Vaccination

Rebuttal to ‘Megan Doodle’ Pro-Vax Nurse

Viral provax posts often make the rounds but this week I was motivated to respond to one. The post’s message wasn’t new, it’s a narrative based on misinformation and logical fallacies that gets rehashed year after year. What really rubbed me the wrong way was the author’s attitude - egotistical, selfish, demanding, and vindictive.


The author, a nurse named Megan Doodle (yes that’s her name, pictured above) stated:
"I think that people who don’t want to vaccinate should have the freedom to do so. If they think that 'Big pharma' is just trying to turn a profit or poison us all... they should be allowed to believe that. But the caveat to that is this: Then they should NOT be allowed go to the doctor or the hospital when they get sick, looking for treatment. That’s right."
"Big pharma makes those antibiotics we are going to pump you full of when you are about to die from sepsis. The steroids and epi we might give you to save your life from your anaphylaxis? Yep, big pharma is behind that too. That inhaler you need to treat your kid's asthma? Better pass on that as well, because ... you guessed it ... brought to you by Big P. Having a heart attack? Better break out your essential oils and get your affairs in order, because the only thing we have to offer you is medicine and procedures brought to you by the very same people who are responsible for those vaccines you insist are evil."

 The basic gist of Megan’s post was, “if you don’t trust Big Pharma why use ANY of their products?” I’m happy to answer that.

First, it needs to be said that from a logical point of view Megan’s argument is a hot mess. Her most glaring ‘logic fail’ is the Fallacy of False Dilemma - when something is falsely claimed to be an "either/or" situation.

Megan is proposing that people either choose to accept ALL pharmaceutical products... or NONE. I think we can all agree this is stupidly unethical. Imagine a medical professional holding you to ransom, “either you agree to let me use ANY pharmaceutical product I want on you, or you get NONE!”

There is no all or nothing in healthcare; what’s great for one patient could mean death for another.

Let’s repeat together:

Medicine should be INDIVIDUALIZED to each patient.

Megan is also paid by US, the consumer, to provide a service. WE call the shots, WE decide if we are happy with her service, WE decide if we want the products she is pushing. We are under no obligation to agree with her opinions. The service medical staff provide varies considerably, just like in any other profession, and if we don’t feel that service is up to scratch we can find better elsewhere.

If Megan were my nurse, you can bet I’d be demanding a new nurse and laying a complaint with her superiors.

Moving on.

Megan’s second ‘logic fail’ is the Fallacy of Composition - when one infers that something is true of the WHOLE based on the fact that it’s true of some PART of the whole.

Megan is inferring that because SOME medical products are proven to be worth the risk in certain situations (eg. an epipen when someone is having an allergic reaction), that means ALL medical products, including vaccines, are worth the risk. She is lumping ALL pharmaceutical products together.

Which brings us to the next fact:

Pharmaceutical products are NOT created equal.

Each product has it’s own manufacturer, it’s own composition, it’s own use, it’s own contraindications, it’s own risks and side effects, and it’s own safety and efficacy research associated with it. This means you can’t make generalized assumptions about them as a whole.

You can’t pretend they’re all equally safe and effective. Some products have a fantastic safety and efficacy track record (eg. epipens), while others (eg. vaccines), not so much.

I can already hear the screams... “But vaccines are some of the most well tested pharmaceutical products on the market!”

No, they’re not. 

No matter how many times the mantra ‘vaccines are well tested’ is repeated it won’t make it true. So I’ll repeat it again:

Vaccines are NOT well tested.

In reality, vaccines are tested with LESS scrutiny than other drugs - they’ve been given their own ‘special’ rules.

Vaccines are NOT required to undergo double-blind, inert-placebo-controlled testing.1
Vaccines are NOT required to undergo long-term safety testing.1 Vaccines are not required to be tested for carcinogenic, mutagenic, or fertility impairment risk (stated on vaccine package inserts), despite many of the ingredients in vaccines having carcinogenic, mutagenic, or fertility impairment risk in separate studies.2,3,4  Vaccines even have their own special ‘vaccine court’ so vaccine manufacturers don’t have to face real litigation when their products cause adverse side effects or death.5 This is not the case for ANY other pharmaceutical.

This is why we can’t lump vaccines in with other medical products, pretending that they ALL have the same sterling reputation - they don’t. This is why parents may decide to pass on vaccines yet say yes to an epipen or asthma inhaler.

Ahem, what about regulatory agencies?

It’s reasonable to ask, “don’t regulatory agencies, like the FDA, ensure all pharmaceutical products are safe for the public?”

We already know that vaccine regulations are lax, but pharmaceutical regulations on the whole aren’t particularly reliable either. The FDA’s reputation is NOT stellar. They have shown time and again they favour corporate interests over public safety. The organizations apathy towards conflicts of interest has been appalling:
“The Food and Drug Administration does almost nothing to police the financial conflicts of doctors who conduct clinical trials of drugs and medical devices in human subjects, government investigators are reporting. Moreover, the investigators say, agency officials told them that trying to protect patients from such conflicts was not worth the effort.” - New York Times, 2009 6

In 2014 NSNBC published an article exposing the FDA’s blatant pandering to corporate interests over public safety:
“Between 2005 and 2011, nearly half of all new drug formulations in the US were approved without companies having to demonstrate a tangible benefit, such as relieving disease symptoms, extending life, or improving someone’s ability to go about normal activities.” - NSNCB, 2014 7

In the same year NSNBC wrote an even more damning piece:
“A recent study about institutional corruption of pharmaceuticals and the myth of safe and effective drugs, warns that over the past 35 years, patients have suffered from a largely hidden epidemic of side effects from drugs that usually have few, offsetting benefits.”
“The researchers warn that since 1906, commercial influence has compromised Congressional legislation to protect the public from unsafe drugs, adding that the authorization of user fees in 1992 has turned drug companies into the FDA’s prime clients, deepening the regulatory and cultural capture of the agency.”
“Part of the regulatory and cultural capture of the FDA has enabled the industry to successfully demand shorter average review times. Less time to thoroughly review the evidence, warn the researchers, has led to increased hospitalization and death.”
“The researchers warn that meeting the needs of the drug companies has taken priority over meeting the needs of the patients, adding that unless this corruption of regulatory intent is reversed, the situation will continue to deteriorate.” - NSNBC, 2014 8

You’d expect this type of publicity would prompt the FDA to clean up it’s act - no such luck. The situation has actually gotten worse with Trump recently nominating Scott Gottlieb, a man riddled with conflicts of interest, to head the FDA. 9

Which leads us to our next revelation:

Pharmaceutical companies are not your ‘friends’

The array of pharmaceutical products we use are made by a multitude of different manufacturers, each with their own - often dubious - track record. You can’t lump them all together. Almost all major pharmaceutical companies have faced fines for misconduct, many are repeat offenders who are fined millions year after year. 10 Some have been outed by their own employees for fudging data 11, while many have made clear their obligations are to their shareholders profits, not the public. 12,13

Like ANY product you buy, whether it be a lipstick or a carseat (and especially a medical product), the manufacturers reputation makes a huge difference in whether you choose to buy their product or not, as it should. Is the manufacturer trustworthy? Have they shown that the health and safety of their consumers is their top priority? In the case of many major pharmaceutical manufacturers, the answer is consistently NO.

