufficient to observe a correlation and announce that it proves causation.”

    It is interesting that when a peanut or penicillin causes a life-threatening reaction, there is never any doubt what caused it, yet when people are disabled or die following vaccination, a link is almost routinely dismissed or denied. Vaccines however are routinely credited with the remarkable decrease in mortality from infectious diseases over the past century, completely ignoring the principle of “correlation does not prove causation,” as well as the fact that relevant graphs clearly show that vaccines had nothing whatsoever to do with the decrease, which happened for the best part BEFORE vaccines were introduced, and simply continued as if nothing had happened when vaccines were introduced.

    It is these grphs which turned me from a supporter of vaccination into an outspoken opponent. The truth is the truth, and when on is faced with it one can no longer subscribe to lies, no matter how many people believe in them. I now cringe at the thought of having got my ten-yearly tetanus booster when I was still a deluded, brain-washed fool.

  • Hi Alison,

    I have to beat you to something… 🙂

    I shouldn’t have left the smallpox claim untouched! Possibly “the” most successful vaccine campaign, too.

    Where’s a preview feature when I need it? I might have caught the unclosed ‘i’ tag in my previous comment! :-O (And its for it’s…)

  • michelle,

    You can try checking and verify for yourself that scarlet fever is:

    – the result of a bacterial infection (i.e. is not a viral infection).

    – treated with antibiotics (as is common for bacterial infections).

    It’s easy to “guess” why there is no vaccine: antibiotics are used.

    Here’s one source, there are plenty of others:

    You cannot directly compare diseases of different types: they have different modes of infection, infectivity, transmission and so on.

    It is true that public health had a strong impact on many diseases, but it is also true that vaccines made a strong impact too. That public health contributed does not mean that vaccines do little. The balance of these two contributions varies depending on the particular disease.

    I may put up a post listing one or two sites for general medical information tomorrow, if that’s considered useful for readers.

  • I would like to point out that before I made any connection to this vaccine, I had absolutely no idea what was wrong with my daughter. She had her second dose in November 2009 and from then to when the programme aired on Close Up in Feb 2010 regarding Gardisil and the effects on otherwise very healthy young girls and women, we had been living a nightmare. I am a very open minded person. Had we not seen this programme, I am certain that if my daughter received her third shot, we would be burying her and like the other poor girls that have mysteriously died in their sleep, just put down to an undiagnosed heart condition. To everyone in the medical profession you can argue your point as you have to protect your own jobs but I as a mother have to protect my children. Something the Government strongly wants us to do but hold on, isn’t that for stopping the cycle of abuse? What about us that oppose any form of abuse on our children from “legal” substances administered that we are constantly told is safe.
    Am I right in reading the placebo contained aluminium? However small the dose, it is still extremely dangerous and now I know why those that had the placebo, came down with the same ailments. That does not take a scientist to figure out and injecting this of course there will be problems.
    It is also reassuring to know that Dr Turner can sleep at night which shows just how we are left out there on our own. I don’t sleep very well now. Maybe Dr Turner will step down from her position soon as she will finally realise just how serious this all is and she will see just what she is responsible for. How is she going to explain the high numbers of abnormal smears that will soon come to light as these vaccinated girls show more signs of problems. That too will be written off as everything else has.

  • Erwin, with all of the other rhetoric flying around here mine is the comment you choose to disagree with?
    Very well, your example is poor, there are plausible and well understood mechanisms that lead to the allergic reactions you cite with multiple lines of evidence while there are not for many of the injuries attributed to gardasil.

    To be absolutely clear, this does NOT mean that gardasil is NOT the cause of these injuries. What it means is there is not enough evidence to show that it is, as previously mentioned by studying the incidence of reported reactions and comparing this to incidence in the general population.

    Chrissy, I have not yet addressed you directly and I would first like to say that you and your daughter have my complete empathy. You situation is awful and I can not even begin to understand your feelings on this matter. However your statement about aluminium is simply incorrect, dose matters. As and example the amount of aluminium that we consume in our diet is in the order of ten to fifty times greater than that in the vaccine, on a daily basis. If dose is irrelevant then the entire population would be showing these symptoms.

  • Erwin, You write that it is interesting that when a peanut or penicillin causes a life-threatening reaction, there is never any doubt what caused it, yet when people are disabled or die following vaccination, a link is almost routinely dismissed or denied.

    As someone who has a severe and life-threatening allergy to penicillin, I can assure you that the reaction, called anaphylaxis, happens immediately. Anaphylaxis is the only known/proven serious side effect of Gardasil, at a rate of around 3 per one million doses of vaccine administered, which is similar to the rate for other childhood vaccines. This is listed on the CMI and datasheet for Gardasil.

    The original post by the Immunisation Advisory Centre was to point out that people misinterpret the data that the surveillence system provides. The surveillence system is there so doctors and scientists can identify any new, rare side effects not detected during the clinical trials. A report in itself does not prove anything without this careful analysis.

    Chrissy, as a mother, I feel for you and your daughter. I hope she gets better soon. You can report your daughter’s case to CARM directly. You could also seek a second medical opinion, if you haven’t done so already.

  • I thought this would be of interest to all that are reading this site. I have copied and pasted this as I was reading today’s news. How interesting that so quickly these two deaths have been linked to this drug and how the side effects have been listed.

    ………Quantities of a party drug linked to the death of two teenagers in Britain have been intercepted by New Zealand Customs officials, with police fearing a strong version of mephedrone is in use here as a substitute for ecstasy.

    British police said mephedrone – also known as 4-methylmethcathinone – contributed to the deaths of Louis Wainwright, 18, and Nicholas Smith, 19, who died on Monday, The Times in London reported.

    Mephedrone was rapidly gaining popularity in British schools and was now making inroads on the New Zealand party scene. It was legal in the UK but a banned Class C drug in New Zealand.

    Customs officials have intercepted at least 15 packets of the drug – 13 of them from Britain – in the past four months.

    The powdered form of the drug ostensibly sold as a plant fertiliser in Britain was being illegally imported, National Drugs Intelligence Bureau coordinator Detective Inspector Stuart Mills said.

    The maximum penalty for its possession was three months jail and/or a $500 fine, with up to eight years in prison for importing or supplying.

    “Concerns have been raised about the strength of mephedrone available in New Zealand and it is believed that some drug users take mephedrone as a substitute for ecstacy (MDMA),” he said.

    “There is also a risk that tablets which people believe to be MDMA may in fact contain mephedrone.”

    Mephedrone is banned in Norway, Finland, Denmark, Israel and Sweden.

    Mr Mills said police and the National Drugs Intelligence Bureau, were closely monitoring its supply and use here.

    Potential side effects of the drug are reported to include fits, blood circulation problems, vomiting, nausea, nose bleeds, nose burns, hallucinations, rashes and paranoia.

  • Linn,

    I think that you’re right to point out that this is getting off the topic, which was the surveillance systems. Nice concise explanation of the purpose of these systems. (FWIW, I’m also allergic to penicillin but in a milder way.)

  • In response to unity 1’s correction “this should have been immunization”, may I suggest that this should have been ‘vaccination’?

    I say this because the term ‘immunisation’ perpetuates the myth that vaccines immunise, when they don’t, never have, and never will, because a procedure based on Mickey Mouse science cannot and will not work in the real world.

  • Mr Alber – just how familiar are you with the science (real science) behind immunisaton & vaccination? (I’m afraid that references to & similar websites are not valid.)

  • I have four questions for Dr Turner and Helen:

    Something a business woman said to me a few years ago when she was introducing Botox into her salon, “I cannot promote a product here in my salon if no-one administering it, uses it!”. When did you have this vaccination? and if not, why not? Given that Merck is trying to persuade the FDA that Gardasil is good for all ages up to late 50’s, don’t you think you should all get your Gardasil vaccinations? If a whole heap of you fall over after Gardasil, will you still be saying that it’s all coincidental?

    I also have several questions to anyone in the general Medical profession:

    Doctors, Nurses etc. Have any of you seen girls who have been vaccinated with Gardasil, come in your clinic or hospital,( perhaps brought by their parents) showing signs/symptoms of: seizures, blood clots, depression, fevers, aches and pains, migraines, headaches, tingling, paralysis, numbness, extreme tiredness, dizziness, mood swings, lack of appetite?
    Can any of you in the medical world, who have treated such a young lady, actually deny there is a link with the Gardasil vaccine, given beforehand?
    Aren’t you, in the medical profession, bewildered as to why a perfectly healthy patient of yours, that you have known their medical history since they were a baby, has suddenly been struck down with something chronic?
    Are you too ashamed to admit there is a link to Gardasil?
    Or are you worried about the IMAC thought police getting on your tail to make sure you never admit to any possible association?
    Can any of you in the medical world reply to these questions without bias, but straight from your heart?
    Why do so many of you deny that this is even happening?
    Why is it so important for you to make sure that there is no such thing admitted as a side effect?
    Why have you re-termed side effects to “expected effects” because I sure never expected this to happen to my daughter!
    Yes, my daughter is sick, and she is sick because of Gardasil.
    I am in this for the long haul to take care of her. Are any of you?

    I at least, can answer that last question. The answer is no. The minute we bring up the fact that our children were just fine before this vaccine was given to them, we are suddenly treated like toxic effluent.

  • Grant Jacobs,
    I have read your comments. I wish to discuss aliminium: Even though aluminum is widely distributed in the earth’s crust, it is NOT needed in ANY amounts in your body. All evidence to date points to aluminum as a poison that serves no beneficial role in your body and should be avoided.Salts of aluminium are excreted by the body with difficulty” (pg 222, Bartrum, 1995). There is mounting evidence of plants and fish being unable to adapt to the increase in aluminium levels in the environment. Aliminium tends to dry up tissues of the body and causing fibrous tissue. There is evidence also of hyperactivity in children. It is said to be ‘mildly toxic’ in some literature, to date, however, we do not completely understand the role that aluminum plays in the progression of such human degenerative syndromes. In animal studies, aluminum blocks the action potential or electrical discharge of Nerve cells, reducing nervous system activity. Aluminum also inhibits important enzymes in the brain (Na-K-ATPase and hexokinase). Aluminum may also inhibit uptake of important chemicals by nerve cells (dopamine, norepinephrine, and 5-hydroxytryptamine). In the digestive system aluminum reduces intestinal activity. There are many ways to get aliminium into the system such as:Additives: The following additives contain aluminum compounds: E173, E520, E521, E523 E541, E545, E554, E555 E556, E559, bauxite (Aluminum dioxide), Antacids: can contain 200 milligrams or more of elemental aluminum in a single tablet! A very popular antacid, Amphojel, consists of aluminum hydroxide.,Antiperspirants can contain aluminum chlorhydrate. Colgate-Palmolive products do contain aluminum zirconium, Baking powder: some brands can contain aluminum,Cake mixes: can contain forms of aluminum,Cheese: especially single sliced processed cheese can contain aluminum as an emulsifier,Chocolate Mixes: highly absorbable aluminum maltol is used in instant chocolate mixes. Coffee Whiteners: Like Coffee-mate – Sodium Aluminosilicate, Doughs: prepared dough can contain it. Flour: self raising flour can contain aluminum, Metal Cleaners can contain aluminum oxide 10-30%
    Pickles can contain aluminum,Shampoos: Aluminum lauryl sulfate,Anti dandruff shampoos, including Selsun-Blue, contain magnesium aluminum silicate,Toothpastes: Can contain bauxite (Aluminum dioxide) or aluminum salts and it may not be listed in the ingredients! Tooth whitening products also.
    Water: Drinking water in many countries contains high levels of AL. and lastly Vaccines. You say the amount is minute, but add it to the rest of potential exposure , the tipping balance can be just that for some people. Then add flouride and Fluoride appears to allow aluminum to penetrate the blood-brain barrier. American Government agencies say that Fluoride has been observed to have synergistic effects on the toxicity of aluminium. (
    Thats just one adjuvant. I am not anti vaccination, I am a nurse and I see a disturbing trend. The disturbing trend is our reliance of chemical intervention and the potential for harm. I do think as a health professional we must look at vaccines and vaccine related injuries like they should be. If a parent says they suspect vaccine damage, they should be taken seriously and reported, not treated like ‘anti vaccine activists’! There is reporting mechanisms and Drs are failing to report them. Why is this happening?

  • The discussion is quite puzzling. As I understand the position put forth by Nikki and her supporters, the claim is that the systems (in NZ and in the US) for tracking adverse reactions to vaccines do not supply complete or accurate information.

    Following this point is the claim that therefore the vaccine is safe???

    And that people should continue to encourage their teenage daughters to receive Gardasil?

    I would flip it around. If you want people to vaccinate, a really good system for tracking vaccine reactions is essential.


  • donnab,

    The point of my earlier comment was that you cannot ignore the amounts involved or the specific chemical involved, as you have in the biological examples you give. They matter.

    You’re welcome to show data that show that in the form found in the vaccine (aluminium hydroxyphosphate sulfate) and in that amounts found in the vaccine (225 one-millionths of a gram) it has a toxic effect. I didn’t offer myself my as someone to rally against about the specific ingredients (!), I was making the general point that you have consider the amounts and specific compound when considering effects.

    I think it’s common-sense to look at sources with larger amounts first, amounts that more realistically might have an effect (bearing in mind the nature of the specific compound). Assuming the substances are the same or have the same effect, if you add 1000 units of whatever from source ‘A’, 1 more unit from source ‘B’ only makes a 0.1% contribution (actually 1 / 1001 * 100 = 0.999, but let’s not quibble!); common-sense is you worry about the 1000 units from source ‘A’.

    By the way, the original authors pointed out that potential vaccine-related injuries are looked into. You’re best to take that up with them, as it’s not something I have direct knowledge of.

  • Answering Chrissy. Let’s (for a moment) take the Gardasil out of your question – quoted here:
    ******Doctors, Nurses etc. Have any of you seen girls come in your clinic or hospital,( perhaps brought by their parents) showing signs/symptoms of: seizures, blood clots, depression, fevers, aches and pains, migraines, headaches, tingling, paralysis, numbness, extreme tiredness, dizziness, mood swings, lack of appetite?
    Aren’t you, in the medical profession, bewildered as to why a perfectly healthy patient of yours, that you have known their medical history since they were a baby, has suddenly been struck down with something chronic?********

    There are many chronic conditions that strike people unexpectedly at all ages. I can remember 3 friends – and actually a couple more come to think of it – who suddenly developed weird conditions when we were in our teens. One was a swimming champion who found out of the blue one day that she felt utterly exhausted for no apparent reason and had to give up training. I clearly remember her mother arriving to take care of her and eveyone scratching their heads because she’d been so very healthy. She (the girl) had awful headaches and got very thin.

    I can describe another of those unexplained illnesses too if it helps you, although it’s a few years ago. This other was a dreadful post-viral thing. This girl had the virus so mildly as to be virtually unnoticeable but the Chronic Fatigue and other nasty symptoms went on for at least 2 years.

