Letter to Essential Baby re AVN link

Sent this a few minutes ago. It would be so nice to get a reasonable response! We'll see:


Dear Editor,

I write regarding the article in Essential Baby entitled "Vaccines and Your Child".

I have no complaint about the article, but I am gravely concerned that it links to the Australian Vaccination Network (AVN).

The AVN are currently under investigation by the NSW Health Care Complaints Commission for providing misleading information to parents who are researching vaccination.

I am deeply worried that if this link to AVN is provided by Essential Baby it will give the AVN a credibility that I am convinced they do not deserve.

They are demonstrably anti-vaccination and it would be extremely difficult to find a doctor in NSW (where they are based) who would recommend them as a balanced or reliable source of information on vaccines.

I have personally gone through their claims and found most of them to be outdated or cherry-picked. (I have a BSc/BA Hons and have worked in an industry where we create anti-bodies for research.) I published my (long) findings on my otherwise uninteresting blog - http://emervents.blogspot.com/2009/06/critique-of-avns-10-reasons-to-think.html

I recommend you change the link to the Victorian Government's information page which also has vaccine information available in languages other than English and has links to recent data on vaccine coverage etc. http://www.health.vic.gov.au/immunisation

I look forward to your response.

Sincerely,

An honest account of motherly anger? About time.

Film-maker Julia Black, a BAFTA and Grierson nominated independent documentary maker, is making a film about motherly anger. As a mother of two, she is interested in shifting the taboo that surrounds a mother's anger towards her child or children and wishes to research into how many mothers, like her, have been shocked by the level of anger they experience.

Please take a few minutes to fill in this online questionnaire. All answers are entirely anonymous and cannot be traced to your e-mail address.

www.survey.ingenious2.co.uk

I did it, and it can be done in ten minutes or so. There's also room for the more loquacious of us to comment at the end which was nice (for me anyway!).

Now I'm officially procrastinating by having a jab at middle class whiners.

Someone tell me to stop with the politics and get back to work...

What Jason from Melbourne said. And also, though people who earn 150K a year may be supposed to pay 44K in tax, most of them don't because they pay expensive tax agents to exploit loopholes in our ludicrously complex tax system. I know because I've been there. We were bewildered by all the "middle-class welfare" coming our way. We took it because, hey, we're human and by no means asset wealthy. But in our Lefty Greeny heart of hearts we knew we didn't _need_ it. We also don't need the 30% tax rebate (but we take it). We have also experienced first-hand the benefits of being privately insured when we had a child with a condition that threatened his sight. He was treated that night instead of six weeks later (his fate under the public system). The middle-class only feel poor because we mortgage ourselves to the hilt and buy things we don't need. The middle-class on 100-150k, particularly folk with no carer responsibilities are doing better than fine, and I think some of us need to spend some time in a soup kitchen to remind ourselves of the things we're missing out on.

Critique of AVN's 10 Reasons Parents Question Vaccination

This is a sequel to the previous post, where I complain that parents trying to research the topic of vaccination are sabotaged by misinformation on the internets.

The folk at Australian Vaccination Network appear to be less qualified than I to comment on vaccine safety (and I’m not pretending to be qualified, just more eductated on the subject than yer average Joe), yet they don’t let that stop them. What follows is my dissection of their “reasons” for questioning vaccination. If you’re going to read their website, then please read this too! Their stuff is in block quotes and the full text can be found here.

“1 - Vaccines have never been tested.
The gold standard of medical science is the double blind crossover placebo study. This test has never been performed on any vaccine currently licensed in Australia. In an astounding leap of logic, contrary to all rules of science, vaccines are assumed to be safe and effective and therefore, it is considered to be unethical to withhold vaccinations for the purposes of testing them.”

Here is what AVN doesn’t tell you. In order to perform a conclusive double blind comparrison with placebo study on a vaccine you need to take a group of volunteers (and I assume these volunteers would have to be children to satisfy AVN that the vaccines were safe in children) and give half of them the vaccine (say, MMR for example) and half a placebo (all the contents minus the disease compnent). The words “double blind” indicate that the people administering the vaccine and monitoring for reactions do not know whether they are injecting vaccine or placebo into the patient. This prevents bias in the observations when adverse reactions to the needles are recorded, as the impartial observers do not know who has vaccine and who doesn’t. That’s the safety nice-nice part of this trial.

The bit that AVN has either omitted or simply not thought through (this is the logical bit), is that in order to truly prove or disprove the efficacy of these vaccines the volunteers then have to be infected with Mumps, Measles and Rubella. You want to know that the vaccines work, right? Well, this is how you tell whether or not they are effective. You give some people vaccine, some a placebo then you infect them with the disease. If no-one gets the disease there’s something very wrong with your methods because your positive control has failed and you have to start again. If half your volunteers get sick, the trial is a success, the vaccine works and half of your volunteers are now at risk for all the complications that can arrise in those diseases. If everyone gets sick, your vaccine has failed and everyone is now at risk for complications.

I sincerely doubt that any of the people clamouring for gold standard double blind trials for vaccine effectiveness would volunteer their own child for such a trial. It’s one thing to claim that it’s better to “get the diseases naturally” it’s quite another to let a medico infect your child isn’t it?

There are reasons for not trialing vaccines in this way OTHER than that they are “assumed to be safe and effective”. They are very good reasons. They are not “contrary to all rules of science” and they are ethically sound. The closest we can get to a decent test of vaccines is longitudinal studies of vaccinated and unvaccinated groups. Here is an example. Here’s another.
Vaccines are also being checked for long term efficacy as in this measles study.

