When Journalists Attack Non-Vax Parents

About a week ago I came across an article that was so full of incorrect information and prejudices against non-vaccinating parents I had to comment. It was the same old misinformation you often see touted across the internet, but this time it was expressed with such arrogance and rudeness, I was motivated to write this blogpost, correct the misinformation, and speak up for the non-vaccinating parents.

Below is the article, with my response in blue:

Becoming an expert is just a mouse click away
www.heraldsun.com.au
By Mia Freedman

THERE isn't enough room in this newspaper to list all the things I don't know. There's not even enough room in Wikipedia, which - if it were an actual book - would take you 123 years to read. Recently, though, there's been an explosion of people with a wildly inflated sense of their own intelligence. Suddenly, everyone's an expert. Me, not so much. I understand how little I know about lots of things. For example, I know less about science than scientists.

Mia says this, but later in her article insists she knows more than scientists who produce studies showing risks associated with vaccination. She's also never researched vaccination, and refuses to do so.

I know less about medicine than doctors.

When it comes to specialties such as vaccination, the majority of doctors are not expertly trained in epidemiology or virology and can not call themselves 'experts' in the field. Unless they have done their own independent research, many may know even less about the latest vaccine studies than you.

I know less about tax than my accountant, less about cooking than Donna Hay and less about animals than Bondi Vet. There's no shortage of genuine experts who have degrees, qualifications and years of experience in their fields. Having access to Google does not make you an expert, nor does having a website or watching a YouTube video.

No one is saying that it does. Ofcourse having access to Google doesn't make you an expert. However, having access to the thousands of vaccination studies found through Google and online medical research databases can provide readers with access to expert opinions. That does not make the reader an expert, it only means that they can read the expert opinion of others. 4

These things simply make you someone with an internet connection.What on earth could make a civilian believe his Google "research" is superior to decades of science?

No one is saying that it does. The research that 'civilians' do often does involve researching 'decades of science'. It's Google, along with other databases, that provide the science for the public and the medical community to read. It's thanks to these databases that we have the opportunity to read the science first hand in full text, instead of relying on slanted, shoddy newspaper articles that have no basis whatsoever like the one I'm commenting on .

"Everyone's an expert today," confirms social researcher Neer Korn, "partly because we feel we need to be. We receive kudos for proclaiming our definitive knowledge to others and we compete to be the first to share facts, articles and videos."

This would be true for hack journalists who compete with eachother, but for parents their main priority, and the driving force to seek out new info, is the safety and protection of their children, that's an honorable trait.

But reading some articles doesn't put you on par with a scientist and here's where it can become dangerous.

No one is saying that it does. Articles, like Mias one here, are just opinion and on their own are worth very little. You need to get to the source of the info – the studies. But it doesn't stop there, you need to make sure the study itself is not spun, which means confirming that the funding and authors of the study are in no way involved with the company whose product is being studied.

Research sponsored by the drug industry are more likely to produce results favouring the product made by the company sponsoring the research, than studies funded by other sources. The results apply across a wide range of disease states, drugs, and drug classes, over at least two decades and regardless of the type of research being assessed.7

A few years ago, I worked with a lovely guy who had left school at 16.

Why the need to mention he left school at 16? Quite a spiteful little dig at her co-worker.

When his wife had their first child, he "did his research" and they decided not to vaccinate their daughter.At the time, everyone around him insisted it was safe (and vital), but he was adamant.

It's more likely that just Mia thought vaccination was safe. It's possible this lovely guy had support from others who also chose not to vaccinate.

"I've read a lot about this and I watched this amazing video," he insisted.

Good for him for reaching out, getting informed, and getting involved in his childs health.

"Vaccinations are just a way for big companies and the government to make money."

We're talking billions.

Where do you start arguing the extreme lack of logic in that? Not here; I'd need more space and a wheelie bin full of Rescue Remedy.

First this journalist should watch the video / read the info her friend has seen / read to get a sense of what he's talking about in order to make a comment on it, as you would expect from a decent journalist. It could well be that his info is sourced from reputable studies. In which case she should thank him for passing on some great info. But it seems research is beyond this journalists scope of journalism.