Yes, we should be wary. Yes, we as consumers have damn good reasons to be wary. 14

So why bother with these companies at all? As Megan so gleefully pointed out there’s times we NEED their products. Not ALL of them, not ALL the time, for many of us it’s just the odd occasion.

“Shouldn’t we be grateful for the life-saving products they provide us?” Yes, but...

We shouldn’t tolerate corruption.

Being grateful for technology available to us doesn’t mean we turn a blind eye to corruption, it doesn’t mean we put up with dangerous products. We wouldn’t put up with it in any other industry and we shouldn’t put up with it in the pharmaceutical industry.

It’s important to remember that unless these products created a large profit many of these companies would not manufacture them at all. In fact vaccine manufacturers threatened to stop making certain vaccines altogether in the 1980’s because litigation from vaccine injured consumers was eating into their profit margins. As a result they coerced the US government into passing legislation to protect manufacturers from litigation - an important reason you cannot lump vaccines into the same group as other pharmaceuticals. 5

The drive for profit is blatantly obvious with the fact that many larger companies have stopped research into desperately needed new generation antibiotics. For them there just isn’t enough profit in it, so they focus on other drugs with higher profit margins. 15

How about the 400% price hike in epipens, for no other reason than because the manufacturing company could? 16 Desperate consumers who rely on life-saving epipens have had no other choice but to pay the 400% price hike, with some families foregoing basic necessities, so billionaire pharma executives can stuff their already bulging pockets.

Valeant pharmaceutical company CEO J. Michael Pearson said it best:
“My primary responsibility is to Valeant shareholders. We can do anything we want to do” 13

So let’s not forget the type of companies Megan is talking about when she tries to defend and glorify ‘Big Pharma’.

Megan continues:
"Stop being so naive. Everything has risks. Everything has side effects. Medicine is not perfect.”

Naive? Really? Parents don’t choose to not vaccinate on a whim. This isn’t a joke or a fad to them. For many non-vax parents the choice to vaccinate would come with a high likelihood of serious neurological injury or death - in their situation the benefits of vaccination very clearly DON’T outweigh the risks.

When you hear “anti-vax” think “parent of a vax-injured child”.

Parents who don’t vaccinate are very often parents of vaccine injured children, and are more aware than most of the pitfalls of medicine. They’ve witnessed their children convulsing with post-vaccination seizures and screaming in pain from brain swelling. They were left to pick up the pieces as their children regressed mentally into post-vaccination neurological impairment. They don’t need reminding that “medicine is not perfect” from an insensitive, ‘tone deaf’ nurse. Everyday they are faced with a living, breathing reminder of the devastation “imperfect” medicine can bring. 18

When Megan says, “everything has risks” she again nonchalantly lumps vaccines in with other pharmaceuticals, implying they’re on a level playing field when we know they’re NOT. The cost vs benefit of an epipen for instance bears no resemblance to any vaccine. Megan will never convince parents who’ve witnessed first hand the devastation vaccines can bring that vaccines are safe.

Her post continues:
“We advocate for vaccinating your children and yourself because science has PROVEN it's the most effective method of controlling the spread of disease and giving you and everyone around you the best chance of NOT DYING from something preventable.”

Flat out dogma. Megan advocates vaccinating our children because that’s what the health department orders her to do. She tells us vaccines are the most effective method of controlling disease because that’s what the health department orders her to say.

There’s a reason she doesn’t provide any studies to bolster her argument - because there aren’t any. There is NO proof that the overall benefits of vaccinating children outweigh the overall risks. There is no independent, fully-vaccinated vs non-vaccinated, long-term study analyzing the overall health of both groups. It doesn’t exist, and without it no person, no matter their station in life, has ANY credence insisting that vaccines are worth the risk.

The German KIGGS study was the closest we’ve come to a vaxed vs non-vaxed study, but like many others it suffered from conflicts of interest which resulted in data tampering after another researcher used the data to show the vaccinated children in the study suffered significantly higher rates of illness and disorders. This prompted the KIGGS authors to remove the relevant data, making the data pool too small for the new researcher’s results to be considered significant afterward. 19

So let’s hold off on the wishful, vaccine-worshiping dogma until we actually  HAVE evidence to say one way or another just how beneficial or risky vaccines are.

The post continues:
“Believe me when I say that not vaccinating yourself or your children because you believe that big pharma only cares about profit or that the scientific medical community has been duped, is 100 percent insanity.;"

No, I don’t believe Megan. Whether Megan wants to a accept it or not…

Our medical system HAS been corrupted.

People far more educated than Megan have published thousands of scientific studies proving that the scientific medical community is riddled with conflicts of interest tied to the pharmaceutical industry, and together they are corrupting the healthcare system.  In fact there’s scientific journals and conferences dedicated to the subject. 20

Perhaps one of the best descriptions of how this occurs was published last year (2017) by NPR:
“The long arm of the pharmaceutical industry continues to pervade practically every area of medicine, reaching those who write guidelines that shape doctors' practices, patient advocacy organizations, letter writers to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and even oncologists on Twitter, according to a series of papers on money and influence published Tuesday in JAMA Internal Medicine.” - NPR, 2017 21

I believe Megan desperately wants that not to be true. ‘Big Pharma’ is an industry she’s deeply embedded in and one that she’s staked her reputation on, publicly. She has too much to lose to ever entertain the possibility that the industry she’s backing is no longer entirely honorable or ethical, and in many instances she may be causing her patients more harm than good.

The post continues:
"I personally take offense to anyone who implies that medical professionals, like myself, would ever administer anything to anyone, especially a child, that would intentionally harm them.”

No one is saying that Megan would INTENTIONALLY hurt her patients, but that doesn’t mean she hasn’t unknowingly caused more harm than good by administering vaccines or other pharmaceuticals and procedures to her patients.

Modern medicine has a lot to answer for.

The research analyzing the safety and efficacy of pharmaceuticals and medical care is NOT kind. Each year approximately 2.2 million US hospital patients experience adverse drug reactions to prescribed medications, and 106,000 will die due to adverse drug reactions to prescribed medications (study here). 22

A study in the Archives of Internal Medicine found that adverse events to prescribed drugs were almost 4 times more common than adverse events relating to the actual procedure the patients were prescribed the drugs for. 23

A Johns Hopkins study concluded iatrogenic death - deaths directly attributable to medical care - are the third leading cause of death in the US, responsible for 250,000 deaths per year. 24

The British Medical Journal published a scathing report on the safety and efficacy of conventional medicine in which they found just 13% of treatments were scientifically proven to be beneficial. 25

The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

Megan’s unwavering faith in the pharmaceutical industry is understandable given that it is her job to administer their products. The realization that she may be causing her patients more harm than good by administering those products is a bitter pill to swallow.

In fact it’s a bitter pill I’ve seen medical staff stubbornly REFUSE to swallow even when faced point-blank with the evidence of harm the vaccine they administered caused in a patient. “Oh it can’t be the vaccine’s fault, it’s just a coincidence.”  The staggering amount of times medical staff have said this to parents with vaccine injured children is unforgivable.

While Megan might tout that she’s an upstanding nurse who would never knowingly harm a patient, many of us know from experience she does NOT speak for ALL her colleagues.