The examples I have given are a few of many. When AVN says vaccines are not being tested they are either gravely mistaken or lying. Don’t trust them, search for yourself.

“2 - Vaccines contain toxic additives and heavy metals.
The list of vaccine ingredients includes toxins such as formaldehyde, a substance which the Queensland Poisons Control Centre has said was “unsafe at any level if injected into the human body”;”

Well, the Queensland poisons control centre was probably thinking of pure formaldehyde because, get this, humans produce formaldehyde as part of normal metabolism! Who knew! And when we are exposed to it (through, say, the AIR we breath) we break it down very quickly. Sure, in concentrated form I wouldn’t go near it - we used it as a tissue fixative, you really don’t want to get any on you. But in vaccines it is a teeny weeny diluted amount. According to Autism-News-Beat a very interesting website if you’re interested in vaccines, a 12 pound baby makes more formaldehyde in a day than you would get in any five childhood vaccines combined. Now I don’t know if this is strictly true, but hey, most people researching vaccines these days have Google PhDs, so check out the view from the other side.

“carbolic acid, also a strong poison which was implicated in deaths and serious injuries in a recent Sydney hospital mishap;”

Apart from not being able to find reference to a serious hospital incident involving carbolic acid anywhere - references people?…

Hmmm phenol (another name for carbolic acid). Causes death or grave injury at 140mg per kilo of human (to put this in perspective, at 70kg I would need to drink 9.8kg of the stuff to be seriously harmed. Because phenol is lighter than water, this is over 10 litres). This information can be found in any MSDS (Material Safety Data Sheet) for phenol. It is highly irritating and we are very careful when we use it in the lab. We don’t splash it around, but we don’t use "dragon hide gloves" either. It’s one of the oldest known disinfectants. It used to be diluted and sprayed on wounds to prevent infection and OMG! save lives! (The guy who first thought of this is called Lister - he has hospital wards named after him.) Its purpose in the vaccine is as an antibacterial (preservative). That is, the nice guys who make your vaccines don’t want them going off and giving you septicaemia. The quantity of phenol in vaccines is miniscule. Certainly a tiny tiny fraction of the 140mg per kilo required to cause death or grave injury. To my mind the phenol probably doesn’t hurt as an adjuvant either. But of course the guys at AVN would be explaining to you what an adjuvant is, right? Because they know exactly how vaccines work, right? Wrong. *sigh*

“aluminium which is linked with the development of Alzheimer’s disease and allergies;”

Actually no, the Alzheimer’s link was debunked years ago people. But don’t believe me, check out what the UK Alzheimers Society (people who would have a vested interest in promoting research if there was any link whatsoever) has to say about aluminium.

As for causing allergies, here we have OMG! a grain of truth! There have been reported cases of the aluminium adjuvant causing irritation at the injection site in some vaccines but not others. People who say they know why are giving you their pet theories (another danger to look out for when reading abstracts for information). Here’s a nice summary of one study. I hope you can access at least the abstract, because it is quite nice.

Also the WHO has commented on incidences of high levels of macrophages containing aluminium at injection sites. I agree with them that it is a minor problem that requires further investigation. This is in light of the fact that the incidence of irritation is low and the diseases they are trying to prevent are severe.

“and Thiomersal, a mercury-based preservative which is a known neurotoxin and whose inclusion in vaccination sparked a series of Congressional hearings which saw the US Government and the AAP (American Academy of Paediatrics) call for its immediate withdrawal from any vaccine product and which was withdrawn over two years ago in the USA from any over-the-counter medicines. It was also withdrawn from the American Hepatatis B vaccines, Engerix and HB Vax II, though their Australian counterparts which are still being injected into children here today, are only just being made mercury free or mercury reduced (though the old, mercury-laced stocks will be used up rather than being withdrawn from use).”

*sigh* This one is the real kicker. What actually happened was that the FDA was commisioned to measure mercury exposure in the general population and someone noticed that will all the vaccines the kids were getting these days the total amount of mercury was, not dangerously high, but higher than anyone felt comfortable with. Before anyone claps their hands with glee and says “I told you so!!!” Try having a think. If the mercury levels were ACTUALLY dangerous there would have been LOTS and LOTS and LOTS of cases of mercury POISONING. Millions of them. There were not. The reduction of mercury was a precaution blown into a health scare. Liza Gross, a medical anthropologist, does a lovely job of outlineing just how this happened here.

“3 - Vaccines are contaminated with human and animal viruses and bacteria
All childhood vaccines, apart from the Hepatitis B (which is genetically engineered and carries with it a different set of problems,) are cultured on either animal tissue, a broth of animal and/or human blood and blood products or the cell lines from aborted human foetuses.”

In this alarmist little paragraph the AVN left out growing viruses in egg yolks and chick embryos. To someone who has no idea, they sound credible, to someone who’s done any culturing of cells they sound like complete morons.

It is preferable to produce vaccines in human cell-lines simply because our own immune systems prefer similar proteins. The cells they use did come from aborted foetuses - in the 1960s. Since then those cells have been dividing and growing in containers, the cells they use now are not from human foetuses, but they have a human foetus as their great great great great….. grandparent. Human foetuses were used to create the cell-lines because they divide more quickly (because the foetal growth rate is much higher), and you have a better chance of finding a cell-line that likes to grow in a container than you have with adult cells. Perhaps the AVN would prefer that cell-lines from adult human cancers were used? (The most well known being HeLa cells.) Of course not.