Because, while I accept my former co-worker was a thoughtful person who meant well, I'm floored by the extraordinary assumption that he knew better than every scientist in the world - not to mention Bill and Melinda Gates, who are spending hundreds of millions of their own dollars funding vaccine programs in Third World countries to eradicate killer diseases.

Firstly, whether the former co-workers info was correct we'll never know because this journalist didn't bother to investigate it.

Secondly, every scientist in the world does not believe vaccination is safe nor does every scientist vaccinate their children. Rash statements that include the words 'every scientist in the world' are what give Google research a bad name, you could end up reading one of Mias articles, heaven forbid. 10 - 13

Truth be known, the vast majority of doctors involved in establishing national guidelines on disease treatment have financial ties to the pharmaceutical industry that could potentially sway their recommendations and inappropriately influence thousands of other physicians. 5 – 9

Further, whether a doctors agrees with vaccination or not, they are often bound by their workplaces policy to promote vaccination. If they dare speak out against vaccination they risk losing their job. 1,2,3

Lastly, why would anyone care what Bill and Melinda Gates think of vaccination? They're not vaccine experts, they're computer software moguls. Or maybe Mia thinks being a billionaire automatically makes you a generalized 'expert' in all things?

What on earth could make a civilian believe his Google "research" is superior to decades of science?

People use Google to access scientific studies. It's not 'google' vs 'decades of science'. In many cases it's Google that PROVIDES the decades of science.  

Is it arrogance?

This journalist claims her friends research is null and void but hasn't bothered to investigate what information he read. Then she has the gall to call him arrogant?

"The internet has made expertise a mouse click away," Korn says.

Access to an experts opinion is a mouse click away, that doesn't make the user an expert, but it provides much needed knowledge in a hotly debated topic such as vaccination.

"And a little knowledge is a dangerous thing. Just ask any GP who has to contend with self-diagnosing patients, determined they can identify their prognosis and treatment. They address them more as colleagues than patients, because they place their internet search on par with the doctor's years of expertise."

GPs constantly use the internet, including Google, to research ailments! GPs are not an endless source of information, they are human, treat them as such. If a GP is unable to answer questions from a patient it's a sign they need to do a little more study. Medical research is constantly evolving and GPs must evolve with it.

Doctors really do live this every day. Says one of my friends who is a medical specialist: "You find yourself getting into these exhausting debates with patients who insist they've read something that goes against what you're telling them. Unless you're highly experienced, it can be extremely difficult to judge the credibility of the information you find online."

I agree with this medical specialist that it can be difficult to judge the credibility of information on line. You need to decifer opinion from fact by researching sources, verifying studies are reliable, and finding more reliable studies to back up the findings. But this is not reserved for the 'highly experienced', any mildly intelligent person can do this.

As for specialists dealing with a patients inquisitiveness – they can deal with it, they are providing a service and charging big prices for it.

Which brings me to the Australian Vaccination Network which, despite its official-sounding name, is a group of civilian self-styled "experts" who campaign vigorously and at times misleadingly (according to findings by the Health Care Complaints Commission) against vaccination on its website and in the free talks its members give around Australia, sometimes to expectant parents at pre-natal classes.

The Australian Vaccination Network makes no mention of being 'experts'. From the AVN site:

"The AVN was founded in 1994 by a group of parents and health professionals who were concerned about protecting the rights of Australians to make free and informed health choices. Since its inception, this organisation has been run on a volunteer-basis though it currently has two part-time employees who work in administration."

While publicly pedaling its anti-vaccination message, the AVN cleverly makes it sound like there are "two sides" to the vaccination debate.In fact, there aren't two sides and there is no debate.

In fact, there's a wide range of differing opinions on vaccination within the medical industry. 10 - 13

On one hand there is science and there is no other hand.

Yes, in this debate there should only be science, not shoddy articles with no sources like the one I'm commenting on.

Because no link between vaccination and autism has ever been found. None.

Really… says who, this hack journalist? The same journalist who earlier claimed to know nothing about vaccination, and who provides no sources of proof for any statements, but now decides to make  definitive expert claims? Ironically Mia is doing exactly what she is accusing those who question vaccines of doing. In the real world 'decades of science' show there is a clear link to Autism, and unlike Mia I have the studies to prove it.

