Vaccine extortion.

Discussion in 'Exercise, Health, and Well-being' started by Director, Apr 13, 2015.

  1. Director

    Director Valued Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2015
    Messages:
    221
    Likes Received:
    112
    *contentious topic warning*

    By now most of you would have read about the governments discriminatory practice of stopping family allowance payments for people who conscientiously object to playing vaccine-roulette with their kids. IMO this is an extreme abuse of government power and should be rejected. There is a petition taking off on Change.org for those who might be interesting in signing it.

    https://www.change.org/p/minister-s...l-parents-deserve-to-make-an-uncoerced-choice

    (It's not my aim to have the whole vaccinated/unvaccinated debate here as we all now how that ends up. There is ample information out there from credible sources that detail the dangers, pros and cons of the whole thing so that people can make their own minds up.)


    Don't punish parents with unconstitutional penalties for making an informed choice about their children's health, all parents deserve to make an uncoerced choice!


    As parents it is our duty to make decisions for our children that we believe are best for them, especially when it comes to optional medical interventions like vaccinations. This is a choice that is not taken lightly and parents must make this choice without coercion or manipulation, as stated on the Government’s own website:

    “For consent to be legally valid, the following elements must be present:
    • It must be given by a person with legal capacity, and of sufficient intellectual capacity to understand the implications of being vaccinated.
    • It must be given voluntarily in the absence of undue pressure, coercion or manipulation.
    • It must cover the specific procedure that is to be performed.
    • It can only be given after the potential risks and benefits of the relevant vaccine, risks of not having it and any alternative options have been explained to the individual.”
    By trying to take away family and childcare payments away from low income families who conscientiously choose to selectively vaccinate or not vaccinate, you are putting them in the impossible position of having to choose between feeding and housing their families and vaccinating their children against their will, THIS IS NOT LEGAL CONSENT, IT IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND IT IS BLACKMAIL!

    If any of these children are injured or killed because their parents have been forced to vaccinate under duress, is the Government ready to be legally responsible? Especially as there is no vaccine injury compensation scheme in Australia.
    Stop using Whooping Cough rates as an excuse to attack conscientious objectors and start looking at the real problem, the vaccine.
    In 1991 <71% of Australian children were fully vaccinated and there were only 347 cases of Whooping Cough, while in 2011 with 90% of children vaccinated, we had 38,751 cases an increase of over 11,000%! How can you blame the 1.8% of unvaccinated children in 2015?

    The vaccinated can become asymptomatic transmitters of Whooping Cough and infect young infants, while the dominant strain of Whooping Cough is not even targeted by the vaccine. A study has also linked the Whooping cough outbreaks to vaccinated children and adolescents.

    If raising already high vaccination rates is the purpose of this part of the legislation and the wealthy areas of Australia have the lowest rates, then how does targeting low income families change the vaccination rates of high income families?

    We have seen children who have been injured or killed after vaccination in Australia, like Saba Button, Ashley Epapara and Lachlan Neyland and the hundreds of children rushed to hospital during the Fluvax debacle of 2009 . By bringing in punishments for families who choose not to vaccinate you are saying that these children are acceptable collateral damage and that they have less value than children injured or killed by diseases, how would you feel if that was your child?

    Our children deserve better than a one size fits all approach to health care, especially when the healthcare products are being produced by a multi-billion dollar industry with a long and sordid history of fraud and deceptive practices. Just look at the industry whistle-blowers who have courageously come out to testify of this fact, such as Dr William Thompson PhD, Dr's Stephen Krahling and Joan Wlochowski and the revelations of Peter Gøtzsche from the Cochrane Collaboration.

    If there is a risk there MUST be a choice, ALL parents have the RIGHT and the duty to decide WHICH risk is acceptable to their own families!



    Anyway, just thought some of you might be interested. Again, not trying to start a bunfight as I appreciate this website as a peaceful refuge from the usual internet nonsense. :)
     
  2. Mark

    Mark Founder Staff Member

    Joined:
    May 27, 2012
    Messages:
    4,452
    Likes Received:
    1,008
    Location:
    Bellmere, QLD
    Climate:
    Sub-Tropical
    I understand the premiss of your post on vaccines is about choice and not should we or shouldn't we vaccinate against diseases but I think the two are linked and not easily separated. Therefore, I can see this discussion bouncing between both but it's obviously a very interesting subject and I have a slightly different spin that I think has been missed by everyone so far...