    I also knew a girl (well technically a woman, I guess) who died of a blood clot at about 20 which they linked to the pill. I notice the girl whose death the anti-vaxers want to link to Gardasil was taking the pill or depo-provera and I suspect that, or a heart defect no-one knew about (like claimed that poor schoolboy recently) is just as much a possible cause as the vaccine.

    I don’t expect my comments will help you much since you have convinced yourself and probably been convinced by outside parties that the vaccine is to blame for your daughter’s illness but I can assure you that the examples above all happened 30-odd years ago and believe me there was no HPV vaccine then!

  • Alison, you ask: Mr Alber – just how familiar are you with the science (real science) behind immunisaton & vaccination?

    I am familiar with both the pseudo-science you are referring to, and also the real science behind vaccination, which revolves around causing as much harm to as many children as possible, such as immune system dysfunction including asthma, allergies and ear infections; neurological disorders by targeting certain areas of the brain for impairment, resulting in behavioural problems such as ADHD, learning difficulties, autism etc; and a host of other chronic and degenerative diseases such as cancers and leukaemia – while at the same take taking care not to make it too obvious that vaccines are the cause, and to ‘deny everything and admit nothing’ if parents are becoming suspicious.

    The challenge has been great, but one has to hand it to them, the psychopaths who run this organised criminal enterprise have been enormously successful in causing irreparable harm to whole generations of children, generating enormous profits through the sale of vaccines and even more so from the sale of drugs and other treatments used to deal with the mayhem caused by vaccinations, and lastly in assuring the public that the wide-spread ill-health and disorders vaccines cause are not caused by vaccinations.

    The way things are going, this over 200-year-old scam may be with us for a fair while yet, although a growing number of parents who bother to inform themselves are opting out of this institutionalised insanity.

  • donnab, you list a wide range of possible exposure to aluminium, some of which is incorrect (elemental Al is not present in antacids).
    If you are suggesting that the aluminium in vaccines causes disease via a tipping point effect then the same tipping point would be more readily caused by using toothpaste, cake mix or pickles?

  • minorityview,

    The discussion is quite puzzling.

    I would be puzzling if you are reading it more-or-less 180Ëš opposite to what they are saying! *wink*

    As I understand the position put forth by Nikki and her supporters, the claim is that the systems (in NZ and in the US) for tracking adverse reactions to vaccines do not supply complete or accurate information.


    What they wrote was that it is a database of reports of events that might be related to the vaccination. You still have to show that they are in fact related to the vaccination or not. This is not saying the data are inaccurate, just that the collection of reports also have in them events that aren’t related to the vaccinations that you need to weed out first.

    When you have a very large number of people involved there will always be “ill health events” of the kind described in these reports whether or not a vaccine was administered. If you took 1 million people for, say, the first 3 days of March, with no vaccination, and totted up the number of “ill health events” there would be quite a lot.

    If you took the same number of people and gave (most of) them a vaccination on March 1st, you would also get a large number of ill health events too – just because of the large number of people involved – even if the vaccine caused no ill health events.

    What you have to do is take each report and work out if the event reported was in fact due to the vaccination or it is an ill health event that is unrelated to the vaccination that happened to occur at roughly the same time.

    People who try claim that the count of reports are measuring the effects of the vaccination are not first eliminating the ill health events that occurred at the same time by coincidence that had nothing to do with the vaccine. The effect that these people are over-counting and “creating” vaccine-related ill health events that aren’t real.

    Very bad science on their part.

    The other side of the coin is that these reporting systems can catch very rare problems that only show up once you keep tabs on very large numbers of people.

  • erwinalber, would you like to provide some scientific references to all of the diseases you claim are associated with vaccines? Emotive attacks devoid of facts might sway people in other fora, but won’t carry much weight at sciblogs which is all about discussing science rationally.
    If you want to focus on a real 200 year old scam you might want to look in the direction of homeopathy.

  • drmike, ingesting aluminium is bad enough, but injecting it, or mercury for that matter – into our organisms and especially those of babies and children – is that much worse and borders on criminal insanity. According to US neurosurgeon Dr Russell Blaylock MD, people who have a flu shot five years in a row have a ten-fold increased risk of getting Alzheimers.

    As for the ill-health caused by vaccinations, it’s widey documented in the medical literature. Dr B Classen e.g. had a letter published in the New Zealand Medical Journal according to which there was a 60% increase in juvenile insulin-dependent diabetes following the NZ governement’s first hepatitis B vaccination campaign. According to a survey of the New Zealand Immuniation Awareness Society, 80% of asthma cases are vaccine-related. The point is that NO STUDIES have been done to compare the health of vaccinated with that of unvaccinated children of a similar background. There is a very obvious reason for this: such a study would clearly show that vaccines cause more harm than good.

    Dr Russell Blaylock MD:

    “Our society is littered with millons of children who have been harmed in one way or another by vaccines. Also, let s not frget the millions of parents who had to watch helplessly as teir children’s livs have been destroyed by devastating vaccination programmes.”

    If this sounds over the top, chedck out the website “Ian’s Voice” and have a look at the horrendous reality of a severe vaccine injury.

  • I don’t see how quoting Dr Russell Blaylock counts as a scientific reference, erwinalber. It seems that your response to all bloggers’ requests for some kind of evidence is it give links to other websites with more unsubstantiated diatribe. As for your claim about asthma, what scientific validity does a ‘survey’ have? The information regarding asthma and vaccines on the site points to research from the longitudinal study out of ChCh. The number of DTaP non-vaccinated children (23 of 1265) was not enough to prove anything- as the authors acknowledged. As real scientists however, they are of course not able to exclude the possibility of some link, and provide the data for all to see. That would be the difference I have seen between genuine researchers and others.
    Genuine researchers acknowledge limitations where they exist and provide the data behind the conclusions. This is not a trait of Dr Russell Blaylock.

  • Theobrandt, as far as I am concerned, Russell Blaylock speaks the truth, while people who defend, promote or use vaccines are clearly deluded – to the point of being criminally insane.

    You say that the survey is not scientific evidence. That is true, but it’s nevertheless evidence. Dr Michel Odent, who partly supports vaccination, similarly found that chidren who were given the DPT shot were five times as likely to suffer from asthma than children who were not given the vaccine.

    Tell me why obviously needed studies comparing the health of vaccinated with that of unvaccinated children have – amazing as it sounds – never been done! I am talking about the incidence of asthma, allergies, ear infections, eczema, ADHD, autism, etc.

    To judge from the results of the IAS survey I mentioned, the answer is quite obvious: any such study would clearly show that the risk-benefit studies designed to show vaccination in a favourable light are baloney. These analysis don’t even take the compensation paid to victims of vaccine injury into acount.

    Here are – for all they are worth the IAS survey details:

    In 1992, the New Zealand Immnisation Awareness Society (IAS) sent out questionnaires to all its members, to get an idea concerning the incidence of health disorders among their vaccinated and unvaccinated children.

    12 survey forms were returned, which comprised the results of 254 children, 133 of whom were vaccinated and 121 were unvaccinated, in other words, roughly half and half.

    The results revealed the following numbers of children suffering from health problems:
    vaccinated unvaccinated

    asthma 20 4
    eczema or allergic rash 43 16
    recurring ear infections or glue ear 26 8
    grommets 8 0
    recurring tonsillitis 11 3
    apnoea or near miss cot death 9 2
    hyperactivity 10 1
    petit mal epilepsy 1 0

    While this is indeed not a scientific study, I think it clearly shows the need for such a study or studies being carried out. That this is not being done is however perfectly understandable, as such studies would make it very clear that vaccines don’t prevent, but promote ill-health, which in my opinion is the REAL reason why they are given. A healthy population would after all be a disaster for the sickness industry, so people have to be made sick somehow, preferably from an early age, which is where vaccinations are such a valuable tool.

    I want to make it clear that I’m not accusing doctors of deliberately poisoning babies and children; they’re IMO just the “useful idiots and willing fools” who have been brain-washed into implementing the psychopaths evil agenda, for the sake of maximising phramaceutical profits and helping governments to dumb down their populations with assorted biological and chemical neurotoxins.

    Watch ‘Creating a Nation of Zombies’ featuring my hero, neurosurgeon Dr Russell Blaylock MD:

  • Unfortunately the survey figures didn’t stay in their respective columns under ‘vaccinated’ and unvaccinated’ as they were meant to, but the first figure obviously represents the number vaccinated children affected by the particular health problem, the second figure the number of unvaccinated children.

  • Erwin Alber said: the real science behind vaccination, which revolves around causing as much harm to as many children as possible – this is verging on the defammatory & I would expect to see hard evidence, not anecdote & innuendo, to support such a scurrilous claim.

  • erwinalber,

    You are welcome to present evidence that “the” aluminium or mercury (or whatever) is toxic in the specific form it is found in the vaccines in the amounts found in the vaccines. However, you cannot talk about toxicity and ignore the specific compound involved (different forms have quite different toxicities) or the amounts involved (different amounts have quite different effects).

    A quick glance that the IAS website shows that they offer sources of health “information” that no credible health information source would. If there is any “remedy” that is pure bluster, it is homeopathy. They link to, which can be described—I am trying to put this kindly—as entertaining in the way that loud American advertorials of obviously fraudulent products can be. While not at the depths that sinks to (pun intended), it’s not that far off it either.

    In particular, the IAS website makes the vaccine “issue” about “sides.” (Notice they have divided the left hand-side.) It is not about sides. One of the silliest things about all of this is that a minority of people are promoting “bashing” the very people that put time and effort into helping. Stirring up “sides” and throwing brickbats is very unlikely to achieve anything positive in my opinion (IMO).

    To your latest comments:

    as far as I am concerned, Russell Blaylock speaks the truth, while people who defend, promote or use vaccines are clearly deluded – to the point of being criminally insane.

    You are, to me, telling me that you do not want to look at evidence showing that Blaylock is wrong while making cartoon caricatures of those you disagree with or him. If you are serious about issues, it’s wiser to ignore the personalities and focus on the evidence, IMO.

    obviously needed studies

    Studies are done prior to the public release of every vaccine and the reporting systems are there to cover to rarer or unanticipated effects.

    To judge from the results of the IAS survey I mentioned, […]

    I’d need the details of the survey, but a few obvious (and serious) flaws from your brief description:

    – As a survey of a minority including many of who are already committed to rallying against vaccines (as you are) will simply confirm their actions and opinions. What it won’t show is what it typical for most people. The reports of possibly linked events from such a survey will be considerably higher than that found when looked at across all people who were vaccinated. (People who are in that groups are much more likely to belief some ill-health event is related to vaccination than most people.)

    – Like the issue with those misusing the reporting databases, these seem to be statistics of reports, not events that have been confirmed to be caused by the vaccination in question. If so, this will result in numbers that are substantially higher than actual events (if any) that are related to the vaccines.

    (The last two effects are multiplied, compounding the error. If the first over-reports by, say, 1 in 1,000 because the subjects of the survey are a subset that are not representative of the whole population and the second over-reports by, say, 1 in 100 for the “usual” health reporting issues of unrelated ill-health issues occurring at the same time that are unrelated to the vaccinations, the result is over-stating the rate of vaccine-associated events by 100,000 times.)

    – Given the small number of people involved in the survey, most of the “findings” are unlikely to be statistically significant. If findings are not statistically significant you can’t say either way about them.

    – They appear to have included a number of things that strike me as unlikely to be related to vaccination. I’m not a medic and I’m not really interested in why they’ve done that. What interests me is if these are not linked the vaccine, as I (strongly) suspect is the case, these values can be used to estimate the bias in this survey. Were I to use these as internal controls (i.e. control against a biased sample, etc.), a quick eye-balling suggests it’d show that none of the reported “results” are meaningful and that all of them simply reflect the way the data was collected.

    implementing the psychopaths evil agenda

    Conspiracy theories. Sigh

    I’d like to leave you with this thought:

    Making exaggerated claims, no matter how well meant, is damaging for the few that might have genuine problems that were caused by vaccination.

  • Alison,

    I’d say it’s past defamation in the sense that it’s just too silly for anyone with sense to accept as credible. I agree for a call for a focus on sound evidence.

  • It may be a scurrilous claim to you, Alison, but it’s the truth as far as I am concerned. Also, what is there to defame? In order to defame something, there has to be fame. or some sort of reputation or reputability in the first place, It follows that obviously one can’t defame something that is criminal in nature to begin with.

    Here is an excerpt from John Rappoport’s famous interview of Dr Mark Randall (alias), a former drug company employee turned whistle blower:

    Q: If vaccines actually do harm, why are they given?

    A: First of all, there is no “if.” They do harm. It becomes a more difficult question to decide whether they do harm in those people who seem to show no harm. Then you are dealing with the kind of research which should be done, but isn’t. Researchers should be probing to discover a kind of map, or flow chart, which shows exactly what vaccines do in the body from the moment they enter. This research has not been done. As to why they are given, we could sit here for two days and discuss all the reasons. As you’ve said many times, at different layers of the system people have their motives. Money, fear of losing a job, the desire to win brownie points, prestige, awards, promotion, misguided idealism, unthinking habit, and so on. But, at the highest levels of the medical cartel, vaccines are a top priority because they cause a weakening of the immune system. I know that may be hard to accept, but it’s true. The medical cartel, at the highest level, is not out to help people, it is out to harm them, to weaken them. To kill them. At one point in my career, I had a long conversation with a man who occupied a high government position in an African nation. He told me that he was well aware of this. He told me that WHO is a front for these depopulation interests. There is an underground, shall we say, in Africa, made up of various officials who are earnestly trying to change the lot of the poor. This network of people knows what is going on. They know that vaccines have been used, and are being used, to destroy their countries, to make them ripe for takeover by globalist powers. I have had the opportunity to speak with several of these people from this network.

    Then there is the video ‘Mercury, Auticines and the Global Vaccine Agenda’ by Dr Ayoub

    Even Bill Gates mentoned at a public lecture that the new vaccines are used to curb population growth. Talk about getting it directly from the horse’s mouth!
    Bill Gates Spills the Beans!
    Posted on 26 February 2010 by C. Linderman Sr. – ATO Press

    Click on the link below and pay attention to the 4 minute 30 second mark in this film, where Bill Gates states:

    “The world today has 6.8 billion people. That’s headed up to about 9 billion. Now, if we do a really great job – on new vaccines, health care, reproductive health care -we could lower that by perhaps 10 – 15%.”
    Bill, wouldn’t vaccines INCREASE the world population, seeing that they (supposedly) SAVE millions of lives?

    It seems that Bill just told us the unvarnished truth!

    Your unawareness of the real purpose of vaccination causes you to jump to their defense Alison. If it’s any consolation, vaccination propaganda had turned me also into a gullible fool who believed in vaccination for many years, until I found out the ugly truth about them.

  • Taking Gates’ comments < their entirety what he says makes sense – & nowhere does he say that vaccines are intended to kill. One of the key reasons for rising populations in the ‘3rd world’ is the perceived need to provide for one’s old age by having surviving children to look after one. So you have lots of kids, because the odds of them all surviving to adulthood has historically been extremely small. A public education campaign combined with improved health care (including vaccinations) & reproductive health care should see family sizes decrease (as has happened in the developed world) & ultimately a slowing in the growth rate of the human population.