A thorough review of medical literature and U.S. government data indicates that excessive mercury exposure from thimerosal in vaccine injections is an etiological mechanism for causing the traits of autism. 14

The overwhelming evidence from the peer-reviewed scientific and medical literature favours acceptance that mercury exposure is capable of causing some Autism Spectrum Disorders, particularly in children who are biochemically and/or genomically susceptible to mercury intoxication. 15

The children with Autism Spectrum Disorder had a significant dose-response relationship between the severity of the regressive Autism Spectrum Disorder and the total mercury dose children received from Thimerosal-containing vaccines/Rho (D)-immune globulin preparations, and suffered mercury toxic encephalopathies (brain injury) that manifested with clinical symptoms consistent with regressive Autism Spectrum Disorders. 16

Boys aged 3 to 17 years (born before 1999 with a vaccination record) who received the first dose of hepatitis B vaccine during the first month of life were 3 times more likely to be diagnosed with autism, than boys either vaccinated later or not at all. 17

The higher the proportion of children receiving recommended vaccinations, the higher was the prevalence of Autism or Speech or Language Impairment. Enhanced exposure to aluminum via vaccines may be associated with an increase in the prevalence of neurological disorders such as autism, especially if an aluminum-containing vaccine is administered along with a measlescontaining vaccine. 18

Children with severe Autism Spectrum Disorder had biomarkers consistent with mercury toxicity. This study concludes mercury intoxication is significantly associated with autistic symptoms. 19

Boys who were vaccinated with the Hep B triple series vaccine were 9 times more likely to need early intervention or special education services, than boys who were not vaccinated with the Hep B vaccine. 20

Our results show that: (i) children from countries with the highest ASD prevalence appear to have the highest exposure to Al from vaccines; (ii) the increase in exposure to Al adjuvants significantly correlates with the increase in ASD prevalence in the United States observed over the last two decades (Pearson r=0.92, pb0.0001); and (iii) a significant correlation exists between the amounts of Al administered to preschool children and the current prevalence of ASD in seven Western countries, particularly at 3–4 months of age (Pearson r=0.89–0.94, p=0.0018–0.0248). The application of the Hill's criteria to these data indicates that the correlation between Al in vaccines and ASD may be causal. 21

Ever

There has been a link to Autism since early 2000 when the CDC first investigated the link, and the link has continued to strengthen as studies continue. 22

What has been proven is that, while they are not 100 per cent perfect, vaccines are the best and only way to protect babies and children from diseases such as whooping cough that can kill them.

More madeup opinion from a self-confessed non-expert who refuses to even look at studies on vaccination. Can I get a citing study with that? Not likely. Vaccines are certainly not the only way to protect babies from illness – studies show the protection of breastmilk, vitamin C and D, fresh water, sunshine, healthy diet and cleanliness all play a major role in immunity. 23 - 40

And the personal choice argument? Well, it's a bit like arguing that driving your car drunk is a personal choice.

We could say that vaccinating a child is like choosing to drive drunk – we don't know what reaction the child will have to a vaccine or when it will manifest itself. Will the child die, will they be severely brain damaged, will they have Autism, ADD, allergies or autoimmune disorders? It's a risk we take when we choose to vaccinate. 14 – 22, 41 – 50

Likewise there is risk to not vaccinating – will a child contract a disease and die, will they be left permanently injured by a disease?

But driving drunk is not a valid comparison to either side at all, it's just insulting. Whether parents decide to vaccinate or not vaccinate, you can rest assured they've taken the decision very seriously and have their childrens best interests at heart.

The question at the end of the day is: do the benefits of vaccination outweigh the negatives? With the prevalence of disorders such as Autism and ADD that are linked to vaccination, I don't believe vaccination is worth it – it is simply exchanging one set of illnesses for another.

You see, the lives of babies too young to be vaccinated depend on herd immunity in the rest of the community.

If everyone were vaccinated, there would still be a large chunk of the population in which the vaccine simply won't work. This was demonstrated recently when a newborn was hospitalized for whooping cough after contracting it from her fully vaccinated older sister. 51 If we are unable to guess who the vaccine will not work on, then it's a gamble putting anyone – vaccinated or not – near a newborn.

In fact vaccinated individuals may be even riskier to have around newborns. They can carry and pass on a disease without showing any outward symptoms. At least when a non-vaccinated person does contract an illness they show outwards signs (eg. coughing, runny nose), and know to stay away from vulnerable individuals such as newborns or those with immune disorders.

