Lifting the immunisation rate
The Herald reports:
Parliament’s health committee is considering whether parents should be offered cash incentives to have their children immunised, or even have benefits withheld if they don’t without good reason.
Committee members were in Canberra last week looking at several issues including how Australia had dramatically improved its childhood immunisation rates and will report to Parliament on its trip.
Chairman and National MP Paul Hutchison said 91 per cent of Australian 2-year-olds were now fully immunised against little more than 50 per cent 10 years ago. In New Zealand the rate is about 75 to 80 per cent.
That is an impressive increase in Australia. The rate in NZ is highly variable. Probably close to 100% in some areas, and under 50% in others.
Australia’s success had been been achieved with a seven point plan, including some measures such as a childhood immunisation register which is already in place here.
However, Dr Hutchison said he was particularly impressed with the effectiveness of cash incentives for families and health professionals in increasing immunisation rates.
Parents of 18-month-olds who had received all required shots received a A$125 ($163) cash payment. Another payment was made to parents of fully immunised 4-year-olds.
Other measures included requirements at some schools and pre-schools for children to be fully immunised before they could be enrolled.
I instinctively don’t like the idea of paying parents to do something they should do anyway, but you know if it works, it would be worth it for the savings in health.
However what would be good is some research into what has most contributed to the lift in rates in Australia – is it the cash payments or is it the requirement in some schools to be immunised to enrol?
March 15th, 2010 at 7:33 am
When we lived in the US the kids couldn’t attend school without doctor’s certificates evidencing immunisation. Of course for the sort of parents who dont immunise this is unlikely to be deterrent.
March 15th, 2010 at 7:46 am
More nanny stateism sigh
We probably over immunize imho – it makes sense for polio I guess but I remain to be convinced that the triple vaccine MMR is worthwhile and the recent introduction of the HPV vaccine (for girls only note) is just a con perpetrated on the New Zealand taxpayer with our daughters as the victims.
Point to note: all three of my daughters were vaccinated with this snake oil, I expressed my doubts but peer pressure combined with slick marketing overcame my objections.
March 15th, 2010 at 7:54 am
Which immunisation? Do you count the HPV immunisation? What about the questionable meningitis vaccination programme? ……… All immunisations are not created equal!
Unfortunately the argument has become very confused. There is bad science and vested interest on all sides (both for and against). I have met people who work in nursing and medical practices citing articles that MMR causes autism – completely unaware that the original article has been retracted by the Lancet.
The policy approach to vaccination in NZ has been inconsistent – and has added to the confusion.
For the record, my kids were vaccinated with all the childhood vaccinations – but I have some regret that I jumped into the meningitis vaccination for the wrong reasons. They have not had (and will not have) the HPV vaccination.
March 15th, 2010 at 8:10 am
I know how you feel Andrei.
We think it is only worthwhile if you’re going to be sexually active with multiple partners, so what does that say about our values as a nation.
More harm minimisation.
March 15th, 2010 at 8:19 am
A bonus payment may help lift rates for people without much in the way of resources, but won’t move the mummies with BAs who regard themselves as well informed on the issue because they’ve trawled the nutter anti-vaccination sites on the internet. Such as our very own Immunisation Awareness Society.
March 15th, 2010 at 8:25 am
In other words, we’ll withhold your welfare drug if you won’t let us drug your children. Leverage – the unspoken justification for welfare.
March 15th, 2010 at 8:41 am
What can you do? Its fringe nutbar territory – laziness, stupidity, urban hippies or fundies.
Perhaps the school threat will force the urban hippies and fundies while the cash will bribe the stupid and lazy.
Note, those ven diagrams are likely to overlap a lot….
March 15th, 2010 at 8:50 am
If it is a good idea for someone to get vaccinated, why would you pay them? This just encourages them to get vaccinated.
If it is a good idea for someone to get sterilised, why would you pay them? This just encourages them to get sterilised.
March 15th, 2010 at 8:58 am
Be interesting to see the demographic breakdown of non-vacinators.
March 15th, 2010 at 9:06 am
Maybe the aussies are more intelligent?
I’ve met so many people (usually greenie / self-proclaimed spirtual types) who think immunisation is dangerous.