  • erwinalber, your last post is devoid of scientific fact but full of unsubstantiated and quite nasty attacks on those in science and medicine. The majority of people in medical and vaccine research are doing it because they want to help humankind and progress scientific knowledge. To suggest that they are doing harm intentionally or through ignorance is insulting.
    To imply that there is no understanding of what a vaccine does when it enters the body demonstrates that you have a complete lack of knowledge of the immune system and vaccines in general. Rather than attempting to learn and understand the science behind vaccines you instead make attacks that are solely emotive, non-factual scaremongering.

  • In response to Alison and drmike, here is an excerpt from an interview of Dr A Kalokerinos MD, Australia, by Dr Kris Gaublomme MD, Belgium, for the “International Vaccination Information Network’: :

    My final conclusion after forty years or more in this business is that the unofficial policy of the World Health Organisation and the unofficial policy of ‘Save the Children’s Fund and almost all those organisations is one of murder and genocide. They want to make it appear as if they are saving these kids, but in actual fact they don’t. I am talking of those at the very top. Beneath that level is another level of doctors and health workers, like myself, who don’t really understand what they are doing. But I cannot see any other possible explanation: It is murder and it is genocide. And I tell you what: when the black races really wake up to what we have done to them they are not going to thank us very much. And if you want to see what harm vaccines do, don’t come to Australia or New Zealand or any place, go to Africa and you will see it there.”

    A question:

    If even medical doctors can’t agree among themselves whether vaccines are beneficial, why should parents trust them, or the so-called medical authorites?

  • The quote you use again used emotive language and is based on information from ONE doctor. The vast majority of medical professionals working with patients, as well as those carrying out medical research, support vaccination as a means of protecting human life. To base your arguments on the distorted views of one (possibly disgruntled or contrary) physician is a mistake.
    There are also a minority of medical professional who support homeopathy, healing hands and other pseudoscientific concepts. I hope you are not also swayed by their “arguments.”
    Having discussed several pseudoscientific issues on here and elsewhere, I see the “” website coming quite often in relationship to pseudoscience. Perhaps you should read more widely? In fact perhaps pick up an introductory textbook on science. If you want to argue about science, perhaps an understanding of the subject would help?

  • erwinalber,

    You’re citing again. I pointed out in my reply to your first comment in this thread what a discreditable source that is.

    Alison and DrMike have encouraged you to talk in terms of evidence, but you continue to present anecdotes from disreputable sources.

    Quoting someone does not make what they say right and quotes can be presented out of context by sources wanting to mislead or who are just sloppy. You could quote, say, Hitler’s delusions, any number of religious crank’s spotty religious ideas, homeopaths on homeopathy, etc. Should their words also be taken to be creditable simply because they said so?

    I agree with Alison’s point about family size. In fact I was going to say the same thing, but she bet me to it! 🙂 Better lifestyles cause the family size to drop (with some exceptions, e.g. Catholics and others who don’t use birth control).

    I take it that you understand from my previous explanation that the IAS survey won’t mean much.

  • Grant, what is and isn’t a creditable source of information is surely a matter of opinion. I regard Gary Whale as a creditable source and the WHO and CDC as discreditable sources, while with you it’s likely to be the other way round.

    In denouncing whale’s site as discreditable, are you not also discrediting two reputable medical doctors, namely Belgian Dr Kris Gaublomme MD, and Australian Dr A Kalokerinos MD featured on Gary Whale’s site?

    You also ask: should someone’s words be taken to be creditable simply because they said so? – yet you expect everyone to believe that vaccines prevent diseases just because someone said so and everyone repeats that nonsense as nauseum.

    Here is another quote by a reputable doctor, the late Dr. Robert S. Mendelsohn MD:

    “There has never been a single vaccine in this country that has ever been submitted to a controlled scientific study. They never took a group of 100 people who were candidates for a vaccine, gave 50 of them a vaccine and left the other 50 alone, and measured the outcome. And since that has never been done, that means if you want to be kind, you will call vaccines an unproven remedy. If you want to be accurate, you’ll call the people who give vaccines quacks.”

    And please address what Dr Mendelsohn says, rather than tossing me a red herring in the form of a pathetic complaint that the purewatergazette site is a discreditable source.

  • drmike, you suggest I red more widely, yet your comment seems IMO to indicate that you are trapped in a belief system which is not your own, but which you have made your own, which is an illusion and in which you are trapped in along with all the rest of the people who have chosen to subscribe to it. I call it the vaccination cult, which involves the satanic ritual of injecting defenseless babies and children with bits of tissue from animal sacrifices such as chick embryos, monkey kidneys and aborted human foetus. To call this science is IMO an insult to one’s intelligence. I consider vaccination about as scientific as voodoo medicine.

    Homoeopathy and healing hands are by contrast based on natural laws and true healing principles. There is a book called Healing Hands by ex-NASA scientist Barbara Brennan describing energy healing which is uses to successfully treat cancer patients given up by medical doctors who still practice ignorance-based medicine which as yet has to emerge from the Dark Ages.

    It even caused Aldous Huxley, a member of the British family which produced a number of famous scientists, to suffer from an acute bout of cynicism which caused him to comment that “Medical science has made such tremendous progress that here is hardly a healthy human left!”

    I agree. Not only that, drug and vaccine-based medicine has driven human society to the brink of insanity, and close to destruction. Fortunately we have psychiatrists to come to our rescue; the only problem with them is that most of them are even crazier than the people they are meant to help and that – like medical doctors – they are also little more than legalised drug pushers – willing fools and useful idiots programmed to do the dirty work of poisoning people with toxic pills and injections on behalf of the psychopaths who run the show.

  • what is and isn’t a creditable source of information is surely a matter of opinion.

    What matters is data and evidence. Sources of information are discreditable if they consistently fly in the face of data or evidence. That isn’t (just) a matter of “opinion,” but of how there statements compare to evidence.

    In denouncing whale’s site as discreditable

    One reason I denounced the site (not specific people) is that sites like often misquote or quote-mine, as I indicated earlier. Doing that can misrepresent sound statements, like how the quote of Bill Gates you cited earlier does.

    There will always be a few odd-balls (I’m being polite) with qualifications that people wanting to push odd views can hold up. It doesn’t mean much. It’s not just someone’s qualifications that give their words credibility, it’s the data/evidence that backs their words that gives their statements creditability, or not as the case may be. As I wrote in my comment that you replied to: “ Quoting someone does not make what they say right”. You need to look at the evidence/data: citing statements will only ever amount to anecdote if they are not supported with data.

    The error found in your latest quote is explained in many sites, I suggest you do a little work and try understand what’s wrong with it. Science-Based Medicine might be one place to look, as they mention the issues involved in designing vaccine trials from time to time.

    And please address

    I’m not your servant 😉

    If you are going to make a claim, it’s really for you to check that the claim is sound, preferably before you make it, not for others to “have” to correct you. If others offer anything, that’s a favour, not something they are obliged to do.

    As a reply I’ll suggest a few things you could try. A key thing is work out if the statement is accurate as presented.

    You could try locate the original source of the quote and check that the as given quote it is in it’s intended context. Could you show us the original source? (Hint: If you can’t provide the context, then you have no way of knowing if it’s out of context yourself.)

    You could read others’ words about it. This is needs little practice: it’s not who says what, or that they it, but what evidence supports what they say. The very first google hit I get on that quote is:

    (I’m not saying it’s the best account, but that it was easy to find, so you should have no trouble finding more yourself.)

    You could try understand the issue by doing some background reading, in this case on why some vaccine trials do not use unvaccinated people as controls. (Hints: ethics, harm. Also: dummy controls, reference populations.) I believe Science-based Medicine has discussed this issue several times in the past:

    You could also try read the relevant research literature, although that will be harder work. Google scholar could be one place to start.

    I’ve given you a few ideas, perhaps you might like to try sounding out the statement you present? You might learn a few things along the way, too.

    While you are asking things of me given you haven’t answered my earlier question regards the IAS survey. Should I take it from your non-reply that you accept that it is not meaningful?

  • Darcy, thanks for the links, but you could have saved yourself the time and trouble because the studies you have posted the links to do not meet the requirements to qualify as science.

    You have furthermore twisted the facts to suit your purpose, which is to validate vaccination and to invalidate vaccination opponents’ (such as myself) arguments.

    If you want to refute the validity of the quote by Dr Mendelsohn I posted, you have to refute it in its entirety, not cheery pick a point to suit your agenda. Here is the quote again in its entirety:

    “There has never been a single vaccine in this country that has ever been submitted to a controlled scientific study. They never took a group of 100 people who were candidates for a vaccine, gave 50 of them a vaccine and left the other 50 alone, and measured the outcome. And since that has never been done, that means if you want to be kind, you will call vaccines an unproven remedy. If you want to be accurate, you’ll call the people who give vaccines quacks.”

    I bet you that NONE of the studies you’ve quoted involved doing what Dr Mendelsohn suggests – namely to take 100 people, vaccinate 50 against say chickenpox, leave, 50 unvaccinated, then expose all of them to chicken pox to see what happens. Incredibly, this has – as Dr Mendelsohn points out – never been done!

    The argument that such a trial would be unethical is ludicrous, for the following reasons:

    1. There is no shortage of parents of unvaccinated children who would happily volunteer their children
    for such a trial.

    2. The medical profession is not usually known for bothering about ethics. In fact, medical ethics is
    like “military intelligence” or “vaccine safety” an oxymoron (contradiction in terms). Health
    authorities are after all not bothered in the slightests about the ethics of injecting babies and
    children with highly toxic and sometimes fatal vaccines, yet when it comes to exposing
    supposedly “immunised” children and children of consenting parents to say chicken pox, suddenly
    there are concerns about ethics! Good grief.

    Dr Mendelsohn MD was IMO obviously right: vaccination is quackery and people who give vaccines are consequently quacks. Personally, I try to avoid name calling. I tend to opt for the more moderate approach of calling vaccination an organised criminal enterprise.

  • Grant, like Darcy, you could have saved yourself the trouble of deliving into unnecessary and irrelevant details. Like the squabbles that arise between creatonists and evolutionists, this is a matter of differing mindsets and attitudes, and never the twain shall meet. It’s like we live on different planets.

    Because your arguments are based on the basic premise that vaccines prevent diseases, everyone who chooses to differ and doesn’t protect their baby with the appropriate is obviously ignorant, if not mentally defective and possibly guilty of being a negligent parent.

    To people like myself, the very idea of injecting babies and children with mercury, MSG, aluminium, formaldehyde and other toxic substances, such as modified viral and bacterial matter as well as bits of chick embryo, monkey kidneys and aborted human foetus to supposedly protect them against diseases is completely absurd and too stupid for words. Any amount of so-called medial literature doesn’t change this for me and I would obviously never have a vaccine under any circumstances.

    If you believe that vaccines are valuable and important to have, that’s your choice – have as many as you want. We’ll just have to agree to disagree on this one, as non of us are likely to change our minds. Having said that, I DID change my mind, many years ago: from a believer in vaccination to an outspoken opponent, once I found out that I had been deceived by the conmen who run this appalling racket.

  • Erwinalber, at last we agree on something. This debate is very similar to that between creationists and evolutionists. Evolutionists have amassed an incredible amount of evidence confirming that life on earth evolved. Creationists argue from a point that is contradicted by the evidence, and function on the idea that if you believe in something hard enough it must be right.
    When you refer to “people like yourself” I assume you mean those who have no understanding of science and who assume that their “instincts” override the masses of scientific literature supporting vaccination.
    We live in a time where we don’t see the results of diseases that are now prevented by vaccines. Might I suggest you use the internet to search for the terms “polio” and “iron lung” to see one example of what vaccines have prevented. If your contention is that vaccines are of no use then perhaps you could explain why we no longer need hosptial wards filled with iron lungs?
    Your arguments are based on unfounded fear, ignorance of the science of vaccines and some extraordinary medical conspiracy. Can you not see how unlikely this would be. I restate my position that the majority of those involved in medical research are there because they are passionate about improving humankind’s lot. It makes no sense that they would support vaccines if they were harmful.

  • drmike, vaccines have never prevented anything – apart from health, sanity and plain common sense. The science you refer to is pseudo-science, and the scientific literature pseudo-scientific literature.

    Polio had started to decline of its own accord, before vaccination was introduced which infected everyone who received it with tumour-causing monkey virus SV-40 nobody realised was in the vaccine until millions of people had been contamnated with this filth. The New Zealand so-called health authorities even bought a Canadian lot of polio vaccine they knew was going cheap because it was so badly contaminated with the virus that it had ben banned from use in Canada and the USA – yet they told New Zealand parents on the consent forms that the vaccine was “well tested and harmless.” Talk about criminal.

    You are right about one thing: most so-called health professionals wouldn’t support vaccinations if they knew that they are harmful. Unfortunately, most “health professionals” are unaware that vaccines are useless and dangerous, having been told that they are safe and effective. Doctors are in fact one of the most brain-washed professions on this planet. The psychopaths who run the show are however fully aware that vaccines cause harm, and in fact design them to purposely cause harm. Bertrand Russell stated many years ago that inoculations would be used to mentally cripple people in order to dumb down the masses and both George Bernhard Shaw as well as Mahatma Gandhi were outspoken opponents of vaccination, so I’m in good company! 🙂

  • Seeing you mentioned the topic of evolution vs creation, here is a comment by Gene Bean I found quite interesting and quite relevant to the topic, as well as the vaccination issue, where deluded vaccinationists try to take the moral high ground in the debate:

    April 1, 2010 at 2:37pm

    Re: Ryde Lodge of Angels 698

    The Neo-Darwinists at this point don’t have many options — they are hoping that enough people don’t dig into the science to see the reality of ID. It’s mostly censorship, peer pressure, evasion, and other tactics that they use. See; — Ben Stein explains the reality of this in scientific institutions today.

    They also use “junk science” to try to legitimize evolution being the source of all life forms. Half-truths like “give it enough time and there’ll be enough random mutations to form a new living creature”. They’re hoping people don’t know the truth, that :

    “The bottom line is that the universe is at least ten billion orders of magnitude (a factor of 1010,000,000,000 times) too small or too young for life to have assembled itself by natural processes.(i) These kinds of calculations have been done by researchers, both non-theists and theists, in a variety of disciplines.(42-58)” (;

    Also, self-replicating molecules require a Designer…. Dawkins himself admits this fact (see; So you see, they are effective in pulling the wool over people’s eyes as long as people trust them and don’t dig deep enough. After all, most people automatically assume that “experts” are right, and that they don’t need to think for themselves.,1_19003873_ADwXw0MAAJ74S7UIiALnQjmwMIQ,1_19003047_AG0Xw0MAATFnS7UC7QDO%2BVFTZoQ,1_19002424_AG8Xw0MAAVSGS7TvVQXgRCE1%2Fc4,1_19001837_AHUXw0MAARW1S7TrsQF%2FvAIu2Co,1_19001070_AG4Xw0MAAEdnS7ToAgnNc1W%2Fpi0,1_18998286_ADUXw0MAAGWjS7Taqgq7MiICT%2F0,1_19000521_AHYXw0MAAVL3S7TiDQ08KhLq6L4,1_18999738_AHMXw0MAAHBBS7Tf0A3%2Bv3vzFgQ,1_18999125_ADQXw0MAAOuFS7TdoQGikEMfN2w,1_18997514_AHMXw0MAADv9S7TZ9AV1NyN5YOQ,&sort=date&order=down&startMid=0&hash=4c7e7d886ab0460fec2300367e45d1dd&.jsrand=2393833

    As you can imagine, I particularly like this last sentence:

    “After all, most people automatically assume that “experts” are right, and that they don’t need to think for themselves.”