    I don't think the government is targeting choice at all and is actually targeting APATHY! But... the government is quite happy for the media and public debate to be focused on the anit-immunisation movement instead of low income families. Those who are firmly opposed to vaccinations can still refuse to immunise their children and continue to receive all government allowances. Not all anti-immunisation people are low income hippies and I would argue most of the serious anti-vaccine advocates are educated middle class with strict beliefs.

    The media take that the government's new laws to make parents vaccinate their children is some ideological war against the anti-vaccination movement is wrong IMHO and I reckon the reason for a drop-off in vaccinations is more because the average bogan is forgetting or can't be bothered taking the time out of their day to immunise their kids. This is a government education campaign aimed at forcing apathetic mums and dads to immunise their children - simple as that - and how do you make bogans listen? You talk money :)

    Those people who want the choice and are strongly against immunisation have nothing to worry about under the new laws they just need to be organised that's all.

    Personally, I'm pro vaccinations and I get get quite a bit of hate mail over my advocacy to use worming and parasite medication/chemicals on poultry but my fallback argument is simply we worm and protect ourselves and our pets against horrible parasites like ticks, and diseases so why shouldn't we do it for our chickens? Being natural and organic is my first avenue, however, there has to be limitations or common sense and I try to balance my actions about health and safety on fact rather than faith (most of the time).

    I don't agree with the anit-vaccination movement but I certainly wouldn't be holding people down and forcing needles into them. Rather, I think the government has the balance right by allowing those who are really seriously opposed to immunisation exemption without monetary punishment whilst sending a strong "get off your backside" message to those parents who don't care either way but just can't be bothered to vaccinate their kids.
     
  3. Director

    Director Valued Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2015
    Messages:
    221
    Likes Received:
    112
    Hi Mark,

    That's not my understanding of the governments latest move. Currently conscientious objectors can sign a form and still get the allowance, this option is what the government is removing. Meaning that you can either get the family allowance OR don't vaccinate your kids. And yes, I'm sure there are plenty of apathetic bogans out there who just couldn't be bothered but most of the people I know have done the research and made an informed decision. What started us on the road to learning was after junior got his 2 year-old shots. Immediately (within hours) he went 'funny' and stayed that way for days, we though we'd given the poor little bugger autism as that's what the symptoms looked like. Anyway, after a few days he came good be we haven't had him vaccinated since. Even shortly after that round he still caught all of the sicknesses that he was supposed to be vaccinated against as did most of his kindy friends. He's 16 now and apart from about of the flu that got us all about 12 years ago he just doesn't get sick. So as I say, each to their own but I get really cranky when governments start discriminating.

    As for worming chicken, go for it. The worst that can happen is a dead chook. :)

    For parasites I use a product called 'humaworm' that seems to do a much better job than the chemicals from the pharmacist (for me, not the chooks. :) ).
     
  4. Mark

    Mark Founder Staff Member

    Joined:
    May 27, 2012
    Messages:
    4,452
    Likes Received:
    1,008
    Location:
    Bellmere, QLD
    Climate:
    Sub-Tropical
    Yes, I agree there's a fine line here and I'm a believer in Government staying out of our lives!

    Perhaps I misunderstood the info, but I did hear several reports saying parents who belong to a registered organisation (like a church or religion) being against immunisation due tho their beliefs can object and still get their benefits. :dunno: If this is true, then it adds weight to the argument the government is going after lazy parents (dare I say the word bogan again...) :p

    There's a push by some to go further and make immunisation compulsory (by law) for everyone but that's going too far I reckon...
     
    • Like Like x 1
  5. Director

    Director Valued Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2015
    Messages:
    221
    Likes Received:
    112
    Hi mark,

    Yes that is the case now but the government is removing that option for people, which is what the fuss is about. :)
     
  6. Director

    Director Valued Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2015
    Messages:
    221
    Likes Received:
    112
    Last edited: Apr 14, 2015
  7. Mark

    Mark Founder Staff Member

    Joined:
    May 27, 2012
    Messages:
    4,452
    Likes Received:
    1,008
    Location:
    Bellmere, QLD
    Climate:
    Sub-Tropical
    If the government didn't have some exemptions it would be impossible for them to enforce it both practically and legally I would imagine. It's probably going to be hard enough to manage anyway...
     