These people make me mad, in their selfishness they put others at risk.
March 15th, 2010 at 9:17 am
Barry Schwartz has a good talk on this sort of payment incentives on TED.com
http://www.ted.com/talks/barry_schwartz_on_our_loss_of_wisdom.html
Basically by adding additional payment incentives we create a culture that no longer views their responsibilities as citizens, but only sees the money being offerred. For some the payment may work (eg some of the poor and lazy), but for others, the incentive may have the opposite effect, especially if they see it as further proof that the pharmacutical companies are colluding with governments to impose these drugs upon the masses.
The overall effect is to dilute the social responsibilities we each have, especially to our family members. Each of us needs to make our own moral choices, for the good of our families and by extension the community.
March 15th, 2010 at 9:46 am
How so? If your thesis is correct the only people they “put at risk” are their fellows who are unimmunized.
The problem with you authoritarian types you are always convinced you are correct and this may come as a surprise to you but nobody is correct 100% of the time and bureaucracies actually tend to favor policies that grow them over policies that actually improve peoples welfare.
March 15th, 2010 at 9:56 am
It has certainly become interesting territory. As andrei said, which immunisations are you talking about? I assume the ones paid for by the state, and not others for chicken pox etc?
Most of my friends do immunise their children. The ones who don’t believe that they are making an informed choice not to immunise and recognise that they need to take other measures at times (like keep children isolated etc etc). Many of my friends were very disappointed in the MENZB roll-out, side effects, etc… and then the subsequent finding that some children would need an extra (fourth) injection to ensure appropriate protection. Unfortunately, the MENZB experience has led others to question other immunisations as well. And, a little bit of information can sometimes be dangerous…
One issue with people who choose not to immunise their children is that it puts their children AND other children with compromised immune systems at risk. Pertussis (whooping cough) has picked up again, possibly because immunisation rates have dropped.
Perhaps it used to be a black and white issue but I can see (from many conversations in recent times) that there is an awful lot of grey (for some people) now.
March 15th, 2010 at 9:58 am
Oh, and the cases in the US courts at the moment re: connection between immunisations and autism have been interesting to watch.
March 15th, 2010 at 10:12 am
Andrei: I presume you are also scared of the boogeyman, but don’t worry, he’s not real, believe me.
Immunised can be put at risk too : just because you have been immunised does not mean that you are 100% safe from the disease.
It is a fact that when immunisation rates drop below critical thresholds then child death rates increase.
Unless, you can show me legitimate research showing immunisation causes child death rates to increase?
I go by facts, not mumbo jumbo. I enjoy a world without the diseases of old.
It is like car airbags: every so often a car airbag causes a death. Lets say air bags kill one person for every 1000 they save. Does that mean we should ban car airbags? Using your argument, then , yes , they should be banned.
March 15th, 2010 at 10:27 am
I didn’t say vaccinations should be banned wreck!!!!!!
I said it should be a matter of informed choice!
A distinction too subtle for nanny statists to grasp it seems
March 15th, 2010 at 10:55 am
re: Jadis @9:58
Yes the last few days have seen the US courts rule against the “vaccinations causes autism” argument: not that I have any great faith in US Courts as an arbiter of scientific truth!
I am still unaware of any substantial body of evidence or court decisions which support the link between autism and vaccination. But does anyone believe that these court decisions and the retraction of the original article in the Lancet will impact on the true “believers”?
I fear there will always be a group of people pushing against all vaccination – regardless of any scientific proof. Balanced against them will be big Drug companies and policy-makers pushing vaccination programmes that are ineffective – or which have an unacceptable level of unknown risk.
March 15th, 2010 at 11:01 am
I would have thought that a healthy child was more than enough incentive for immunisations………strange times.
March 15th, 2010 at 11:23 am
Informed choice is all very nice, but it also kills children.
If it these spiritual type clowns made the rules, we’d be having 40 or so deaths per year from polio alone.
March 15th, 2010 at 11:44 am
The old bogeyman of the Meningitis B vaccine side effects is raising its head again, I see. Certainly it was an unpleasant vaccine for some children, with many getting a sore swollen injection site to some degree.
Full details of the reactions resulting from the first 140,000 doses given is here: http://www.medsafe.govt.nz/Profs/PUarticles/MeNZB.htm.