The push for 'herd immunity' has created an unfortunate epidemic of its own. While the overall instances of certain illnesses have been reduced due to vaccination, chronic, life long illnesses such as Autism and allergies have ballooned to epic proportions due to the toxic ingredients in, and the very nature of, vaccines. Many who choose to vaccinate have substituted one set of illnesses for another. For those who choose not to vaccine this isn't a viable trade off.

So the choice made by that guy I worked with didn't just affect his family.His well-intentioned yet ill-informed decision has the potential to harm my family. And yours.

Firstly, as we know this journalist has no idea whether her co-worker is 'ill-informed' because she never bothered to investigate the information he read.

Secondly, forcing a parent to vaccinate their child – potentially harming or killing their child – for the benefit of someone elses child, is ethically wrong.

Though one persons child may not have been injured through vaccination, we can not guarantee another child will not. For instance are you willing force another child to get vaccinated, causing that child to develop Autism, just so your child can avoid getting chicken pox, only to find your childs vaccine didn't work and your child gets chicken pox anyway?

It's not ethical, and it's not a viable tradeoff.

Watching (or even producing) a YouTube video with some cherry-picked statistics set to rousing orchestral music is not the same as having a uni degree or having your research findings peer reviewed.

No one is claiming that it is.

I'm baffled by this growing sense that everyone has the right - indeed the obligation - to challenge facts that have been established scientifically, independently and repeatedly over years, even decades.

The fact that Autism and other injuries can be caused by vaccines has been established scientifically, independently and repeatedly over years, even decades. While people like Mia who have never bothered to read them think they have the right – indeed obligation – to challenge these facts.

Which is fine, if she can produce a sound study to challenge it with – that's what science is all about. But the scientific community hasn't produced sound studies to challenge the studies showing vaccines cause Autism and other illnesses / injuries.

"Do your research!" is the common faux clarion call of so-called "experts".

Yes we most definitely should bother to research reliable studies, especially if you're a journalist. 

These exhortations are usually accompanied by a helpful list of links to skewed, scientifically baseless articles that back up their claims.

Articles on vaccination should always be cited, take note Mia, and the sources investigated to verify the validity of the study. The majority of websites about vaccination do cite studies, but seeing Mias aversion to research she probably never bothers to investigate them.

It's easy to mislead people with random graphs and alarmist statements.

This is what Mias article is packed full of – alarmist, false, or misleading statements without any hard facts. Again, finding the studies from which the graphs or statements are sourced is key.

I'M not suggesting we become a flock of sheep or suspend critical thought.
But I don't need to "do my research" before I vaccinate.

A giant oxymoron if ever I heard one. How do you develop critical thought without the freedom or desire to investigate unanswered questions?

Or before I accept that the Earth is round and that gravity exists.Scientists far smarter than me have already done that research and the verdict is unanimous, thanks.

Yes scientists are smarter than this journalist and have done the research, this journalist just hasn't read it. And the results are anything but unanimous.

It can be easier for some folks to dismiss those who disagree with their decision in order to maintain the belief they've done what's best for their child. What would be the alternative? The realization that their choice to vaccinate is causing more harm than good?

For Mia it's easier to block her ears and sing la la la, refuse to research vaccination, and instead write an article smearing non-vaccinating parents to make herself feel better about her own decision.

But what's alarming about Mias article is that it expresses an attitude that, judging by the comments, is  common. It lacks almost any hard facts and is based on snippits of dramatised press, but it's full of anger and arrogance. 

Vaccination has been marketed so intensely that parents often feel attacked for any vaccination choice they make, and it can make the best of us lash out at others when we feel our decision is under attack.

WE ALL care deeply about our childrens welfare no matter what our decision.

Journalists like Mia would have us believe the safety of vaccination has been unanamously agreed upon, but in reality it couldn't be further from the truth. Which is why for many of us, our childrens lives are far too precious to not bother investigating vaccination.

Email address for the editor of the Herald Sun is sundays@heraldsun.com.au. Please write in to let this rag know how many gross errors Mia Freedman made in her 'article'.

