iStock_000020036836Large

Pushing Buttons… 85

The moderator apologises for a serious error. I uploaded an older version of this blog which did not include all information. This has now been fixed and again, I apologise to both Epiphany who wrote this blog post and to our readers for not having the correct information here from the word go. MD

I came across a blog the other day called ”Which button would you click?”  In it is the typical pro-vaccine scenario of having to choose between pushing a button that kills 1 out of 1,000 children (the supposed rates of death by disease) while the other button kills 1 out of 1,000,000 children (the supposed rates of death by vaccine reactions).  At the end of the scenario, the question is posed “which one would you click?”

The blogger’s response is “it’s a no brainer”, and in some ways, he is correct. It does take absolutely no brain power to follow the advice of most mainstream medical and scientific professionals, but it does take brain power to actually look at the historical data on mortality rates of supposed vaccine preventable diseases yourself and see whether vaccines really do save lives.

So let’s look at the first button, if we do not vaccinate will 1 out 1,000 children die?

“Experience of the last two centuries indicates that infectious deaths fell to a small fraction of their earlier level without medical intervention, and suggests that had none been available they would have continued to decline, if not so rapidly in some diseases.”

Professor Thomas McKeown in “The Role of Medicine”

If we look at the mortality rates in Australia pre-vaccine for most childhood diseases, you will see that there was already a 90-99% decline before most vaccines were introduced and the same decline in diseases like Typhoid and Scarlet Fever for which no vaccine was ever used in Australia. (please note: the following graphs are taken from the e=book, Fooling Ourselves on the Fundamental Value of Vaccines by Greg Beattie)

How is that possible you ask, if vaccines did not save us from disease what else could it possibly be?

“In the now developed countries, mortality due to tuberculosis, measles, whooping cough, typhoid fever, diarrhoeal diseases and many other infections began to fall long before the responsible microbial agents had been identified and before specific measures of control or treatment were known. This decline – much greater than anything achieved since through the use of vaccination and antimicrobial drugs – paralleled the improvement in general living conditions. Microbes and the diseases caused by them prosper, therefore, only in environmental conditions favourable to them.

Dr Moises Behar said in his report to the World Health.

I have actually asked a vaccine advocate in an online debate before, “What evidence do you have to show what percentage of lives saved historically comes from vaccines, and what percentage of lives saved are from improved living conditions?”. Funnily enough, they had no answer.

Over and over again, we are told that vaccines save lives and unvaccinated people are putting everyone’s lives at risk, but where is the evidence of this?  Now when I say evidence, I don’t mean estimated lives saved based on estimates of vaccine coverage, efficacy, and the population, I mean actual numbers of real people who have been saved from death because of being vaccinated.  The answer – is that there is no evidence, you cannot actually prove that vaccines save lives. You can only prove that it causes the body to produce antibodies to the vaccine virus and bacterial particles, so if vaccines are not proven to save lives, then is it really a “no brainer” to push that second button?

Now let’s look at the second button, do only 1 out 1,000,000 children die from adverse vaccine reactions?

“ The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) states, “VAERS data are limited by underreporting and unknown sensitivity of the reporting system, making it difficult to compare adverse event rates following vaccination reported to VAERS with those from complications following natural disease”

“ Since follow-up is not conducted, it may be argued that some reports may not be attributed to or associated with vaccination and therefore the true rate of adverse events is essentially unknown. Nevertheless, adverse reactions reported in VAERS have typically been shown to be only 5% or 10% of the true rates.”

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR); Prevention of Varicella Updated Recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunisation Practices. May 28, 1999; 48 (RR06): 1-5

 So if the true rate of adverse events is essentially unknown, how can doctors in all honesty say that the rate is 1 in 1,000,000?   Maybe it is just me, but I would think having a true rate of adverse reactions would be a priority, especially when parents are being pushed harder and harder to vaccinate their children and themselves everyday by the government, medical and scientific organisations and the media.

To further demonstrate the supposed catastrophic results that can occur when vaccination rates decline, this blog includes a graph purporting to show that pertussis rates and deaths went up in Japan when the vaccination coverage declined.  What this graph does not include though is that the original reasons for stopping the use of this vaccine was concerns due to 37 infant deaths linked with the DTP vaccine itself! The fact is, pertussis is a cyclical disease that tends to peak every 2 to 5 years.  One very interesting thing to come from this period of time is that when Japan started vaccinating again, they changed the age of vaccination to 2 years old. As a result, something startling happened! Japan jumped from 17th to first place for lowest infant mortality in the world!

This was also seen in England in 1975, when the media reported a link between brain damage and vaccination. Parents stopped vaccinating and the overall infant mortality rate plummeted, but when vaccination rates started increasing again, MacFarlane in 1982 noted;

“The postneonatal mortality fell markedly in 1976, the year in which a sharp decline in perinatal mortality rate began. Between 1976 and 1979, however, neither the late nor the postneonatal mortality rates fell any further. Indeed, the postneonatal mortality rate increased slightly among babies born in 1977″.

A much more telling pertussis graph to include would have to be the one for the whooping cough epidemic here in Australia. It started with over 4,000 cases in 2007; 14,000 cases in 2008; 29,000 cases in 2009; 34,000 cases in 2010; and 38,000 cases in 2011. So obviously, going on the previous graph, there must be low vaccination rates, right? No wait…the vaccination coverage rates for infants under two is 94.9% and the under 5yr rate is 90.7%.  It certainly doesn’t seem like high vaccination rates equal, less whooping cough now does it? ( http://www.medicareaustralia.gov.au/provider/patients/acir/statistics.jsp#N1002D)

In Conclusion:

We have button  number 1 where there is no concrete evidence that vaccines have saved lives. Instead, we are left with fears based on historical rates of disease incidence and death.  We don’t even have any evidence that, were we to stop vaccinating,  diseases would return to the rates we had before living conditions were improved, let alone to seeing 1 in 1,000 die.

With button number 2, the true rates of adverse reactions are essentially unknown. At the very best, a maximum of between 1 and 10% of reactions are reported. (Personal communication with Dr John McEwen, formerly of ADRAC)  So the 1 in 1,000,000 figure for children dying from vaccine reactions is, once again, just a guess.

 So where does this leave us?

Where all concerned parents should be: looking at ALL the information available, weighing the pros and cons and hoping that we make the best possible choice for our families.  Whatever that choice may be, it should always be in the hands of the person or persons taking the risk.

by Epiphany

85 comments

  1. Pingback: Autism, Vaccines & The REAL Australian Sceptics « ________________Child Health Safety_________________

  2. It just struck me how ludicrous debate about vaccination really is, vaccination clearly being a hoax. To me, It’s a bit like arguing about whether the earth is flat or round, or whether hens have teeth. This insanity has been around far too long, and I’m getting weary of seeing children being systematically poisoned and dumbed down by this evil practice.

    As far as I am concerned, EVERY vaccinated child is a vaccine-injured child, even if the harm isn’t obvious. How grown and well-educated men and women can subscribe to such nonsense is a mystery; it seems that there are no limits to human greed and evil on one hand, and gullibility, ignorance and stupidity on the other.

    “Oh foolish man! What can’t you be made to believe?”
    Adam Weishaupt 1748-1830 . .

    • Mrs Dorey, it’s comments like these that are entirely subjective and irrelevant to the subject at hand. The “evils” and “stupidity” of vaccination implies like traits in the people who deliver them, and get them, regardless of how right or wrong they are, and regardless of their actual ethical integrity. Unless you have been able to properly medically observe everyone in the world that has been vaccinated to prove claims that they are all injured, then it is a matter of opinion only. Comments like these are the ones that should have no place on your blog. It is a completely subjective opinion that implies a lot of people are stupid, or ignorant, etc. If you cannot, or choose not, to manage opinions from your supporters here, than like opinions of these people will arise elsewhere, and then you will scream abuse and the cycle will continue. Let’s talk about the science, and its merits, and keep it kosher, instead of resorting to “this is ludicrous and vaccines are evil” etc.

      I highly doubt that anyone that has reason to believe that vaccines are dangerous is stupid. Obviously there is some form of reason or rationalisation required to reach this conclusion, therefore intelligence is implied. The degree of that intelligence, or anyone else’s, is not the topic. I feel no need whatsoever to express what I believe is stupid, because it is irrelevant to the subject at hand. If comments like this persist, Mrs Dorey, this site will lose credibility with rational thinkers.

      • Hi Martin,

        You have most likely read the ground rules for this list. There are several reasons why a comment will not be moderated. Your disapproval does not enter into the decision. There are many, many things that you and others on the anti-choice side have said that I don’t approve of but they have still been moderated. People are entitled to their opinions and if you don’t like reading them, nobody is forcing you to do so. As long as they are not personally attacking another person or using foul language, the comments will be approved.

      • One of those rules talks about respect, Mrs Dorey, but there is no respect in referring to people as idiots. Would it take someone saying “you are an idiot” for it to be a personal attack? If I were to say, “not vaccinating your children is akin to bad parenting,” would such a comment get through? Because that is a personal attack on any parent that chooses not to vaccinate, and I gather that your bias of support for such parents would influence your choice to moderate such a comment or not. A comment such as the following is no different:

        “How grown and well-educated men and women can subscribe to such nonsense is a mystery; it seems that there are no limits to human greed and evil on one hand, and gullibility, ignorance and stupidity on the other.”

        It is a personal attack on anyone that chooses to vaccinate. Whether you see it or not, it is also disrespectful, as is your own terminology “anti-choice.”

        I am not anti-choice, and neither are the people you vindicate as such. Just because we say the choice is a poor one, does not mean we intend to stop you from making it.

        Your confusion of and failure to clarify your own rules for this site is indicative of your own double standards. I suggest that if you wish to be seen as an unbiased moderator, then matters of opinion be equally handled, or rejected.

        I’m happy to ignore posts that are no more than an angry rant and/or a matter of opinion, but when there is evidence that similar posts from the other side are not getting through, then the question is, to whom do your rules apply?

        • Martin complains that the use of the term “The “evils” and “stupidity” of vaccination” is a personal attack on him.