26 injection site reactions
26 rashes
21 fever
18 vomiting
and the usual number of needle-faints.
No serious adverse reactions were reported at that stage (I couldn’t find figures for later). Anaphylaxis is always a risk with any exposure to potential allergens, vaccinations included – and this is why the kids were kept for 20 minutes after injection.
This is trivial stuff compared to the horror of preterminal meningococcal disease.
March 15th, 2010 at 12:02 pm
Annie, my concern as parent about the meningococcal vaccine was whether it was actually effective – and therefore worth the risk to my kids – and the cost to the country. Did the meningitis epidemic just run its course, or did the vaccine prove effective? That is a question we can probably never answer.
The horror of meningitis (which I have seen first hand) should not colour the argument as to whether the vaccine was the right decision.
Also – seeing the Ministry’s (& ESR’s) response to Dr Adu-Bobie’s infection a few years ago leaves some serious questions about how reliable any science is once it has been run through the bureaucratic layers of management, policy advice and PR spin
March 15th, 2010 at 12:15 pm
I’ve done a bit of work in this area.
The parents who choose not to immunise their kids are certainly not “spiritual type clowns”, “fringe nutbars”, “lazyiness”, “stupid”, “hippies” (urban or otherwise) or “fundies”.
Many are educated middle class (usually mothers) whose reasons range from ‘other other kids where fine’, feeling that babies are too small for injections, difficulty in getting to the GP for all the immunisations on the Peadiatric Schedule and fear of the effects of particular or all the vaccines. Many also think that if they breast feed and keep their kids healthy, they won’t need to immunise.
Have a look at the research done by the Immunisation Advisory Centre (part of Auckland University’s Population Health School).
Look also at research available at the website of the NZMJ online and the Ministry of Health.
March 15th, 2010 at 12:18 pm
If you really want see what the other half are reading, see the vaccine information here
http://uncensored.co.nz/
Mikey Havoc pointed out recently that the author of this website also believes that the Pope and the Queen are shape-shifting aliens.
March 15th, 2010 at 12:22 pm
There is an interesting debate to be had when it comes to diseases that have been brought so far under control that there is a negligible chance of getting the disease. Lets take polio for example:
For arguments sake, lets say that the current likelihood of an unvaccinated person getting polio is 0.0000001, versus the chance of a vaccinated person getting a severe adverse reaction equivalent to the disease itself is 0.0000003. In this case, by vaccinating your child against polio you are tripling the chance of your child getting an adverse reaction to the vaccine at a level equivalent to the disease itself. This would apply to all children being vaccinated.
Therefore, is it worth increasing the risk of harm to children through a vaccination program if the cure is potentially worse than the disease? Perhaps the vaccination program should be suspended until the risk of the disease exceeds the risk of severe adverse reactions the the vaccination.
March 15th, 2010 at 12:31 pm
@Lutzie: jeez,where to start.
An educated person will know that studies show vaccinations are safe and the fallacy of ‘other kids are fine’ argument. It is well known that diseases make a comeback when vaccinations rates drop below certain thresholds.
Babies too small for injections ? That sounds like a spiritual/hippy thing to me.
As for breast feeding, most children are off the breast after 1 year old so that is a nonsense reason too.
I reckon you are mostly wrong. I’d say that these ‘educated middle class women’ who refuse to vaccinate have hippy / spiritual / greenie beliefs. Either that, or they are lazy or stupid.
March 15th, 2010 at 12:36 pm
Andrei couple of serious questions. Why do you have doubts re the MMR? My understanding is if you get any of those three in later life they can cause quite allot of damage. Considering that the side effects are so low and the potential cost is high.
Also same with the HPV vaccination. Even if your daughter had only one partner (statiscially very unlikely but say so) there is still a chance that her partner would be a carrier for the virus.
March 15th, 2010 at 12:50 pm
@tknorriss: your argument is false because your polio infection risk estimate is entirely dependent on the population vaccination rate.
If vaccinations are stopped because the risk of the vaccine is greater than the risk of polio, then the ‘risk’ of contracting polio will eventually climb back to nearly 100%. Then, your argument does not hold.