I’m sorry to Megan if her fragile ego takes “offense” to the knowledge that some people in her profession DO indeed knowingly harm others, but it’s a reality she’ll have to come to grips with. For the sake of her patients, I hope she does fast.

The post continues:
“I take even more offense to anyone that would imply that a college educated professional, like myself, is incapable of 'doing the research.'"

I’ve met plenty of people like Megan who think having a degree magically means they’re always right. Sometimes we all need reminding:

Medical staff are not all-knowing gods.

Arrogance, particularly with medical professionals in my experience, is strong. They have a really hard time accepting new information from... anyone, even more experienced medical professionals.

That type of arrogant, too-proud-to-admit-I’m-wrong attitude can be dangerous in the medical field, especially given that medical staff like Megan have likely learnt very little about vaccines.

Vaccinology, immunology, or epidemiology are specialties NOT included in general medical degrees – these specialties require additional training. The article, “Vaccines: What Your Doctors Know and Don’t Know”, includes a compilation of quotes from doctors revealing what they learnt about vaccines in med school. An excerpt:
"Doctors learn a lot about diseases in medical school, but we learn very little about vaccines. … We don’t review the research ourselves. We never learn what goes into making vaccines or how their safety is studied. So, when patients want a little more information about shots, all we can really say as doctors is that the diseases are bad and the shots are good. – Dr Bob Sears”26

I was once in a discussion with a family doctor who expressed concern over an article she read which touted, “doctors spend their lives researching vaccines”. The problem she had was that this statement simply isn’t true AT ALL. The doctor explained that not only are doctors taught extremely little about vaccines in med school, they DON’T routinely do ongoing research either – they would love to but simply don’t have the time.

She went on to say that the bulk of the recommendations doctors make are dictated to them by major health organizations - doctors are told what to recommend to their patients, they generally don’t develop these recommendations after years of independent research.

You can find more interviews with a range of medical professionals describing how much medical schools actually teach about vaccines here and here.

Let’s not forget too that Megan’s implication that having a medical degree automatically means she’s right, is an example of another logical fallacy: Appeal to Authority. This is when one uses an authority's support as evidence for an argument's conclusion, instead of using reputable evidence such as an independent, high-quality study. A public persona is not enough to garner the public’s trust, we NEED cold, hard evidence. Our children’s lives depend on it.

The post continues:
"People always fire back with something like, 'well if you are vaccinated, why do you care that I’m not? If you are so sure your vaccines work, It’s not like you can catch it.' You are 100 percent right. I will probably be just fine. It’s my newborn baby who is too young to be vaccinated that I’m worried about, it’s my friend who is going through chemo, it’s a neighbor that is immune compromised, it’s my cousin who is allergic and can’t receive the vaccine. Yes, we tell you to get vaccinated to protect yourself, but it’s so much bigger than that. Vaccinate. Because it’s not just about YOU."

There’s an easy rebuttal to that:

You are NOT required to set yourself on fire to keep someone else warm.

Why should someone be forced to risk their own child’s health or even life for someone else’s? How is that ethical or even logical?

My son is one of the statistics who had a severe vaccine reaction and can no longer be vaccinated. Does that mean I demand others vaccinate their kids to protect mine? NEVER in a million years would I ask that of another parent. I cannot guarantee the same reaction that happened to my child won't happen theirs. Then their child would be in the same boat as mine! To demand parents take that risk is not only unethical, it is utterly selfish.

Whenever I see a parent demanding that the rest of the population vaccinate to protect their child, I cringe. They seem completely oblivious to the risks they are demanding others to take for the sake of their child.

“But the risks of vaccinating are one in a million!”

NO, they’re not.

Only 1% of vaccine adverse reactions are estimated to be reported. An HHS funded study by Harvard Medical School tracked reporting to VAERS over a three-year period at Harvard Pilgrim Health Care involving 715,000 patients and found that “fewer than 1% of vaccine adverse events are reported.”  28

Additionally, researchers still have very little idea about exactly who is at risk of vaccine reaction and there is still no routine screening to weed out those with genetic anomalies that make them more susceptible.

NO ONE has any place demanding a parent consent to a preventative pharmaceutical for their already healthy child when it has such poor safety testing and includes neurological damage and death as possible side effects. That is NOT OK, and never will be.

What I’ll never understand about people like Megan is why she is not standing beside people like myself, demanding that vaccines be made safer? We know for a fact every year kids continue to suffer severe vaccine reactions - some die. How can we condone the dismissal of so many children’s lives as “collateral damage”? Why aren’t we ALL standing up for these children, demanding manufacturers make safer vaccines?


Sources:

1. HHS Vaccine Safety Responsibilities and Notice

2. Aluminium & DNA Damage

3. Aluminium & Cancer

4. Aluminium & Fertility Impairment

5. NVIC Position Statement, National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986

6. F.D.A. Is Lax on Oversight During Trials, Inquiry Finds
Gardiner Harris. Jan 11, 2009
https://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/12/us/12fda.html?fta=y



9. FDA Nominee, Paid Millions by Industry, Says He’ll Recuse Himself if Needed
Katie Thomas, March 29, 2017
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/29/health/fda-nominee-scott-gottlieb-recuse-conflicts.html

10. Lawsuits Against Pharma Companies
https://www.drugdangers.com/manufacturers/

11. Scientists Sue Merck: allege fraud, mislabeling, and false certification of MMR vaccine. Suzanne Humphries, MD,  JUNE 25, 2012
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1dqm005XdY532KGqPyDHAXvVd0GV-GOFe/view?usp=sharing 

12. Pharma chief defends 400% drug price rise as a ‘moral requirement’
David Crow, Sept 12, 2018
https://www.ft.com/content/48b0ce2c-b544-11e8-bbc3-ccd7de085ffe

13. Pharma CEO: We’re in Business of Shareholder Profit, Not Helping the Sick
https://www.healthfreedoms.org/pharma-ceo-were-in-business-of-shareholder-profit-not-helping-the-sick/

14. Pharma Company Corruption

15. Industry Corruption Studies, Articles etc.

16. Pharmaceutical companies are backing away from a growing threat that could kill 10 million people a year by 2050. Charlotte Hu, Jul 19, 2018

17. Why Did Mylan Hike EpiPen Prices 400%? Because They Could
Emily Willingham, Aug 21, 2016


19. Vaccine Free Children Are Healthier

20. From Twitter To Treatment Guidelines, Industry Influence Permeates Medicine.
CHARLES ORNSTEIN, January 17, 2017
https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2017/01/17/510226214/from-twitter-to-treatment-guidelines-industry-influence-permeates-medicine

21. Research Integrity and Peer Review Journal

Journal of Medical Ethics

Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics

International Congress on Peer Review and Scientific Publication

World Conference on Research Integrity

22. Incidence of adverse drug reactions in hospitalized patients: a meta-analysis of prospective studies. Lazarou J et al.  JAMA. 1998 Apr 15;279(15):1200-5.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9555760

23. Medication errors in hospitalized cardiovascular patients.
LaPointe NM1, Jollis JG. Arch Intern Med. 2003 Jun 23;163(12):1461-6.