  8. letsgo

    letsgo Valued Member Premium Member GOLD

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2014
    Messages:
    656
    Likes Received:
    248
    Location:
    SE Queensland, Australia
    Climate:
    Sub-Tropical
    Personally I am for vaccinations. I totally accept the fact that some people react badly to some vaccinations. My son reacted badly to one, many years ago, but that was mild compared to catching the disease. My daughter in law, also nearly died from having the whooping cough injection. When she was pregnant with her first son she had to wait until he was born then have the whooping cough booster shot in hospital to make sure she was all ok. When our grandson was born all those that were to have regular contact with him also were asked to get the whooping cough booster shot, I think that is the very least we can do to help keep them safe.

    On the other side, my daughter in law knows the parents of little Riley who recently lost his life to whooping cough.

    I have an older friend who had whooping cough a few years ago and it was not nice, she was very sick and I felt hopeless to help her, watching her coughing struggling for breath. I also believe my sister in law had whooping cough as a child.

    Some yes some, a small percent are affected by vaccinations but I believe they help save more lives than they affect negatively. It is due to vaccinations that many life threaten diseases of the past either no longer exist or affect a small number.

    As for the type of people that choose not to vaccinate their child, I don't think it is limited to a certain social economic group. I had heard there were many affluent people who choose not to vaccinate, the argument has been they will not be affected by the government decision.

    As far as the government now stopping child care payments to those who choose to not vaccinate their child, first the people still have a choice, that has not been taken away from them. To qualify for any sort of payment from the government, people have to meet a certain criteria. In fact to belong, qualify, be accepted etc to many groups, financial assistant, organisations people have to meet certain criterias, I see this as no different. Whether it's up to the government to enforce this, I don't know. I do believe the child care has the right, as do schools to not let children who have not been vaccinated attend their facility. As one parent said on social media," I can't send my child to school/child care with a peanut butter sandwich yet someone can send their unvaccinated child to school"

    Totally agree, as I said before I believe parents do still have a choice, they can still choose to not to vaccinate their child but they won't get the financial assistance. They can choose to not vaccinate or vaccinate and accept the risks that are associated with each choice. I'm sure parents in less affluent countries would like the choice.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  9. Ash

    Ash Valued Member Premium Member GOLD

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2015
    Messages:
    654
    Likes Received:
    278
    Location:
    Preston, QLD
    Climate:
    Temperate (all seasons)
    The cost of the loss of herd immunity leading to increased death rate from vaccine preventable diseases is far outweighed by the cost of having a small percentage of vocal conscientious objectors to immunisation getting upset about the loss of financial benefits.
    After all, if it is the government that is dishing out these incentives, then they also have the right to choose how and under what criteria the incentives are given.

    Generally, the more affluent objectors (a population that is progressively increasing) don't have an issue with missing out on such financial benefits, so there isn't much of a social injustice being perpetrated in this move.
    The vast array of scientific studies on the serious and permanent side effects of vaccines (all of them) have failed to attribute any vaccine with any medical or psychiatric condition. So the safety profile of vaccines is impeccable in today's array of vaccines. This is in contrast with so many other more socially accepted treatments offered that have a greater risk of significant disability (behaviour modifying agents for ADHD and related disorders for example).

    As for parents making decisions on behalf of their children, this is indeed a right, and a right that is not and cannot be hampered. In this case, however, the decision not to vaccinate children is based on incorrect information and thus parents should be given the full and correct evidence before accepting the risk of serious preventable infectious diseases. It would only take one case of tetanus or mumps or polio for a parent to understand the benefit of vaccination at the individual and population level. Conscientious objectors, however, pose a risk to population health by contributing to the reduction of herd immunity, which can only be achieved by a coordinated national effort, and cooperation from parents.
     