Polio epidemics have crippled thousands of people, mostly young children; the disease has caused paralysis and death for much of human history (wikipedia).
What’d you rather, paralysis and death, or 0.0000003 risk of an adverse reaction to a vaccine?
March 15th, 2010 at 12:59 pm
Wreck, you didn’t read what I said in its entirety. I only suggested to suspend vaccinations until the risk of the disease exceeds the risk of adverse affects from the vaccination. After all, it seems a travesty if vaccinated children are at more risk of harm than unvaccinated ones.
March 15th, 2010 at 1:35 pm
Actually Wreck, in my experience the most willful anti vaccination idiots have been well educated mothers who seem to want their children to have all the advantages of the herd resistance but contribute nothing.
Wired has an excellent article on the rise of the idiotic and dangerous anti-vaccine “movement:” An Epidemic of Fear: How Panicked Parents Skipping Shots Endangers Us All.
Wired also identifies some of the most prominent idiots promoting this stupidity: The Misinformants: Prominent Voices in the Anti-Vaccine Crusade
And it’s not just here that ignorant anti-vaccination parents are playing chicken with the lives of their children, AP Poll: Third of parents oppose swine flu vaccine, despite the fact that three of the major fears about the H1N1 flu shot have been debunked .
March 15th, 2010 at 1:53 pm
Jeff83 – have you ever heard the saying if all you have is a hammer everything looks like a nail?
That’s how it is with public health officials and vaccinations – and the manufacturers exploit that.
Smallpox has been eliminated by vaccinations and most likely, but not certainly a polio epidemic during the late forties and early fifties was cut short by vaccination. Both potentially serious debilitating diseases.
But that doesn’t mean that it is worthwhile in either economic or more importantly human terms to eliminate every bug that afflicts the human race.
As for the HPV vaccine that is a con, it was marketed as an anti cancer vaccine for girls, that presses all the right buttons to motivate bureaucrats and politicians – do you think male anal cancer (also apparently linked to the HPV virus) would get the same results ie state funded vaccination campaign?
Points to note
(1) Not all cervical cancer is a result of infection with HPV
(2) Not all the strains of HPV that have been linked with cervical cancer are covered by the vaccine
(3) There is no knowledge of how long the immunity bestowed by the vaccine lasts
(4) It is not 100% effective anyway
It probably cost the taxpayer somewhat over $1000 to immunize my brood – do you think the taxpayer has got its money’s worth?
March 15th, 2010 at 2:32 pm
Cha – “…want their children to have all the advantages of the herd resistance but contribute nothing” sums it up.
The anti-vaccine mums I’m aware of are of this type, educated and thinking they’re going to do better for their wee ones than everyone else. Problem is they’re actually increasing the risk for all children, but especially their own un-vaccinated kids.
March 15th, 2010 at 2:40 pm
re: Jeff 83 @1236
“Also same with the HPV vaccination. Even if your daughter had only one partner (statistically very unlikely but say so) there is still a chance that her partner would be a carrier for the virus.”
HPV is a sexually transmitted disease. Didn’t we used to call it genital warts? It is just one of many STDs out there. Our kids are now riddled with them – and some of them are very nasty strains. The risk is not just one strain of HPV…. but all STDs. Oh (in case we forget)…. and a little thing called pregnacny as well.
I would be interested to see reliable statistics regarding the number of diseases out there, and the number of people infected. I understand that those numbers have shown a substantial increase which shows no sign of slowing.
Believing that a vaccine is the best tool against just one STD of many is like believing that abortion is the most effective method of contraception.
March 15th, 2010 at 3:40 pm
Before I address your well thought out post Andrei need to comment on Thomas obserd post of comparing a vaccine to an abortion. Its just that, ridicolous.
Anyway had a consideration of your thoughts Andrei. Using the stats I could easily find (used US stats as easier to get, there life expentancy is lower than ours so should result in a conservative result, but just rough anyway for debate). In the US there are 11000 cases of Cervical cancer per year. The current population according to google is 307,006,550. If we assume a 50/50 gender split = 153,503,275 females. Also the average life expentancy = 81.2 years for a female, if we say the first 70 of those it would have an impact.