    BIG mistake! 🙁

  • erwinalber,

    “After all, most people automatically assume that “experts” are right, and that they don’t need to think for themselves.”

    So why is it that when I earlier suggested you check the statements you present, you don’t but instead assume that people whose words you present are right?

    Isn’t this what you’re asking others to do?

    ID is creationism + a stated “mission” to “attack” evolution. That’s their account. Locate the Wedge document and read it for yourself. Nothing for “ID”, notice, just against evolution. ‘ID’ was created as a term to get around the legal issues of using the title ‘creationism’ in the USA. Do some checking and confirm it for yourself. (It isn’t new and it doesn’t seem to be working either.)

    Misquoting Dawkins is routine silliness that seems to be the “in thing” for some people, ‘Design and the Anthropic Principle’ is old-hat and … Expelled is credible? I know I shouldn’t laugh, but this is hilarious. I think this calls for a Tui. **Wanders off to fridge**

    PS: Some of the URLs given are bad and ask for a Facebook login. To be on the safe side, don’t login into sites you didn’t take yourself too, etc. People trying to use them should strip the ‘;’ part off the first 3 URLs erwinalber gives. The last URL won’t is an internal URL, the sort you get after logging in.

  • Grant, the point is that evolutionsm is like the belief in vaccination utter nonsense. To take such nonsense seriously is too stupid for words. Both are good examples of why we shouldn’t believe so-called experts or authorities.

    Who says that the people I quoted are experts? I certainly don’t. They are as far as I am concerned just people who are able to figure things out for themselves.

  • erwinwalber,

    erwinwalber, the point is that creationism is like the belief in anti-vaccine utter nonsense. To take such nonsense seriously is too stupid for words. Both are good examples of why we shouldn’t believe so-called experts or authorities.

    Your statement doesn’t distinguish positions, I can just as equally use on your position.

    Who says that the people I quoted are experts? I certainly don’t. They are as far as I am concerned just people who are able to figure things out for themselves.

    I didn’t say “you thought they were experts” (although you have tried to present them in that manner). What I wrote, and I quote with emphasis added was that you assume that people whose words you present are right”, i.e. that you won’t check to make sure the statements you cite are correct.

    Yet you try tell other people that they need to think for themselves.

    To think about something, you must check if it is right. If you don’t, you aren’t really doing much thinking about it, but instead taking it on faith, which is the approach an ideologue uses.

    If you want get away from “who says what”—a losing game if there ever was one—look at the data, the evidence.

    Scientists don’t care much for who says what, because it’s ultimately meaningless. What matters is the evidence. For the same reason, scientists dislike the main-stream media habit of trying to make things about a balance of “opinion.” Deciding the truth of something is never about balance of opinion or quoting someone; it’s about data, evidence.

    (See also:—critical-analysis-not-debate/ also,

  • erwinalber, you make some extraordinary claims without no supporting evidence. The idea that if there were “psychopaths running the show” that no-one would notice seems highly unlikely. Dedicated doctors and researchers work with vaccines every day, and I would expect if there were problems a significant number of them would notice. Also, many of those at the top of health organisations are medically trained. Are you implying at some stage they lose their values, defy the Hippocratic oath and turn into psychopaths. Why would this happen?
    It is interesting how you seem to judge whether someone is worthy of listening to. You state that people you are quoting are not necessarily experts, “just people who are able to figure things out for themselves”. Tell me, if they don’t have expertise in the area then what are they using to work things out? Some sort of intuition? How do you choose what science you believe and what you don’t, and class as junk science?
    Your arguments continue to discount the views of experts, the results of many scientific studies and are based on some sort of nebulous conspiracy theory. Some tangible evidence would be useful in supporting this claim.

  • erwinalber, through out my life I have received many vaccines, with no adverse reactions. If they are so harmful, why have I suffered no ill effects?
    If vaccines are harmful, how do you account for the fact that most people have no adverse reactions? And when people are perceived to have reactions to vaccines how do we know that the vaccine is the cause? For example, I probably have a cold at least one week every year. If the cold occurs just after I have a vaccine the temptation might be to blame the cold on the vaccine, when in fact the timing of the vaccine has simply coincided with exposure to the cold virus. In science, it is very important to identify the true cause of an effect, this is what makes medical science challenging. If this is difficult for the experts then how do you expect non-experts to make the connections between cause and effect?

  • My earlier comment is stuck in moderation (holidays…) Bit surprised it’s tripping the moderation filter. Anyway, here it is in little bits (with a few added thoughts) in the hope that I can skirt around the filter:


    erwinwalber, the point is that creationism is like the belief in anti-vaccine utter nonsense. To take such nonsense seriously is too stupid for words. Both are good examples of why we shouldn’t believe so-called experts or authorities.

    Your statement doesn’t distinguish positions.

    What would make it distinguish position is data, evidence.

    This is the same problem as with the quotations you give. What would make them right or wrong is evidence, hence why people asking you deal in evidence not anecdotes.

  • OK… that got through (might be the links then). Here’s second part with the links replaced with plain text:

    Who says that the people I quoted are experts? I certainly don’t. They are as far as I am concerned just people who are able to figure things out for themselves.

    I didn’t say “you thought they were experts” (although you have tried to present them in that manner). What I wrote, and I quote with emphasis added was that you “assume that people whose words you present are right”, i.e. that you won’t check to make sure the statements you cite are correct.

    Yet you try tell other people that they need to think for themselves.

    To think about something, you must check if it is right. If you don’t you aren’t really doing much thinking about it, but instead taking it on faith, which is the approach an ideologue uses.

    If you want get away from “who says what”—a losing game if there ever was one—look at the data, the evidence.

    Scientists don’t care much for who says what, because it’s ultimately meaningless. What matters is the evidence. For the same reason, scientists dislike the main-stream media habit of trying to make things about a balance of “opinion.” Deciding the truth of something is never about balance of opinion or quoting someone; it’s about data, evidence.

    (You may also want to read my earlier articles “Science journalism: Critical analysis not debate” and
    “Pre-conceptual science” on my blog, Code for life. [I’d put links in but this is likely to be what it tripping the moderation filter!])

  • Grant, I have really said what I need or want to say and don’t really want to waste any more time on futile arguments.

    I however want to point that you assume things which are simply not true. You e.g accuse me of assuming that “people whose words you present are right”, i.e. that you won’t check to make sure the statements you cite are correct.”

    Here is are the facts of the matter: Having believed in vaccination all my life (even getting my ten-yearly tetanus booster, brain-washed fool that I was), I then came across infectious diseases graphs in the chapter on vaccination in the book ‘Animal Research Takes Lives’ by Bette Overell (it can be viewed on, or downloaded for free from the internet). I was shocked, because these graphs clearly showed that vaccines have never prevented any diseases.

    My interest being roused, I then attended the ‘1st International Vaccination Symposium’ by the New Zealand Immunisation Awareness Society (IAS) in Auckland, New Zealand, where a father presented his severely vaccine-brain-damaged daughter. I was again shocked, realising that vaccines are not only ineffective, but also unsafe.

    Even then, I figured that vaccines must be of some benefit, or else surely they wouldn’t be used. As a researched the vaccination issue further, I realised that vaccins ONLY cause harm – apart that is from the enormous financial benefits to the psychopaths and their clueless followers involved in this organised criminal enterprise.

    Here is the important bit: It was only after I had figured out for myself that vaccines are useless and dangerous that I found confirmation of my findings in the form of findings by other researchers. It’s consequently completely false to claim that I won’t check whether the statements I cite are true. In fact, I cite them BECAUSE I know them to be true.

  • erwinalber,

    You e.g accuse me of assuming that “people whose words you present are right”

    I didn’t accuse you of anything. I have been trying to encourage to check what you say.

    then came across infectious diseases graphs

    I’ve already explained this. It is routine for anti-vaccine promoters to present graphs of diseases trying to claim it means vaccines “do nothing”. It is widely explained on the internet. Coincidentally, Science-Based Medicine very recently wrote about the “Vaccines didn’t save us” argument. (I’ll put the link in a follow comment in case that’s what’s causing my comment to drop into the moderation queue.) Among other things, it talks about some of the sort of graphs you refer to.

    I tried to capture the main points in a couple of sentences in a reply to michelle 17 days ago: “It is true that public health had a strong impact on many diseases, but it is also true that vaccines made a strong impact too. That public health contributed does not mean that vaccines do little. The balance of these two contributions varies depending on the particular disease.”.

    In my experience, the easiest way to understand the contribution of vaccines to look at the cases where a country (or large group) has chosen to stop to vaccinating: the disease the vaccine targets recurs quite quickly, which demonstrates clearly the effect the vaccine had. There are a number of examples to illustrate this. (From memory, try looking for when Japan stopped the measles vaccine. There are others if you look around.)

    vaccines have never prevented any diseases

    That is not correct, as I & others have pointed out to you. See also the SBM article (linked in next comment).

    If the IAS’s website is a reflection of their approach, I am sceptical that their “symposium” would be balanced. You are welcome to show the programme.

    I realised that vaccins ONLY cause harm

    Checking would show this is not true. Vaccines, do have an effect as is shown from formal studies, i.e. from data. Vaccines very rarely cause harm, again, recorded in formal studies. (Some of those that Darcy listed will be examples; have a look.)

    I found confirmation of my findings in the form of findings by other researchers

    If you work by “seeking to confirm” of course you will confirm, because you’re not checking, you’re not making sure, you’re only “confirming” what you “want” to hear as it were. It’s one of the things you have to be alert to in research.

    Seeing the approach you have taken it is clear to me that you have swallowed the anti-vaccine hype. I don’t blame you in one sense, in the sense that not everyone understands how to “read” the original data and these anti-vaccine people are, I guess, able to convince some others, but I do think your approach of considering that these people are “just right” without checking is, to be polite, unwise.

  • Grant, you are convinced that vaccines prevent diseases and have saved lives, and you present arguments to support your views, while I’m convinced that vaccines are useless and dangerous, and support my views with evidence I have come across. The problem is that you think that my stance and evidence are invalid, while I’m of the opinion that yours are a distortion of the truth. I’m obviously not going to convince you otherwise, nor are you going to change my mind. So let’s just agree to disagree. You have all the vaccines you want, while I obviously will nver have another vaccine as long as I live.

    In case you are interested, I have a facebook page called ‘Vaccination Information Network’ (VINE) which now has over 5800 fans.

    I’m hoping that one of these days, it will become evident to everyone that vaccination is nothing but a global insitutionalised medical money-making racket based on Jenner’s superstitious belief that cowpox prevents smallpox. If you feel happy to believe in such nonsense, feel free to – just don’t expect me to become a member of this bizarre cult.

    PS Medical doctors and researchers from all over the world spoke at the International Vaccination Symposium in 1993, and the second symposium in 1995, voicing their concerns about vaccination, among them Drs A Kalokerinos and Glen Dettman from Australia, Dr Kris Gaublomme MD from Belgium, Dr med G Buchwald from Germany, Dr Anthony Morris, former FDA vaccine safety control officer, Dr Gillian Durham of the New Zealand Ministry of Health, and many others. It definitely wasn’t a Mickey Mouse event, if that’s what you were thinking of.

    Also, Germany interrupted its pertussis vaccination programme for about 15 years due to reports of brain-injuries caused by the vaccine, yet epidemics and resulting deaths prdicted by critics of the moratorium didn’t eventuate.


  • Gardasil has so far killed 3 young women in New Zealand (population under 5 million), but there are probably more that I don’t know about. The mother of one of them was interviewed on national TV.

    Also check out

    It’s such an unnecessary waste of young lives. Unfortunately these parents don’t find out how dangerous this horrible injection is until it is too late. There are millions of parents world-wide who wish they could turn the clock back.

  • That is unsubstantiated nonsense erwinalber. Yes, Hilary Butler’s lot are claiming girls have died but there isn’t a single coroners’ report to support them. They’ve cynically exploited the familes of dead girls, hijacking their grief and twisting facts to support an anti-vax agenda.

  • mythbuster, why don’t you bust the myth that vaccines are a safe and effective way of preventing diseases? If you want to shoot tigers, you have to go where the tiges are. It’s the same with myths: you have to go for the myths, not accounts of true events.

    For your information, it’s these women’s mothers who claim that Gardasil killed their daughters; Jessica Ericzon’s mother, a nurse, said: “My daughter died as a guinea pig for Gardasil”.

    Hilary is supporting them because in her eyes, these mothers obviously have more credibilty than the clueless doctors who act as willing fools and useful idiots for the medical-pharmaceutical mafia they work (and prostitute themselves) for.

    Also FYI, Rhonda Renata’s daugther’s got warts after the Gardasil, and her health deteriorated with each further shot she was given, and finally Gardasil snuffed out her life. There have been around 80 reports of Gardasil recipients suffering from facial outbreaks of genital warts, and in the USA alone about as many young women died after getting injected with Gardasil. You have the Gardasil shot for all I care – your choice; I wouldn’t give it to my dog, or even my worst enemy.

  • QUOTE:. Hilary is supporting them because in her eyes, these mothers obviously have more credibilty than the clueless doctors who act as willing fools and useful idiots for the medical-pharmaceutical mafia they work (and prostitute themselves) for.

    Well, well, well – the classic Big Pharma, Big Med conspiracy theory. I feel deeply sorry for Rhonda Renata. Not only has she suffered an unbearable loss, she’s also been cynically exploited by people who should have known better. Where did they urge her to wait for the coroner’s report? Where did they suggest she looked at depo provera or an undiagnosed heart condition as a possible cause of death? Nowhere – of course. They are using her coldly and callously for their misguided cause. It is disgusting. I hope the coroner’s report is made public – and soon.

  • Thank you Darcy! I feel strongly about this. I notice the Beyond Conformity people – or whatever they call themselves – are quoting another couple of teenage deaths on their site as Gardisal-related. In one case at least, the cause was clearly an undiagnosed heart condition and no-where in the news reparts can I see any indication of her Gardasil status. In other words, the people who are seeking to exploit her tragic death don’t even know if she’d had the vax. I wonder what that child’s parents feel about finding her included in rabid anti-vax propaganda?