If animal or human cell lines are used to produce vaccines (and indeed they are) then the blood products from animals or humans is required for the cells to grow. These blood products are tested for contaminants and handled under extremely sterile conditions, you couldn’t culture the cells otherwise.

“None of these culturing methods is able to guarantee an uncontaminated vaccine. In fact, it is well known that many foreign viruses and bacteria can and do contaminate vaccines.”

The AVN are again, way out of date. I gather they haven't been inside a vaccine manufacturing plant lately. These guys swab the WALLS to test for any nasties hanging about that might get into their product. Again, human cells are used to culture vaccines because it’s SAFER to use human blood products and tissue as the resulting protein mix is known to our bodies. We also have a reliable, safe and tested source of human blood products via the Red Cross. I know this because we weren’t allowed to have the extra specially safe serum for our lab, the REALLY good stuff went to the people researching things that would go back into human bodies, like vaccines.

“Almost none of these contaminants have been studied.”

This is patently untrue. They are studied, and tested for. This WHO bulletin sums things up nicely. Though I believe they indicate that practise could be better in some places, as in, some people were still using antibodies to detect impurities when they could have been using PCR which when used correctly is far more sensitive. And this is also a nice example of the kind of thing that goes on in the name of vaccine safety.

“The few which have been leave many parents concerned about the long-term effects of injecting these substances into their children. For instance, SV 40 (simian or monkey virus 40 – just one of 60 monkey viruses known to contaminate the polio vaccines) has been linked with cancers in humans;”

Yeah, but that cancer link was also debunked, and they stopped using the contaminated vaccine back in 1963. That’s nearly half a century ago! Check out the study from JAMA.

“there is a chicken retrovirus which contaminates the measles and mumps vaccines called Reverse Transcriptase.”

Now this display of ignorance would be hilarious if the topic were not so serious. Reverse Transcriptase is an E-N-Z-Y-M-E not a virus. It is an enzyme used by some viruses (retroviruses) to copy DNA when they hijack the mammalian cell’s protein-making machinary. Something all viruses do in order to replicate and cause disease by the way.

“This substance, an ancient non-human DNA code, is thought to switch on the HIV virus and cause it to become AIDS in humans;”

To the dear guys at AVN - ROFL NO, please, please stop, you are tooooo funny! Could your language possibly be more dramatic? Could you possibly be more wrong? Ok, you didn’t say HIV came from aliens but you might as well have. Here’s a link to a lovely Wiki article that is, if not in layman’s terms, at least provides links for most of those long words us scientists love to use: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reverse_transcriptase. If you don’t like the wiki, go to a LIBRARY, open a first year BIOLOGY TEXT BOOK and look up RETROVIRUSES. mkay? Do this before you misinform well meaning parents who are taking you seriously. Yours sincerely, Emervents.

I don’t know if reverse transcriptase is ancient, my vague memory is that retroviruses are fairly new on the goelogical timescale, but reverse transcriptase IS definitely non-human. It is part of the armoury of all retroviruses. They carry it with them, in other words. It does not “switch on” HIV, it is an enzyme HIV uses in order to reproduce. This is because HIV is one of the retrovirusus that operates in this way. No-one really knows why HIV infection becomes AIDS in some people and not others, certainly not the AVN.

“AIDS itself has been linked with a virus called SIV (Simian Immunodeficiency Virus) which contaminated both the polio and smallpox vaccines;”

Actually, it wasn't, the link was refuted scientifically in 2004. Again AVN has siezed on one hyped up scare caused by a guy who wrote a book (and who ought to have his PhD retracted) and presented it as fact. Try the Avert website, an AIDS charity for a balanced look at all the suspected sources of HIV, including all your conspiracy theories.

For the nerdier readers, here is one response from the FDA that contains sound scientific reasons to refute the SIV scare. UPDATE: Since I linked to this page it has been taken down by the FDA, which is a shame. This is possibly because it looks like an internal memo and contains the name and contact details of the person who wrote it. I have saved the page and if anyone is desperately interested they can email me and I will send a copy minus the identifying details of the author.

“the current MMR (measles mumps rubella) and other vaccines which contain bovine (cow) blood products are thought to be able to spread the human and always fatal form of mad cow disease, Creutzfeld-Jacobs disease, more readily than eating contaminated meat.”

Now where did AVN hear that one? A reference please. I love it when people like AVN use buzz words like “are thought to”. Thought to by whom? The wizards? There is exactly one SUSPECTED case of CJD from vaccination in VAERS see for yourself. The author of the Nature review I gave above said that he couldn’t rule it out, but the chance would be less than one in a billion.

“4 - Vaccines can cause serious immediate side effects.
As long as there have been vaccines, there have been reports of serious side effects following their administration. These side effects include (but are not limited to) convulsions and epilepsy, permanent brain damage, anaphylactic (life threatening allergic) reactions, Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS), retinal and brain haemorrhages (now being confused with Shaken Baby Syndrome) and death.”

Lots of things have side effects, lots of things cause reactions and vaccines are no exception, but you have to be susecptable. Antibiotics cause life threatening reactions if you happen to be susceptible. So can peanut butter if you’re susceptible. So can dust mite poo if you’re susceptible.

With regard to SIDS AVN is plain wrong. I checked the numbers on VAERS and the incidences of SIDS reported after vaccination were well bellow the rate of incidences in the general population. That a doctor reported SIDS after a vaccine does not demonstrate a cause unless you can show that there are more incidences of SIDS in the vaccinated population than the non-vaccinated population. I'm beginning to be irritated with AVN. Where do they get these “facts”?