Accordingly 0.00717% of the female population gets diagnosed with cervical cancer every year. That means stastically using my assumptions above (inc life span) a woman has a 0.5% chance of getting cervical cancer (note I have assumed one can get it in first years, which is incorrect, but also in my original stats included the entire population not just those from 13 onwards so these two slightly incorrect assumptions kind of cancel each other out).
Anyway the above shows 1 in 200 woman will be diagnosed with cervical cancer.
The only cost I could quickly find for treatment for cervical cancer is US$1.7billlion in 1996 where there were 10,370 cases diagnosed. Which gives an average cost of US$164 pp. At an average of 2.5% inflation ($164 * 1.025 ^ 14 ) = US$232. Current exchange rate is 0.7428 dollars so NZ$$312
The two type vaccine which is apparently the common type protects against the two HPV types (16 and 18) that cause about 70% of cervical cancers worldwide. Accordingly to be on a total direct cost efficency scale, ignoring cost of death, benefit of not going to hospital etc etc it would need to come in at $218 per shot, which is close to what you estimated the cost to be.
Anyway, would say it is reasonably worth it.
(source + google where mentioned and BNZ) http://www.businessgrouphealth.org/benefitstopics/topics/purchasers/condition_specific/evidencestatements/cervicalcancer_es.pdf
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HPV_vaccine
March 15th, 2010 at 4:21 pm
Thomas the Unbeliever 2:40 pm,
Indeed, Thomas.
While I think immunisation is beneficial in SOME cases, it is certainly questionable in others – as in the example you (and others) have highlighted.
Immunising for HPV is simply extending the ‘safe sex’ message pushed by the liberal left, and the likes of (the so called) Family Planning. Of course we know sex with multiple sex partners is anything BUT safe. And just as with youth being told that donning a condom will protect you against ALL manner of STDs, so too are young women/girls being sent this same message via being innoculated against HPV. It is little more than a license to further practice non censequential ‘safe sex’.
Another way of looking at it is immunising against moral laxity, or the consequences of discarding our moral foundation which not only provided for mental/spiritual wellbeing, but the associated medical/health protection as well.
Surely the homosexual/bisexual blight of HIV-AIDs is a case in point where rather than telling those that participate in such practices, where they endanger themselves and a promiscuous society at large, that this is a consequence of their ‘lifestyle’, we in effect encourage them, once again, to practice ‘safe sex’ (by using a condom).
And we wonder why our kids (and often their parents share their ignorance) are like lambs to the slaughter.
These liars and charlatans that push the ‘safe sex’ message (including those that encourage immunisation against HPV) need to be held to account. And if I had my way they would all be lined up and shot for ‘treason’ against the next generation.
March 15th, 2010 at 4:27 pm
Jeff83 – I think you misunderstand. My analogy was that abortion is just one way to prevent an unwanted pregnancy. There are better methods that carry less risk and less cost. Some of those alternative methods to prevent unwanted pregnancy also have other benefits (including protection against STDs).
A vaccine in some instances may be the only tool to fight a disease (Polio seems a good example). In this instance (with HPV) there are simply better tools to use than this vaccine. Anyone who considers this vaccine a “protection” may find they are living in a fool’s paradise.
Even if this vaccine is an effective and risk-free protection against this strain of HPV, it offers nothing against all the other STDs. Are you proposing that we just keep innoculating against every bug that could harm us until we reach nirvana: where everyone can have risk free sex?
March 15th, 2010 at 5:12 pm
Thomas looking at it from a purely economic view point of my earlier post I think it makes economic sense.
Also as you can get it from only one partner I think it makes sense if you subscribe to a more traditional form of life or a more ‘progressive’ or what ever you want to call it.
I agree there are better methods for people having ‘casual’ sex, but I dont really see this aimed at that demograph really. Rather those who are in a long term relationship, have trust are monotomous etc and so move to the pill as a form of contreception. At that point most will be screened for STD’s, but you do not get screened to see if you are a carrier of HPV (as far as I know).
The reason I called you up on your abortion call is because using it as example is bringing the debate to one of extremes.
March 15th, 2010 at 5:14 pm
Well thank ‘god’ you do not have your way then. There are countries that agree with you, places like Iran. Maybe you should go to those ‘paradices’.