Sources

1.Why Are Doctors Silent? Vaccines Uncensored
http://www.vaccinesuncensored.org/doctors.php

2. PENN MEDICINE INFLUENZA IMMUNIZATION POLICY
Vaccine Ethics
http://www.vaccineethics.org/files/Penn_Influenza_Policy_1.pdf

3. Vaccine Policy Statement
Primary Care, Haverford
http://www.chop.edu/locations/primary-haverford/vaccine-policy.html

4. Google: Medical Journal

5. Choudhry, N.K., Stelfox, H.T., Detsky, A.S., 2002: Relationships Between Authors of Clinical Practice Guidelines and the Pharmaceutical Industry, JAMA, 287: 612-617.
http://jama.ama-assn.org/content/287/5/612.short

6. No Author Listed, 2002: Just how tainted has medicine become? Editorial The Lancet, 359, 9313.
http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736%2802%2908198-9/fulltext

7. Lexchin, J., Bero, L., Djulbegovic, B. and Clark, O., 2003: Pharmaceutical industry sponsorship and research outcome and quality: systematic review British Medical Journal, 326:1167-1170
http://www.bmj.com/content/326/7400/1167.long

8. Tungaraza, T, and Poole, R., 2007: Influence of drug company authorship and sponsorship on drug trial outcomes, The British Journal of Psychiatry (2007) 191: 82-83.
http://psychrights.org/research/Digest/Science4Sale/DrugCoInfluence%282007%29.pdf

9. Boutron I, et al, 2009: Spin in reports of randomized controlled trials with nonstatistically significant primary outcomes, International Congress on Peer Review and Biomedical Publication.
http://www.medpagetoday.com/MeetingCoverage/PRC/15964

10. Doctors, Nurses and Scientists on Protecting Your Child and Yourself
International Medical Council on Vaccination
http://www.vaccinationcouncil.org/2011/02/13/vaccines-get-the-full-story/

11. The Case Against Immunizatons
By Richard Moskowitz, M. D
http://vran.org/about-vaccines/general-issues/doctors-speak/the-case-against-immunizatons/

12. Doctors Speak
Vaccination Risk Awareness Network
http://vran.org/about-vaccines/general-issues/doctors-speak/

13. Doctors against vaccines
Vaccine Truth
http://www.vaccinetruth.org/doctors_against_vaccines.htm

14. HEPATITIS B VACCINATION OF MALE NEONATES AND AUTISM DIAGNOSIS,
NHIS 1997–2002
http://www.vaccinesafetyfirst.com/pdf/Hep b & neonatesGallagher.pdf

15. A positive association found between Autism prevalence and childhood vaccination uptake across the U.S. population
http://www.theoneclickgroup.co.uk/documents/vaccines/Vaccine and Autism correlation US 2011 J Tox Env Health.pdf

16.Biomarkers of environmental toxicity and susceptibility in autism
http://www.dienviro.com/s950/images/biomarkers_environmental_toxicity_autism.pdf

17.A comprehensive review of mercury provoked autism
http://www.icmr.nic.in/ijmr/2008/october/1004.pdf

18. A Case Series of Children with Apparent Mercury Toxic Encephalopathies Manifesting with Clinical Symptoms of Regressive Autistic Disorders
http://mercury-freedrugs.org/docs/Case-SeriesOfChildrenWithHgToxicEncephalopathies.pdf

19. HEPATITIS B TRIPLE SERIES VACCINE AND DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITY IN US CHILDREN AGED 1‐9 YEARS
http://www.fourteenstudies.org/pdf/hep_b.pdf

20. Autism: A Unique Type of Mercury Poisoning
http://www.vaccinationnews.com/dailynews/july2001/autismuniquemercpoison.htm

21. Do aluminum vaccine adjuvants contribute to the rising prevalence of autism?
Journal of Inorganic Biochemistry
http://sanevax.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/Aluminum-adjuvants-autism-Chris-Lucija.pdf

22. Risk of neurological and renal impairment associated with thimerosal containing vaccines
Center for Disease Control (CDC)
http://www.safeminds.org/government-affairs/foia/VSD_VerstraetenJune2000.pdf

23. How to boost your immune system
http://www.health.harvard.edu/flu-resource-center/how-to-boost-your-immune-system.htm

24. Vit C studies
Vitamin C function and status in chronic disease.
Nutrition in clinical care : an official publication of Tufts University.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12134712