  • Well Mythbuster, you obviously have no close relationship with this vaccine. Unfortunately I do. I am dealing with it every single day now. I don’t have a choice but I will never walk away from my daughter as she fights with continual problems now. You write like you are so sure Gardasil is not a problem with any of our girls. Could you tell us your background and how you come to these conclusions even though you are clearly not personally involved with any of our cases but continue to post comments which are ignorant of the awful reality that we are facing.

  • Chrissy, I think it’s wonderful that you are giving your daughter the support she needs and perhaps some of the messages here come across as a little harsh of those who oppose vaccines, but this website is all about science and at the moment there is no scientific evidence that vaccines cause harm, and a lot of evidence that they are beneficial.
    I think the point mythbuster and others are trying to make is that there is no clear link between your daughter’s illness and the vaccine. Yes, her symptoms arose following the use of the Gardasil vaccine but how do you know that it wasn’t something else in her life that caused the illness? Most woman taking the vaccine don’t have the same reaction, so how do you know that the vaccine is the cause?
    You suggest that mythbuster is not personally involved in your cases but have you considered that when you are personally involved that it is difficult to think rationally about an illness? A good friend of mine suffers from chronic fatigue syndrome, the symptoms of which sound similar to some of the cases being blamed on the vaccine (and her symptoms did not correspond with any vaccinations). There is no known cause for CFS so how do you know that your daughter isn’t suffering from CFS and its onset was just coincidental with the gardasil injection?
    If poorly understood illnesses are incorrectly blamed on vaccines then people will stop looking for what the real cause is.

  • Firstly, I have never opposed vaccines until now. Scientific evidence? I have seen it with my very own eyes! Nothing else has caused this but Gardasil. As I am personally involved I do not have any trouble thinking rationally but instead have found the answers to otherwise unanswered questions that I have asked to members of the medical profession. I do not deal with coincidences as that is too easy an answer to be given. I certainly haven’t been “brainwashed” either.
    I could write about everything I have learned in this short time to respond to your statement that “…and alot of evidence that they are beneficial”. No vaccine is beneficial!!!

  • Chrissy,

    With all respect you are dealing with coincidences, you are linking the coincidence of your daughter’s illness and the vaccination. What you need to look for is evidence of causation. Coincidences (or correlations) don’t mean causes. That one thing happened at the same time or immediately before *might* mean one affected the other, but it isn’t necessarily so.

    It’d be like accusing someone of robbing a house because they were seen walking in the street at roughly the same time. While it’d be fair to name them as a suspect, a possibility, that they *might* have robbed the house. The might also have just be out walking at the time. What the detective would have to show is evidence linking to the actual robbing. If you don’t you’d end up convicting innocent passers-by; furthermore you’d leave the criminal free to rob others.

    The coincidence of the two events, says that they were in the same place (person) at roughly the same time, like a person walking in the street in which a house got robbed. To nail the actual cause (criminal) you need to do more than show the person was around at roughly the same time, you need to show that they actually did the deed.

    This is essentially the reason people cannot use the raw reports from the reporting databases. The reports are only “suspects” than haven’t yet be narrowed down.

  • Chrissy, I don’t think you have been brainwashed at all. But I don’t think you understand what I mean by “scientific evidence”. Grant gives a good explanation of how coincidence can confuse cause and effect. When someone suffers from a debilitating disease there is some comfort in being able to identify a cause, however this is not always possible as in the case of CFS.
    Your statement that “no vaccines are beneficial” seems very certain. What are you basing it on? What about the lives safed protecting people from polio, measles and mumps? Where have you been getting your information from?
    Also how do you account for the fact that the vast majority of women have had no ill effects from the gardasil vaccine?

  • Chrissy says: Scientific evidence? I have seen it with my very own eyes! Nothing else has caused this but Gardasil.

    While I sympathise with your daughter’s condition, I’m afraid that statement is not convincing. In fact it encapsulates the ‘logic’ of the anti-vaccine movement perfectly. That something is true simply because you think it. Or that a mother is never wrong. This vaccine has a very good safety profile and as posters above have pointed out, when something awful happens and we want to make sense of it, it’s natural to try and make connections – however tenuous or unlikely. And, I’m sorry to say that there are people with an obsessive anti-vaccine agenda who encourage such ideas in order to fit their agenda. To the people or organisations supporting you in blaming Gardasil, all vaccines are bad – full stop. They twist and cherry-pick studies, and in some cases even re-write history in order to further their cause. They have no qualms about playing with grieving parents and what might seem kind and understanding on the surface is actually fuelled by boundless self interest. It is incredibly callous and cruel.

  • How do I account for the vast majority of women that show now effects to this vaccine?? (That is something yet to be discovered or discounted isn’t it! Can you yourselves be absolutely certain that their futures are safe?) I now regard vaccines to that of a bee sting. It just depends on the severity of our allergy to it. Some of us have only a localised area that reacts (women showing little effect from Gardasil) but to others it leads to a severe if not fatal reaction. We all react to both but to what degree we don’t know until unfortunately for many, it is too late. All vaccines are of no value to us and neither are bee stings. To Mythbuster, Grant Jacobs and drmike, don’t tell me you sympathise with me when in actual fact you do not! Do you all have a financial interest in this vaccine??????????
    I have not yet met an obsessive anti vaccine person that you describe and I have not been encouraged by anyone to say anything “anti” to fit any agenda. The fact is Gardasil is poison and it is effecting our girls!!

  • Sorry Chrissy but your claims here are a bit over-the top. Most of us barely react to a vaccine at all – in terms of an adverse effect. I don’t quite understand how it compares to a bee sting. In fact, vaccines are of enormous value to us all and my earlier comment is true. I DO sympathise, whether you believe it or not. None of us like to see our children ill – whatever the reason!

  • Chrissy, I do sympathise with your situation. I have lost friends and family to a number of medical conditions including cancer, which is one of the reasons I have an interest in medical science. However, because I am interested in medicine and progressing I’m not willing to accept people who argue against valid medical technologies, such as vaccines, based on non- or anti-scientific arguments.
    To state that vaccines have no value ignores the fact that vaccines have virtually eliminated diseases such as smallpox, and have phenomenonally reduced the number of cases of measles, diptheria and measles to name just a few. However, as vaccination rates drop in the USA and UK we have seen localised measles and mumps epidemics occur in areas where vaccinations have dropped, further evidence of the value of vaccines.
    I have no financial interest in any vaccine, just an interest in good science.
    I don’t think it is possible to completely discount your suggestion that your daughter’s condition might be related to an allergic reaction to the vaccine, but there is just not science to support this.
    I hope research is being done to consider this possibility. In the meantime however, given the demonstrated benefits of vaccines, it would be wrong to stop using them based such an unsubstantiated idea.

  • Chrissy, can you please e-mail me on ? I would like to know what happened to your daughter, if you are willing to share it.

    In my opinon, all vaccines are useless, dangerous and utterly disgusting. People who produce these filthy injections are obviously either idiots or psychopathic maniacs. I don’t think they are idiots, so the second definition probably applies.

    Vaccination is a gigantic medical experiment inflicted on the human race without a control and without informed consent, in direct violation of the Nurmberg Laws. I sincerely hope that all the crooks associated with this crime against our children and the human race will one day stand before a court of law similar to those accused of war crimes, to answer for their actions.

  • I suggest you don’t waste your time on these people, Chrissy, they are on autopilot and damage control mode: “Deny everything – admit nothing!”

  • Chrissy,

    If you want an example of an obsessive anti vaccine person (your words), Erwin Alber is a good example I think.

    Please judge for yourself (of course) but as just one of the more extreme examples he wrote:

    “Liquid crystals and nano-sized microchips may have been included into the vaccines to facilitate mind control at a distance.”

    in response to another reader posting a pastor’s bizarre “end times” rant, which included a “test” involving vaccination. (‘May have been’ in the sense of ‘what is the reason’, not ‘whether or not’.)

    This is the reason I have stopped replying to him.

    One point of clarification to something Erwin is twisting. The people who create vaccines can be academic researchers, not commercial companies. Companies are more involved in trying to make them a commercial reality, i.e. working out how to mass produce and distribute them.

    The research work of initially developing and testing vaccines (in the case of testing, both before and after they are commercially available) is often done by people who are not associated with distributing or selling them who have a strong interest in helping others.

    People who try create an image of the “evil workforce” both don’t understand how they are actually developed, don’t want to know, or have paranoia. (I’m not trying to be insulting with the latter; some people do have paranoia, it is a feature of some mental illnesses.)

    There are some companies (of all kinds, not just those that sell vaccines) that market products for a wider range of applications that they were developed for (weight loss drugs come to mind), but the product itself is not “evil”.

    I would think it would be very hard to do (essentially impossible) for vaccines owing the way they are regulated and purchased. Generalising, vaccines are not sold “direct to the public”, but to national medical services.

    The really stupid thing about all the nonsense anti-vaccine people throw around is that the best people to speak accurately are research scientists.

    Those against vaccines keep trying to mix scientists with their “evil companies” spiel or dismiss them out of hand (as Erwin keeps doing), but in reality most are independent and have a lot of interest in helping others.

  • In August 1999, the Committee on Government Reform initiated an investigation into Federal vaccine policy. Over the last six months, this investigation has focused on possible conflicts of interest on the part of federal policy-makers. The Committee has conducted an extensive review of financial disclosure forms and related documents, and interviewed key officials from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). In the course of the investigation, the committee has discovered that many individuals serving on two key advisory committees have financial ties to the pharmaceutical companies that manufacture vaccines. Often, these individuals were granted waivers to fully participate in the discussions that led to recommendations on vaccine licensing and adding vaccines to the Childhood Immunization Schedule. Under federal law, members of advisory committees are required to disclose any financial conflicts of interest and recuse themselves from participating in decisions in which they have an interest. The Committee’s investigation has determined that conflict of interest rules employed by the FDA and the CDC have been weak, enforcement has been lax, and committee members with substantial ties to pharmaceutical companies have been given waivers to participate in committee proceedings. Investigation into Federal Vaccine Policy

  • October 2007 New England Journal of Medicine – Vaccine Damage: Parents receive $2B compensation pay-outs – Vaccine manufacturers have paid out nearly $2B in damages to parents in America whose children were harmed by one of the childhood jabs such as the MMR (measles-mumps-rubella) or DPT (diphtheria-pertussis-tetanus). In all, around 2,000 families have received compensation payments that have averaged $850,000 each. There are a further 700 claims that are going through the pipeline. None of the claims is for autism as medical researchers say they have failed to find a link between the disease and the MMR vaccine, despite the initial findings made by Dr Andrew Wakefield. Instead they are for a wide spectrum of physical and mental conditions that are likely to have been caused by one of the vaccinations. Around 7,000 parents have filed a claim of an adverse reaction with America’s Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP). To win an award, the claimant must prove a causal link to a vaccine. As the medical establishment has refused to recognise any link to autism, the VICP has so far rejected 300 claims for this outright. (Source: New England Journal of Medicine, 2007; 357: 1275-9).
    So who said that vaccines are safe? If nearly $2B were paid out by 2007, I wonder how much it is now? I’ll get back with a figure if I can find out.

  • erwinalber, it appears that now that most of your anti-scientific arguments have been countered by other people on this site, all that you feel you have left to offer is half truths and misdirective appeals to emotion.
    With vaccines there is always informed consent, from either the patient or their parent. Vaccines have been protecting the human race for well over a century, driving down diseases such as smallpox, measles, mumps, diptheria etc. In areas where vaccine use is dropping some of these diseases are appearing again, so this shows the benefits of vaccines. Calling vaccines a giant experiment is incorrect.
    Also the Nuremberg laws were historically antisemitic laws used by the Nazi’s as part of their ill-treatment of the Jewish people. Is it possible that you meant to refer to the Geneva convention? Either way the comparison is grossly inappropriate.
    There is no scientific evidence to show that vaccines cause significant harm.
    I am not in damage control, as I have no financial or professional involvement with vaccines, apart from the fact that my work provides me with free vaccinations each year. My interest, which I suspect is similar to many other people on this list, is that I don’t want to see diseases that we have all but eradicated come back and kill millions as they did several generations ago.
    You have based many of your arguments on conspiracy type arguments using dubious sources of information such as whaleto.
    Chrissy, I know your intentions are good, as I respect a parents concern for their child. But the arguments erwinalber offers are not founded in science. Centuries ago when people’s health suffered they looked for a cause, found someone who was present and, blaming them for the illness, burnt them as a witch. The sort of arguments you seem to be accepting are similar – illness occurred at similar time to vaccine injection, therefore vaccine is the cause. I emplore you to read a bit more about vaccines from the “pro-vaccine” side. Can anyone here suggest a good book? I enjoyed Paul Offit’s but it probably focuses too heavily on the debate and not the underlying science.

  • erwinalber, the first link you supply above sounds like a disgruntled employee trying to cause some damage. The employee also is an HIV denialist, claiming that the HIV does not cause AIDS which is completely incorrect. The interview blames a conspiracy that includes Hollywood? It sounds like a bad novel. And germs “floating from Asia to the US”? The arguments in this article are ridiculous.

    I have never heard of the vaccine compensation case you mentioned, so I will do some further reading. The “Division of Vaccine Injury Compensation” sounds concocted to me, but I will try and find some further information. Can anyone else on here enlighten me? Also dont forget that the USA is extremely litigious country and people win cases and compensation for things that would be thrown out of court in countries such as NZ and the UK. For example cases of people being awarded money from McDonald because they spill it on themselves and burn themselves.

  • Dr Mike,

    Arthur Allen’s book ‘Vaccines’ may be a good choice for some. I haven’t read it but have looked at a copy in the library. From memory it’s mainly about the history of vaccines in the USA and is fairly long, but it’s written independently. (Arthur Allen is a journalist.) He focuses on both the history and the “debate”. (I put debate in quotes, as based on *evidence* there is little in the way of a debate for present-day vaccines.)

    I suspect it doesn’t makes much sense from a publisher’s point of view for an author to write a book on a topic for a general readership and leave out a element that has been prominent in the public eye!

    On the plus side, most of the worst of the anti-vaccine nonsense is from the USA, so that particular focus may be appropriate in this context. (Note how Erwin, etc., usually point to USA-based sources.)

    People who can’t cite research but only commentary are really not in the game, eh?

    My understanding is that vaccine injury compensation is not on the basis that harm was for certain actually caused by the vaccine, as scientific tests would, but that it is reasonable that the vaccine could have been the cause.

    It’s different standard and type of evidence than used in science and is more about legal games, IMHO. Despite that, quite a number of these cases have been dismissed. That more people are queuing up probably says more about lawyers in the USA than anything medical IMHO. (To make matters worse, there are a number of lawyers who abuse this process, recruiting cases to create law suits so that they can bill the commission their fees, i.e. have a “guaranteed” income. It can be abused as a gravy train, basically. Orac’s blog is a good source of background on this.)

  • You’re right Grant, that’s a very good book. I’m currently reading Paul Offit’s ‘Autism’s False Prophets’ and it’s excellent too. The thing that strikes me is that both these authors address negative issues around vaccines as well as positive ones, making their books a very honest and enlightening read. On the subject of vaccine damages, ACC pay out here too and don’t require proof. I remember during the MeNZB days they covered a broken tooth and several other very unlikely vaccine injuries!