There are people working on it anyway, which I assume is one of the good things to come out of databases like VAERS. Try these:
http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/abstract/319/10/618
http://fetalneonatal.com/cgi/content/abstract/73/6/498
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/abstract/79/4/598

And where is the AVN's evidence that brain haemorages caused by vaccines are being confused with shaken baby syndrome (SBS)? The diagnosis of SBS is being called into question, but I cannot find a credible mention of SBS confusion anywhere other than alarmist websites like AVN's. Please, if anyone from AVN reads this, refer me to your source. UPDATE: Nope, I found some, only, they're on an anti-vax sight so should be read with their political leanings in mind.

“5 - Vaccines can cause serious long-term side effects.
According to medical reports, children are now less healthy than they have ever been before. More than 40% of all children now suffer from chronic conditions , something that was unheard of prior to mass vaccination. Vaccines have been associated with such conditions as Asthma, Eczema, Food Allergies, Chronic Ear Infections, Insulin Dependent Diabetes, Arthritis, Juvenile Rheumatoid Arthritis, Autism, Attention Deficit Disorder, Ulcerative Colitis, Irritable Bowel Syndrome, Hyperactivity, Schizophrenia, Multiple Sclerosis, Cancer and a raft of other chronic and auto-immune conditions which are experiencing dramatic rises in incidence.”

40%?? that’s a lot of kids to put on the special bus. Again, where is your evidence? Parents who may have got this far, close your eyes and imagine your kid’s school playground or playgroup, does it LOOK as though nearly half of them have chronic conditions?

And here’s a lesson in numbers AVN, when there are more people in the population, the number of incidences of any condition will go up. What we are interested in, is the RATE of chronic conditions, not the number of incidences. It is not whether the number of kids with MS has gone up, but whether the percentage of kids with MS in the population has gone up. Again, I’d like evidence from an expert and not someone who proports to be an expert on everything the government won’t tell you about vaccines yet gets their enzymes and viruses confused.

“6 - Vaccines do not necessarily protect against infectious diseases.
For many years, parents were told that once a child was fully vaccinated, they would be protected for life. That has now turned into a series of life-long boosters that are still not able to protect either children or adults from infectious diseases.”

Er, blanket statement much? I was vaccinated in the early 1970’s and my parents didn't tell me it was for life. How many years is “many”?

It is true that vaccines can wear off, though personally my rubella vaccine hasn’t yet and I’m 37 that’s been good for 25 years now. My Hep B hasn’t yet and that’s been ten years. The others I haven’t had reason to test so I don’t know. Still, I’m enough of a counter example to show that whether or not they don’t give protection for life might be a little more variable than AVN is suggesting. Could it possibly be that they don’t know what they’re talking about?

“For the very real risk of both short and long-term side effects from vaccines,”

And did they mention, very small risk? No I don’t think they did. Very, very small.

“parents are asked to allow their children to be given vaccines that at best, will provide a temporary sensitisation to illnesses and at worst, can make their children more susceptible to both opportunistic and infectious illness.”

What does AVN even mean by temporary sensitisation? Do they know what sensitise means? Are they saying that the MMR vaccine I gave my son made him more sensitive to Measles? OMG!! And when they say the children will be more suseptible to both opportunistic and infectious illnesses, does that mean the vaccines give them AIDS??? OMG!!!! Please, give me a list of opportunistic illnesses and a list of the infectious ones, because my children are in danger of being more suseptible to BOTH kinds!!! *sigh* I’m sorry, I’m tired. I’m tired of reading this crap, and I’m plagued by the thought that there are people out there who are going to take AVN seriously.

“As evidenced by the recent whooping cough outbreak in SA, the only Australian state which actually records vaccination status in cases of infectious illness, 87% of all those who contracted whooping cough and whose vaccination status was known were fully and appropriately vaccinated. In fact, Australian government statistics have shown that the majority of outbreaks in Australia occur in those who have been either fully vaccinated or were too young to be fully vaccinated.”

Yeah right. Evidence please. Even a year for the outbreak would be nice. Websites with data, government publications, anything. Evidence. I went to the South Australian Department of Health website and found media releases urging people to get boosters. Why would they do that if 87% of people who contracted it were fully vaccinated? Maybe they were encouraging adults to boost to protect the unvaccinated population. I think AVN have pulled the figure of 87% from somewhere dark and unmentionable. I found several news items on abc.net referring to whooping cough outbreaks but none of them mentioned the high rate in vaccinated people. You’d have thought that would be news worthy! Unless, our Aunty ABC is in the pocket of big pharma too! Oh noes!!!

UPDATE: I went to my doctor a few weeks ago to get a whooping cough booster as my next door neighbour has just had it and she's now the fourth adult I know of to contract it. It's doing the rounds in our area and I can't afford to get it. My doctor told me that he recently treated a nurse for whooping cough and that this was the second time she'd had it. She got it as a kid and it still didn't protect her as an adult. It seems that whooping cough is something we do need boosters for even if we have had the disease. Though at $80 a pop I'm not impressed with its lack of accessibility.

“7 - Doctors, as paid salesmen for vaccine products, are no longer considered to be trustworthy arbiters of their safety and effectiveness.
Doctors are currently receiving several payments from the government to push vaccines. These include $6 for reporting vaccinations to the Australian Childhood Immunisation Register (ACIR), a national database which tracks vaccination status in our children and which has been called “a back-door Australia Card”; $18.50 on top of their Medicare rebate for vaccinating a child on time; and a bulk payment at the end of each year based upon them having a practice vaccination rate in excess of 80%. These payments can add up to many tens of thousands of dollars in a busy inner-city practice.”