March 15th, 2010 at 5:46 pm
Jeff83 5:14 pm,
While you may be comfortable with the results of those that push the ‘safe sex’ message, no responsibility abortion on demand, and those that push immunisation of the likes of HPV – that being skyrocketing STDs, increasing mental health sufferers, youth suicides, and over 18,000 murders each years of children in the womb, etc., I am not.
Those that PUSH such lies are nothing less than murderers and destroyers of lives, and while you are obviously ok with that, some of us ARE NOT.
You need to grow up, Jeff.
March 15th, 2010 at 9:04 pm
Kris K and andrei. Neither of you seem to have any human decency. And you have the audacity to associate yourself with Jesus!
You want women to get cervical cancer?!? Because they had unprotected sex? You two are truly horrible men. You really need to think about where you stand in life. You always seem to buy into whatever the American loony money-making Bible-basher ideas about things. Instead, how about this.. try not to be assholes.
March 15th, 2010 at 9:39 pm
The issue is not immunisation’s pros and cons. The issue is government twisting people’s arms to get them to do what it wants, what it deems “politically correct”. Government blackmailing people into doing something they otherwise wouldn’t? This is odious no matter how great immunisation is or how dumb the people may be who refuse its benefits.
March 15th, 2010 at 9:47 pm
Jeff your maths is wrong. You left off 3 zeros. The average cost per case according to your calculations should have been $164,000 per person. Is it so economical now?
Nevertheless, Medicine talks about number needed to treat. In you calculations, you need to vaccinate 200 girls to prevent 1 lifetime chance of developing cervical cancer. Not bad considering only one encounter was required. Look at it this way, vaccinating the entire US population under 11 against cervical cancer would be much less than $1.7 Billion. Very cheap in comparison to the lifetime cost of cervical cancer.
Consider the MENZ B Vaccine. Unfortunately this is a special circumstance vaccine as NZ has a unique strain. It was introduce to combat a Mengingococcal epidemic that had been rampaging through our children for a decade. A child who survives may suffer limb amputations and permanent brain damage. The cost to the country for the care of such a child would have been millions over its lifetime. Economically speaking, should it have been successful (jury is out on this) preventing one severly disabled child from this disease would have paid for the cost of the whole programme. The Prevention of loss of life would be an added bonus.
March 15th, 2010 at 11:49 pm
Hey Grizz, ha you are right, went on a tangent in my calcs.
Cost per patient = 1.7b / 10370 * 1.025 ^ 14 / 0.7428 = NZ$311,840.
Odds of getting per above calc = 1 in 200 = direct cost of $1,559. Cost of vaccine in US $110 * 3 = $330 / 0.7428 (however we would get cheaper from buying in bulk.
Going to put it out there pretty good return on investment overall, with $444 (most prob less) theoretically reducing cervical cancer by 70% which equates to a saving of $1091 – $444 = $647 pp plus indirect costs etc and you save lives.
Oh and Kris I really hope you dont have kids, cause they have my sympathy if you do. You and your ilk do more harm to Christianity than you can comprehend.
March 16th, 2010 at 12:16 am
When it came to immunising my kids I did a lot of research. Weeks.
I never questioned immunisation, but something stank about the way Annette King pushed an un-trialled MeNZB vaccine onto an entire population when victims in Norway were being paid out, and Chaeron corp was in major difficulties, and phase 2 trials here were covered up. I’ve always just assumed she must have a Swiss numbered account out of it. I also really resented the manipulative and dishonest pressure the GP applied trying to get us to give my 6-week old the jab, as well as Hep-B etc. We’ve not been back to her.
So I started looking into it. The more I looked, the less I liked what I saw. In the end, I read a LOT, including quite a few scientific papers on it.
I didn’t find a single one that proved that vaccination actually worked. Not one.
They all _started_ with the premise that it works, and went from there. Not the way to prove something in my book.
It’s like getting the pope to write a paper on whether god exists or not.
I did however find a lot of evidence indicating real problems with vaccination.
Ask your parents if they knew any kids at school with asthma. Or MS. Or autism. Take a look at the 2005 roche annual report and ask yourself why they have immuno-suppressants in phase 3 trials for the treatment of asthma.