    Last edited: Apr 16, 2015
    • Like Like x 2
  10. bearded1

    bearded1 Well-Known Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2015
    Messages:
    64
    Likes Received:
    53
    Location:
    Kiamba, QLD
    Hi Ash,
    I personally believe in vaccination and have no problem with what the government is doing with this, however when you say that the conscientious objectors are 'getting the wrong information and should be given all of the correct information before deciding' I think there is a problem. A lot of people are very mistrusting of the motives of big corporates and government. There are just so many instances of corruption in both of these bodies and collusion to hide information. I personally do not trust a lot of so-called empirical research, because I know first hand how easy it is to bias what is released to the public to paint a very different picture from the truth. The lack of transparency is amazing. I think that mandatory peer reviewing by someone who does not share your perspective may help with the bias, but I have no idea how to stop the corruption of big business and government, except to shoot them all and start again;)
     
    Last edited: Apr 17, 2015
    • Like Like x 1
  11. bearded1

    bearded1 Well-Known Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2015
    Messages:
    64
    Likes Received:
    53
    Location:
    Kiamba, QLD
    This is off topic, but seen as how this is a 'contentiousness warning topic' I thought it may be ok. Mark if it's not please move it to a more appropriate spot. I wonder if the same people who are resisting this push by the government to immunise the population, based on 'rights' are the same ones who would so glibly deny a child the chance have a mother and a father by supporting gay marriage.
     
  12. Director

    Director Valued Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2015
    Messages:
    221
    Likes Received:
    112
    (If I understand your question correctly) If anything I would say, purely as a matter of demographics it's the other way around. Those (majority) who are baying for the blood of those who choose not to vaccinate are also the same (majority) who are championing same-sex marriage. I'm not sure what that tells us other than 'the crowd are easily manipulated' and those who go against the crowd are always, always vilified as being the 'bad' guys. Most of the anti-vaxxers seem to have done at least some research, there's plenty of scientific articles out there from credible sources but you won't see them mentioned in your average media story (surprise surprise). "Tobacco science" is also pretty prevalent and AFAICT all the talk about 'herd immunity' is simply a euphemism for 'the vaccine don't work'. If they did work then vaccinated kids would be safe...wouldn't they? Of course there's the risk of pertussis (whooping cough) to young babies but research done by the FDA suggests that it is more readily passed by vaccinated people rather than unvaccinated ones anyway. FWIW we had junior vaccinated up until his 2-year-old shots? (maybe we got a later one, I don't remember)he still got all the usual childhood diseases that were going around anyway. As I said, 'contentious topic' but one that cannot be resolved through force nor debated through emotionalism, cherry picking the science or public hysteria.

    A fairly well-balanced article here: http://www.collective-evolution.com...nts-are-choosing-not-to-vaccinate-their-kids/

    It's a long article but worth a read if you have the time.

    Here's some graphs showing the decline of most of these diseases before vaccines were introduced:

    http://www.vaccinationinformationne...hat-infectious-disease-mortality-graphs-show/

    It seems that nutrition and hygiene are way more important than vaccines in stopping diseases, which is why a lot of these things still exists in the third world and not so much in the more affluent countries. Nothing is black and white however and truth probably lies in a compromise between to the two camps.

    The one similarity that comes to mind in both debates is that of personal choice and government interference. If people choose not to vaccinate then they should not be discriminated against by the state (or anyone else), mostly because the arguments for 'the greater good' fall apart pretty quickly. As for personal relationships, again people should be free to choose whatever lifestyle they want (and by 'people' I mean fully informed and consenting adults) and IMO the government shouldn't be involved in ANYONE'S relationship, homosexual, heterosexual or otherwise. All choices have their consequences and people should be free to learn from mistakes (or not) because if we aren't then we never have a chance to learn and grow, maybe that's the way they want it?


    (heh, the website automatically censored the word h_omo_exual. :) )
     
    Last edited: Apr 17, 2015
  13. Mark

    Mark Founder Staff Member

    Joined:
    May 27, 2012
    Messages:
    4,452
    Likes Received:
    1,008
    Location:
    Bellmere, QLD
    Climate:
    Sub-Tropical
    Yeah, that's because it's an auto spam filter and that word is often related with obscene material - I can amend the filter but we'll have to watch it... The more members we get and the more active the community the easier it becomes to moderate our forum (which is essentially family friendly) because members can use the "Report" link at the bottom of the post to report any vulgar or inappropriate material. Being "family friendly" doesn't mean we can't discuss contentious issues it mainly concerns the use of what is considered obscene language, racial or targeted slurs against anyone, threatening or aggressive behaviour etc (it's in our terms and rules).