I spoke to someone I know who is a doctor and she confirmed that they did get $6 extra dollars, but the time it took to fill out the paperwork hardly made it worthwhile, epecially since the $6 was before tax. The idea behind the scheme was to achieve 90% immunisation rates in 90% of practices. She said there is a rumour that the scheme will be scrapped as it didn’t work, indicating that it did not change immunisation rates anyway.

“As a result of this grossly unethical situation, doctors can no longer be thought of as objective when it comes to this issue. Parents no longer trust that their doctors will recommend that they vaccinate simply because it is the best thing for their child rather than the best thing for the doctor’s bottom line.”

Whether that was true remains to be seen. I’ve heard a rumour that it didn’t effect vaccination rates at all, and I’m waiting for EVIDENCE to confirm or refute that rumour before I leap to conclusions. How about you, AVN?

“8 - Pharmaceutical companies have paid for almost all vaccine research to date.
Just as the tobacco companies paid for corrupt and incorrect research which purported to show that tobacco and tobacco products were safe for human consumption, so too the pharmaceutical companies have paid for and produced almost all of the research into vaccines. While the Australian government continues to spend literally hundreds of millions of dollars a year in promoting and implementing vaccination campaigns (an example is the $292 million earmarked for vaccination against Meningococcal this year alone!) and little or no money on independent research, parents will continue to mistrust the research that has been performed by vested interests. After all, companies are by their very definition commercial concerns which are motivated by profit. There is nothing that would make a pharmaceutical company intrinsically more ethical and therefore more trustworthy than a tobacco company.
In addition, it is a little-known fact that the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA), the government body which licenses and registers vaccines and other medical products, does not perform any tests whatsoever to verify pharmaceutical company claims of safety or effectiveness.”

Don’t you just love paragraphs that begin with, “Not many people know this, but….” or “In addition, it is a little-known fact…” Actually I must admit to agreeing with most of the above point, but want to add that one of the very good reasons for trials being funded by the pharmacutical companies is that human trials are hideously expensive. I don’t think the government could afford to run its own trials for every new drug that came to market. The results the big companies produce should be read carefully BY EXPERTS in the field who know all of the tricks the companies use to make their products look good, experts such as OMG! the TGA!! Oh, hang on, I think that’s what they do! Jolly good then!

“9 - Doctors and health professionals rarely if ever report vaccine reactions.
In discussions with representatives of both ADRAC (The Adverse Drug Reactions Advisory Committee) and the SAEFVSS (Serious Adverse Events Following Vaccination Surveillance Scheme), the two government bodies charged with keeping track of reactions to vaccines and other drugs, the AVN’s representatives were informed that less than 10% of all adverse reactions are ever reported.”

Whaaaaa???? How could anyone possibly know this? If these adverse reactions are never reported, how does anyone know they exist? Further more, how could anyone count these non-existent (at least on paper) reactions and get a figure like 90%? If I have to read any more flawed logic like the next bit my head might explode.

“This means that the government’s claims of vaccine safety are admittedly 90% incorrect.”

Not only does the maths not work out there, but, if things aren’t reported, they are neither correct nor incorrect because they are NOT KNOWN. Bloody hell, we’re counting phantoms now? With accuracy? If you rocked up to our local hospital for the mentally ill and announced that you knew everything that hadn’t been reported to a government agency to two significant figures they wouldn’t let you go home for your pyjamas!

“In addition, the AVN’s adverse reactions database currently contains details on more than 800 serious adverse vaccine reactions. Not one of these reactions was ever reported by the doctors or health professionals involved. Parents cannot rely on data with that wide a margin of error when they are dealing with the health and well-being of their children.”

I believe the AVN has collected this data in good faith. Although I cannot find a link to it on their website, if they truly think this data proved anything you’d think they’d be clamouring to have the public look at it. If you’re serious, AVN, remove identifying details and leave it open to scrutiny. I’d say there is a good reason none of it was reported by doctors or health professionals, but I doubt anyone from AVN would be prepared to hear good reasons from a science graduate, as I’m obviously in the pocket of big pharma.

“10 - Some childhood illnesses have beneficial aspects and therefore, prevention may not necessarily be in the best interests of the child.
Measles, for example, has been used in Scandinavian countries to successfully treat such autoimmune conditions as eczema and many studies have performed which show that children who do not contract measles naturally as a child are more likely to suffer from certain cancers later in life.”

Evidence? citations? “Many studies” is not good enough for this thinking Mummy and it shouldn’t be good enough for anyone else. I have used every advantage (read access to university databases and Google foo) at my disposal to try to find an example of measles being used to treat eczema. I found nothing, zilch, nada. Not even a hint.

I managed to find this news article about the Mayo clinic using measles to fight certain cancers, but would AVN believe them? After all, in their disclaimer they say that they stand to make some money if their treatment works…

“In addition, recent studies have shown that contracting the common childhood illnesses help to prime and strengthen the immune system in a way that vaccinations just cannot do. This priming means that children are much less likely to suffer from the now common allergic and autoimmune conditions that plague them today. Conditions such as asthma, diabetes and cancer.”

*sigh* again note that they do not refer you to the actual recent studies. I could not find any. I don’t know where they got them from. I would love to know.

“In addition, vaccinated mothers cannot confer passive immunity to their children even if they have contracted the wild form of the disease.”

Again, where are they getting this information? Zorba’s Get Well Guide?