          Yet elsewhere he argues that one should not say about a truly dreadful argument that “it will just not do” but to come up with a better one [and when that was done too]. He demands that people not express their own views about a subject in general [rather than about individuals] and he also objects when perfectly valid observations are made about the arguments set forth by another [not the person]

          Sorry Martin, that will just not do. This is web thought policing and another example of how those who demand all parents vaccinate their children require all of the world to behave as they demand.

          If someone believes that vaccination is evil or stupid they are not attacking you personally Martin. You should come up with a better argument – which is what you have argued elsewhere here.

          These web lawyering efforts by you merely to criticise and attack others and avoid addressing the arguments and issues just will not do.

          What is sadly lacking is good sound evidence that vaccination is safe and effective. So lets see your arguments and evidence on the issues and less of this overpicky and didactic approach to all of those who are not Martin.

      • So-called “rational thinking” is in my opinion what has landed us in this mess in the first place, Martin. When dairy maids in 18th century England appeared to be immune to smallpox, Edward Jenner acted on this by taking the lymph from a cowpox blister on the hand of a dairy maid and applied it to a fresh scratch made to an arm on another person, figuring that this would protect that person against smallpox.

        Incredibly, 200 years later, people still believe that cowpox lymph has eradicated smallpox, in spie of the absence of any evidence to support this claim.

        I find it difficult not to think that people who fall for Nigerian e-mail scams are idiots. Vaccination has however been around a lot longer, yet many if not most people including most doctors still fall for it, not realising that vaccination is a dangerous fraud.

        I used to believe in vaccination as well, until I came across evidence which showed that vaccines are neither safe nor effective. I don’t take kindly to being deceived where my health and well-being is concerned, which is why I can be quite scathing toward people who are still provaccination.

        I however apply the same criterion towards myself in that I readily admit that I was a brainwashed moron prior to my waking up to the fact that vaccination is a public health scam. I now cringe to think that I even got a tetanus booster some 40 years ago – my last one ever, I can assure you!

        • vaccineshurtbabies wrote “I now cringe to think that I even got a tetanus booster some 40 years ago – my last one ever, I can assure you!”

          What? Still alive after 40 years without a tetanus booster. How extraordinary. Must be a medical miracle.

          • Indeed CHS! To top it all, my 39-year-old vaccine-free son is also still alive and kicking!

            Because I now have a growing irrational and delusional fear of vaccination, I am currently considering putting a proviso in my will to say that if I at any time end up in intensive care unable to speak, I am not to be given any vaccinations under any circumstances because I fear I would totally freak out if some needle nut approached me with a tetanus shot or some other vaccine in his hand.

            I am also considering donating my body to medical science, so that they can study what happens to vaccines in the body, which appears to be something they don’t have much of a clue about., as long as they have an adrenaline shot handy in case my dead body suffers an anaphylactic shock. I’ll also put in my will that they are welcome to give me the whole vaccine poisoning schedule posthumously as I have had only two vaccines as a child and only a few more as an adult, when I was still mind-contolled idiot.

      • Martin – there is indeed a difference between fact and opinion. Some of what I say is fact, some of it is opinion. As far as I am aware, commentators on ‘Pushing Buttons’ are free to post both facts and opinions. I have complete trust in readers’ ability to differentiate between the two.

  3. Scarlet Fever
    I was surprised by your comments about scarlet fever, particularly that there have been no deaths for “almost a 100 years”.

    Scarlet fever is a notifiable disease. Here are current reporting forms from two Australian states.

    http://www.public.health.wa.gov.au/cproot/277/2/Health%20Department%20Notification%20Form.pdf
    http://www.health.qld.gov.au/ph/documents/cdb/19682.pdf

    This is an epidemiological study of an outbreak of scarlet fever in a Perth Primary school in 2003.
    http://www.health.gov.au/internet/main/publishing.nsf/content/cda-cdi2904-pdf-cnt.htm/$FILE/cdi2904h.pdf

    Here is a report of the death of a child from scarlet fever during an outbreak in 2010
    http://www.perthnow.com.au/news/scarlet-fever-kills-one-but-more-cases-treated-in-geraldton/story-e6frg12c-1225927971380

    And a recent news report of infection in Palmerston in April 2012
    http://www.ntnews.com.au/article/2012/04/18/299471_ntnews.html

    Scarlet fever and the other clinical manifestations of infection with Streptococcus
    pyogenes Group A (beta haemolyticstreptococci) can also lead to long-term health problems: rheumatic fever and rheumatic heart disease, and glomerulonephritis, causing renal failure. These are significant health concerns for Aboriginal Australians and have led to the search for a vaccine.

    I note that my previous post of seven hours ago about typhoid vaccination is still “awaiting moderation”. I presume there will be no censorship when errors on this blog are corrected.

    • Anne, the database where notifiable diseases is tracked is maintained by the NNDSS and if you look there, you will see that there is nothing for Scarlet Fever. Therefore, it is not a nationally notifiable disease. I hope this link works – this is the list of notifiable diseases according to the NNDSS – http://www9.health.gov.au/cda/source/Rpt_1_sel_A.cfm

      That report about the death from scarlet fever sounds more like a death from medical ignorance. Perhaps that child would not have died if he had been treated promptly. Tragic!

      Also, while I try and be sure to moderate this blog as quickly as possible, it is not the only thing I have to do so please allow a bit more time before posts are moderated. I will not censor any posts which abide by the site’s ground rules.

      • Thank you for the clarification of your comment. Not collected on that database but Scarlet Fever does appear in this report form the Federal Department of Health: Communicable Diseases Intelligence, produced every quarter by Surveillance Section Biosecurity and Disease Control Branch Australian Government Department of Health and Ageing.
        http://www.health.gov.au/internet/main/publishing.nsf/content/cda-cdi2904-pdf-cnt.htm/$FILE/cdi2904.pdf

        …and notifiable at a state level, a symptom of our fragmented health system.

        While thankfully rarer than in the past beta haemolytic strep is still a problem in Aboriginal communities, and the long term consequences of infection cause significant problems of rheumatic heart disease and renal failure. This report makes very sad reading.
        http://www.aihw.gov.au/WorkArea/DownloadAsset.aspx?id=6442453321

        The improvement in health due to modern medical treatment and improved social conditions has meant that many diseases once common have become rare, with a risk of misdiagnosis. An inquest is pending into Sebastian Parman’s tragic death from Scarlet Fever. The missed diagnosis and missed opportunity for antibiotic treatment recalls another recent death of a child in England with the same bug (beta haemolytic strep) who was misdiagnosed as having mumps.

      • That report about the death from scarlet fever sounds more like a death from medical ignorance. Perhaps that child would not have died if he had been treated promptly.

        So the child did not have scarlett fever? You have stated quite matter-of-factly that there have been no (zero) deaths from this disease for many decades, so I assume that you believe that the child had some mystery illness which mimics the exact symptoms of scarlett fever but actually isn’t.

        death from medical ignorance

        So in fact the treating doctors caused this death?

        • Mike – when I said it sounded more like a death from medical ignorance, I meant that the outcome might have been very different had the doctors not sent this child home from hospital twice before he was admitted. And yes, if medical ignorance or negligence were responsible for this child’s death, the treating physicians should be – at the very least – subject to further education in recognising the symptoms of diseases so this tragedy does not occur again. Do you agree?

      • I have replied to your post but the comment remains unmoderated more than 24 hours later. I regret that I can no longer participate in this discussion because the time lag before replies are posted is unacceptable.

        • 24 hours? Well, I understand your impatience but I am just one person doing the best I can. By all means, if 24 hours is too long to wait, do stop your participation in this blg though I hope you will stay.

      • “Death from medical ignorance” – hmmm. Could be a possibility – after all in the 21st Century there remains officially no effective treatment for measles and medics tend to run around with all sorts of medical interventions when they get a case of measles which might not be the wisest for a child with immunity compromised by a measles infection. So why cannot the same apply to other infectious diseases.

        As a matter of interest, how was the diagnosis of scarlet fever confirmed?

      • Dr Coady says “The improvement in health due to modern medical treatment and improved social conditions ….”

        Refreshing to see social conditions being acknowledged as contributing to health. However, by including medical treatment in the same sentence gives no indication of which has contributed the most.

        So just for clarification, when the doctors went on strike for 6 months in Israel the undertakers started complaining that their businesses were dying because their patients were not: Doctors’ strike in Israel may be good for health. BMJ 2000; 320:1561.

        One reason why medical care may increase death rates is the large number of adverse events associated with it. The Australian report mentions a 1995 study of 14,000 hospital admissions. Of those admitted almost 17% suffered an adverse event. One in seven adverse events resulted in a permanent disability and one in 20 of the individuals affected died: Wilson RM, et al. The Quality in Australian Health Care Study. Med J Aust 1995; 163: 458-471.

      • @Meryl

        OK, because without surrounding context, it appears that you want the doctors to be fully blamed for the death, rather than a rare infection. The last sentence I would agree with. But let’s get back to the crux of it: it was a death from Scarlett Fever. While it is indeed uncommon, your contention that nobody dies from it these days is obviously wrong.

        @ChildHealthSafety

        So anything for which there isn’t an effective treatment is a “death from medical ignorance”? So a death from a rare genetic condition is due to medical ignorance? Seriously, ChildHealthSafety? BTW, measles, as you would be well aware, is caused by a virus. Treatment of viruses is problematic. There are lots of great information resources explaining what a virus is, why they can be difficult to treat, why they don’t respond to antibiotics, and so on.

        The diagnosis was probably done like any other scarlett fever diagnosis, I’d suspect. But why don’t you ask them?

        • Mike Mayfield – since we don’t track deaths from scarlet fever nationally and since the death rate from this disease was close to zero in the 1950s, I would say that though there is an occasional death reported to it, we can say that the risk of death is so rare as to be almost non-existent. After all, you are happy to say that deaths from vaccination don’t happen because according to your belief, the risk is 1 in a million. So therefore, the real risk for death from scarlet fever is far lower. Let’s be balanced about how we treat these relative risks.

        • Mike Mayfield says “But let’s get back to the crux of it: it was a death from Scarlett Fever. ”

          How was the diagnosis made? This is a question I have asked before but am not sure anyone has an answer. Is there a link to a report explaining this?