    Specifically regarding immunisations, I don't think it has anything to do with it because being gay doesn't make you a bad person or parent and there are obviously plenty of bad hetero parents out there so the comparison doesn't stack up IMO. Whatever sexual orientation a person is won't necessarily determine their views in vaccinations. But, if a discussion about same sex parenting is to occur please create a new thread in the General Discussions area.
     
  14. Ash

    Ash Valued Member Premium Member GOLD

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2015
    Messages:
    654
    Likes Received:
    278
    Location:
    Preston, QLD
    Climate:
    Temperate (all seasons)
    Thank you Mark. Keeping the forum family friendly is important to attract more to join us and I would certainly like to see it expand in a good way.

    Back to topic, hygiene goes a long way to preventing many diseases but it is on its own very inadequate at population level infection control (for example, whooping cough, measles, and even Ebolavirus). The vast majority of viruses and intracellular pathogens render the host highly infectious well before symptoms manifest and as such this window of opportunity is wide open for the spread of the virus without the host or subject knowing about it. Immunisation removes this risk by preemptive antibody development to quash any exposure the body has to the particular virus.

    I noticed on the article that the operative word is 'could' be making the right decision not to vaccinate. I do not see this as being an accurate assessment as neither side of the argument is wrong or right, just different. There is no judgement on a decision to vaccinate or not, but there are implications, and when infection occurs in an unimmunised person the result can be devastating.

    I do not doubt the biases human beings have allowed into their research, but I would hold firmer confidence in the results of a scientifically acclaimed peer reviewed randomised controlled trial (which has the most reliable source of evidence due to the exclusion of almost all potential biases) than I would to any conspiracy theory that shouts louder to try and prove the opposite, unless it to was subjected to the rigors of a randomised controlled trial. There are many of these conspiracy theories around for vaccines, including one by a researcher who decided to publish a paper in a scientific journal on the link between the MMR vaccine and autism. That research in itself was strongly biased and the result statistically misconstrued. The opposite opinion is not immune to bias. Furthermore there is currently a big move supported by poor data to oppose Gardasil because of its potential for mercury poisoning and other such unsubstantiated claims. In the end, the science of the claims against the vaccine is waning and it comes down to an emotive opposition by well-meaning mothers who don't believe it is good to vaccinate their children against HPV because that then innately legitimises pre-marital sexual relations, and their children will not need that because they will not be engaging in such activity. These are the highly educated that hold these opinions and they are neither right or wrong. A lot of the time, however, the information used to justify such positions is either incomplete or interpreted inaccurately.
     
    Last edited: Apr 18, 2015
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Informative Informative x 1
  15. Director

    Director Valued Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2015
    Messages:
    221
    Likes Received:
    112
    Hi Ash, thanks for the reply, I hope you don't mind but I have a couple of questions and a couple of observations. Your comments about hygiene and nutrition not being adequate to deal with diseases are interesting. In light of that how do you explain the great reduction in the common diseases BEFORE vaccines were introduced. I can post the charts if you like but most of them show these diseases almost gone, then vaccines are introduced and the decline simply continues. The statistics are different for third world counrties who's living conditions have not improved along with the wealthier nations. Do vaccines help, sure, I'm not arguing against that at all, but they are not without side effects, either acute or long term.

    I too prefer the results of science-based evidence over and above hysteria and propaganda, the problem is that while there is a GREAT deal of science that throws serious questions on vaccines it is NEVER mentioned in popular media. It can bein pubmed and other scientific/medical journals if one has the time to look. So like a lot of other issues these days we are left with equally valid science done by equally qualified people but different results and conclusions. Given the ambiguity of the situation informed people are again left to have to make up their own minds on the issue.