There’s a nice review in Vaccine 2007 called “Passive transmission and persistence of naturally acquired or vaccine-induced maternal antibodies against measles in newborns” I can read it free, but many of you will have to pay unless you have access to a library with this journal (Something that makes me grumpy buts that’s a whole other issue.) After reviewing many studies, some of which found no difference, but most of which found a little difference, it seems that vaccinated mothers only protect their infants until eight months, while mothers who acquired natural immunity protect their infants for a whopping three months longer. If vaccinated mothers were exposed to the disease, their antibody titre was boosted and they also confered immunity for around eleven months. The researcher’s conclusion? Might be a good idea to bring the vaccination dates forward a bit in communities with low or no naturally occuring cases of measles.

“This immunity used to protect all children during their vulnerable first months and years. Now, a vaccinated mother will give birth to a child who will be susceptible to these infections when, prior to vaccines, they would normally have been immune.”

Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong according to dozens of trials in many countries. Wrong. Dudes, antibodies are antibodies. Whether they be for a vaccine or the naturally contracted disease. If a mother has immunity, wehther that be natural or no, she will confer passive immunity to her offspring.

“Vaccination is a medical procedure. It should never, ever be mandated. Nor should there ever be any coercion, financial or social penalties for those parents who have chosen, as is their right under the law, not to take the above risks on behalf of their children. Unvaccinated children continue to be among the healthiest children in our society.”

What if their choices put other children at risk? Because that's what will happen if enough people go unvaccinated. What then? I'm all for mandating vaccination in all who can be.

That unvaccinated children are among the healthiest is unsubstantiated. AVN, please provide a source.

“They are no more the carriers of disease than any other healthy person.”

And this is false. And an odd thing to say given that AVN seem to think that it’s better to contract the diseases naturally. Surely then, the unvaccinated kiddies can be carriers of disease?

“It is the government’s responsibility to do the necessary research to ensure that procedures they are recommending for all Australian families are as safe and effective as they possibly can be. It is also their responsibility to keep vested interests honest. On both counts, this government has failed in its duty of care to our most vulnerable resource – our children.
Every one of the points raised above deserves critical examination and public discussion and the parents who ask these questions deserve respect, not vilification.”

The government is made of people who do not want to hurt you, and who are doing their best to keep the population as healthy as possible. They are, for the most part, hard working human beings and not mass poisoners.

I agree, the parents deserve respect, not vilification and would probably be less anti-vaccine if their local GPs treated them like intelligent people instead of idiots. But YOU whoever you are at AVN, you deserve vilification. Your ten reasons page is 70% erroneos, 10% appalling logic (where you attempt to use it), and 20% dramatic hyperbole. And I pulled those figures from the same place you pulled yours I suspect.

Thinking about Vaccines? Thinking of Googling? Found AVN? VISA? Think Twice? Well think again.

I’m supposed to be reading up on levels of consciousness but I just had to get this out of my system. That is what this blog is for after all. I apologise for the sometimes acrimonious tone of this blog post. There were times when I got very angry, and when I get angry I get scathing.

I blame Twitter.

And facebook.

This all started when I connected my Twitter feed to my facebook account so that all my fb friends could see my every tweet. As a result a few of my friends saw me have a grumble at people who did not vaccinate their children when there was a confirmed case of whooping cough at my son’s school.

This provoked an unexpected, but interesting response from two facebook friends for whom I have a fair quota of respect, “Why don’t you have any patience for them? It’s their choice, they do the reasearch and choose what is best for their children…” I paraphrase, but you get the gist.

This provoked a long discussion, and some soul searching, not to mention internet searching on the issue.

I was told by my dissenting friends that far from being ignorant, non-vaccinators have read a great deal on the individual vaccines and their side effects. They constantly have to justify their choices on forms to medicos, schools and childcare. Their position has to be well thought out in order to navigate the hurdles a conscientious objector must leap in order for their child to participate in many areas of society the vaccinated take for granted. I would not, under any cirumstances, call them stupid. However, having taken a look at the kind of information out there for people trying to find information on vaccines, I would hazard a guess that they, and others, may have been misinformed at best, criminally misled at worst.

If you google the fairly inncouous “vaccine information australia”. There are a two organisations that crop up immediately. Vaccination Information Servicing Australia (VISA) and Australian Vaccination Network (AVN) were the two top hits. With catchy slogans like “Investigate before you vaccinate.” and “Love them. Protect them. Never inject them.” These websites proport to give you the truth on vaccines that the government won’t.

Sadly, I don’t have the time to nit-pick the websites in their entirety though I would dearly love to! However, I can, I hope, give enough reason to cast a serious shadow of doubt over their reliablility and legitimacy.

Both websites give “10 Reasons Why Parents Question Vaccination” or “10 Reasons to Investigate Before You Vaccinate.” The AVN’s is more detailed so I’ll look at theirs. They contain, if I’m kind, many errors of reasoning bolstered by sound ignorance and an appalling unawareness of the theory and history of vaccination. If I were unkind I would say that most of their “facts” are unsubstantiated in the extreme and that a lot of the more dramatic “facts” are made up.

If there are parents reading this post who are currently investigating the pros and cons of vaccination for their children I would implore them not to rely on the information these websites provide. It is often conveniently out of date, contains glaring misinformation and inaccuracies and in the case of at least one of them occurs within a broader agenda of a “natural life style philosophy” that generally shuns western medicine and endorses living harmoniously with mother nature.