          • Excellent question and another one I wonder about all the time when I hear about these deaths is…even if the child had scarlet fever, was his condition made worse by the treatment he was given in hospital. Several years ago – well, a long time ago – in the mid 1990s – 4 children in NSW died from chicken pox. All 4 of them had been admitted to hospital relatively well – and all 4 were treatment with multiple drugs including antibiotics, bronchodilators, anti-virals and other medications – all together – and all 4 of them went downhill very quickly, Did this children die DESPITE the best efforts of their doctors or BECAUSE of those efforts? We’ll probably never know, but it does beg the question.

            • Thanks australiansceptics but there is something a little bit more fundamental about diagnosis.

              It is inexact, not scientific and judgemental. Roseola, rubella and measles have all been regularly confused with each other. Even today in the UK sometimes family doctors overdiagnose by 74 times measles cases. This is confirmed by serological testing at the Health Protection Agency’s laboratory showing only 1 case for 74 reported ones.

              So was this scarlett fever or what? How was the diagnosis made?

              And if the child died – as you have noted – was that the disease or the treatment or lack thereof?

              Your comments about modern medical interventions are well-taken.

              The last thing with a child with compromised cell-mediated immunity by something like measles is to put the child in an environment full of disease – like an hospital. And then to further compromise the immunity with a panoply of drug and other “treatments” sounds like a recipe for disaster(s).

    • I have been out of Australia 3 times in the last 3 years and I have not been screened. In fact, as I said, the only thing I was EVER screened for was TB when I arrived as an immigrant. And I can find nothing at all about routine screening for either scarlet fever or typhoid in any government website. But I’m not a scientist so what would I know?

  4. Thanks for the great article Meryl!

    Being an ex-English teacher, I noticed a superfluous comma in the following sentence:

    It certainly doesn’t seem like high vaccination rates equal, less whooping cough now does it?

    It has been shown in a number of countries that well-educated parents are less likely to vaccinate their children than people who are less educated. This doesn’t mean that people with less education are less intelligent, but rather that well-educated people generally have better access to information and are thanks to their education in a better position to assess information.

    When it comes to doctors and scientists, their even higher education seems to have a reverse effect in that their natural intelligence is reduced as common sense is educated out of them and replaced with the false ideas society operates on. This explains why leading scientists like Sir Gustav Nossal support vaccination.

    Dr Eva Snead MD used to tell her audiences-informed parent knows more about vaccination than the average doctor.I believe it, because most doctors are unaware that vaccines have never prevented anything, apart from health, sanity and common sense, and are in fact a medical superstition best desribed as an organised criminal enterprise dressed up as disease prevention by means of junk science.

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

    Here are some more graphs which show that vaccines have never saved anyone’s life and had NOTHING whatsoever to do with the remarkable decline in infectious disease mortality rates over the past century:
    http://www.healthsentinel.com/joomla/index.php?option=com_content&view=section&layout=blog&id=8&Itemid=55

    Vaccination is a disaster falsely portrayed as a triumph of medical science. We are misled to believe that vaccines have saved us from deadly epidemics and that we owe our very existence to vaccinations. The truth is that vaccinations and science are now being used to implement a genocidal agenda.

    Human race being terminated by ‘scientific suicide’
    http://www.naturalnews.com/035790_scientific_suicide_humans.html

  5. I have also seen 1 in 100,000 touted as an acceptable level for vaccine injury, but if children are actually being given dozens of vaccines then the casualty rate even on that basis will not be negligible. An account of how a UK committee dealt with adverse reports over many years can be found here:

    http://www.ecomed.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/3-tomljenovic.pdf

    Compensation in the UK has fallen to the discretion of a group of cynical, incompetent bureaucrats who make no awards most years. But the key to this – and what makes it so unacceptable – is that if anything does go wrong you not only have an injured or dead child, you become a social pariah if you want to do anything about it.

    • It’s shocking isn’t it, John? And while the drug companies and doctors are never held accountable for the harm their products and procedures cause, there is no incentive to make them safer.

  6. Incorrect and rather insulting. I am a scientist, I have actually published in the peer reviewed literature. Please don’t insult my intelligence again.

    Now, onto your claims. You say that typhoid vaccinations aren’t recommended, but they are. http://www.public.health.wa.gov.au/2/601/2/typhoid_and_paratyphoid_fact_sheet.pm#G
    http://www.smartraveller.gov.au/tips/top-ten-tips.html

    Typhoid is actually a bacteria spread through fecal contamination of water and food. It is spread through poor hygiene, contamination, person to person contact and flying insects.

    Next point, you cite the old typhoid vaccination types (heat-phenol inactivated) that have been replaced over the past 15 years. You also seem to not understand bacterial control, as no control mechanism is 100% effective, especially when not in a control medium. A meta-analysis of typhoid vaccines found a 73% efficacy, which is reasonable control for the older versions. http://www.bmj.com/content/316/7125/110.full This is especially considering that the vaccines are advised to be used in conjunction with proper sanitary habits.

    Finally, screening occurs at entry into the country. Staff, dogs, origin country, etc, etc are used to target potential problems at customs. If you were coming in from Thailand the checks are different for coming in from the USA. Recent outbreaks in NZ have changed the way they check arrivals from there, including having the cabin crew involved. So your statement there is ill-informed and anecdotal.

    • Oh, a scientist, are you? Well, forgive me for insulting you asking for proof of what you’ve said then – I had no idea of your esteemed status.

      Tyson, you said that Australia screens travellers for scarlet fever and typhoid upon entry into the country. I cannot find anything backing this up. I ask you to prove this and if asking you to prove this is insulting to you as a scientist – well, I guess I’m guilty of insulting you, hey?

      So please provide me with any information stating that travellers are screened for typhoid or scarlet fever upon entry into australia.

      Typhoid is a water-borne illness. It is spread by poor hygiene, failure to wash hands, contact with contaminated faeces and yes, it can sometimes be spread by insects that feed off of infected poo but in Australia, the risk of that happening is slim to nil.

      As for scarlet fever, you are saying that travellers are screened upon entry into Australia but this is not even a reportable disease! So who is screening for these diseases and where is your proof.

      The fact that you are a scientist won’t get you very far here. We require evidence – not appeals to authority.

      • And a strawman straight after an ad homenim.

        You and the other respondent insulted science and scientists, I took offence at that. It was no appeal to authority, it was you being called on an insult.

        Firstly screening occurs. The fact that you haven’t bothered to look for this information is surprising given your claims of it not being an issue. You are promoting something other than the status quo thus the requirement of evidence is upon you. But just to make it easy: http://www.health.gov.au/internet/main/publishing.nsf/content/7E7E9140A3D3A3BCCA257140007AB32B/%24File/stratal3.pdf
        http://www.health.nsw.gov.au/factsheets/infectious/typhoid.html

        Next point, I didn’t mention scarlet fever directly in my rebuttal, I focused on typhoid, as is clear from my only mention of it being in the first line of my first post. Why are you trying to misdirect my arguments?

        Next point, good to know that we don’t have typhoid here. That was never the point. The point was that through vaccination and screening protocols for travellers and immigrants we have managed to keep typhoid out of Australia. It doesn’t take much to cause an outbreak, and that is exactly what you are advocating here.

        • Tyson – have you possibly made a mistake with the links you forwarded? I have read the second which is just a description of typhoid fever and how it is diagnosed. It does not mention screening at airports or other ports of entry. The only thing it says is that people who have travelled with or live with someone who is diagnosed with typhoid fever will be screened for the disease. Did you perhaps not read that carefully enough and all you saw was travel and screened so you assumed that this meant that everyone who travelled would be screened? Don’t be embarrassed – scientists don’t need to be accurate or know how to read – they are scientists and everyone will automatically believe what they say whether it’s right or not.

          The second link…well, I have searched the text for mention of either typhoid or scarlet fever but there is nothing there. Not surprising since it is a paper on CHRONIC disease – not to be confused with INFECTIOUS disease.

          You’re doing great though – both of your links went to live pages and that’s a wonderful start!

          Next, talk about trying to backpedal as fast as you can – I am not concerned with your rebuttal but with your first statement about scarlet fever and typhoid. That statement you made was incorrect. Man up and admit it!

          Lastly, boy where do I start? Did you look at the graph on this article? Did you see that we have never, ever, ever had mass vaccination for typhoid? Go on – take a look. I’ll wait. Here is the link – http://australiansceptics.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/typhoidwhoop.gif

          As you can see, the disease died out without vaccination. No vaccination. Just better sewage systems and clean water. Wow! Who’d have thought that water-borne illnesses would have gone away when we cleaned the water? What a concept!

          So when you say that “through vaccination and screening protocols for travellers and immigrants we have managed to keep typhoid out of Australia.”, that’s not true, is it? Engineers have kept tyhoid out of Australia – screening and vaccination have had nothing to do with it.

        • “You are promoting something other than the status quo thus the requirement of evidence is upon you. ”

          And that right then and there tells us everything we need to know about the “skeptics” and their understanding of logic.

          They will always side with the status quo because they are nothing but “court intellectuals” (emphasis on the “court”). Even if you provide them exactly what you ask for then they will just declare that it couldn’t possibly be good enough because it would require a vast conspiracy.

      • And another ad hom. You can’t attack my argument so you have to insult me.

        Both links have statements about typhoid and screening, you just have to avoid cherry picking your reading, you know, like a scientist reads all the data rather than the parts that suit their agenda.

        • Tyson, I searched the first document for the terms ‘typhoid’ and ‘scarlet’. I used the text search and neither term appeared anywhere in the text. Can you please clear this up by pointing out the page and paragraph?

      • “You and the other respondent insulted science and scientists, ”

        I feel that there is a need to point out that there is a distinction between science and junk science, and between scientists and junk scientists. Junk science is science which has been corrupted and taken over by commercial interests which it now serves, instead of truth.

        Vaccination is pure junk science and a distortion of the truth, because it is based on misinterpretation of reality. It’s also a deliberate fraud because the people at the top f this money-making and disease-promoting racket know full well that vaccination is a fraud and are actively engaged in fabricating false evidence and covering up the truth by silencing anyone in a prominent position who tells the truth, the vilification and persecution of Dr Andrew Wakefield being just one of many examples.