Ask yourself why is it that at a time in history where we mess with our immune system more than ever before, we suffer from auto-immune disorders at a higher rate than ever before? Did you even know that asthma, MS, Crohn’s disease, are auto-immune diseases? Do you think they just weren’t diagnosed / reported before?
Do you think medicine completely understands how the immune system works?
Did you know that aluminium toxicity causes the same symptoms as autism? Look up aluminium toxicity.
Did you know that the adjuvants they add to immunisations to make them cheaper (they amplify the body’s response to the antigen by antagonising your immune system) are aluminium salts?
Did you know that the standard immunisation schedule for a 3 month old baby contains a greater amount of aluminium than the equivalent maximum daily dose of aluminium in intravenous solutions allowed for patients in comas (on complete IV-diets) by a factor of about 2. The human digestive system doesn’t readily absorb aluminium, although absorption is increased by flouride. Mostly it goes straight through us. Unless it’s injected of course. Is it therefore that much of a wonder that perhaps all that aluminium might cause neurological issues in some recipients? We know aluminium is bad for the nervous system, they find aluminium in the brain lesions of alzheimers patients. Ask your doctor how much aluminium is in your next jab.
So, all you people who are quick to judge others. Do the research yourself like I did. If you start thinking surely they wouldn’t do this, ask yourself where does the money go. Even your GP earns a significant proportion of their income from administering immunisations. Try find a paper on it not funded by a drug company. Most of the big drug companies earn a huge proportion of their revenue from…. asthma inhalers. They want you to buy more of these.
And after all that, try telling it to the parents of the kids who go into anaphalactic shock soon after being immunised, or become autistic soon after receiving their MMR. Or the millions of asthma sufferers.
As for “Herd immunity” that’s a complete farce as well. If immunisation works, why do you need herd immunity? Why do people who are immunised still catch diseases they were immunised against? I could go on and on. This is only the tip of the iceberg, which if you start looking you might find.
March 16th, 2010 at 8:13 am
adc: would you rather have polio, diptheria, smallpox etc… Even chicken pox, measles cause deaths and brain damage.
Regarding aluminium, this is the first time I’ve heard that story.
You’re also a conspiracy theorist who thinks the drug companies and doctors have come up with the worlds biggest scam.
I’m sure you could go on and on in your delirious rants, but luckily people like you are not the majority or our babies would still be dying from the diseases of old.
Your momma needs to slap you in the face and wake you up.
March 16th, 2010 at 6:35 pm
wreck1080.
I fully expected that sort of response from you. Attack the person not the information. Don’t bother looking into the claims, hell you might be forced to adjust your filtered view of the world.
As for your questions about whether I would rather have…
well that’s still based on the assumption that vaccination actually works.
there are many instances of outbreaks of these diseases in immunised communities. In some, the rate of infection and severity was worse in the immunised population.
But hey, just keep going on believing that
a) humans are infallible
b) doctors know absolutely everything there is to know about immunity, therefore it’s safe to dick with it.
c) drug companies don’t want to sell you drugs, they want you to be well.
d) humans are not greedy nor stupid.
regards (b), these are the doctors that gave us all those other safe drugs. History is full of medical mistakes, and misadventure. But hey, keep those blinkers on buddy and keep calling people names.
March 17th, 2010 at 12:31 am
I would attempt to put the worst of the errors in these thread right, but there are now so many of them I doubt it’s healthy to even try…
In the meantime, there is a discussion here that might of at least some use:
http://sciblogs.co.nz/guestwork/2010/03/15/inaccurate-reporting-of-scientific-evidence-perpetuates-myths/
and a few general points since I can’t help myself! :
1. You can’t criticise something you don’t fully understand. Be honest with yourselves, do you *really* think you know better than researchers (not doctors or pharmacy companies) that have been working in the area for years? It helps to remember that these researchers have families, too, aren’t particular well paid, and are keen to use their skills to help others.
2. There is already a breakdown on the stats for those that chose not to vaccinate:
http://www.moh.govt.nz/moh.nsf/indexmh/national-childhood-immunisation-survey-2005
(HT: Darcy Cowan)
3. Oh, and the cases in the US courts at the moment re: connection between immunisations and autism have been interesting to watch. This proposed link has already been rejected by these courts before, and very recently, again.