If this is your view point I would still implore you not to take their “facts” at face value. They claim to be critical of scientists and doctors yet they are ill equipped to do any criticising. Judging by their commentary they are neither scientists nor stastisticians, and so in many cases they have their facts and interpretations of facts completely wrong.

A good place to get up to date information is Medline. But even then, if you only read the abstracts you can fall prey to tricks the pharmacutical companies use to make their products look better than rival company products. So in order to really know what’s going on with the latest research you have to be aware of who’s funding it, have a sound knowledge of what makes a good clinical trial or study (how cohort selection can bias results, for example, and the political leanings of the researcher running the trial) and a good grasp of the theory. To give an indication of how tricky I think this is, I have a science degree that included immunology and statistics and I wouldn’t feel capable of getting thoroughly on top of the research without at least a year of doing that and nothing else.

Here is a small example of the kind of misinterpretation that can be made by laymen when reading medical or scientific articles:

This article in Nature (Vaccine safety–vaccine benefits:science and the public's perception by Edgar K. Marcuse, Christopher B. Wilson in Nature Reviews Immunology 1, 160-165 (31 October 2001), that I highly recommend for a balanced and honest view on vaccines (though it is dated 2001 - always check the publication date!) contains the snippett: “relatively few infections are prevented by immunisation”. This can be interpretted in two ways. To those that know there are over 400 viruses and bugs out there that the newborn has to come to terms with, this means that immunisation is used to prevent a few of the more horrible kinds of infection. Therefore, relatively few infections are prevented by immunisation and the rest the children deal with on their own. To the lay-person, however, the same snippet may read as “relatively few infections are prevented by immunisation so immunisation obviously doesn’t work. Look, it’s in Nature!” That this interpretation is at odds with the rest of the paper does not matter to the zealous. They can cite that portion to their hearts content and look credible to all but the most astute observers.

There's this kind of misrepresentation and the fact that most of the population isn't capable of accurately assessing risk. Take the person who doesn't like swimming in the ocean for fear of sharks, but crosses roads every day. The risk that they will end up road kill is much higher than the risk that they will be shark food but the human brain is crap at making that assessment even when presented with the numbers. If most of the population can't make that kind of assessment, how can they be expected to make an assessment about immunisation where the theory is more complex and the numbers harder? Most people don't have access to the latest articles (or would rather google than go to a library), and end up being swayed by the scare-mongers who had a bit of bad luck in life and decided to blame their child's autism, cerebral palsy or whatever on an injection they had once.

I worry that 99% of those who say they evaluate the pros and cons are doing less evaluating and more looking for evidence to support their paranoia. And they will find this "evidence" in abundance on the internet.

I've been checking out some of the pro and anti vaccine debate on the internets. Sorry to say that mostly, and I mean to emphasise MOSTLY, the anti proponents don't do themselves any favours at all. They tend to display a glaring ignorance of immunology, epidemiology and medical history - I'd have thought they would be essential reading for anyone claiming to have researched the issue. They also, again MOSTLY, provide no evidence for fairly outlandish claims ("There was a pertussis outbreak in Idaho and 100% of the victims were immunised!!!"). When the pro-vaccine people join the conversation they are flamed down as being in the pocket of big pharma. This was a little unfortunate as the pro-people were more likely to ask for evidence and provide evidence in return.

There was a lot of scary anecdotes from both sides, none of which amounted to a shred of proof about anything but which made for interesting reading. Anyone researching off the beaten track, and I imagine that includes most parents must remember that: THE PLURAL OF ANECDOTE IS NOT PROOF.

Speaking of anecdotes though, the most interesting were the number of parents of autistic children who chimed in to say that they had done an awful lot of reading on the link between MMR and autism themselves, they were not satisfied there was a link, and could everyone please just shut up about it and use their energy for improving conditions and treatment for autistic children? Anecdotal I know, but still, surprising given the forum.

Sorry to say that the few reasonable anti-vaccinators armed with evidence and argument were still very conspiracy theory oriented, but even if they weren't they were drowned out by the complete idiots anyway.

I have no qualifications other than being a fan of medical history, managing to stay awake in immunology and epidemiology and I worked in an industry that creates antibodies for research. Compared to the average Joe I know my stuff. To me, vaccination isn't just about protecting my kids (well, ok, tetanus is) it's about helping to protect the vulnerable in our community, namely tiny babies and people who cannot vaccinate for whatever reason. I don't want to go back to the days where hospitals had to have dedicated measles and pertussis wards. I don't want to live in a world where everyone knows someone affected by polio or congenital rubella.

And this is why I get grumbly when people don't vaccinate. I feel that they're taking their healthy society for granted, even taking advantage of it. I might feel the same way about people who refused to fight if our country was being invaded. I might feel that they weren't earning their safety or protection, that they were letting other people take the risks for them. I'm community minded about vaccination so that's just how I feel. I also think I've done the hours of homework and have earned the right to feel that way.

My next post calls out some of the misinformation on the Australian Vaccination Network website. It's lengthy, but if you're serious about researching vaccines and you don't have a scientific background I recommend you read it all.

Contribution to paid maternity leave discussion at The Age.

Wow. Lots of conservative "pay your own way" types posting here!

I know one of those. The type to bark at every opportunity that she paid her own way, why shouldn't everyone else? She's getting to thirty and still lives (rent free) with her Mummy and Daddy. She takes their input into her lifestyle completely for granted, and assumes that everyone's had it just as "tough" as her, she just "works harder". I'm sure people here will recognize the type. Most, but not all, are single or DINKs.