        Most people are aware that e-mails from Nigeria are likely to be a scam, yet many if not most people never even suspect that when they take their children in to be vaccinated they are participating in an elaborate yet quite obvious fraud in which vaccine manufacturers, governments including their so-called health authorities, institutions such as the WHO and the medical establishment are partners in crime. The fact that the people who profit from this deception have been able to keep it going for over 200 years is an indication of their ruthlessness.

        In his book “The Sanctity Of The Human Blood – Vaccination Is Not Immunization”, Dr Tim O’Shea says:

        “We somehow have to come to the realisation – without hysteria or paranoia – through study and research, of one important fact: man’s enormous capacity for evil. And you’ll have to confront some uncomfortable demons about human nature, the power of money and the extent to which those in power will go in order to keep this river of gold flowing.”

    • You say that you have published in the peer reviewed literature, Tyson. Personally, I wouldn’t regard this as an indictation of excellence or trustworthiness, as peer-review seems to be a process where something like a club of people who scratch and pat each other’s back and who all subscribe to the delusional reality.

      Problems with Peers
      August 15, 2010 by generic
      While generally considered to be gold standard medical practice, scientists openly discuss the peer review process as a broken system, plagued with the medical equivalent of nepotistic turf protection.
      http://insidevaccines.com/wordpress/2010/08/15/problems-with-peers/comment-page-1/#comment-2638

      Here are some more links which show that medical science isn’t what it is cracked up to be:

      Why Most Published Research Findings Are False
      John P. A. Ioannidis
      http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124

      NEJM editor: “No longer possible to believe most clinical research published”
      Carolyn Thomas
      November 9, 2009
      http://ethicalnag.org/2009/11/09/nejm-editor/

      US scientists significantly more likely to publish fake research
      Tue, 23 Nov 2010 06:57 CST
      http://www.sott.net/articles/show/218342-US-scientists-significantly-more-likely-to-publish-fake-research

      How Corrupt Science Gets Published
      In one of his latest blogs, Richard Smith reminds us that high-faluting does not come cheap, and 32% of papers published by the NEJM relate to studies paid for by drug companies, who then pay the journal up to $1M for reprints. It is this sort of thing that led Marcia Angell to her depressing conclusion that “it is simply no longer possible to believe much of th…e clinical research that is published, or to rely on the judgment of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines. I take no pleasure in this conclusion, which I reached slowly and reluctantly over my two decades as an editor of the New England Journal of Medicine.”
      Dr Richard Lehman MD, Journal Watch, Centre For Evidence Based Medicine
      http://www.theoneclickgroup.co.uk/news.php?start=4140&end=4160&view=yes&id=5512#newspost

      Busted! Scientists leave out data to produce bogus findings
      by: S. L. Baker, features writer
      January 05, 2012
      (NaturalNews) Clinical trials of drugs and other medical therapies are carefully carried out and are the very gold standard of scientific proof, right? According to an in-depth review of this question just published in the British Medical Journal (BMJ,) the answer is no. In fact, the BMJ is sounding the alarm that data reported by scientists is too often not the truth — because the researchers leave out inconvenient evidence.
      http://www.naturalnews.com/034577_quack_science_clinical_trials_BMJ.html#ixzz1idJCj4aK

      Precautionary Principle Is Obvious, But Ignored, As Science Provides False Cover
      January 1, 2012
      http://gaia-health.com/gaia-blog/2012-01-01/precautionary-principle-is-obvious-but-ignored-as-science-provides-false-cover/

      Farcical Study of Gardasil Safety: Medscape Gives CME Training Credit for It
      By Gaia Health
      “So what’s wrong with the study? First, we always need to determine how it was funded, who controlled the study, and what relationship the researchers have with anyone who might profit from the results. In this study, the blatancy of conflicts of interest is astounding.”
      http://gaia-health.com/gaia-blog/2012-02-15/farcical-study-of-gardasil-safety-medscape-gives-cme-training-credit-for-it/

      ‘Dangerous Spin Doctors: 7 Steps to Protect Yourself from Deception’
      http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?pid=7245639&id=69667273997&ref=fbx_album

      Lies, Damned Lies, and Medical Science
      Much of what medical researchers conclude in their studies is misleading, exaggerated, or flat-out wrong. So why are doctors—to a striking extent—still drawing upon misinformation in their everyday practice? Dr. John Ioannidis has spent his career challenging his peers by exposing their bad science.
      By David H. Freedman
      http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2010/11/lies-damned-lies-and-medical-science/8269/

      Placebo-controlled vaccine safety studies are arguably one of the worst instances of blatant scientific fraud:

      Placebo fraud rocks the very foundation of modern medical science; thousands of clinical trials invalidated
      Thursday, October 28, 2010
      by Mike Adams, the Health Ranger
      Editor of NaturalNews.com
      http://www.naturalnews.com/030209_placebo_medical_fraud.html

      What’s in placebos: who knows? Analysis of randomized, controlled trials.
      Golomb BA, Erickson LC, Koperski S, Sack D, Enkin M, Howick J.
      University of California, San Diego, School of Medicine, San Diego, California, USA. bgolomb@ucsd.edu
      Ann Intern Med. 2010 Oct 19;153(8):532-5.
      Placebos are seldom described in randomized, controlled trials of pills or capsules. Because the nature of the placebo can influence trial outcomes, placebo formulation should be disclosed in reports of placebo-controlled trials.
      http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20956710

      Inside the Mystery Placebos
      William Campbell Douglass II, M.D.
      November 29, 2010
      http://www.douglassreport.com
      http://www.vaccinationcouncil.org/2010/11/30/inside-the-mystery-placebos/

      A VACCINE CHALLENGE TO MAINSTREAM RESEARCHERS: HAS A TRUE CONTROLLED STUDY ON A VACCINE EVER BEEN DONE? By Jon Rappoport
      http://www.facebook.com/notes/granny-good-food/a-vaccine-challenge-to-mainstream-researchers-has-a-true-controlled-study-on-a-v/176879068990016

      • OMG it’s a conspiracy!!!

        Heaven forbid that science be reviewed by people who are actually familiar with the subject being discussed. And heaven forbid that science be paid for…. How else exactly is research going to be paid for??

        Your arguments are completely flawed. “Describe a placebo”? You mean the control agent that is usually inert or a sugar pill used as a test of the null hypothesis? This is well understood.

        You make some big claims about medical science fraud, yet make no reference to actual evidence, only further claims. Show me the evidence, the really big evidence to justify your big claims. The articles you reference are not evidence either, but just perpetuation of opinions rather than evidence or fact. Where is the evidence?

        • Tyson Adams wrote:

          “OMG it’s a conspiracy!!!”

          Funny that. That is what you anti-vaccine safety folks always seem to fall back on when you have lost the argument.

          Hmmm? Must be a conspiracy then if they all do it. Ha!!!

    • As I said in my post below. Sanitation is only perfectly effective to prevent endemic spread for oral-faecal route (e.g. non-host-host transmission). Sanitation is not yet possible in certain areas such as India, southeast asian countries, PNG etc. Thats why typhoid is recommended. Typhoid is not routinely screened unless travelling to endemic areas and suspected of infectious status. But it is a notifiable disease in all states and territories.

      But do enlighten me on how airborne/droplet/sexual transmitted infectious diseases can be prevented by sanitary. In a non-utopian world.

      Also, I noted your error regarding to your misinterpretation of the pertussis article in the Australian. You did not reply.

      • Hi Eric,

        Sorry, I disagree with you and what’s more (because what is my personal opinion worth in this sort of discussion?), the evidence demonstrates very clearly that for ALL developed countries, the deaths from infectious diseases – both water and air-borne – declined substantially before the introduction of mass vaccination or the general availability of antibiotics (in the case of bacterial illnesses). It doesn’t matter whether we look at cholera or measles – whooping cough or typhoid – or even tetanus which is of course, not communicable. The results are the same.

        The reasons given – again, not by me, is better hygiene, nutrition, living conditions and the availability of clean water.

    • “I am a scientist, I have actually published in the peer reviewed literature.”

      Really? It may have been better if you had left this can of worms unopened.

      Problems with Peers
      August 15, 2010 by generic
      While generally considered to be gold standard medical practice, scientists openly discuss the peer review process as a broken system, plagued with the medical equivalent of nepotistic turf protection.
      http://insidevaccines.com/wordpress/2010/08/15/problems-with-peers/comment-page-1/#comment-2638

    • You’re incorrect about screening coming into the country. I traveled to rural China about 5 years ago and apparently ‘required’ typhoid, japanese encephalitis and malaria vaccinations, though on reentry no questions were asked, even though I had the flu at the time. I also went to places in South America 2 years that supposedly required a yellow fever vaccine to get back in Australia and I was never even asked for my vaccination booklet or if I had been vaccinated at either NZ or Australian immigration points.

      • Hi Bronwyn – I’m not sure if I am misunderstanding what you are saying, but if there was a requirement for your travel, it came from China – not Australia. Sorry if I got your message wrong?

  7. The examples stated for typhoid and scarlet fever are grossly inaccurate. Australia has always screened for cases of these diseases at entry to the country. People are effectively quarantined and treated. We are classed as “sporadic cases from overseas visits” thus citing this data is deliberately misleading.

    The next point is that travellers are advised to get a typhoid vaccination before travelling. The scientific literature has shown that this vaccination has dropped the entry of typhoid into Australia, as the only entry cases have been from non-vaccinated people.

    Your statements are demonstrably false and grossly misinformed.

    • Hi Tyson,

      For someone who states an absolute support of science, your information is incredibly unscientific! I can’t say that Australia has NEVER screened for either typhoid or scarlet fever, but I have never seen any evidence of this and as an immigrant myself, I know that the only thing I was screened for was TB. Were you confusing that with Typhoid?

      Typhoid is a water-borne illness and when sewage systems and hygiene become less problematic, it disappears by itself.

      The typhoid vaccine is so ineffective that even the World Health Organisation hesitates to recommend it.

      Here is the information from the CDC:

      TYPHOID VACCINES

      Three typhoid vaccines are currently available for use in the United States: a) an oral live-attenuated vaccine (Vivotif Berna-TM vaccine, manufactured from the Ty21a strain of Salmonella typhi (2) by the Swiss Serum and Vaccine Institute); b) a parenteral heat-phenol-inactivated vaccine that has been widely used for many years (Typhoid Vaccine, manufactured by Wyeth- Ayerst); and c) a newly licensed capsular polysaccharide vaccine for parenteral use (Typhim Vi, manufactured by Pasteur Merieux). A fourth vaccine, an acetone-inactivated parenteral vaccine, is currently available only to the armed forces.