  • You’re actually doing us quite a favour by being here Erwin. You see, this is a site committed to promoting science and in each and every one of your posts you demonstrate perfectly why such sites need to exist. If everyone thought as you do, and was so utterly credulous and gullible, there would be precious little hope for civilisation! You have a cult mentality and it clearly goes way beyond vaccines to encompass new world order and a variety of other paranoid conspiracy theories. Thank heavens for the people behind SciBlogs. Their good work is more important than ever!

  • mythbuster – why are you not commenting on the number of vaccine injury cases which have been compensated in New Zealand i have povided you with, including the amounts paid out? Are they perhaps a conspiracy theory as well?

  • Because the figures aren’t meaningful in light of the fact that ACC here in NZ is a no-fault system. The payments are made because an injury is deemed to have occured. No proof of a connection with a vaccine is required. The current government is tightening up ACC spending and this is one area where they would do well to focus.

  • As usual, the opposite of what you say is true, mythbuster. When I made an oral submission to the Committe of “Inquiry into how to improve completion rates of childhood immunisation” in Auckland last Thursday, a mother of a vaccine-injured boy showed a slide-show presentation of her son’s injuries, including autism, She has battled for ACC compensation for years, but was turned down on “insufficient grounds.”

    Doctors not only inject children with noxious substances which are not proven to be safe or effective, but they also have no way of proving whether an injury was caused by a vaccination – or that it wasn’t! Talk about Mickey Mouse science! No wonder Harris Coulter named his famous book “DPT – A Shot in the Dark.”

    As it says in the Bible: “May God forgive them because they do not know what they are doing.” But then again, maybe they do, which makes it all that much more evil.

  • Which goes to show that there must be at least some – albeit broad – criteria for ACC decisions, and that’s good news. While thrombocytopenia and even broken teeth from a fall during or after fainting could conceivably be linked to vaccination, after all these years there is NO evidence whatsoever that autism is in any way linked. Thimerosal was removed from vaccines yet rates of autism continued to rise. Over and over again, epidmiological studies showed no link. Wakefield’s findings were not able to be replicated and indeed, look set to be proved fraudulent. ACC would be wrong to give ‘compensation’ under these circumstances. You should read Paul Offit’s book. It’s such a rational read and a far cry from the sweeping, hysterical and unfounded ravings in books produced by the ‘other side’!

  • Dr. Mercola’s Comments:

    …………This sad story is, unfortunately, no longer a unique one, as teenage girls all over the world continue to receive the Gardasil vaccine. As of January, 2010, there were more than 17,000 reports of adverse reactions regarding this vaccine in the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System.

    Among them are 59 deaths, 18 of which were among girls under the age of 17.

    What makes this particularly tragic is that Gardasil is in no way a medically necessary vaccine. It’s intended to prevent a virus (human papilloma virus, or HPV) your body can clear up on its own within two years, and does so more than 90 percent of the time!…………………

  • mythbuster – why is it that when parents claim that autism is vaccine-related, they are told that correlation is not causation, but when autism cases continue to rise after mercury in vaccines has been removed, suddenly parenst are told that there IS a causative correlation between the two events? Obviously, anything goes in Mickey Mouse science.

    There is a very simple explanation why autism continues to rise even though most (though not all) mercury has been removed: ALL the neurotoxic ingredients in vaccines (aluminium, formaldehde and foreign protein in the form of viral and bacterial matter and particles of chick embryos, monkey kidneys and aborted human foetus the vaccine viruses were cultured on that are a leading cause of autism. Abolished vaccination would IMO eliminate , most – though not all – autism, because some autism is caused by other envirnmental factors.

  • This controversy could bematter quickly and easily settled by comparing the incidence of autism in vaccinated vs unvaccinated children. WHY IS THIS NOT BEING DONE???

    The answer is IMO obvious: such as study would clearly show that autism is vaccine-related. END OF STORY (AND VACCINATION – THE GOOSE THAT LAYS THE GOLDEN EGGS – and impairs and/or destroys children’s lives).

  • As it happens the studies have been done – you could look at this one, for instance: It’s a case-controlled study that found no difference in autism rates in children who either had or hadn’t received the MMR vaccine (if anything, the vaccinated had a slightly lower risk of developing autism).

    As for your wild claims about ‘neurtoxic’ ingredients – the idea that vaccines contain bits of aborted foetuses is a nice one to scare people with but it has no basis in fact. ‘Aborted foetuses’? Nope. Foetal lung cells? Yes, quite possibly, if the vaccine has been grown on a cell line derived from cells that came originally (a loooong time ago) from a foetus. Similarly, other cell lines – not actual organs, Mr Alber – were originally derived from monkey kidneys.

    The aluminium (which acts as an adjuvant to provoke a good immune response to a minimal quantity of vaccine) is present in levels far lower than those found in IV solutions for babies – I suppose you would object to the use of these solutions to save the lives of seriously ill babies as well? In addition, the aluminium present in vaccines is rapidly dissolved in the liquids surrounding the body’s cells, & then excreted.

    Formaldehyde: your body makes this stuff every day, as a metabolic by-product/intermediary step – in far greater concentrations than you would ever find in a vaccine. By your logic, if formaldehyde is so Bad then each & every human on the planet should be autistic.

    As for this: why is it that when parents claim that autism is vaccine-related, they are told that correlation is not causation, but when autism cases continue to rise after mercury in vaccines has been removed, suddenly parenst are told that there IS a causative correlation between the two events? But they’re not! The observation that autism cases don’t drop off with the removal of thimerosol indicates very strongly indeed that the supposed correlation between the presence of thimerosol & development of autism DID NOT EXIST.

  • Chrissy – the thing about the VAERS database is that anyone can put anything up there. None of it is checked. A US scientist made an entry saying that he’d been turned into the ‘Hulk’ by vaccination – it was never checked for accuracy & he had the dickens of a job getting it removed again. I had the flu vaccination last week. If I’d come down with a headache the next day, could that have been due to the vaccine? Maybe, although probably not as I get headaches from time to time anyway & this one was no different from any of the others. Just a random, non-existent ‘link’ between the two. But if I’d wanted to, I could have put that on VAERS & there it would stay as an ‘adverse reaction’ to that particular vaccine.

  • As an aside for other readers (assuming there are any left!), autism is dominantly a genetic disorder, with a heritability of up to ~0.9 (max. = 1.0). It is generally considered the most heritable of neuropsychiatric disorders. The nature of the heritability, however, is complex. Autism has a well-known association with older parents, occurring more often in children of older parents. (This may point to spontaneous mutations or DNA methylation aberrations in susceptibility genes as possible molecular mechanisms underlying some cases of autism.) There is a substantial body of evidence showing that autism is not related to vaccination. There is good work—slowly!—identifying the genetic basis of autism. Some genetic mutations associated with some of the rarer more syndromic instances of autism have been identified in recent years.

  • yes..I’m still here anyway. Appreciate the ongoing efforts to address the illogical arguments being presented as compelling evidence.

  • I think Alison is talking about comparing MMR-vaccinated children with children vaccinated with other vaccines. As far as I am aware, there is NO STUDY which has compared the incidence of autism in vaccinated vs that in COMPLETELY unvaccinated children, which is absolutely unforgivable, though not surprising.

    Check these out:

    NO AUTISM In Never-Vaccinated Children
    From Alan Cantwell MD
    From Philip Rudnick PhD

    Dear Drs. Eisenstein and Bradstreet:


    In Chicago, Homefirst Medical Services treats thousands of never- vaccinated children whose parents received exemptions through Illinois’ relatively permissive immunization policy. Homefirst’s medical director, Dr. Mayer Eisenstein, told us he is not aware of any cases of autism in never-vaccinated children; the national rate is 1 in 175, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. “We have a fairly large practice,” Eisenstein told us. “We have about 30,000 or 35,000 children that we’ve taken care of over the years, and I don’t think we have a single case of autism in children delivered by us who never received vaccines. “We do have enough of a sample,” Eisenstein said. “The numbers are too large to not see it. We would absolutely know. We’re all family doctors. If I have a child with autism come in, there’s no communication. It’s frightening. You can’t touch them. It’s not something that anyone would miss.”

    Never-Vaccinated Children
    From Alan Cantwell MD
    From Philip Rudnick PhD

    Dear Drs. Eisenstein and Bradstreet:


    In Chicago, Homefirst Medical Services treats thousands of never- vaccinated children whose parents received exemptions through Illinois’ relatively permissive immunization policy. Homefirst’s medical director, Dr. Mayer Eisenstein, told us he is not aware of any cases of autism in never-vaccinated children; the national rate is 1 in 175, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. “We have a fairly large practice,” Eisenstein told us. “We have about 30,000 or 35,000 children that we’ve taken care of over the years, and I don’t think we have a single case of autism in children delivered by us who never received vaccines. “We do have enough of a sample,” Eisenstein said. “The numbers are too large to not see it. We would absolutely know. We’re all family doctors. If I have a child with autism come in, there’s no communication. It’s frightening. You can’t touch them. It’s not something that anyone would miss.”

    Autism, mercury, and politics
    By Robert Kennedy Jr. | July 1, 2005
    MOUNTING EVIDENCE suggests that Thimerosal, a mercury-based preservative in children’s vaccines, may be responsible for the exponential growth of autism, attention deficit disorder, speech delays, and other childhood neurological disorders now epidemic in the United States.

    Why should we trust manicas who put mercury in vaccines which are then injected into babies? We shouldn’t, but I guess Joseph Mengele would be proud of them.

  • This from Radio New Zealand reveals the real problem – ignorance…

    MPs have heard that the suggested link between autism and immunisations has been discredited – though many parents are unaware that’s the case.

    The Health Select Committee is holding an inquiry into improving completion rates of childhood immunisation.

    Victoria University health researcher Hilary Stace says the notion that the Measles-Mumps-Rubella (MMR) vaccine caused autism was suggested by Dr Andrew Wakefield in the medical journal The Lancet.

    But she told the committee Britain’s General Medical Council found his work unethical and unscientific, and the article has since been retracted.

    Hilary Stace says a campaign needs to be launched to improve immunisation rates and to rebuild trust in the MMR vaccine.

  • Many parents are IMO rightly wary about the about MMR vaccine’s link to autism. Personally, I feel that MMR stands for Monumental Mistake & Rip-Off. In Switzerland, 500 (pro-vaccination!) medical doctors formed an organisation to oppose the MMR vaccine when it was introduced over there, on the grounds that combining 3 live viruses in one shot posed too great a risk for children. The huge rise in neurological disorders that followed shows that these doctors’ concerns were well justified. Only brain-washed health professionals and parents who have blind faith in the medical system still believe that there is no link. The rest of us have long realised that injecting known neuro-toxins such as mercury, aluminium and foreign protein into babies and children (or anyone else for that matter) is sheer madness, of the sort only psychopathic maniacs would advocate and perpetrate.

    A week ago, some friends and I made oral submissions to the Committe of “Inquiry into how to improve completion rates of childhood immunisation”, in Auckland. The doctors and politicians the committee was composed of got quite an earful. I think we made quite an impact. My friend Jon, who’s the editor of UNCENSORED magazine, started his presentation by saying words to this effect):

    “I want to challenge the presupposition that vaccination rates be increased and propose that what we SHOULD be doing instead is to phase out vaccinations as quickly as possible!”

    Whether the reality adjustment we administered will have an effect remains to be seen, though I doubt that it will. Some people are just too far gone to see the light, but one could see that some of the committee members’ brain cells were really ticking over when they watched infectious diseases graphs and photos of vaccine-injured children some of us had brought along, as these showed very clearly that vaccines are neither safe nor effective.

  • HHS Sec Sebelius: Resign or Be Impeached!

    When an Agency Fails The Responsible Officer Should Resign or Be Removed.

    Tell Decision Makers: Kathleen Sebelius,
    Secretary of HHS, Should Resign or Be Impeached!

    The Secretary of HHS, Kathleen Sebelius, runs a failed federal bureacracy that is about to compound the harm it does by taking over all healthcare. Congress’s answer to Dr. Ron Paul’s criticism of “power abusers…” is to give the agencies under Sec. Sebelius more power to abuse!
    And the HHS Secretary likes that just fine. In fact, she thinks we should all just line-up, shut-up and take our shots!

    Here is what she told Readers Digest earlier this year (2010):

    “There are groups out there that insist that vaccines are responsible for a variety of problems, despite all scientific evidence to the contrary. We (the office of Secretary of Health and Human Services) have reached out to media outlets to try to get them not to give the views of these people equal weight in their reporting.”
    Reading between-the-lines, this is a call for blatant censorship. The Secretary is telling us that the parents of children who have been harmed by vaccination don’t count. The injured children, in their tens of thousands, don’t count. Human needs and rights don’t count.

    I say, ditch the nasty b****!

  • Erwin, perhaps you could cite a reputable reference that states the 500 Swiss doctors oppose vaccination. I don’t know why you refer to them as pro-vaccination if they oppose the MMR vaccination perhaps you could elaborate?
    Alison has already clearly pointed out the errors in using a “neurotoxic” argument to oppose vaccines, perhaps you should read her posting – particularly with regards to the presence of aluminium in other sources including IV solutions.
    Your posts continue to make derogatory remarks about people, “psychopathic maniacs” seems to be a favourite, though you seem to have upped the ante with “ditch the nasty b*****!” It’s a pity when insults replace rational debate.

  • Bad luck about the camera battery Erwin. That’s a very odd angle by the way. Were you lying on the floor?
    Anyway, I’m glad the committee was nice to you and let you have your say. It’s probably quite helpful for them to see the sorts of issues they’re up against. I would suggest however that their expressions were probably more of the gob-smacked variety, than that you were ‘making an impact.’ The bizarre claims of those who campaign against vaccines are often astounding to people who think critically. I know I was stunned when I first looked at anti-vax sites but these days I’m very well used to the sweeping claims of alleged conspiracies! The committee consists of some very good and learned people. I for one am very glad to see this initiative and wish them every success in improving vaccination rates in New Zealand.

  • Hi there everyone. Just a quick admin-type note…

    Could we try keep the tone clean? No name calling (on either side), please. No, I’m not pointing fingers, and I don’t want to get into ‘but HE/SHE said’ debate.

    Thanks! I’m sure you’ll agree it makes things easier 🙂

  • As an aside to comments above:

    The MMR vaccine doesn’t have any “mercury”, and never did. Furthermore, exactly what the compound is matters as different compounds have different toxicities (as I explained a long time ago in this thread). Thimerosal is the compound the people refer to; it is not elemental mercury.

    I’ve written a previous article (“Autistic children and blood mercury levels”) covering a research study determining where mercury in our bodies is usually from, that compares autistic and non-austistic people:

    Further to Alison’s point about aluminium in IV solutions, I’ve pointed out some time ago in this thread the truly small amount of aluminium involved (the amount determines if something is toxic or not). Contrary to what someone else wrote our bodies do in fact naturally have aluminium in them, quite a bit more than found in the vaccines.