Those who are touting the "pay for your children yourselves!" line, or the "don't be fooled! stay home and look after your little darlings!" line, reek of an anachronistic conservatism that would have mothers invisible and undervalued while their men went off to work and rule the world. Are you missing your androcentric dark ages darlings?

Time to wake up. The world is different, men want more to do with their children, women want more of a life outside the home, society will have to adjust and one way to adjust is to provide parental leave. I know it's one step up from maternity leave, but hey, I'm hopeful.

I'm sorry you people don't like the idea of paying for a little bit of paid respite for women who give birth. Especially since 14 weeks is barely enough recovery time for the shock of a first baby - and yes, it's more of a rude shock than a holiday, darlings.

14 weeks is very little to ask, given that:

My children will cost me $450,000 (out of pocket) all up and I'm a conservative spender. My children and many others will be paying taxes to care for those of my generation who have remained childless for whatever reason. They will also be caring for them in aged care since childless people are rarely nursed at home by a relative... and I'm not finished... the children born now will be providing infrastructure (shelter), manufacturing products (food, the odd catheter), transport (delivery of said catheter), medical services (insertion of said catheter), cleaning (for before you get the catheter), and governance (organizing access to medical care in the first place)... just to name a few of the odds and ends that make up the elderly support network.

I will have paid tax AND spent $450,000 (not to mention the back breaking work of "merely" parenting and the dedication and time that entails), to provide three of the people who will support you in your old age. Not that supporting you whiners is why I had them, it's just a happy side effect that you are going to enjoy at my expense.

You people live your comparatively carefree single or DINKs lives and begrudge paying for a few weeks off after giving birth? Get real, get in the now, and grow up a bit. We all benefit from contributing to the welfare of children.

Emma

PS to those two who mentioned speedboats? I'd like to see a speedboat wipe your bottom for you when you can no longer do it yourself.

My letter to the Attorney General for what it's worth...

Dear Sir,

On April 30th, 2008 The Age speculated that there would be an end to discrimination against same-sex couples on many fronts, but whether or not they would have access to the family court was still being resolved.

In this instance, I beg that you consider the children born into this situation. They are being discriminated against for something they cannot possibly control.

I believe that denying access to same-sex couples discriminates against the children born into same-sex families. Children involved in court cases, particularly custody battles, can suffer severe stress and long term harm (I have vivid memories of my parent's court cases in the late 1970s). The Family Court now has procedures and policies in place to protect children from messy adversarial court cases. At present, children of heterosexual couples benefit from this protection whether or not their parents are married. To deny same-sex couples access to the family court is to deny children of same-sex couples the same protection children of heterosexual couples enjoy. In my opinion, this is blatant and harmful discrimination.

Without the family court, same-sex couples are forced to settle their differences in the civil courts that lack policies and regulations to protect families from damaging adversarial court cases. The Family Court of Australia requires that couples attempt alternative forms of dispute resolution before taking their case to court; appearing before a judge is a last resort and even then, a less adversarial trial is conducted with the interests of the children paramount. The civil courts are under no compulsion to give children this protection.

To deny same-sex couples access to the family courts is to expose a small portion of our community's children to a potentially stressful legal process; it condemns them to the equivalent of the dark ages of family law. Again I beg you to consider the children when resolving the issue of whether or not to give same-sex couples access to the family court.

On another note, I believe The Family Court is best equipped to deal with the additional complications that can arise in same-sex families. For example, I know a lesbian couple with two children. With the exception of gender and some discrimination they operate just like any other family. They have the same joys, trials and tribulations and will suffer the same stress and grief if the relationship breaks down. If a separation did occur, the situation would be complicated by the fact that the father is the same, yet the mothers are different (they decided to share the child bearing load and have one each). The Family Court is experienced in family dynamics and providing solutions to complex problems, therefore it is best placed to consider complicated cases such as this.

Please consider giving all families access to the Family Courts, no matter what their dynamic. For the sake of the children, please.

Yours faithfully etc.

UPDATE 12/08/08: Yey! Full access to the family courts for everyone! I like to think that I had something to do with it, but given I got a standard (albeit informative) letter in reply I rather doubt it! :-)

Denying same-sex couples access to the family court unfairly discriminates against their children.

On April 30th, 2008 The Age speculated that there would be an end to discrimination against same-sex couples on many fronts, but whether or not they would have access to the family court was still being resolved.

What on earth is the problem?  It seems obvious to me that denying them access discriminates against the children born into same-sex families.  Children involved in court cases, particularly custody battles, can suffer severe stress and long term harm (I have vivid memories of my parent’s court cases in the late 1970s).  The Family Court now has procedures and policies in place to protect children from messy adversarial court cases.  At present, children of heterosexual couples benefit from this protection whether or not their parents are married.  To deny same-sex couples access to the family court is to deny children of same-sex couples the same protection children of heterosexual couples enjoy.  In my opinion, this is blatant and harmful discrimination. 

Without the family court, same-sex couples are forced to settle their differences in the civil courts that lack policies and regulations to protect families from damaging adversarial court cases.  The Family Court of Australia requires that couples attempt alternative forms of dispute resolution before taking their case to court; appearing before a judge is a last resort and even then, a less adversarial trial is conducted with the interests of the children paramount.  The civil courts are under no compulsion to give children this protection.

To deny same-sex couples access to the family courts is to expose a small portion of our community’s children to a potentially stressful legal process; it condemns them to the equivalent of the dark ages of family law.  Again I ask: What is the problem?

UPDATE 12/08/08: Yey! Full access to the family court for everyone!