24.Johns Hopkins study suggests medical errors are third-leading cause of death in U.S. Vanessa McMains / Published May 4, 2016

25. The Mythology Of Science-Based Medicine. Huffington Post, 03/18/2010
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-larry-dossey/the-mythology-of-science_b_412475.html

26. Vaccines: What Your Doctors Know and Don’t Know
27. How Much Is Taught on Vaccines In Medical School? Published March 22, 2017

28. Electronic Support for Public Health–Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (ESP:VAERS). Lazarus, Ross, 2011

29. Adversomics: a new paradigm for vaccine safety and design
Jennifer A. Whitaker, et al. Expert Rev Vaccines. 2015 Jul; 14(7): 935–947.

Measles

Measles: Putting the Hysteria into Perspective

Growing up I thought the prevention of measles was simple - you vaccinate. Everyone did it, I did it, I had no reason to question it. It wasn't until I was plunged into parenthood with little ones depending on me that I took the time to seriously read up on the topic. There was a different opinion floating around every corner so I decided to get some definitive answers by looking at the medical research. The problem I found was the further I dug into the research, the more problematic and unsettling the topic became.

Vaccines... they don't work quite how you think
One of the more startling revelations the research revealed was that most vaccines, including the measles vaccine, don’t protect against contracting infection but will often reduce or prevent symptoms of infection [1-7].
"Many vaccines are primarily intended to prevent disease and do not necessarily protect against infection." - Andre et al. World Health Organization, 2008 [7]
Andre et al go on to state that just two vaccines, the HPV and Hep A vaccine, may have the ability to prevent infection.

This fact is NOT widely known, not only because it's virtually never mentioned publicly, but also because medical terminology can be a little deceiving. When we read that "vaccines prevent disease" we equate the word "disease" with "infection", but that's not the case in medical literature. "Disease" is defined as a state causing symptoms of ill health, however you can easily have an infection without symptoms of ill health. Disease and infection are two very different terms.

So, we can say that vaccines prevent disease, because they can (though not always) prevent the symptoms of ill health, yet they commonly don't stop infection or its transmission. We can also say that vaccines can prevent the spread of the disease, because without symptoms such as coughing the infection is less likely to spread, though it is still present in saliva and nasal secretions.

Disease prevent is NOT just about vaccines
The big issue I have with the current strong push for measles vaccination (and all vaccination), is that it's just one of the methods that reduces the symptoms (and therefore spread, of infection). There are many, many more methods of disease prevention besides vaccination that are proven in medical literature.

Breastfeeding is one such highly underrated disease prevention method that stands out. It is shown in studies to dramatically reduce the rate of symptomatic infection in babies [8]. The protection is known to continue against certain types of infections for up to 10 years [9].

But it doesn't stop there. Breastfed children are...

5 times less likely to have more than 1 illness.
*compared to infants exclusively formula fed for 5 months.

16 times less likely to have 3 or more illnesses.
*compared to infants exclusively formula fed for 5 months.

5 times less likely to need hospitalization.
*compared to formula fed babies for the first 6 months of life.

6 times less likely to be hospitalized due to infection.
*compared to formula fed babies for the first 6 months of life.

5 times less likely to have gastrointestinal illness.
*when compared to infants exclusively formula fed for the first 13 weeks of life.
*any infection of the digestive tract caused by bacteria, viruses, or parasites.

4 times less likely to have necrotising enterocolitis.
*compared to formula fed preterm infants.
*necrotising enterocolitis is a condition where portions of the bowel undergo tissue death, it has a death rate of 20-30%.

4 times less likely to have diarrhoeal disease.
*compared to infants breastfed for 6 months or more.

4 times less likely to be hospitalized for lower respiratory tract diseases.
* compared to infants formula fed for 4 or more months
* lower respiratory tract diseases include bronchiolitis, asthma, bronchitis, pneumonia, empyema, and infections due to specific agents (eg, respiratory syncytial virus).

4 times less likely to have pneumococcal disease.
*compared to formula fed infants.
*pneumococcal disease is a bacterial infection that can present as pneumonia, bacteremia, meningitis, middle ear infection, and sinusitis.

3 times less likely to have ear infections.
* compared to infants exclusively formula fed for six months.

2 times less likely to have conjunctivitis.
* compared to infants exclusively formula fed for six months.

7 times less likely to have thrush.
* compared to infants exclusively formula fed for six months.

(See this post for stats related to not breastfeeding and a list of references.)

Those are some serious stats showing breastfeeding has the ability to prevent not just one, but a multitude of illnesses, and without the risk of side effects.

Why the hysteria over MMR?
With that in mind, let’s look at the recent MMR vaccine publicity. The measles rates are within a normal range compared to recent years [10], there have been no measles associated deaths, and measles is well known to be a benign illness in most individuals [11]. Yet the current measles hysteria seems even worse than the recent Ebola scare.We have articles calling for non-vaccinating parents to be sued if their child infects another child, to be put in jail, their children taken away and forcibly vaccinated, and addresses of non-vaccinators to be made public. Then there's the vitriol spewed through social media with commenters labelling non-vaccinators child abusers, vile monsters, and ignorant science-deniers, along with threats of violence and death.

Are we enforcing a double standard on parents?
Let's pretend that treating non-vaccinating parents this way is acceptable for a moment (it's not). If this is the way we've decided as a society to treat parents who choose not to adopt specific disease prevention methods for their children, tell me where are the witch hunts calling for parents who refuse to breastfeed to be sued if their child infects another child, for non-breastfeeders to be put in jail, their children taken away and forcibly breastfed, or addresses of non-breastfeeders to be made public?

We know that breastfeeding reduces a myriad of infections, including pneumococcal disease which can progress to dreaded meningitis [12]. We're not talking about a little possible benefit, we're talking about real, tangible prevention of disease and death through breastfeeding. Studies show breastfed babies are 5 times less likely to be hospitalized for infection - we are talking about the prevention of hospitalization for thousands of babies [13].

Parents have been prosecuted for not vaccinating their child who consequently died from a "vaccine preventable disease" [14]. Should the same be done to parents who refuse to breastfeed, whose child consequently dies from a "breastmilk preventable disease"?

Adopting pro-vax rhetoric we could conclude non-breastfed kids are a threat to our children, and the rest of the community. They are more likely to carry disease, they could infect vulnerable newborns, elderly folks, or chronically ill patients. They should not be allowed to go to daycare or preschool, or at least must be sent home when there is an outbreak. Doctors who don’t enforce mandatory breastfeeding for their patients should lose their licence. In fact, anyone who advocates that breastfeeding shouldn’t be mandatory should be publicly shamed. Parents who don’t breastfeed are irresponsible, neglectful, stupid, and anti-science. They literally want to their child to die. (Yes, these are word-for-word comparisons of pro-vax rhetoric.)

Sounds hideous when you attack mothers about not breastfeeding doesn’t it? Something like propaganda spread by a dictatorship.
“Dictatorship, form of government in which one person or a small group possesses absolute power without effective constitutional limitations… Dictators usually resort to force or fraud to gain despotic political power, which they maintain through the use of intimidation, terror, and the suppression of basic civil liberties. They may also employ techniques of mass propaganda in order to sustain their public support.”
- Encyclopaedia Britannica 
“Propaganda, dissemination of information—facts, arguments, rumours, half-truths, or lies—to influence public opinion.”
- Encyclopaedia Britannica
While we’re at it…
“Bullying, intentional harm-doing or harassment that is directed toward vulnerable targets and typically repeated. Bullying encompasses a wide range of malicious aggressive behaviours, including physical violence, verbal mockery, threats, ostracism, and rumours spread either orally or by other means of communication, such as the Internet.”
- Encyclopaedia Britannica

How do you think someone who couldn’t breastfeed would feel hearing the above statements? Imagine breastfeeding (like vaccines) did have major risks, and a parent had a child who severely reacted to breastmilk resulting in permanent brain damage. The family doctor refused to admit that the breastmilk caused the reaction and insisted the child continue to be breastfed. How scared do you think the parent would feel when faced with the possibility of mandatory breastfeeding? How heartbroken and disillusioned do you think she would feel hearing someone call her “neglectful” or “stupid”?