    I've been watching the Wakfield debacle for some years with mild interest, it turns out he wasn't being fraudulent as much as he was being defrauded. But rather than go back and forth about it, interested people can hear the events from the horses mouth and decide for themselves. I suggest that anyone who has only seen this referenced in the media take the time to watch it.




    As for guardasil, well given the plethora of first-hand testimony out there about deaths and injuries occurring 'within hours' of a child getting the shot I am VERY dubious about it's claims to safety. Especially as the standard response to these tragedies seems to be 'coincidence'. To put it another way, someone gets a guardasil shot, suffers a severe reaction or death within hours and days of getting the shot only to be told that there was no scientific link between the vaccine and the injury?

    I wish this subject were as cut and dried as 'popular opinion' would have us believe, but the evidence and the (unbiased) science is ambiguous at best. And just to be clear, I'm not trying to convince anyone one way or the other. I am happy to provide evidence for people to consider that goes contrary to 'everybody knows' and corporate propaganda so that people can make a more informed choice. In fact I suggest people google up ANY new medicines that are prescribed (Yeah, doctors love me. :) ). This disposition has come through years of hard experience and much research rather than just personal bias.

    So if there's a take away from all of this I would simply say to people DO YOUR OWN RESEARCH, even the most sincere well meaning GP is only as good as the information that is supplied to them.
     
    • Informative Informative x 1
  16. Ash

    Ash Valued Member Premium Member GOLD

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2015
    Messages:
    654
    Likes Received:
    278
    Location:
    Preston, QLD
    Climate:
    Temperate (all seasons)
    Since none of us were around in the pre-antibiotic/vaccination era we don't have first hand experience with the alleged lack of efficacy of vaccines in the prevention of the illnesses they are specifically mmunising people against. Hygiene definitely helps but as I said it alone cannot be relied upon to prevent epidemics. What is very clear even today is that an unvaccinated baby is at significant risk of contracting and dying from whooping cough as it is usually passed on by an adult who has not had their booster or from another unimmunised child with the illness. This is fact and I have seen its devastating effects with my own eyes. Same with rubella in pregnancy causing congenital cataracts leading to permanent blindness in the infant. When the incidence of a disease is low, that's when complacency can set in and people put their guard down to allow an avenue for an epidemic to make a resurgence.

    Association does not prove causation and so a very small number of deaths of patients receiving a vaccine does not lead to blame on the vaccine. Unless the vaccine caused a genuine anaphylactic reaction, which it was not even shown that these cases were, then the vaccine has no link to the deaths since it does not follow the direct physiological effect the vaccines have. This is nothing like cigarette smoking and lung cancer where there have been no trials to prove causation (as that would be clearly unethical) but there is a very strong correlation between smoking status and the development of lung cancers (17 times greater than in non-smokers). There isn't a 'plethora' of deaths after Gardasil, there were 4 that were presumed associated with the vaccine, and in the end those were disproven. The data just doesn't support the direct link of mortality with any vaccine.

    There are lots of potential short term side effects of vaccines (localised ache and inflammatory reaction, puncturing a vein and causing bruising, slight fever, etc) but no concrete evidence for any long term adverse effects. Dr Wakefield's 'evidence' for autism by the MMR vaccine is no doubt well presented but that doesn't make it true: the poor guy got himself deeper and deeper into controversy when he kept acting on his confirmation bias and published papers based on poorly designed studies. His Wikipedia page highlights this chain of events in good detail: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Wakefield
     
    Last edited: Apr 18, 2015
    • Like Like x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1
  17. Mark

    Mark Founder Staff Member

    Joined:
    May 27, 2012
    Messages:
    4,452
    Likes Received:
    1,008
    Location:
    Bellmere, QLD
    Climate:
    Sub-Tropical
    I watched an interesting presentation today by Professor Warwick Anderson AM, Chief Executive Officer of NHMRC on the National Press Club address and he was asked about why he thinks there's such a growing and high percentage (compared to the rest of the population) of educated upper middle class and well-off parents rejecting immunisations for their children.

    He reckons, he doesn't know for sure but assumes it's an entitlement issue whereby some educated parents are considering themselves more important than everyone else and thinking why should I put my child at risk via vaccination when the chances of getting one of these illnesses is relatively low anyway. I'm verbalising not quoting BTW... Here's the iVIEW video - it's during questions. He also said the chances of dying from a vaccination is close to zero.