      Although no prospective, randomized trials comparing any of the three U.S.-licensed typhoid vaccines have been conducted, several field trials have demonstrated the efficacy of each vaccine. In controlled field trials conducted among schoolchildren in Chile, three doses of the Ty21a vaccine in enteric-coated capsules administered on alternate days reduced laboratory- confirmed infection by 66% over a period of 5 years (95% confidence interval {CI}=50%-77%) (3,4). In a subsequent trial in Chile, efficacy appeared to be lower: three doses resulted in only 33% (95% CI=0%-57%) fewer cases of laboratory-confirmed infection over a period of 3 years. When the data were stratified by age in this trial, children greater than or equal to 10 years of age had a 53% reduction in incidence of culture-confirmed typhoid fever (95% CI=7%-77%), whereas children 5-9 years of age had only a 17% reduction (95% CI=0%-53%). This difference in age-related efficacy, however, is not statistically significant (5). In another trial in Chile, a significant decrease in the incidence of clinical typhoid fever occurred among persons receiving four doses of vaccine compared with persons receiving two (p less than 0.001) or three (p=0.002) doses. Because no placebo group was included in this trial, absolute vaccine efficacy could not be calculated (6).

      Weekly and triweekly dosing regimens have been less effective than alternate-day dosing (3). A liquid formulation of Ty21a is more effective than enteric-coated capsules (5,7,8), but only enteric-coated capsules are available in the United States. The efficacy of vaccination with Ty21a has not been studied among persons from areas without endemic disease who travel to disease-endemic regions. The mechanism by which Ty21a vaccine confers protection is unknown; however, the vaccine does elicit both serum (2,9) and intestinal (10) antibodies and cell-mediated immune responses (11). Vaccine organisms can be shed transiently in the stool of vaccine recipients (2,9). However, secondary transmission of vaccine organisms has not been documented.

      In field trials involving a primary series of two doses of heat-phenol- inactivated typhoid vaccine (which is similar to the currently available parenteral inactivated vaccine), vaccine efficacy over the 2- to 3-year follow-up periods ranged from 51% to 77% (12-14). Efficacy for the acetone- inactivated parenteral vaccine, available only to the armed forces, ranges from 75% to 94% (12,14,15).

      The newly licensed parenteral vaccine (Vi capsular polysaccharide {ViCPS}) is composed of purified Vi (“virulence”) antigen, the capsular polysaccharide elaborated by S. typhi isolated from blood cultures (16). In recent studies, one 25-ug injection of purified ViCPS produced seroconversion (i.e., at least a fourfold rise in antibody titers) in 93% of healthy U.S. adults (17); similar results were observed in Europe (18). Two field trials in disease-endemic areas have demonstrated the efficacy of ViCPS in preventing typhoid fever. In a trial in Nepal, in which vaccine recipients were observed for 20 months, one dose of ViCPS among persons 5-44 years of age resulted in 74% (95% CI=49%-87%) fewer cases of typhoid fever confirmed by blood culture than occurred with controls (19). In a trial involving schoolchildren in South Africa who were 5-15 years of age, one dose of ViCPS resulted in 55% (95% CI=30%-71%) fewer cases of blood-culture-confirmed typhoid fever over a period of 3 years than occurred with controls. The reduction in the number of cases in years 1, 2, and 3, was 61%, 52%, and 50%, respectively (20,21). The efficacy of vaccination with ViCPS has not been studied among persons from areas without endemic disease who travel to disease-endemic regions or among children less than 5 years of age. ViCPS has not been tested among children less than 1 year of age.

      As for Scarlet Fever, deaths from this disease disappeared almost 100 years ago without vaccination and prior to the introduction of antibiotics. There is no screening program for scarlet fever either and hasn’t been for at least as far back as my research in Australia has gone – which is into the early part of the 20th century.

      If you claim that there is, can you please cite your references?

      Also, typhoid vaccination is NOT routinely recommended before travel – even when travelling to areas of the world where typhus is endemic. Care with water (brushing teeth with bottled water and only drinking bottled water, washing fruit in bottled water, etc) Is the most effective way to prevent this disease.

      As for statements that are demonstrably false and grossly misinformed, I think you stand guilty as charged!

      • On the contrary here are the recommendations for Typhoid vaccination before travel to endemic regions
        REF: The Australian Immunisation Handbook 9th Ed (link below)

        BTW “Typhoid” and Typhus” are two different diseases (?typo error)

        “Typhoid vaccination is recommended for all travellers ≥2 years of age going to endemic regions, where food hygiene may be suboptimal and drinking water may not be adequately treated. Travellers include the military. Vaccination should be completed at least 2 weeks before travel.

        Individuals travelling to endemic regions to visit friends and relatives are probably at considerable risk of acquiring typhoid fever, and vaccination is strongly recommended for them.
        NB. Travellers must also be advised about personal hygiene, food safety and about drinking boiled or bottled water only. They should be advised that raw (or undercooked) shellfish, salads, cold meats, untreated water and ice (in drinks) are all potentially ‘high-risk’, as are short (day) trips away from higher quality accommodation venues.

        Laboratory personnel routinely working with S. Typhi should also be considered for vaccination.”

        http://www.health.gov.au/internet/immunise/publishing.nsf/Content/Handbook-typhoid

        • I was almost finished writing a reply to you Anne when it disappeared so if the earlier reply is hiding here somewhere, my apologies. I am also sorry for using the incorrect term – that was absolutely my fault – typhoid – not typhus! Thanks for that :-)

          And the problem was not that the typhoid vaccine is recommended for travel to areas where it is endemic – but that it supposedly, according to Tyson, is recommended for travel – full stop. And that all travellers entering Australia are being screened for both scarlet fever and typhoid at their point of entry. This is exactly what he said (see below) and it is wrong, wrong, wrong! And he seems to feel that because he is a scientist, he is above question. Nobody is above question – not even scientists.

          Thanks for your input Anne – it is truly appreciated.

          The examples stated for typhoid and scarlet fever are grossly inaccurate. Australia has always screened for cases of these diseases at entry to the country. People are effectively quarantined and treated. We are classed as “sporadic cases from overseas visits” thus citing this data is deliberately misleading.

          The next point is that travellers are advised to get a typhoid vaccination before travelling. The scientific literature has shown that this vaccination has dropped the entry of typhoid into Australia, as the only entry cases have been from non-vaccinated people.

          Your statements are demonstrably false and grossly misinformed.

      • Dear “australiansceptics”:

        This blog has hardly been around for 5 minutes and yet in at least two posts now, one here and one on the other thread, your contributor “ChildHealthSafety” stoops to overtly sarcastic insults towards other contributors. While you apologised on the other thread, your lack of action to correct it has been noted.

        Are you going to maintain a respectful tone, or are you not?

        If you are not, then this site will not be a forum for “sceptical debate” at all. It will simply become a blog where those on your side of the argument can continuously congratulate each other and pat each other on the back, because no-one else will bother contributing.

        Now on to the topic. In direct contradiction of your categorical statement above, typhoid vaccination IS recommended for travel to areas where typhoid is endemic.

        The US National Institutes of Health recommends it here:
        http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/druginfo/meds/a607028.html#app3

        And the US Centres for Disease Control and Prevention recommends it here:
        http://wwwnc.cdc.gov/travel/yellowbook/2012/chapter-3-infectious-diseases-related-to-travel/typhoid-and-paratyphoid-fever.htm

        And the NSW State Government recommends it here (as well as describing who WILL be screened for typhoid):
        http://www.health.nsw.gov.au/factsheets/infectious/typhoid.html

        And the Australian Federal Government recommends it here:
        http://www.health.gov.au/internet/immunise/publishing.nsf/Content/Handbook-typhoid

        It is very disappointing that you are so eager to accuse others of making statements which are demonstrably false and grossly misinformed, before going on to make such statements yourself (as I have just demonstrated in the official Government links clearly recommending typhoid vaccination for travellers in areas where typhoid is endemic).

        • Oh Diddums! Mike – I apologised for allowing a swear word through from CHS before – not for attitude. If we are talking about attitude, look at the contributors from the pseudo-sceptics who feel that criticising vaccines is somehow the equivalent of heresy and should be punishable by virtual burning at the stake.

          And sceptical debate? Please have a look at the SAVN page and compare the language and abusive attitude there with that evident on the AVN’s page. Let’s not get too hypocritical here Mike.

          Lastly, what the commenter said – quite clearly – is that typhoid vaccination is recommended for all travellers and that all individuals coming into Australia were screened for both typhoid and scarlet fever. None of these statements is correct.

      • Oh diddums Mike

        You just can’t help yourself, can you?

        Lastly, what the commenter said – quite clearly – is that typhoid vaccination is recommended for all travellers and that all individuals coming into Australia were screened for both typhoid and scarlet fever. None of these statements is correct.

        That may be the case, but I am not commenting on that. What you said – quite clearly – was that

        ….typhoid vaccination is NOT routinely recommended before travel – even when travelling to areas of the world where typhus is endemic

        Not only did you conflate two different conditions, but how is that someone with so many years of researching vaccination information could make an easily verifiable statement which is so totally wrong? A “real sceptic” would check such facts before lambasting someone else for writing something misleading or inaccurate.

      • It is becoming apparent that you consider being called for your errors out, on SAVN or elsewhere, to be some kind of attitude of abuse towards you. It is not.

        Saying things like “Oh diddums” is terribly condescending, and if you have a problem with people giving you this kind of attitude, then why do you return it? You can either call it out, or you can dish it back, but doing both is hypocritical on a grand scale.

        All you’re doing is ‘exchanging attitude.’ If you feel like you are undeserved of some kind of treatment from somewhere, then point that out. Returning that attitude yourself, however, is immature. I don’t mince words, I’m not giving you attitude, I’m just telling you like it is. The response you gave just now was a veritable fifth-grade knee jerk reaction to what you think you are entitled to.