These tactics - whether used against those who don't breastfeed or don't vaccinate - are cruel, unfair, and unethical.

Disease prevention is a lifestyle
There’s plenty of analogies that can be used for vaccination besides breastfeeding...
  • avoiding people when sick
  • washing hands
  • not sharing drinks or food
  • eating a healthy diet
  • getting enough exercise
  • not smoking
  • not drinking alcohol
All of these life style choices are shown in studies to have a profound impact on the immune system. Best of all these don’t carry the risks that vaccination does.

 Why are these factors not gaining more attention in the fight against not just communicable disease but all disease? Why is the public not rabidly demanding that others be forced to adopt these lifestyle changes like they are for vaccination? After all if people don’t avoid others when sick, don’t wash hands, share food and drink with others, eat an unhealthy diet, get no exercise, chain smoke, and binge drink, they could well become a cesspool of disease - in theory they are a risk to the public. 

 So why the double standard when it comes to vaccination?

Protecting individual choice
At the end of the day we do have a responsibility to try to prevent disease in our community. But it must be recognized that there is more than one way to prevent disease - vaccination is not our only hope. The combination of prevention methods that is right for one person may be wrong for someone else. Insisting that we know what is right for others is naïve, arrogant, and dismissive of individual variability. Medicine has never been a "one size fits all" regime.

As "safe" as vaccines have been touted, we can never guarantee the benefit outweighs the risk for someone else. It won't be us (or the doctor or the pharmaceutical company) paying the price if the vaccine backfires, it will be the individual. Given the seriousness of possible consequences and lack of vaccine safety testing/monitoring, the choice to vaccinate MUST remain with the individual.


Sources:

1. Acellular pertussis vaccines protect against disease but fail to prevent infection and transmission in a nonhuman primate model. Jason M. Warfel et al. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1314688110

2. Estimated susceptibility to asymptomatic secondary immune response against measles in late convalescent and vaccinated persons. Damien B, et al. J Med Virol. 1998 Sep;56(1):85-90. PMID: 9700638

3. Investigation of a measles outbreak in a fully vaccinated school population including serum studies before and after revaccination. Matson DO et al. Pediatr Infect Dis J. 1993 Apr;12(4):292-9. PMID: 8483623

4. Nonclassic measles infections in an immune population exposed to measles during a college bus trip. Helfand RF et al. J Med Virol. 1998 Dec;56(4):337-41. PMID: 9829639

5. Vaccination against measles: a neverending story.
Koert J Stittelaar et al. Expert Rev. Vaccines 1(2), 151–159 (2002).

6. Endpoints in vaccine trials.
Michael G Hudgens, et al. Statistical Methods in Medical Research 2004; 13: 1^26

7. Vaccination greatly reduces disease, disability, death and inequity worldwide.
FE Andre et al. Bulletin of the World Health Organization, Feb 2008, Vol 86, Number 2, 81-160

8. Outcomes of Breastfeeding
Ginna Wall, MN, IBCLC, February 2013

9. Protective effect of breastfeeding: an ecologic study of Haemophilus influenzae meningitis and breastfeeding in a Swedish population. Silfverdal SA et al. Int J Epidemiol. 1999 Feb;28(1):152-6. PMID: 10195681

10. Notifiable Diseases and Mortality Tables
MMWR / February 13, 2015 / Vol. 64 / No. 5

11. Measles, CDC Pinkbook

 12. Risk of Formula Feeding
Natural Mama NZ

13. Infectious disease hospitalizations among infants in the United States.
Yorita KL et al. Pediatrics. 2008 Feb;121(2):244-52.

14. The anti-vaccine couple facing prison over the death of their toddler from meningitis
Michael E. Miller Friday 18 March 2016 16:29 GMT



Herd Immunity

Dismantling Vaccine Propaganda

Once in a while something shared on the internet comes my way that I feel moved to write about. The below is one such internet gem, a meme shared on Facebook that is frankly, an angry, misinformed rant.


On the surface the meme can seem convincing, but if you spend a little time trying to find studies to back up these statements, it soon falls flat.

So piece by piece I’m going to break it down so that by the end of it, we’ll all have learned some valuable scientific information about vaccines, and understand why the above meme constitutes bogus, manipulative, propaganda.

So let's dig in:

“The diseases haven’t gone away. They are just held in check because sensible people vax their kids.”

While the aim of vaccines is to keep VPD's (vaccine preventable diseases) in check, the stats just don't add up. Despite extremely high and stable vaccination rates, death from infection has actually increased dramatically since the 1970’s – an era when we received over 4 times less vaccines [1-5].

Some people aren’t sensible; they don’t vax their kids. Yes, I’m looking at you, sunshine – you with the Ph.D from Google U and the post-doc from Whale.to.” “

Vaccines have the ability to cause severe, permanent injury, and death [6-8]. While some screening is recommended, infants commonly receive vaccines without any testing and minimal to no screening to verify whether they will react badly. The CDC recommends administering ALL the vaccines a child is eligible for at the same doctors visit – up to 9 vaccines at once [9,10]. This practice has never been studied for safety [11]. This is NOT sensible, it is reckless.

“Because your little cherubs are un-vaxed they are far more likely to catch the diseases. 23 times more likely for whooping cough, 35 times more measles for example.” 

While it's true that unvaxed kids are more likely to show symptoms of VPD's, there's very few studies that show unvaxed kids are more likely to actually contract or transmit VPD's compared to vaxed kids.

That's because there's almost no vaccine shown to protect recipients against INFECTION. Studies show vaccines can reduce symptoms of infection in many recipients, but not ensure protection against contracting or transmitting infection. [12].

“Your kidlets are much more likely to be exposed to the diseases, because anti-vaxers like yourself hang around with other anti-vaxers.” 

This is an assumption that comes with no actual data. Vaccinated individuals are still likely to contract diseases, likely from other vaccinated individuals, because when exposed they may still become infected and pass on the infection – albeit with minimal or no symptoms [12].

While there are some studies that show unvaxed kids are likely to have more VPD's (or at least show the symptoms of VPD's) it's usually in babies too young to be vaccinated anyway, so it doesn't really count in this situation. These limited studies also don't take into consideration the overall health of vaxed vs unvaxed populations, they only test for VPD's. What about all the other diseases and illnesses we face which vaccines are implicated in causing?

Non-communicable diseases including cancer, autoimmune diseases, and neurological disorders have now overtaken communicable diseases as greater threats to our populations health. This is why advocacy groups have been calling for an independent, saline-control, vaxed vs non-vaxed study analyzing the overall health of both groups. So we can understand once and for all whether the benefits of vaccinating outweighs the risks.