25. Vitamin C and human health--a review of recent data relevant to human requirements.
International journal for vitamin and nutrition research.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8698541

26. Toward a new recommended dietary allowance for vitamin C based on antioxidant and health effects in humans.
The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10357726?dopt=Abstract
http://www.ajcn.org/content/69/6/1086.long

27. Randomized trial of vitamin D supplementation to prevent seasonal influenza A in schoolchildren
American Journal of Clinical Nutrition
http://www.ajcn.org/content/91/5/1255.long

28. Ample evidence exists from human studies that vitamin D reduces the risk of selected bacterial and viral infections.
Experimental Biology and Medicine
http://ebm.rsmjournals.com/content/235/12/1395.full.pdf+html

29. Vitamin D-Mediated Induction of Innate Immunity in Gingival Epithelial Cells▿
Journal of Infection and Immunity
http://iai.asm.org/content/79/6/2250

30. 1,25-Dihydroxyvitamin D3 Treatment Shrinks Uterine Leiomyoma Tumors in the Eker Rat Model
Journal of Biology of Reproduction
http://www.biolreprod.org/content/early/2012/02/01/biolreprod.111.098145

31. Prevalence of eczema and food allergy is associated with latitude in Australia.
Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology,
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0091674912000796

32. The Global Burden of Disease study and applications in water, sanitation and hygiene
World Health Organisation
http://www.who.int/water_sanitation_health/dwq/iwachap3.pdf

33. Estimating the burden of disease from water, sanitation, and hygiene at a global level.
World Health Organisation
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1240845/

34. Sickness behavior induced by endotoxin can be mitigated by the dietary soluble fiber, pectin, through up-regulation of IL-4 and Th2 polarization
Journal of Brain, Behavior, and Immunity
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0889159110000425

35. Does tomato consumption effectively increase the resistance of lymphocyte DNA to oxidative damage?
The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition
http://www.ajcn.org/content/69/4/712.full

36. DNA damage and repair activity after broccoli intake in young healthy smokers
UK Environmental Mutagen Society
http://mutage.oxfordjournals.org/content/25/6/595.full.pdf+html

37. Watercress supplementation in diet reduces lymphocyte DNA damage and alters blood antioxidant status in healthy adults
American Journal of Clinical Nutrition
http://www.ajcn.org/content/85/2/504.full.pdf+html

38. A randomized trial of isonitrogenous enteral diets after severe trauma. An immune-enhancing diet reduces septic complications.
Annals of Surgery
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1235418/

39. Upper respiratory tract infection is reduced in physically fit and active adults
British Journal of Sports Medicine
http://bjsm.bmj.com/content/early/2010/09/30/bjsm.2010.077875.abstract

40. Risks of Formula Feeding
Natural Mama NZ
http://naturalmamanz.blogspot.co.nz/search/label/Formula%20feeding%20risks

41. Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS)
Since 1990, the U.S. Government has collected reports of adverse health events that follow the administration of vaccinations. This database, called the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) is available for anyone to search or download.
http://www.medalerts.org/vaersdb/index.php

42. 'ASIA' - autoimmune/inflammatory syndrome induced by adjuvants.
Journal of Autoimmunity
http://xa.yimg.com/kq/groups/16063327/1999502348/name/ASIA2.pdf

43. HPV Vaccine Policy: At Odds With Evidence-Based Medicine?
Medscape
http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/757789

44. Effects of diphtheria-tetanus-pertussis or tetanus vaccination on allergies and allergy-related respiratory symptoms among children and adolescents in the United States.
Journal of Manipulative Physical Therapy
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10714532

45. Early childhood infection and atopic disorder
THORAX: An International Journal of Respiratory Medicine
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1745117/?tool=pubmed

46. A case-control study of risk factors for asthma in New Zealand children.
Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11297301

47. Atopy in children of families with an anthroposophic lifestyle.
The Lancet
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10232315

48. Pertussis vaccination and asthma: is there a link?
JAMA
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8057511

49. Vaccination and Allergic Disease: A Birth Cohort Study
American Journal of Public Health
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1448377/

50. Childhood Vaccinations and Risk of Asthma: Discussion
Medscape
http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/439840_4

51. Deadly whooping cough warning
Geelong Advertiser
http://www.geelongadvertiser.com.au/article/2012/03/14/312921_news.html