        Meryl, you are free to do and say as you please, but when you treat people a certain way just because that’s how they treat you, you do come across as a small child with hurt feelings. I would suggest more mature responses to such attitude. You are, after all, a mature woman, are you not? If you can demonstrate that, and leave the condescending “oh diddums” style of commentary and knee-jerk ad hominen attacks out of your arguments, then you might just have an argument that people can take seriously.

        There are many other things that I could have said here. I would rather you understand why I cannot take you seriously, personally, then give you reason to believe that I have something against you. For any kind of non-bias discussion to take place, you cannot let your feelings about the “other side” influence how you discuss. On many levels, it only demonstrates a vendetta, and an agenda. If you have neither, then you can discuss from a position of objectivity, and perhaps even start to understand alternative perspectives. But as long as you keep thinking that you’re right, and only you can be right, and anyone that disagrees and calls you wrong is abusing you, then you will never be considered capable of fully understanding what it is you’re even talking about.

        Ignore the people that say foul things about you. You are a leader, and when you say foul things about them, or degrade them with comments like “oh diddums,” that reflects on your entire organisation. And the cycle continues, with more people having more foul things to say about you.

        I know you are capable of mature discussion. Unfortunately, it’s not always reflected in what you say to other people, or how you try to get your point across. Words are a weapon, not just for good or evil, but if used without the proper care, they can be just as dangerous to those who wield them, just like any weapon.

        • Martin, I have had a few days to think about this and you are right. If I expect others to be held to higher standards when it comes to their communication on this list, then I must also adhere to those same standards. I apologise deeply and sincerely for my behaviour and will ensure that it will never happen again. All of us must learn to speak with respect and I will do my utmost to ensure that you are never again called upon to remind me of that fact.

    • Thank you Tyson for highlighting a fundamental confounder to the effective control of disease by vaccination. As you rightly note, imported cases of these diseases are controlled by isolation.

      However, what you fail to acknowledge is that control over imported cases is only effective if the subject is symptomatic. It is impossible to tell if someone is infected but not yet showing symptoms.

      So in those cases, where are the massive outbreaks of these diseases in Australia for which there is no vaccine?

      See? This is what being a sceptic means – you question – and in this case it is the “conventional wisdom” being questioned. And having questioned what appears conventional does not appear wise either.

      And the questions put here are not terribly difficult ones. Schoolchildren can figure these ones out …… that is if anyone was going to be truthful with them.

      • And another insult, I’m not as smart as a school child now am I?

        Asymptomatic individuals present later and are the reason we have, as noted in the health dept links I posted, “sporadic cases”. You can’t use asymptomatic to disprove the entirety because the control methods work. Sporadic cases actually proves my point, not yours.

      • No Tyson, we are not saying you are not smarter than a schoolchild. It may be you have not given the matter sufficient consideration before. We are simply saying that if it is put to a schoolchild then a child should get the point “in one” when it is spelt out.

        So how about you? Do you get it now it is spelt out?

    • I would agree that improved hygiene is the perfect solution for the prevention for infectious diseases, within the strict condition that the disease is spread by oral-faecal route (such as salmonella typhi, e.g. typhoid). For this reason developed countries such as Australia, typhoid prevention is only required for travellers to endemic countries.

      Predicting your next question and its request for evidence. The efficacy of the typhoid vaccine has been researched and found to have a 68.5% decrease in risk of salmonella infection (over 40,000 participants). That is for every 3 would be infections it prevented 2. (Fraser, A et al. Cochrane Systematic Reviews 09).

      Actually.. the CDC info in your post already state and enforce its evidence of efficacy.

      And in contrary to your reply, it is strongly recommended for travellers especially if they are visiting endemic countries (Australian Immunization Handbook 9th Ed[Current]).

      Now to the next point, sanitation improvement alone will have a greatly diminished effect on preventing airborne/droplet diseases such as pertussis, rubella, measles, mumps and tuberculosis. For the pure reason that humans are social animals and host-host transmission is inevitable. This is also the reason why there are still infectious diseases in developed countries where sanitation is not an issue.

      Hence, these non-sanitary related diseases are where wide population immunization policies are recommended.

      • “For this reason in developed countries such as Australia, typhoid prevention is only required for travellers to endemic countries.”

        It depends what you mean by “required”, Eric. Typhoid vaccination is not a legally required.

        The only vaccine required by International Health Regulations is yellow fever vaccination for travel to certain countries in sub-Saharan Africa and tropical South America. Meningococcal vaccination is required by the government of Saudi Arabia for annual travel during the Hajj.
        http://wwwnc.cdc.gov/travel/page/vaccinations.htm

        “non-sanitary related diseases are where wide population immunization policies are recommended.”

        All manner of vaccines are being recommended for all manner of reasons, but as far as I am concerned, all of them are useless and dangerous.

      • My apologies for an error of semantics regarding the use of the word ‘required’ as I intended to use ‘recommended’. I am not certain of your cause, but I do understand the stance of precaution taken on the effects of vaccination. I also understand why such a hard pressure can impede on people’s sense of comfort zone, which leads to resistance. Though I am sure your cause is pure and I believe you are acting on the best of interests in the healthcare of infants and children.

        But if I may raise a question, doesn’t a statement such as “all [vaccines] are useless and dangerous” require a phenomenal amount of evidence for validation? How can you be so sure?

      • @vaccineshurtbabies

        …. but as far as I am concerned, all of them are useless and dangerous

        I’m guessing you don’t get out of the country much, and I’m sincerely hoping (for their own health and wellbeing) that your kids never, ever travel and learn stuff in interesting places like Africa or Asia.

        • Mike – since I personally am still looking for evidence that vaccines were responsible for ANY of the decline from deaths in the 20th century and haven’t yet been able to find any (all of the diseases which used to be big killers declined without drugs or vaccines and many of the killers of today which used to be very rare but are now common may very well be linked to our use of drugs and vaccines), I don’t really think that the average person who has said no to vaccination would allow that to stop them from travelling. There ARE other ways to prevent infection you know. And many people avail themselves of those other ways including just making sure that their immune system is as strong as possible. If it works for them, then all and well. If you don’t want to try this, then your choice would doubtless be to vaccinate. And isn’t it great that we can make our own choices on this issues? Isn’t that right worth fighting to defend – not matter what your personal opinion on the safety and efficacy of vaccines may be?

          • Mike – since I personally am still looking for evidence that vaccines were responsible for ANY of the decline from deaths in the 20th century

            I find it interesting browsing forums which you allow your critics to post on. From doing this, it seems to me that you have been shown plentyof that evidence but you choose to believe none of it. I honestly believe, Meryl, that even if someone would take you into a research lab and actually show you antibodies attacking virus particles under a microscope, or walk you through the testing they can do for immune response to vaccination and show you examples of that under a microscope, that you would go to your deathbed wondering why your own eyes lied to you.

            the killers of today which used to be very rare but are now common

            Exactly which ones are they?

            may very well be linked to our use of drugs and vaccines

            The “killers of today” may also be linked to our consumption of icecream, which was rare in the days before refrigeration became common last century . But I’d be looking for more evidence than a simple correlation like that before I organised a campaign against Mr Whippy.

            I don’t really think that the average person who has said no to vaccination would allow that to stop them from travelling.

            I agree with you. But then, some people who’ve consumed 12 stubbies of beer don’t let that stop them from driving either. Many people don’t let evidence of possible adverse consequences get in the way of their activities at all.

            There ARE other ways to prevent infection you know. And many people avail themselves of those other ways including just making sure that their immune system is as strong as possible. If it works for them, then all and well. If you don’t want to try this, then your choice would doubtless be to vaccinate.

            Yes, washing hands, hygiene, etc etc. All well proven and accepted in the modern era. Unfortunately there are many circumstances where these may not prevent infection, and that is also well proven in the modern era. Vaccination is a last line of defence. A defence where you have given the immune system advance warning of what its attackers look like.

            And isn’t it great that we can make our own choices on this issues? Isn’t that right worth fighting to defend – not matter what your personal opinion on the safety and efficacy of vaccines may be?

            I honestly don’t really care all that much that you, as an adult, decide to go against professional recommendations. Where it gets murky, is when you go against them on behalf of those who are not yet mature enough to make their own decisions. If an electrician advised you on how to prevent an item short-circuiting and catching fire, would you ignore it and make your own decision?

            • I honestly believe, Meryl, that even if someone would take you into a research lab and actually show you antibodies attacking virus particles under a microscope, or walk you through the testing they can do for immune response to vaccination and show you examples of that under a microscope, that you would go to your deathbed wondering why your own eyes lied to you.

              Well, perhaps we have more in common then you think, because I think that were I to take you out into the real world and show you recently vaccinated children and adults who are contracting the diseases they were supposedly fully immune to with high levels of serum antibodies which did not protect them, you would still doubt your eyes. Also, were I to have you meet the parents of children who changed, sickened and even died immediately following vaccination and they saw these changes with their own eyes and described them to you, you would still say ‘coincidence’.

              Exactly which ones are they?

              Well, let’s take scarlet fever, typhoid, diphtheria, and measles for a start. How can you claim that vaccination caused the deaths from these diseases to decline when the decline started and took place (for the most part) well before the vaccines were introduced and also – in the case of the bacterial illnesses – well before antibiotic treatments became available?

              I agree with you. But then, some people who’ve consumed 12 stubbies of beer don’t let that stop them from driving either. Many people don’t let evidence of possible adverse consequences get in the way of their activities at all.

              Having spent almost 20 years speaking with these people who you compare to alcoholics, I have to say that I don’t think you have spoken with many conscientious objectors to vaccination. For the most part, they are incredibly well-read, proactive on health issues and think things through carefully and completely (which includes consulting with doctors and other practitioners) before coming to their decision. Life is full of risk – they have chosen which risks they are willing to take and for the most part, they have chosen not to vaccinate – not for fear of vaccine side effects – but because they don’t believe that vaccines will prevent the diseases in the first place. Study after study has shown this to be the case – and unfortunately, study after study has shown that people who do choose to vaccinate don’t really have much information to back up that decision – they just follow the crowd. Of course, there are exceptions, but that is the rule when it comes to this decision.

              Where it gets murky, is when you go against them on behalf of those who are not yet mature enough to make their own decisions.