“Your little darlings then spread their vile viruses and bacteria to innocent children who are too young to be vaxed. Those innocent children get sick with killer diseases spread by people silly enough not to vax – like yourself.” 

"Vile viruses and bacteria” are more likely to be found in the vaccinated population. Many outbreaks of disease occur almost entirely or exclusively in vaccinated populations. As we know, vaccinated kids are still likely to contract and pass on infections to vulnerable individuals because most vaccines DON'T protect from contracting or transmitting VPD's. [12]

Additionally, vaccine recipients can spread disease when shedding vaccine viruses after being vaccinated with live vaccines [12]. Vaccinated kids are a danger to vulnerable individuals, just as unvaccinated kids are.

“No vaccine is 100% effective; some vaxed kids will also catch your revolting diseases. We need high vax rates for herd immunity.” 

"Revolting diseases" don't belong to unvaxed kids anymore than they belong to vaxed kids. The only difference between a vaxed and unvaxed child is that when the vaxed child contracts a "revolting disease" they likely won't show symptoms. But it doesn't mean they don't have the infection lurking inside them, unknowingly spreading it everyone around them - which makes them possibly even more dangerous than an unvaxed child. At least when unvaxed kids get a VPD they'll likely show symptoms so their parents know to keep them at home.

Also, we've had extremely high and stable vaccination rates for over a decade, it has not stopped epidemics [1,2]. If a vaccine isn't effective enough, the answer isn't forcing EVERYONE to get the vaccine, risking side effects possibly even worse than the VPD the vaccine was trying to protect from. The answer is to make the vaccine more effective, and safer while you're at it.

It's also worth repeating that death from infectious disease has increased dramatically since the 1970’s – an era when we received over 4 times less vaccines.

“Infect enough children and some of them will die, more of them will suffer permanent disability, and all of them will have experienced an unnecessary and unpleasant disease.” 

What about death, permanent disability and unnecessary and unpleasant experiences caused by VACCINE INJURY? Because the necessary studies comparing the overall health of non-vaccinated vs vaccinated populations have not been done, whether the benefits of vaccines outweigh the risks is still unknown. Forcing parents to take that gamble is totally unethical.

“All of that suffering will be YOUR fault for not vaxing your rugrats.” 

No, it won't. Trying to blame non-vax parents for the fall-out of ineffective, dangerous vaccines is truly despicable. If you want someone to blame, the blame lies squarely and solely with vaccine manufacturers.




References:

1. National Immunization Survey (NIS) - Children (19-35 months)
CDC, September 2, 2014
http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/imz-managers/coverage/nis/child/index.html

2. Nationwide vaccination coverage among children age 19-35 months, 2002-2012
CDC, Morb. Mortal. Wkly.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B_fOow977UVfaTBKYlBZOEZfV2M/edit?usp=sharing

3. Deaths Due to Infectious & Parasitic Diseases https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B_fOow977UVfMU0xSVZEamVDNHc/view?usp=sharing

4. The Development of the Immunization Schedule
The History of Vaccines
http://www.historyofvaccines.org/content/articles/development-immunization-schedule

5. CDC Mandatory Vaccine Schedule: 1983 vs 2014
Monday, January 17, 2011
http://www.drmomma.org/2011/01/cdc-mandatory-vaccine-schedule-1983-vs.html

6. Virus in the system
Natasha Bita,THE AUSTRALIAN, MAY 28, 2011
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/features/virus-in-the-system/story-e6frg8h6-1226063484330

7. Little girl died in cot after flu jab
Jamie Walker, THE AUSTRALIAN, APRIL 26, 2010
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/little-girl-died-in-cot-after-flu-jab/story-e6frg6nf-1225858118518

8. Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System
https://vaers.hhs.gov/data/data

9. General Recommendations on Immunization
Epidemiology and Prevention of Vaccine-Preventable Diseases
The Pink Book: Course Textbook - 12th Edition Second Printing (May 2012)
http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/pubs/pinkbook/genrec.html

11. The Childhood Immunization Schedule and Safety: Stakeholder Concerns, Scientific Evidence and Future Studies. Institute of Medicine Committee on the Assessment of Studies of Health Outcomes Related to the Recommended Childhood Immunization Schedule. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press 2013. pg 11
http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=13563&page=11
“Although each new vaccine is evaluated in the context of the overall immunization schedule that existed at the time of review of that vaccine, elements of the schedule are not evaluated once it is adjusted to accommodate a new vaccine. Thus, key elements of the entire schedule—the number, frequency, timing, order, and age at administration of vaccines—have not been systematically examined in research studies.”

12. The Implausibility of Vaccine-Based Herd Immunity
Natural Mama NZ
http://naturalmamanz.blogspot.co.nz/2014/01/the-implausibility-of-vaccine-based.html
A collection of over 100 studies about the inability of most vaccines to prevent infection.
Vaccination

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.

The article was written by Mia Freedman, a renown provax advocate, and published in the Herald Sun. Below is the article in dark red:

"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. I know less about medicine than doctors."

Mia sounds humble here, but later insists she knows more about vaccines than highly experienced scientists and doctors who speak up about the risks associated with vaccination. Mia doesn't have respect for the knowledge and experience experts have - she simply cherry picks and uses whatever expert opinion that bolsters her own personal views, and disregards the rest.

Given that Mia has never researched vaccination and refuses to do so, who is she to be disregarding any expert opinion? Her opinion seems to be based on... nothing; she doesn't cite any studies or data.

While I agree with the implication that we need to respect the expertise of doctors, expertise does have limits. When Mia speaks about doctors she doesn't seem to realise that when it comes to specialties such as vaccination, the majority of doctors are NOT expertly trained and are not 'experts' on the topic. 

 In reality doctors are taught extremely little about vaccines in med school, many may learn only a few hours worth on the topic. There's also no guarantee they've done any independent research in their own time. Because new vaccines are continually rolled out and new vaccine studies are published each year, unless they have done their own, up to date, independent research, many doctors may know even less about vaccines 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. Mia is debating statements no one has actually said (a fallacy known as a Straw Man). NO ONE has said that having access to Google makes anyone an expert - but it doesn't stop Mia going to town on this imaginary argument.

 Having access to studies about vaccination found through Google (along with online medical research databases like PubMed) can provide readers with ACCESS to the expert opinion of others. That does not make the reader an expert, but it provides much needed knowledge in a hotly debated topic such as vaccination.

"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 (I have to write that a lot in this post). The research that 'civilians' do often DOES involve researching 'decades of science'. It's Google and other databases that provide the 'decades of science' for the public and the medical community to read. It's not a Google vs Science situation. 

 It's thanks to these databases like Google that we have the opportunity to read the science first hand, so we don't to have rely on slanted, shoddy opinion pieces 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 may be true for hack journalists who compete with each other, 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. An article (especially opinion pieces like Mia's) are on a completely different level to the scientific literature you might find through Google. Articles like Mias that cite no studies or data are 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 and confirm 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 is 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

 Adding to the controversy, organisations such as the World Health Organisation (WHO), who are responsible for "providing leadership on global health matters" including vaccination recommendations, employ vaccine researchers and advisers who are also under the payroll of vaccine manufacturers. This is a massive conflict of interest that potentially undermines vaccine safety on a global scale. 115

"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 child's health.