4. Jeff83: The ‘R’ in MMR affects prenatal infants mainly. I wrote about this not too long ago: http://sciblogs.co.nz/code-for-life/2010/02/10/rubella-not-a-benign-disease-if-experienced-during-early-pregnancy/
5. adc, most of your statements are out of proper context, so that they’re misrepresented & misleading.
That’s enough! I’ll leave you lot to your battle…
March 17th, 2010 at 12:14 pm
Just because Lancet pulls an historic article on the links between vaccines and autism, doesn’t mean that there’s no validity to the origin claim… God only knows what could have gone on in the background or a board level within the publication that made them do this after so many years. Did everyone conveniently forget that the FDA were forced to admit last year that there actually was science that supported the claim?! Mercury that is contained in all these vaccines (and dont think that it isn’t any more… Thimerisol = Mercury) is one the most toxic substances known to man… And we pump it into our kids because big pharma companies say it’s OK. Are we really all that stupid?
Mercury locks on to the GTB receptor of neuro-tubulin and literally truncates your dendrites.. So if you give this to your children, it cuts all their dendrites forthwith. Using the product information sheets as provided by the pharma companies, the total mercury dosage by 18-36 times exceeds the total maximum toxic level for children as laid out by the WHO. The new vaccines now contain cells from aborted fetuses, included fetual retinal cells and insect lava… These DNA are NOT stable with means it intercalates in your DNA and can jump, because these have what are called ‘jumping genes’ that actually jump round and can activate unca genes and other things which have very strange effects.
Unca-genic viruses have been in the Messel/Mumps/Rubella vaccines for over 40 years and they have not relented.
When my younger sister died the day after she received her MMR jab, that was the day we started researching what the hell it was they putting in these toxic cocktails and from what I’ve found out over the years, I lay the blame for her death squarely at the feet of the MMR vaccine… And this is why I will never let them anywhere near my two beautiful, happy, healthy young daughters who just happen to have never had any of the ailments and afflictions that friends vaccinated children have had to contend with due to the fact that vaccinations ironically, by their very nature attach and deplete a young immune system and actually place the child at even greater risk.
Top all those people out there who will likely retort hysterically at what they perceive at my irresponsibility and recklessness as a parent… How about informing yourself by using information that comes form other independent sources, not connected to the vested interests of the big pharma companies and their shareholders, or from uninformed bureaucrats in health ministries with little or no medical qualifications to speak on such matters. Check out the science… Then follow the money.
The day an GP injects themselves with a weight adjusted does of any vaccine that they
‘re trying to push on our children, all in order to get the free holiday in Fiji compliments of the pharmaceutical company responsible for this week’s round of jabs, then I may consider to change my view and reexamining my research. And finally, before any of you pro-jabbers attach my research skills… I happen to be a 20 year broadcast journalist, so I do happen to know a little bit how to research, source, attribute and cross check facts and information streams.
March 17th, 2010 at 3:42 pm
salamanda,
The claims of the Wakefield paper weren’t really accepted by the wider scientific from the onset. The retractions are explained, see for example:
http://sciblogs.co.nz/code-for-life/2010/02/03/lancet-formally-retracts-wakesfield-paper/
and linked articles. (The full retraction report is linked there.)
The amount and form any substance (including “mercury”) is in matters, as does the rate they are cleared from the body.
Medics routinely get vaccines, they’re actually first on the list (as it were) for some.
I’m short on time to flesh this out, but my point is your fact-checking is, to be polite, suspect. Saying “I’m a journalist” doesn’t make you good at getting science/medicine right. You’re not alone, it seems to be a systemic problem, most likely I suspect because of the training of journalists isn’t suited to science. Many mainstream journalists have a terrible track record on reporting/investigating science or medicine. It’s a huge problem and in fact one of the key reasons the “Wakefield thing” happened.
Being less kind: some of what you have written is pseudo-scientific, e.g. “These DNA are NOT stable with means it intercalates in your DNA and can jump, because these have what are called ‘jumping genes’ that actually jump round and can activate unca genes and other things which have very strange effects” is simply nonsensical. (I could be kind and write “wildly out of context,” but the effect is to the same end.)