              But you see, I made that decision for my son and he will be paying for it for the rest of his life. Because I made a decision in ignorance – just like the vast majority of parents who have vaccinated. It was only after my child paid the price of my ignorance that I started to look into the benefits and risks of vaccination. All the AVN says is that this information should be freely available and that parents have to be the final decision-makers when it comes to the health of their children – without the recriminations, financial penalties and all the other garbage that gets thrown at those who have made a decision you ‘skeptics’ don’t approve of. It’s our choice – not yours.

              • Martin – in a round-about way, even the medical literature admits that the idea that antibodies indicate immunity is a flawed concept.

                Here is e.g. a quote from:
                Chickenpox Immunisation in New Zealand
                New Zealand Medical Journal 24 July 1998:
                Immunogenicty and protective effect

                1. Immunogenicity. Current varicella vaccines formulations are highly immunogenic in healthy childrengreater than 95% of whom will develop measurable antibody and cell mediated immune responses to a single dose.

                2 Protective efficacy in healthy children.
                Immunogenicity doesn’t necessarily correlate with the protection afforded.

                Calling it “immunization” therefore seems to be a deliberately misleading term designed to sell a product of dubious science and effectiveness.

                As paediatrician Dr Robert Mendelsohn MD once pointed out:

                “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.”

                DR Robet Mendelsohn also said:
                “The greatest threat of childhood diseases lies in the dangerous and ineffectual efforts made to prevent them through mass immunization…..There is no convincing scientific evidence that mass inoculations can be credited with eliminating any childhood disease.”–

                A question:
                If not even doctors can agree as to the benefits of vaccination, why should parents believe doctors?

                Here is another quote from the article ‘Pertussis Control iNew Zealand, in the New Zealand Medical Journal of 9 November 1994:

                Hospitalisations:
                Hospital discharge data have been analysed for the period 1970-92 and reveal a pattern of regular 4 yearly epidemics as shown in Figure 1. The moving average shows no consistent decline in the number of hospitalised cases since 1970.

                I interpret this to mean that the whooping cough vaccine is ineffective in preventing the 4-yearly epidemics and hospitalisations.

                I also remebmer a news item in TIME which said: “A whooping cough epidemic has swept the Netherlands in spite a vaccination rate of over 96%.”

                Yet, in spite of this dubious effectiveness of vaccines, the medical establishment’s response is to add further boosters or other vaccines to the vaccination schedule, it seems in accordance with the motto “If something is useless,more of it may be better ” while telling parents to keep getting their children vaccinated, it seems in keeping with the motto “Trust us, we think we know what we are doing.”

                These people and organisations are completely out of control because in fact there IS no control over their criminally insane behaviour.

                Medical doctors and researchers discuss things among themselves they would rather not share with the public. Here is another example: :

                Should we continue to expose our population to the risks of vaccine- associated paralytic polio to protect against a disease which is now unlikely to be encountered?
                Polio vaccine – worth the risk? New Zealand GP Weekly, 1 October 1997

                Good question though, considering the fact that over the past 30 years, all polio cases in developed countries have been caused by the polio vaccine itself.

                My point is that there is no need for antivaxers to discredit vaccination, because those in the medical system do it all by themselves by what they share in the medical literature. The problem is that fortunately for the vaccine industry, most doctors and most parents don’t read the documentation in the medical journals which shows that vaccines are useless and dangerous. Hence, the medical child abuse continues unabated.

            • Martin – in a round-about way, even the medical literature admits that the idea that antibodies indicate immunity is a flawed concept.

              Here is e.g. a quote from:
              Chickenpox Immunisation in New Zealand
              New Zealand Medical Journal 24 July 1998:
              Immunogenicty and protective effect

              1. Immunogenicity. Current varicella vaccines formulations are highly immunogenic in healthy childrengreater than 95% of whom will develop measurable antibody and cell mediated immune responses to a single dose.

              2 Protective efficacy in healthy children.
              Immunogenicity doesn’t necessarily correlate with the protection afforded.

              Calling it “immunization” therefore seems to be a deliberately misleading term designed to sell a product of dubious science and effectiveness.

              As paediatrician Dr Robert Mendelsohn MD once pointed out:

              “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.”

              DR Robet Mendelsohn also said:
              “The greatest threat of childhood diseases lies in the dangerous and ineffectual efforts made to prevent them through mass immunization…..There is no convincing scientific evidence that mass inoculations can be credited with eliminating any childhood disease.”–

              A question:
              If not even doctors can agree as to the benefits of vaccination, why should parents believe doctors?

              Here is another quote from the article ‘Pertussis Control iNew Zealand, in the New Zealand Medical Journal of 9 November 1994:

              Hospitalisations:
              Hospital discharge data have been analysed for the period 1970-92 and reveal a pattern of regular 4 yearly epidemics as shown in Figure 1. The moving average shows no consistent decline in the number of hospitalised cases since 1970.

              I interpret this to mean that the whooping cough vaccine is ineffective in preventing the 4-yearly epidemics and hospitalisations.

              I also remebmer a news item in TIME which said: “A whooping cough epidemic has swept the Netherlands in spite a vaccination rate of over 96%.”

              Yet, in spite of this dubious effectiveness of vaccines, the medical establishment’s response is to add further boosters or other vaccines to the vaccination schedule, it seems in accordance with the motto “If something is useless,more of it may be better ” while telling parents to keep getting their children vaccinated, it seems in keeping with the motto “Trust us, we think we know what we are doing.”

              These people and organisations are completely out of control because in fact there IS no control over their criminally insane behaviour.

              Medical doctors and researchers discuss things among themselves they would rather not share with the public. Here is another example: :

              Should we continue to expose our population to the risks of vaccine- associated paralytic polio to protect against a disease which is now unlikely to be encountered?
              Polio vaccine – worth the risk? New Zealand GP Weekly, 1 October 1997

              Good question though, considering the fact that over the past 30 years, all polio cases in developed countries have been caused by the polio vaccine itself.

              My point is that there is no need for antivaxers to discredit vaccination, because those in the medical system do it all by themselves by what they share in the medical literature. The problem is that fortunately for the vaccine industry, most doctors and most parents don’t read the documentation in the medical journals which shows that vaccines are useless and dangerous. Hence, this medical child abuse continues unabated.

            • Mike Mayfield says to another commenter in relation to evidence “vaccines were responsible for ANY of the decline from deaths in the 20th century ” says “it seems to me that you have been shown plenty of that evidence but you choose to believe none of it.”

              So Mike show us the “evidence”. Show us.

              And then also tell us that clean drinking water, better nutrition, better living conditions, sanitation, natural attenuation of disease etc were simply not responsible and were not the main mechanisms responsible. Go on Mike, show us.

              • ChildHealthSafety, one interesting thing about “fake sceptics” is that they continually challenge you to do all their research for them. Understandable, I guess, given that they usually show a lack of ability to find the research themselves. They also generally have no actual relevant professional qualifications and therefore are not on any of the subscription or login lists for medical or scientific journals (and are too cheap to subscribe to them, which just about anyone can do if they really want to).

                Their usual excuse for this is that the genuine journals are all involved in the global conspiracy anyway, and they’re just a little iddy biddy normal person trying to fight the systematic oppression of against them. Yawn.

                Also, please stop using false dichotomies (ie, it either had to be the vaccines or sanitation, but it can’t be both). It is very unbecoming you.

                • Mike Mayfield thanks.

                  Instead of answering the question put [clear indication you cannot produce the evidence to back up your claims] you attack personally saying, without also providing a shred of evidence:

                  “they usually show a lack of ability to find the research themselves”.

                  “They also generally have no actual relevant professional qualifications ”

                  “…. are not on any of the subscription or login lists for medical or scientific journals …”

                  “… are too cheap to subscribe to them …”

                  “Their usual excuse for this is that the genuine journals are all involved in the global conspiracy”

                  “they’re just a little iddy biddy normal person trying to fight the systematic oppression of against them”

                  And the real hoot is this:

                  “please stop using false dichotomies (ie, it either had to be the vaccines or sanitation, but it can’t be both)”

                  How about you apply that to smallpox vaccine and produce the evidence the vaccine single-handedly eradicated smallpox. That is “the big one”. It is the basis for all the claims made for vaccination – and it is palpably and incontrovertably false. It did not even do it multipe-handedly. The only thing smallpox vaccine eradicated in 100 years were the hundreds of thousands of people and children it killed.

                  Smallpox was eradicated by three mechanisms, none of which depended on vaccination for their efficacy: isolation, attenuation and improved living conditions, particularly nutrition and sanitation. The effect cannot be attributable to the smallpox vaccine – any vaccine which takes over 100 years to work ipso facto proves itself not to have and in the process killed around as many and sometimes more than those it was claimed to have saved.

                  And that is based on documented journal and published evidence which is cited and linked to here:

                  “Small Pox – Big Lie – Bioterrorism Implications of Flawed Theories of Eradication” Posted on November 3, 2010 by ChildHealthSafety
                  http://tinyurl.com/c36f5l8

                  No true scientist would make the claims for smallpox vaccine which the medical fraternity make – but then they are not scientists nor trained in science but do routinely abuse the very word itself “science”.

                  And that Mike demonstrates your failure to answer the question is because you cannot do so so come out with all manner of irrelevant personal attacks to hide the fact.

                  That is very helpful. Thank you.

          • “And isn’t it great that we can make our own choices on this issues? Isn’t that right worth fighting to defend – not matter what your personal opinion on the safety and efficacy of vaccines may be?”

            Against the background of woo used to justify mass vaccination and the unreported and untracked and unaddressed background of adverse reactions that is a powerful issue of considerable political and social importance.

            Individual freedom is a fundamental of democratic systems which many have fought and died for over centuries.

            The unscientific nature of the arguments for mass vaccination and the pressures placed on the individual to conform to a practice which lacks any proper scientific basis cannot be a foundation upon which fundamental rights should be sacrificed.

            The inanity of the claims for smallpox vaccine, which cannot be true on the basis of two centuries of hard evidence is testimony to that. Smallpox vaccine cannot and did not eradicate smallpox but that one is trotted out all the time without a second thought.

            In 1800’s England poor parents watched their children die after being compulsory vaccinated and chose prison and fines in a desperate attempt to avoid what was a 50:50 chance of death from the vaccine.

            Compulsory vaccination was withdrawn.