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

We're talking billions. In 2018 the global vaccine market revenue was worth over $49 billion dollars, set to reach $59 billion by 2020.114  Compare this to one of the markets biggest selling drugs, Viagra, which is expected to reach USD 3.2 billion by 2022.114a

Former Merck Employee and whistleblower Brandy Vaughan spoke out: “What we have with vaccines is the highest profit margin pharmaceutical drug on the market. Drug companies make more money off vaccines than they do any other pharmaceutical drug, in terms of profit margin.”114b

Indeed, the profit margin of vaccines (25-30%) is double that of pharmaceuticals in general (12.5-14%).117 Likely due to the fact that vaccines require LESS testing than other pharmaceuticals with no inert placebo controls or long-term safety trials required before release.

To ensure this revenue is protected, the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986 (Public Law 99-660) gives vaccine manufacturers (and doctors) complete immunity from any legal liability if your child is harmed by their vaccines. No other industry enjoys this level of protection from a product that could injure a child. 116

"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 or read the info her friend has seen or read to get a sense of what he's talking about in order to make a comment on it, as you would expect from any 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.

 It can seem shocking to someone like Mia - who's never read anything about the pharmaceutical industry - to hear that pharmaceuticals, including vaccines, are primarily a money making venture. Pharmaceutical company executives have made it very clear, publicly, that their loyalties lie with their shareholders, not their consumers:
“My primary responsibility is to Valeant shareholders. We can do anything we want to do.” - J. Michael Pearson, CEO of Valeant Pharmaceuticals 116a
“I think it is a moral requirement to make money when you can . . . to sell the product for the highest price” and said he was in “this business to make money”. - Nirmal Mulye, Nostrum Laboratories chief executive 116b
Pharmaceutical companies are not our 'friends'. While their products have saved and helped many, their products are also responsible for millions of deaths. Each year approximately 2.2 million US hospital patients experience adverse drug reactions to prescribed medications, and 106,000 will die due to adverse drug reactions to prescribed medications.116c

A 2016 study by Johns Hopkins concluded iatrogenic death - deaths directly attributable to medical care - are the third leading cause of death in the US, responsible for 250,000 deaths per year.116d

"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."

First, I can guarantee Mia's former co-worker DID NOT assume he knew better than every scientist in the world. We can be fairly sure Mia made that up like she's made up other statements in her article. We also know Mia doesn't know the opinion of every scientist in the world, in fact I doubt anyone knows the opinion of every single scientist in the world.

However we do know that NOT every scientist in the world believes vaccines are safe, nor does every scientist vaccinate their children. 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 (and these physicians  are taught barely anything about vaccines to start with). 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.

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

No one is saying that it does. People use Google to access the 'decades of science'. It's not Google vs '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. 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 for someone new to vaccine research 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 learn to 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 community. 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.

An abnormal immune response to the vaccine-derived measles virus is implicated in autism
“This report on children with both autistic encephalopathy (brain injury) and intestinal pathology (disease) associated with measles virus persistence describes the detection of measles virus in the cerebrospinal fluid of such children. None of the cases (autistic children studied) or controls (non-autistic children studied) had a history of measles exposure other than MMR vaccination. Findings are consistent with both a measles virus etiology (cause) for the autistic encephalopathy (brain injury) and active viral replication in these children. The data support the growing perception that a subset of children with autistic encephalopathy (brain injury) exhibits a complex systemic pathology (disease) consistent with an etiological (causative) role for measles virus.” 14
“Analysis revealed the presence of an unusual MMR antibody in 60% of autistic sera (blood samples) but not in control sera (non-autistic blood samples). Furthermore, over 90% of MMR antibody-positive autistic sera (blood samples) were also positive for myelin basic protein autoantibodies (myelin basic protein is a substance essential for proper functioning of nervous system, autoantibodies to myelin basic protein mean that body attacks the myelin basic protein, creating inflammation, damage, and cell death), suggesting a strong association between MMR and central nervous system autoimmunity in autism (autoantibodies to myelin basic protein is found in other autoimmune diseases such as multiple sclerosis and traverse myelitis). Stemming from this evidence, we suggest that an inappropriate antibody response to MMR, specifically the measles component thereof, might be related to pathogenesis of autism.” 15
Aluminium sourced from vaccines is implicated in autism
“We investigated whether exposure to aluminium from vaccines could be contributing to the rise in autism spectrum disorders prevalence in the Western world. Our results show that:
(i) children from countries with the highest autism spectrum disorders prevalence appear to have the highest exposure to aluminium from vaccines;
(ii) the increase in exposure to aluminium adjuvants significantly correlates with the increase in autism spectrum disorders prevalence in the United States observed over the last two decades and
(iii) a significant correlation exists between the amounts of aluminium administered to preschool children and the current prevalence of autism spectrum disorders in seven Western countries, particularly at 3–4 months of age.” 16
“Our results provide strong evidence supporting a link between autism and the aluminum in vaccines. A literature review showing toxicity of aluminum in human physiology offers further support. Mentions of autism in VAERS increased steadily at the end of the last century, during a period when mercury was being phased out, while aluminum adjuvant burden was being increased. We propose that children with the autism diagnosis are especially vulnerable to toxic metals such as aluminum and mercury due to insufficient serum sulfate and glutathione. A strong correlation between autism and the MMR (Measles, Mumps, Rubella) vaccine is also observed.” 17
Vaccination with subsequent acetaminophen (paracetamol) administration is implicated in autism
“The present study was performed to determine whether acetaminophen (paracetamol) use after the measles-mumps-rubella vaccination could be associated with autistic disorder. Acetaminophen (paracetamol) use after measles-mumps-rubella vaccination was significantly associated with autistic disorder when considering children 5 years of age or less (autistic children were over 6 fold more likely to have received acetaminophen after MMR vaccination). After limiting cases to children with regression in development (the likelihood was 4 fold), and when considering only children who had post-vaccination sequelae (damage due to vaccination)(the likelihood was 8.2 fold). This preliminary study found that acetaminophen (paracetamol) use after measles-mumps-rubella vaccination was associated with autistic disorder.” 18
Mercury sourced from vaccines is implicated in autism
“Exposure to mercury can cause immune, sensory, neurological, motor, and behavioural dysfunctions similar to traits defining or associated with autism, and the similarities extend to neuroanatomy, neurotransmitters, and biochemistry. Thimerosal, a preservative added to many vaccines, has become a major source of mercury in children who, within their first two years, may have received a quantity of mercury that exceeds safety guidelines. A review of medical literature and US government data suggests that:
(i) many cases of idiopathic autism are induced by early mercury exposure from thimerosal;
(ii) this type of autism represents an unrecognized mercurial syndrome; and
(iii) genetic and non-genetic factors establish a predisposition whereby thimerosal’s adverse effects occur only in some children.” 19
“It is clear that while genetic factors are important to the pathogenesis (cause) of Autism Spectrum Disorders, mercury exposure can induce immune, sensory, neurological, motor, and behavioral dysfunctions similar to traits defining or associated with Autism Spectrum Disorders. A case series of nine patients who presented to the Genetic Centers of America for a genetic/developmental evaluation are discussed. Eight of nine patients (one patient was found to have an Autism Spectrum Disorder due to Rett's syndrome)…
(a) had regressive Autism Spectrum Disorders;
(b) had elevated levels of androgens;
(c) excreted significant amounts of mercury post chelation challenge;
(d) had biochemical evidence of decreased function in their glutathione pathways;
(e) had no known significant mercury exposure except from Thimerosal-containing vaccines/Rho(D)-immune globulin preparations; and
(f) had alternate causes for their regressive Autism Spectrum Disorders ruled out.
There was a significant dose-response relationship between the severity of the regressive Autism Spectrum Disorders observed and the total mercury dose children received from Thimerosal-containing vaccines/Rho (D)-immune globulin preparations. Eight of nine patients examined were exposed to significant mercury from Thimerosal-containing biologic/vaccine preparations during their fetal/infant developmental periods, and subsequently, between 12 and 24 mo of age, these previously normally developing children suffered mercury toxic encephalopathies (brain injury) that manifested with clinical symptoms consistent with regressive Autism Spectrum Disorders. Evidence for mercury intoxication should be considered in the differential diagnosis as contributing to some regressive Autism Spectrum Disorders.” 20
Conjugate vaccines are implicated in autism
“It is hypothesized here that the introduction of the Hib conjugate vaccine in the US in 1988 and its subsequent introduction in Denmark and Israel could explain a substantial portion of the initial increases in autism spectrum disorders in those countries. The continuation of the trend toward increased rates of autism spectrum disorders could be further explained by increased usage of the vaccine, a change in 1990 in the recommended age of vaccination in the US from 15 to 2 months, increased immunogenicity of the vaccine through changes in its carrier protein, and the subsequent introduction of the conjugate vaccine for Streptococcus pneumoniae. Conjugate vaccines fundamentally change the manner in which the immune systems of infants and young children function by deviating their immune responses to the targeted carbohydrate antigens from a state of hypo(lowered)-responsiveness to a robust B2 cell mediated response (which promotes the production of antibodies; carbohydrate antigens are bacterial-based polysaccharides and glycocojugates that evoke antibodies, many are found in vaccines such the Neisseria meningitidis, Streptococcus pneumoniae, Haemophilus influenzae type b, and Salmonella typhi vaccines). This (biologically normal) period of hypo(lowered)-responsiveness to carbohydrate antigens coincides with the intense myelination process in infants and young children (myelination is a crucial process in the nervous system; problems with myelination are involved in autoimmune diseases), and conjugate vaccines may have disrupted evolutionary forces that (would have normally) favored early brain development over the need to protect infants and young children from capsular (polysaccharide) bacteria.” 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 For more studies linking autism to vaccines see this post.