    When you work overseas in some of those third world countries you need to get loaded up with heaps of shots - I forget what most of my vaccinations were for, but I know I felt like a pincushion by the end :)
     
    • Like Like x 1
  18. Director

    Director Valued Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2015
    Messages:
    221
    Likes Received:
    112
    Hi Ash,

    Can you post some links to the studies that show that it is unvaccinated people who are spreading pertussis to babies?
    Some of the latest science seems to suggest that is actually vaccinated people who are more contagious.
    From the FDA: http://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/Newsroom/PressAnnouncements/ucm376937.htm

    Link to the actual study is here: http://www.pnas.org/content/111/2/787.full.pdf

    I also read a study recently that showed that unvaccinated people who have previously had pertussis do NOT harbour the bacteria in their throats upon reinfection (neither are they symptomatic again). Will try and remember where I read it. :)

    The takeaway point from the study is as follows:
    Thanks

    (p.s. I don't mean to suggest that the vaccine is causing people to become infectious. )
     
    Last edited: Apr 19, 2015
  19. Ash

    Ash Valued Member Premium Member GOLD

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2015
    Messages:
    654
    Likes Received:
    278
    Location:
    Preston, QLD
    Climate:
    Temperate (all seasons)
    It appears there is a contradiction in your deductions above, with saying the latest science proving vaccinated people are more contagious but later deny this 'science'.
    Firstly, this is a good example of inaccurate interpretation of the paper you refer to. The FDA conducted a study in baboons (#1; the results cannot be extrapolated to humans) and found the acellular vaccine leads to immunity but not complete protection from infection, allowing them to be asymptomatic hosts that can pass on the infective agent to an unimmunised baboon (#2; the vaccine does not make them more contagious; it is the disease they contract that makes them contagious). The vaccine prevents the immunised from being affected by the pathogen but does not prevent its spread - the immunised do not pass on the pathogen from the vaccine, they have to contract the illness first, so the acellular vaccine has an individual benefit that would lead to a population benefit only if herd immunity were attained, which is at least 80% immunisation rate. The benefit of the whole cell pertussis vaccine is that transmission rate decreases significantly, which has both an individual and direct population benefit.

    An unvaccinated individual is just as likely as an aP-vaccinated individual to contract the disease even after previous infection, but the aP-vaccinated individual will be less likely symptomatic from the illness. Neither are a good scenario for an unvaccinated infant or elderly person who comes in contact with an infected individual.

    As for studies indicating the unvaccinated spreading pertussis to babies, this is only if the unvaccinated contract the illness, obviously not when they do not have whooping cough. The evidence for transmission of B. pertussis is universally accepted and published in manuals such as the CDC and governmental agencies:
    • Communicable Diseases Network Australia 1997, Guidelines for the control of pertussis in Australia, Communicable Diseases Intelligence Technical Report Series
      www.health.gov.au
    • PHLS Communicable Disease Surveillance Centre 2002, ‘UK guidelines for use of erythromycin chemoprophylaxis in persons exposed to pertussis’, Journal of Public Health Medicine, vol. 24, pp. 200–206
    For a quick read, here is the basic information on whooping cough transmission: http://www.cdc.gov/pertussis/about/causes-transmission.html, http://access.health.qld.gov.au/hid...erialInfections/whoopingCoughPertussis_fs.pdf

    In the end, the vaccine itself does cause transmission of the illness, but not immunising against the illness means that the infant/person is both subjected to the risk of succumbing to the illness as well as transmitting it to others, which has public health implications.
     
    Last edited: Apr 20, 2015
    • Like Like x 1
  20. Director

    Director Valued Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2015
    Messages:
    221
    Likes Received:
    112
    Hi Ash,

    I'm a bit confused by your reply, you say:

    Firstly I said that the science 'suggested' not 'proved' that vaccinated people were more contagious but I can't see where I later denied this.

    So why do the study in the first place? Animal studies are ubiquitous with in the pharmaceutical industry, if the results cannot be extrapolated to humans then why bother?

     

Share This Page