            But despite the evidence the same majority of diehards have held the upper ground against the individual for a good two centuries backed by the state with its ultimate fallback of police forces, armies, navies and now air force. What the state is not supported by is the evidence. So the more people who learn the facts the better, but that is not what those who promote these practices want. And of course the worst part is that they will just not and never face up to the reality that what they are doing is just plain wrong for the health of us all. They will never change tack and will never admit the falsity of the evidence they claim to support their position.

        • Mike Mayfield wrote “I’m guessing you don’t get out of the country much, and I’m sincerely hoping (for their own health and wellbeing) that your kids never, ever travel and learn stuff in interesting places like Africa or Asia.”

          This was to imply that vaccines are safe and effective in the third world.

          Does anyone have a reference or link to the WHO estimate that 75% of third world children will still die despite vaccination? We would like to track that down. It was used to claim that 25% would be saved by vaccines [another WHO estimate]. However, what it does show is that vaccination is ineffective for the majority and it highlights the scandal of modern medicine that even in the 21st Century there is still no effective treatment for measles.

          What does Bill Gates think he is doing with his billions and Warren Buffet’s billions. Surely Bill Gates is not a stupid man? So if he is not stupid, what does that make him? [Answers on a postcard].

      • “But if I may raise a question, doesn’t a statement such as “all [vaccines] are useless and dangerous” require a phenomenal amount of evidence for validation? How can you be so sure?”

        You certainly may, Eric.

        Here are some graphs additional to those already posted by Meryl which show that vaccines have never saved anyone’s life and had NOTHING whatsoever to do with the remarkable decline in infectious disease mortality rates over the past century. It was these graphs which turned me from a supporter of vaccination to an outspoken antivaccination campaigner.
        http://www.healthsentinel.com/joomla/index.php?option=com_content&view=section&layout=blog&id=8&Itemid=55

        Also, if one does even minimal research one inevitably finds that the claim that vaccination is a triumph of medical science in that vaccination has e.g. eliminated smallpox is a myth promoted by those who profit from this racket.
        http://www.drcarley.com/Horrors_of_Vaccination_Exposed.pdf

        Furthermore, so-called vaccine safety and efficacy studies involve and amount to outright scientific fraud. For one thing, the assumption that the presence of vaccine-induced antibodies is evidence of vaccine efficacy is deeply flawed, a fact even the medical literature admits. So-called vaccine safety studies are an absolute farce for a number of reasons, one of them being that in lieu of a true placebo (inert substance) being used, to compare safety, they use another vaccine – or the vaccine to be tested minus its antigen(s) – as a “placebo”, to make the vaccine being tested look safe. That’s deliberate deception and blatant scientific fraud.

        The polio vaccine is another success story. The polio vaccine was introduced when the epidemic it was designed to fight was already on the decline. As it turned out, millions of people all over the world had inadvertently been injected with the carcinogenic monkey virus SV 40 before it was discovered that the vaccine was contaminated rwith monkey viruses from the monkey kidneys used to grow the polio virus on.

        The New Zealand so-called health authorites bought a badly contaminated lot of the polio vaccine they knew was cheap because it had been banned from use in Canada and the USA from the Canadian government, then injected thousands of New Zealand children with the contaminated vaccine after telling parents on the consent forms that the vaccine was “well-tested and harmless”.

        I could go on and on. The point is that far from being a triumph of Imedical science, vaccination has been a series of ongoing disasters of major proportion which has inflicted untold suffering, disability and death on the human race, polluting the bloodstream of virtually everyone on this planet with toxic chemicals and foreign protein/DNA.

        Vaccination is a gigantic medical experiment without informd consent and without a control, in direct violation of the Nuremberg Code set up specifically to prevent further medical abuse of the kindinflicted by Nazi doctors.

        I find it somewhat ironic that a medical intervention which supposedly prevents death and saves lives may yet result in the demise of the human race as we know it, which in fact seems to be the real intention behind vaccination programmes.

        The Romans were ignorant of the fact that lead is neurotoxic, and one of the reasons cited for the decline of the Roman Empire is the use of lead as a lining for drinking vessels and water pipes. Today, we know that lead and also mercury and aluminium are highly neurotioxic, yet – incredibly – mercury and aluminium-containing vaccines are injected into children and pregnat women. Unlike the Romans, we can’t claim ignorance or even negligence. It must therefore be a deliberate ploy to systematically destroy our health and intelligence.
        http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6890106663412840646#

        • Erwin: extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. So you’ve produced a blog link and a video? Seriously? Where is the longitudinal studies of thousands of participants? Where are the documented cases with hundreds of data points? Where is the science?

          You are essentially dismissing science with empty claims. The bulk of the science supports vaccinations. The bulk of science shows the efficacy and eradication of diseases and the control of their spread through vaccinations. I’ve already linked to several papers and documented health statistics on this topic, as has Anne, yet there is a lack of refutation of the evidence with anything other than claims and supposition.

          Also, linking to a video supported by Alex Jones is not a good idea. Alex Jones is a nutcase who cannot be taken seriously on anything he is associated with. http://conspiracydebunked.com/alex-jones-conspiracy-theorist/

          • Tyson Adams says:

            “Where is the longitudinal studies of thousands of participants? Where are the documented cases with hundreds of data points? Where is the science? You are essentially dismissing science with empty claims. The bulk of the science supports vaccinations. The bulk of science shows the efficacy and eradication of diseases and the control of their spread through vaccinations.”

            Tyson, you are mixing up medical research with science. Even if we assume some medical research is the most rigorous, systematic and methodical research, it is not science and it certainly does not deliver the certainty of knowledge that science can [if performed properly].

            Longitudinal studies are not science.

            On adverse reactions we could ask the same question “Where are the documented cases with hundreds of data points?” They are just not being reported or recorded.

            And we too can say “Where is the science?”.

      • Meryl,

        There is a great interview with a nemisis of yours, Dr Paul Offitt where he describes what happened once when his wife was about to vaccinate a child:

        Dr Paul Offit: “It’s very hard for scientific studies, at least in the minds of many parents, to trump anecdote because anecdotes are so powerful, emotional, and personal. It’s very hard to trump that with statistics.

        The example that I use is an example which happened to my wife. She came into the office on a weekend day. She was helping the nurse give vaccines. She walked into a room. A mother was sitting with her four month old child waiting alongside of the wall. While my wife was drawing the vaccine through the syringe, the child had a seizure and went on to have the permanent seizure disorder, epilepsy. If my wife had given that vaccine five minutes earlier, I think there is no amount of statistical data in the world that would’ve convinced that mother of anything other than the vaccine caused it.”

        So unfortunately, yes, while I would be extremely sympathetic to any child’s medical condition and their parents’ situation, I would caution that babies and young children have been contracting or born with illnesses and diseases for thousands of years. While there is a remote possibility that it was caused by a vaccine, the mere fact that we do commonly vaccinate young children must lead to incidents – many incidents – where a condition or illness occurs within a certain time period after vaccination. It is just a simple fact, even though it doesn’t make it any easier for the parent to accept. They could just as easily blame the illness on numerous other surrounding events, but they don’t.

        I would lay money that if they were to inject a thousand children with a placebo, there would still be reports of vaccine injuries. However such a trial would be unethical. It’s always easy to blame it on the needle.

        People like yourself seem to want to blame vaccines for every possible disease that has ever existed (eg, your “A to Z” tweets of vaccine related conditions containing such ludicrous examples as Fragile X syndrome, a known inherited genetic mutation on the X chromosome which is already present at birth, before the child has ever had a vaccine).

        Well, let’s take scarlet fever, typhoid, diphtheria, and measles for a start.

        Meryl I think you’re getting the conversation confused here. You previously said “the killers of today which used to be very rare but are now common”. I asked you “which ones are they?”

        How is it that scarlet fever, typhoid, diphtheria and measles “used to be very rare but are now common”? Isn’t it the exact reverse? In which case, go back to my original response: which killers of today used to be very rare but are now common?

        Having spent almost 20 years speaking with these people who you compare to alcoholics….

        OK, unfortunately wordpress will not allow editing and as soon as I posted that, I suspected you would misinterpret it. I could’ve perhaps picked a better comparison. I am not saying they’re alcoholics. In fact, people who get behind the wheel after too many drinks are not necessarily alcoholics anyway. I am criticising your logic and I am arguing that their risk assessment and decision making is poor, or is based on flawed information, and that this is a very common human condition. Generally speaking, we are appalling risk assessors, and frequently side with our emotions rather than our common sense.

        Re: vaccines not preventing disease: It is common knowledge that vaccines do not “prevent” a virus or bacteria entering your body. A vaccine is designed to “prime” your immune system. It’s like starting your car on a cold day, and having to use the choke. The act of doing this allows your body to have antibodies which already recognise the relevant disease and can get a head start in eradicating it before it becomes serious. There are a number of factors which can affect how well the vaccine works.

        You talk about people who are “well read” on health issues. You can be “well read” on just about anything, but it is all irrelevant if you get your information from unreliable sources. I once spoke to a colleague of mine who was “well read” on the moon landing conspiracy (seriously!). It didn’t make him right. It just made him an expert on false and misleading arguments. He’d fallen into the classic trap – he already leaned towards a particular view, and he went and sought out information which supported that view, while absolutely ignoring a massive database of information which totally conflicted with it.

        You may find and latch onto a few dozen articles suggesting possible adverse effects from vaccinations (though I recall checking one or two of your supporters’ references where their argument doesn’t appear to be actually supported by the overall conclusions in the paper). Any Pubmed, Proquest, etc, search will turn up thousands (literally) of research papers showing high levels of protection against disease by vaccination.

        • Gee Mike, for someone who complains about people relying on anecdotes, your little story about Paul Offit’s wife is just that – an anecdote. And for me personally, I would not believe a word that came out of this conflicted man’s mouth. If he said the sun was shining – I would want a window so I could check for myself. And his one anecdote over the thousands of parent’s I have personally spoken with whose children were perfectly healthy until vaccination – sorry, but the thousands will will out every time over a story told by someone who has made tens of millions of dollars on his personal share of vaccine patents.

  8. Just a thought on an otherwise easy to read article – it’s usual practice to provide source references or links to the source if they are electronically available. It would enable those interested to be able to build a nice set of reading material. Thanks!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s