    We all have lots of “foreign” protein in us. It’s called food.

    More seriously, the small pieces of protein in the vaccines are fragments of the larger proteins that are part of the natural viruses.

    These proteins are not what hurts you. It the whole living virus that infects you. (If I find time over the weekend and anyone thinks it worthwhile I may write a simplified account of why there are viral protein fragments in vaccines.)

    A viral infection makes a huge amount of the virus proteins. If these proteins were as toxic as some make out, every winter when the ‘flu or other viral infections come around we would have many, many people seriously ill or dying from toxic effects. That doesn’t happen. (They do get ill from viral infection.)

  • October 28, 2009 (Baltimore, Maryland) — Investigators are reporting a case of motor neuron disease after immunization with the quadrivalent vaccine Gardasil. The Merck product is designed to prevent infection with several types of human papillomavirus.

    Presenting here at the 134th annual meeting of the American Neurological Association, researchers describe a case of rapidly progressive disease leading to the death of a 14-year-old girl.

    Symptoms began 2 months after the last dose of Gardasil.

    “Pathological features support the temporal association of the clinical presentation and vaccination and provides supporting evidence that immune-mediated reactions to the nervous system are potential risks after Gardasil vaccination,” Catherine Lomen-Hoerth, MD, director of the Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis Center at the University of California–San Francisco, told the meeting.

    “Our patient received 3 doses of Gardasil with symptom onset 2 months after her last dose,” the poster presenters wrote. “Despite treatment with aggressive immunosuppression, her weakness relentlessly progressed and she died of respiratory failure 21 months after the onset of her weakness.”

    Postmortem evaluations revealed widespread infiltrates of T lymphocytes and macrophages in the grey and white matter at all levels of the spinal cord. Researchers also report extensive demyelination and severe loss of motor neurons.

    In September, investigators presenting at the European Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis annual meeting reported cases of autoimmune disorders after immunization with Gardasil.

    Two groups presented at the meeting — one identified a case of multiple sclerosis after vaccination and the second a case of neuromyelitis optica.

    Other Reports of Autoimmune Disorders

    Presenter Maria Bouktsi from the Interbalkan European Medical Center in Thessaloniki, Greece, told Medscape Neurology that her team is questioning whether the immuno-stimulatory properties of the human papillomavirus–like particles of the vaccine are triggering adverse effects in vulnerable patients.

    It is the same question that researchers asked in a recent issue of Multiple Sclerosis (2009;15:116–119). Ian Sutton, MD, from St. Vincent’s Hospital in New South Wales, Australia, and his team reported 5 cases of multiple sclerosis after vaccination with the drug. The group reported in January that patients presented with multifocal or atypical demyelinating syndromes within 21 days of immunization.

  • “Journal reports teenager nearly blinded following vaccination against HPV virus”
    • A 16-year-old girl developed near complete visual loss after being immunized against human papilloma virus (HPV), according to a case report published in the March issue of the Journal of Child Neurology.
    • Report authors Mirna Hajjar, MD, a neurologist, Thomas Ciesielski, MD, a pathologist, both of Hartford Hospital in Hartford, Conn., and pediatrician Francis DiMario, Jr., MD, with Connecticut Children’s Medical Center, described the injury as chiasmal neuritis (inflammed nerves) with a tumefactive (swollen) demyelinating lesion that were observed through brain biopsy and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI).
    • The vision loss occurred about 10 days after the girl had received the second of three courses of the Gardasil vaccine.
    • “It is tempting to speculate whether there may be a specific immune mechanism initiated with human papilloma virus not yet identified, which resulted in not only acute demyelinating encephalomyelitis but also in an unusual clinical course that resulted in persistent visual loss.”
    • The authors noted four other cases showing an association between central nervous system demyelination and the HPV vaccine have been published and that larger epidemiologic studies are needed to confirm HPV virus immunization plays a role in demyelinating disease.

  • Haven’t time to clarify properly, but I’d point out “investigating” something or there being a possibly, doesn’t mean the vaccine is a fault, just that there is a possibility (which might prove a long shot once the investigation is complete). Basically you can’t call the outcome ahead of investigation, any more than you can insist that the person walking in front of the house that got robbed “must” be the robber (see my earlier comment). With that in mind it’s worth noting that the final sentence in the first report you talk about, which you don’t quote, reads:

    “Investigators have not established a causal relationship, but they are asking clinicians to closely monitor patients for any emerging side effects.”

  • CSL consumer Gardasil product information regarding Gardasil that a link between receipt of the vaccine and GBS is noted.

    Page 16:
    Post-marketing Reports
    The following adverse experiences have been spontaneously reported during post-approval
    use of GARDASIL. Because these experiences were reported voluntarily from a population
    of uncertain size, it is not possible to reliably estimate their frequency or to establish a causal
    relationship to vaccine exposure.
    Blood and lymphatic system disorders: idiopathic thrombocytopenic purpura,
    Nervous system disorders: acute disseminated encephalomyelitis, dizziness, Guillain-Barré
    syndrome, headache, syncope sometimes accompanied by tonic-clonic movements.
    Gastrointestinal disorders: nausea, vomiting.
    Musculoskeletal and connective tissue disorders: arthralgia, myalgia
    General disorders and administration site conditions; asthenia, chills, fatigue, malaise.
    Immune system disorders: Hypersensitivity reactions including anaphylactic/anaphylactoid
    reactions, bronchospasm, and urticaria.

  • Because these experiences were reported voluntarily from a population
    of uncertain size, it is not possible to reliably estimate their frequency or to establish a causal
    relationship to vaccine exposure.

    In other words, correlation does not necessarily equal causation…

  • Per Diane Harper “principal investigator” for clinical vaccine trials for Merck (Gardasil) and GlaxoSmithKline (Cervarix) :
    The Harms of HPV Vaccination:

    â– Duration of efficacy is key to the entire question. If duration is at least fifteen years, then vaccinating 11-year-old girls will protect them until they are 26 and will prevent some precancers, but postpone most cancers. If duration of efficacy is less than fifteen years, then no cancers are prevented, only postponed.
    â– Safety: There is at least one verified case of auto-immune initiated motor neuron disease declared triggered by Gardasil [presented by neurologists at the 2009 American Neurological Association meeting in Baltimore, Maryland). There are serious adverse events, including death, associated with Gardasil use.
    â– No population benefit in reduction of cervical cancer incidence in the United States with HPV vaccination as long as screening continues.
    â– Incidence rate of cervical cancer in the United States based on screening is 7/100,000 women per year.
    â– Incidence rate of cervical cancer if women are only vaccinated with Gardasil is 14/100,000 per year (twice the rate of cervical cancer if young women vaccinated with Gardasil do not seek Pap testing at 21 years and the rest of their life).
    ■Incidence rate of cervical cancer with Cervarix vaccination is 9/100,000 per year– better than with Gardasil, but still more than with screening alone.
    â– Incidence of cervical cancer without screening and without vaccination is nearly 90/100,000 per year. The combination of HPV vaccine and screening in the U.S. will not decrease the incidence of cervical cancer to any measurable degree at the population level. Those women who do not participate in Pap screening, and who are vaccinated, will have some personal benefit for five years for Gardasil and 7.4 years for Cervarix (maybe longer), but they will not affect the population rates.

    There is at least one verified case of auto-immune initiated motor neuron disease declared triggered by Gardasil [presented by neurologists at the 2009 American Neurological Association meeting in Baltimore, Maryland). There are serious adverse events, including death, associated with Gardasil use.

    Has the original Gardasil marketing campaign of “one less” muddied the waters and misinformed the public, who heretofore believed that a Pap smear was sufficient to protect them from cervical cancer?

    “If women were participating in Pap screening, or if as a parent you educated your daughter to seek Pap screening at the appropriate age (21 years) for her entire life, then she would have been very unlikely to be at risk for being “one” and would not be “one less”. She would not have been “one” to begin with!

    Yes, the marketing campaign was designed to incite the greatest fear possible in parents, so that there would be uptake of the vaccine. If parents and girls were told the benefits and harms of Pap screening and HPV vaccines as described above, an informed and valued decision would have been able to be made. Many may have chosen to continue with a lifetime of Pap screening and forgo the vaccines, with the unknowns of duration of efficacy and safety unable to be answered for many more years.”

    Are the protocols of the CDC and VAERS (Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System) properly processing reports of adverse reactions and deaths due to the vaccine? What do you see as the weak link in the VAERS system of collecting data?

    “VAERS (aka CARM) is biased in both directions, not allowing any veritable conclusions to be drawn about vaccine safety. If an association with an adverse event is detected statistically, there is not enough information collected in VAERS to determine causation, which is a multi-step process. Likewise, if no association with an adverse event is detected statistically, there is not enough information to reassure the public that no serious adverse events occur. With our new health care reform, we need to budget money to collect true registries of vaccinated individuals and what happens to them after vaccination so that appropriate conclusions can be drawn.”

  • Q & A con’t with Diane Harper Principal Investigator for clinical vaccine trials for Merck (Gardasil) and GlaxoSmithKline (Cervarix) :

    Q: Should there be an informed consent/full disclosure statement that doctors are compelled to deliver to parents before advising them about giving the injection to their daughters, stating that there are small but real risks of death surrounding the administration of Gardasil?

    DH: “The informed consent/full disclosure as I described initially must be disclosed to parents and young women. The questions should be raised, ‘How do you want to prevent cervical cancer? Pap screening? Vaccination? Both?”

    Q: Do you think that those who have received the HPV vaccine will become lax with getting their Pap smears, ultimately leading to a greater rate of cervical cancer within the United States population?

    DH: “No one wants the incidence of cervical cancer to increase. But, there is a problem with women’s’ understanding of what Gardasil offered them. Many vaccinated women have returned to me in clinic with more abnormal Pap tests and more HPV disease. They are tremendously disappointed when told that Gardasil does not protect against all types of HPV, and that they are still at risk for cervical cancer.

    In answer to your question, Yes. Finland has shown us that even a lack of screening for five years, resulting in less than 70% of the population being screened, is enough to increase the population incidence rate of cervical cancer. Yes, there is a real risk that cervical cancer will increase in the U.S. if those women getting Gardasil do not realize that:

    â– Gardasil will not protect them for life
    â– They can get other HPV infections that lead to cancer that are not covered by Gardasil
    ■They need to continue to have Pap tests throughout their lifetime”
    Recent reports state that Gardasil may have triggered MS (Multiple Sclerosis) in some girls receiving the vaccine. What are your thoughts on this?

    “Neurologists at the American Neurological Association have indeed concluded that Gardasil is temporally associated with autoimmune attacks on the neurologic system. The range of neurologic disorders is unknown.”

  • cassiopaea, you have located quite a bit of information associated with the Gardasil vaccine, which is a good start in science – locating information from which to form an opinion/hypothesis. The next steps would be to consider the validity/reliability of the information and then try and develop an overall picture.
    One of your sources suggests that gardasil may cause autoimmune disease such as GBS. The link between GBS and vaccines is very weak. A good discussion of it can be found at
    While I’m usually wary of wikipedia as a source, this entry seems well researched and referenced.
    Even assuming that a vaccine did cause GBS in 1 in 1,000,000 cases, you still would need to weigh the benefits of vaccination against the rare occurrence of GBS. While some posters on here have suggested that vaccines are worthless the scientific evidence, and our history of having virtually eradicated many dangerous infections proves otherwise.
    Also the statement by the American Neurological Association notes that there is a temporal association (i.e. association in time) with auto immune attacks. Again this correlation in terms of time does not automatically mean causation.
    My interpretation of the information in your last two posts is not that the Gardasil vaccine is ineffective or unnecessary but that it needs to be accompanied by a clear explanation of its purpose and limitations and continued use of screening. However some of the points don’t make sense to me. Even if the gardasil vaccine were only effective for five years, it still offers protection for those 5 years.

  • “Recent reports state that Gardasil may have triggered MS (Multiple Sclerosis) in some girls receiving the vaccine. What are your thoughts on this?”

    Cassiopaea, multiple sclerosis is one of those diseases that continues to challenge scientists in terms of understanding what causes it. From what I have read it has been suggested that it may result from a combination of genetic and/or environmental factors, including exposure to infectious disease. The hypothesis that it could be linked to vaccines has been considered but the most studies show no association (
    Also don’t forget that disease onset of multiple sclerosis often occurs in young adults and it is more prevalent in females, so one would expect statistically that some cases would occur at a similar time that young women receive the Gardasil vaccine. So this would indeed be a temporal relationship, but not a case of cause and effect.
    And I think your points about vaccine manufacturers marketing them quite aggressively and using fear are valid ones. The pharmaceutical industry is not immune from using the same marketing tools that sellers of cars, make up and fad fitness equipment use. However, this doesn’t automatically mean that their product is suspect. Personally I loathe all types of manipulative advertising and I often wonder if decades of exposure to dubious advertising practices has contributed to a decline in rational thinking in society as whole.

  • drmike, you say “I often wonder if decades of exposure to dubious advertising practices has contributed to a decline in rational thinking in society as whole.” You can stop wondering: it has – vaccination propaganda especially, although people are waking up.

    Scientists are unfortunately mentally challenged in regard to many things even most high school students would be able to figure out. In France, 50000 parents took their government to court because their children had suffered MS-like illnesses after they were given the hep B jab, yet medical experts ruled that it was unrelated to this genetically engineered vaccine. Sure.

    When babies die after they have been vaccinated, scientists scratch their heads and say it must be SIDS; when children become autistic after vaccination they wonder what causes it, except that vaccinations enjoy immunity from being considered a possible cause, and when young women die after Gardasil, it’s a complete and utter mystery to them what caused it.

    When German children became mentally retarded from the useless and barbaric smallpox vaccine, doctors told their parents that they must have syphilis in the family and when Germany finally decided to abolish smallpox vaccination in 1983, there was a remarkable, “inexplicable” drop in the number of brain-damaged children admitted to institutions for the mentally handicapped. You get the picture.

    To deflect attention from vaccines as the most likely cause of autism, we are now told that “It must be in the genes!” Right! I wonder when medical science will discover the gene tha causes so many doctors and medical scientists to suffer from what appears to be congenital blindness, but which IMO is more likely to be the result of the insidious brain-washing they were sujected to at medical school.

  • People who get their daughers injected with Gardasil are IMO ignorant, not to say negligent. I say this because – obviously – mothers need to investigate Gardasil PRIOR to giving consent for their daughters being injected with Merck’s disgusting vaccine, as investigating it AFTER their daughters have been crippled or killed will obviously fail to protect them from harm.

  • B.C. to dump $20M in swine flu vaccine
    Last Updated: Wednesday, April 21, 2010 | 10:00 PM ET Comments90
    CBC News

    Read more:
    The B.C. government hopes to recover at least part of the $20-million cost of swine flu vaccine it has to dump because the serum is unexpectedly spoiling far in advance of its best-before date.
    The province is stuck with about 2.5 million doses of the vaccine, which were supposed to be good for 18 months, but have turned out to have only a six-month shelf life.
    B.C. is among several health jurisdictions across the country left with the unusable medicine, and has joined other provinces in talks with manufacturer GlaxoSmithKline about recovering some of the cost.

    How revolting! The history of vaccination is really just one disgusting event after another – or an over 200-year-long series of scandals and disasters. One has to give it to them: the people who have managed to portray these endless fiascos as triumphs of medical science (such as the supposed “eradication” of smallpox and the “victory” over polio) are truly masters of spin!

  • Just to correct Alber’s autism-related claims for others:

    when children become autistic after vaccination they wonder what causes it, except that vaccinations enjoy immunity from being considered a possible cause

    False, vaccines have already been examined as cause; there is a considerable evidence showing there is no substantial link between the two.

    To deflect attention from vaccines as the most likely cause of autism, we are now told that “It must be in the genes!”

    False, autism was known to mainly genetic before the anti-vaccine movement tried to link “vaccine” issues to autism as a way of hyping their anti-vaccine cause.

    It is a pity and a waste of resources that parents and research have been caught up in this.

    Unlike Alber, scientists’ statements are constrained by evidence, not wishful thinking or paranoia. (I use the latter word in the clinical sense.)

  • The relevant line here Cassiopaea, is: that ‘it is not possible to reliably estimate their frequency or to establish a causal relationship to vaccine exposure’.
    People have explained the distinction between correlation and causation very well on here a number of times. You should be able to find their posts if you scroll back.

  • […] mainstream medicine. Over on SciBlogs, for example, a local anti-vaccination advocate was quoted in the comments thread for an article on vaccination that the sooner New Zealand drops all vaccinations, the better. In support of their views that […]

  • And those with a genuine interest on what is in vaccines (as opposed to the wilder claims being made here) might like to read this post from ERV: – basically a group of researchers did DNA analysis on most of the main vaccines, looking for evidence of contamination from other sources (monkey tissue, foetal tissue, etc etc). The result: modern vaccines are clean.

  • Alison, you say that vaccines are clean.

    Oh, really?

    I suggest you verify your facts before you promote such complete and utter rubbish.

    E.g. check out this link and video:

    Vaccine Contamination: Pig Virus DNA Found in Rotarix

    Posted: 4/7/2010 2:17:52 AM

    I’m not surprised; modern vaccines are like those of earlier times absolute filth.

    At one of her lectures I attended, Dr Eva Snead MD stated: “Vaccines may look clean and sterile when they come out of their package, but that’s very deceptive. The contents of vaccines are of a similar order of cleanliness as the stuff one can scrape off from under the inside rim of one’s toilet.”

    I believe it.

  • Concerns mount over child flu vaccine

    ABC April 23, 2010, 8:12 pm

    A West Australian woman says her three children had convulsions and vomiting after receiving the vaccine.

    She says it was a frightening experience.

    “We got home and they were all fine, no symptoms at all, asked the doctor if there would be any, he said there wouldn’t be, and then when I was getting ready for bed Olivia all of a sudden went purple from head to toe and just started shaking uncontrollably.”
    Calls for calm amid flu jab scare

    ABC April 24, 2010, 1:10 pm

    Police investigate girl’s death after flu vaccine

    ABC April 25, 2010, 10:46 am

    One doctor is quoted saying that he hopes it won’t affect immunisation rates.

    I don’t. I hope their vaccination rates go down the proverbial toilet – along with the last remnants of public confidence in vaccination programmes, as parents realise what a despicable and dangerous scam has been inflicted on them for so long – too long!

  • Thank you for that link Alison. It certainly puts paid to Erwin’s outlandish claims doesn’t it?

  • Oh come on, Erwin, on a science blog you need to present evidence. Where, exactly, is the evidence that vaccines are of the same order of (un)cleanliness as what you’d get from under the rim of the loo? They’re made in sterile conditions, they do NOT contain bacterial/faecal contamination – which is pretty much what your scare quote is intended to suggest (if they did then the study I linked to would have found it). And if a batch is ‘contaminated’, it’s picked up by scientists & they look at what went wrong & how to prevent it, which is what happened in this case.(The presenter of the video you link to is Barbara Loe Fisher – interested persons might like to check out her anti-vax activities & claims – here, for example: This is not a credible scientific source of information to back up your claims.)

  • Regarding the post about India suspending its HPV immunisation programme, readers of this blog will be interested to know that the Indian Medical Research Council has confirmed that no deaths have been linked to the vaccine. The reported causes of death include snake bite, drowning, malaria, poisioning and viral infection. The inquiry that has been set up is to look into alleged breaches of guidelines and to respond to concerns expressed by opposition political parties. For those interested, the international NGO that ran the Indian HPV immunisation programme, PATH, has recently posted a statement on its website.

  • Alison, you stated that MODERN VACCINES ARE CLEAN, yet the FDA has just withdrawn a vaccine because a pig virus was detected in it. So, does this fit with your claim that modern vaccines are clean? It obviously doesn’t.

    The MMR is contaminated with viral matter from avian viruses from the chicken flocks the eggs used to grow the measles virus on came from.

    Nobody knew that the polio vaccine was contaminated with numerous monkey viruses until it was discovered.

    Nobody knew that avain virus matter was in the MMR vaccine until it was discovered.

    Nobody realised that there was pig virus in the Rotarix vaccine until was discovered.

    QUESTION: What else is in vaccines that hasn’t been discovered yet, because it is not known what exactly is in vaccines?

    QUESTION: How does one look for something one doesn’t know is there, and consequently doesn’t know what to look for?

    QUESTION: Millions of children have been and are being injected with modern vaccines which are contaminated, or which cannot be ascertained to be clean, so how can you claim that they ARE clean?
    You can’t – or if you do, it’s an obvious lie.

    QUESTION: What does that make you? To be kind, one could just call you ignorant.

    I suggest you read “Fear of the Invisible” by Janine Roberts.

    She says:

    “…top government scientists report alarmingly, at meetings between scientists, that it is impossible to purify vaccines. They stated that the childhood vaccines of today are contaminated with viruses from chickens, humans and monkeys, with RNA and DNA fragments, with “cellular degradation products,” and possibly “oncogenes and prions.”

    This part of my book – particularly a chapter called ‘The impure nature of vaccines” draws heavily on official (but previously unseen ) transcripts of meetings between top UK and USA vaccine scientists… it is shocking to hear how they talk when no journalists are around. I had always imagined that vaccines were made of viruses put into a sterile fluid – with a few other chemicals added as preservatives – like mercury… and thought this was what one had to worry about…

    Well – this is untrue… the liquid used is not sterile – it is the fluid in which the viruses are drawn out of the incubator of animal, human or chicken cells… it cannot be filtered as that would remove the viruses wanted in it… so everything of the same size or smaller remains in the vaccines. These scientists all expressed grave concerns…. one of them said that if the Greens in the UK knew what they were saying, they would demand the immediate withdrawal of all vaccines! I discovered one manufacturer of MMR says the vaccine is full of cellular degradation products they cannot remove… I cite also authorities saying the manufactures cannot meet the government purity standards – even after they lowered them by a hundred times…”

    And so on.

    I hope that you get MY point, rather than having the point of a vaccine needle rammed into your anatomy, but it’s up to you of course.

  • I am invoking Scopie’s Law. Your sources are rabid anti-vaccination authors and websites Erwin. They have no credibility. This sweeping, florid rhetoric is clearly designed to frighten impressionable people and stop them from vaccinating. As Alison pointed out above, this is a SCIENCE forum.

  • If Alison – or anyone else for that matter – claims that vaccines are clean, they are quite obviously deluded or liars, and if nobody on this forum challenges this claim that vaccines are clean, it’s obviously not a science forum, but a pseudo-science forum where everyone pats each other on the back and pisses in each other’s pocket.

  • Erwin, we’ve said again & again, is NOT a credible source. If you can’t find the scientific sources to back up your claims then they lack any validity. After all, if scientists really are saying the things your sources claim, then they’d be publishing those things somewhere.

  • mythbuster,

    I cited that earlier, although by text rather than name. I think I also omitted the standard “addition” of being laughed out of the room.

    I think that the standard of Janine Roberts’s science can be judged from her claim on her website that “Barbara McClintock[, who] won a Nobel Prize for finding that cells operate with intelligence”.

    Hello? Her Nobel Prize was for discovering transpositions (in plants), which has nothing much to do with a supposed “cellular intelligence”. As the Nobel citations are given on the Nobel website, a journalist (as she claims to be, I wouldn’t know) shouldn’t get that wrong.

  • Alison, hello: You claimed that vaccines are “clean”, either completely ignoring – or completely ignorant of the fact that a pig virus (!) has just been found in a vaccine, causing the FDA to suspend its use (quite extraordinary really, as the FDA is not exactly known to be concerned about the public’s health).

    Then YOU TELL ME that whale is an unreliable source of information!!!

    Instead of taking issue with the contents of the information whale provides, by explaining what part you disagree with, whale is conveniently branded as an “unreliable source. “Shoot the messenger and ignore the message” is one of the oldest smear tactics around.

    I’m still waiting for your explanation why modern vaccines contaminated with avian and porcine viruses are “clean”. I won’t let you wheedle/weasel your way out of that one!

    “Clean” is in any case a very misleading term. In the sense you use it, it presumably means “free of contaminants.”

    Vaccines are however neither “clean” in that sense of the word, nor any other. Can viral vaccines such as the MMR, which contain live viruses, really be considered “clean”?

    What about the particles of chick embryo, monkey kidney and aborted human foetus tissue in vaccines?

    Frankly, I would rather lick the underneath of the inside rim of a toilet than have any of these filthy, disgusting vaccines injected into my body! But if YOU don’t mind being an incubation chamber for the establishment’s latest civilian style biowarfare agents, go for it girl! 🙂

  • Lynn, you said: “Regarding the post about India suspending its HPV immunisation programme, readers of this blog will be interested to know that the Indian Medical Research Council has confirmed that no deaths have been linked to the vaccine. The reported causes of death include snake bite, drowning, malaria, poisioning and viral infection.”

    India is a huge market for Gardasil and other vaccines, so the medical mafia will of course do and blame anything to deflect public attention from Gardasil as the most obvious cause for the deaths of these girls or women. The same is also true in the USA, New Zealand and other countries, and of course also applies to the vaccination link to autism.

    In the days of smallpox vaccination, dcotors told parents whose children were brain-damaged by the vaccine that they must have syphilis running in the family. A more modern version is telling parents whose children’s development regressed after vaccination “It must be in your genes.”

    The fact that the doctor who vaccinated a child against H1N1 who died the next day didn’t even report the child’s death shows what parents and the public in general are up aganst: a conspiracy of silence misleadingly referred to as “medical science.”

    Never mind; as Lincoln put it, one can’t fool all the people all the time. Increasing numbers of people are waking up to the horrendous deception that has been and is being inflicted on them. As I’ve said earlier, the sooner vaccination rates drop to zero and go down the toilet along with the last remaining shreds of public confidence in vaccination programmes, the better.

  • Grant, criticism of Janine Roberts for supposedly getting a detail wrong is IMO a bit rich, coming from people who claim that vaccines are “clean” – in total disregard of all evidence to the contrary!

    Or would you perhaps care to disassociate yourself from Alison’s ridiculous claim?

  • OK, Erwin, you seem to have missed the point of my earlier post – the one to a review of research demonstrating that the vaccines tested were clean. (Did you even read it?) The researchers were specifically looking for contamination – they were looking for DNA evidence that would demonstrate the presence of viral/bacterial/animal remains in the vaccines that they tested. Their conclusion – based on cold, hard, data – was that the vaccines were clean.
    And on your answer to Linn – there is no vaccine link to autism. You claimed earlier that there had been no comparisons between vaccinated & unvaccinated populations in regard to the frequency of autism in those populations. I provided you with a link showing that this research again exists, research which found no correlation (& a slightly higher incidience of autism in the non-vaccinated population).
    In other words, contrary to your assertions, the scientific community can and does look into these issues. And bases its conclusions on data, not unfounded speculation.

  • Erwin,

    criticism of Janine Roberts for supposedly getting a detail wrong is IMO a bit rich

    What is “a bit rich” is that a journalist (as she calls herself) can’t get something right that is clearly stated for anyone to read. Getting the Nobel citation correct only requires that she read it at face value: no interpretation or real understanding is needed.

    If she can’t get a simple citation right, why should anyone expect her to get something more involved right? Basically, they shouldn’t.

    Sure I only gave a single example, but it’s representative, there is plenty more there that I could present until it’s unavoidably obvious to all and sundry that her work isn’t up to it. Her introduction sidebar alone has enough pseudo-science in it to make the point painfully obvious.

    So, yes, it’s well worth pointing out. It illustrates that her level of “science” is substandard (I’m being polite) and that she doesn’t check if what she writes is correct.

    With that in mind what is also “a bit rich” is for you to suggest that someone is ignorant then offer Ms. Roberts work as substantive. To me this shows that you are unable to distinguish what is substantive and what is not.

    Or would you perhaps care to disassociate yourself from Alison’s ridiculous claim?

    Her claim is fine and I’m not “associated” with it, whatever you are trying to imply with that.

    I read the article before Alison posted it here so my conclusions were formed independently of her writing here.

    On a more general note:

    Dismissing what others present with empty conspiracy theory claims (as you do to Linn) amounts to wishing away what doesn’t suit you. While it is clear that the evidence does not suit you, evoking a consp

    Likewise, I notice you spend a lot of time trying to smear other people.

    These suggest you basically have nothing to offer in the end but insults and empty conspiracies (or perhaps are suffering from paranoia).

    This is a science forum. If you can’t produce evidence from a reliable source and present it without trying smear people or play silly word games then really you’re not even starting to offer anything.

  • Erwin, Alsion provided a perfectly good reference regarding the “cleanliness’ of vaccines. Yet you continue to ignore it. Also if one vaccine from one company has been shown to contain ONE unexpected substance that doesn’t automatically mean a) that the substance is harmful and b) that all vaccines contain other substances – Alison’s reference quite clearly shows this isn’t the case. If you buy an apple at the supermarket and find a worm in it do you assume all other apples contain a worm as well?
    Also if I read any article and find a glaringly bad error in it , such as someone not understanding what someone’s Nobel prize was for, of course I would wonder about the accuracy of the rest of the article.
    And whaleto ? Seriously I have never seen such a muddle of conspiracy theories all in one place.
    You continue to include insulting language in your posts, which is extremely rude, and recycle the same arguments about autism, vaccines and contaminants despite the fact that they have been debunked by other commentators on here.
    Given that you have stated that you would rather lick the inside rim of a toilet seat than be injected with a vaccine, how about I propose a little experiment. You lick the inside rim of a toilet seat and I will get an influenza vaccination and we will see who is more likely to get ill afterwards.

  • I like this challenge, DrMike! I’ve had my flu vaccine 🙂

  • Hi everyone.

    We’ve decided to close this thread, as it looks like a lot of old ground is being covered. Thanks for your time and comments, though!