"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

Long before vaccinations were in wide spread use the major diseases responsible for the bulk of mortality in the late 19th and early 20th century had declined dramatically, almost entirely due to improvements in living conditions. 118 The US Center for Disease Control explains: 

"The 19th century shift in population from country to city that accompanied industrialization and immigration led to overcrowding in poor housing served by inadequate or nonexistent public water supplies and waste-disposal systems. These conditions resulted in repeated outbreaks of cholera, dysentery, TB, typhoid fever, influenza, yellow fever, and malaria."
"By 1900, however, the incidence of many of these diseases had begun to decline because of public health improvements, implementation of which continued into the 20th century. Local, state, and federal efforts to improve sanitation and hygiene reinforced the concept of collective "public health" action (e.g., to prevent infection by providing clean drinking water)."
"By 1900, 40 of the 45 states had established health departments. The first county health departments were established in 1908 (6). From the 1930s through the 1950s, state and local health departments made substantial progress in disease prevention activities, including sewage disposal, water treatment, food safety, organized solid waste disposal, and public education about hygienic practices (e.g., foodhandling and handwashing)."
"Chlorination and other treatments of drinking water began in the early 1900s and became widespread public health practices, further decreasing the incidence of waterborne diseases. The incidence of TB also declined as improvements in housing reduced crowding and TB-control programs were initiated. In 1900, 194 of every 100,000 U.S. residents died from TB; most were residents of urban areas. In 1940 (before the introduction of antibiotic therapy), TB remained a leading cause of death, but the crude death rate had decreased to 46 per 100,000 persons."
"Animal and pest control also contributed to disease reduction. Nationally sponsored, state-coordinated vaccination and animal-control programs eliminated dog-to-dog transmission of rabies. Malaria, once endemic throughout the southeastern United States, was reduced to negligible levels by the late 1940s; regional mosquito-control programs played an important role in these efforts. Plague also diminished; the U.S. Marine Hospital Service (which later became the Public Health Service) led quarantine and ship inspection activities and rodent and vector-control operations. The last major rat-associated outbreak of plague in the United States occurred during 1924-1925 in Los Angeles. This outbreak included the last identified instance of human-to-human transmission of plague (through inhalation of infectious respiratory droplets from coughing patients) in this country." 119

"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, allergies, and other autoimmune disorders that have ballooned to epidemic proportions and are linked to vaccination, I don't believe vaccination is worth it – it is simply exchanging one set of illnesses for another. For those who choose not to vaccinate this isn't a viable trade off.

In 1996 it was estimated that 3% of the US population had at least one autoimmune disease. In 2005 estimates of autoimmune disease prevalence increased to 5-8% of the US population. 113 The below graph shows the rise in autism:


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

The concept of herd immunity relies on the fact that those who are immune are unable to spread the disease to others. Unfortunately I couldn't find ANY studies demonstrating that current injected vaccines actually stop recipients contracting the infections they are vaccinated for - mainly because the design of almost all vaccine studies do not include testing all study subjects for infection. Instead, studies show that vaccines often effectively reduce the symptoms of infection (eg. coughing, fever, spots etc). But that does not ensure the recipient does not have a subclinical infection (infection without showing symptoms) with which to spread the infection to those around them. 

For instance, the whooping cough (pertussis) vaccine is shown in studies to create the illusion of immunity in the vaccine recipient (minimal or no symptoms) when in fact they are infected and spreading the virus to those around them. 52 This was demonstrated recently when a newborn was hospitalized for whooping cough after contracting it from her fully vaccinated older sister. 51 

Other vaccines are also implicated. Regarding the measles vaccine, Stittelaar et al (2002) state, "...vaccine failures may, at least in part, be attributed to an inadequate vaccine-induced mucosal immunity – the current vaccine protects against measles but not necessarily against measles virus infection." Likewise, Hudgens et al (2004) state, "...vaccines for rubella, mumps, measles, and polio have been shown to prevent disease, but not infection." 

The varicella (chicken pox) vaccine has been documented numerous times causing infection in the vaccine recipient and spreading the infection to others. It's also known to cause herpes zoster, a related virus with 3 times the morbidity and 5 times the mortality of varicella, in vaccine recipients. 60-85

This completely shatters any illusion that at least these particular vaccines can provide herd immunity, and even implicates the varicella vaccine as a possible cause of outbreaks. Additionally, it shows that without studies that test each individual for infection, whether they show outward symptoms or not, we can't jump to the conclusion that vaccines can provide herd immunity. 

We also need to take into consideration the fact that vaccines are often ineffective. Even if everyone were vaccinated, and even if vaccines could protect recipients from infection (and we know many don't), there would still be a large chunk of the population in which the vaccine simply won't work. For example multiple outbreaks of whooping cough, chicken pox, and influenza have been documented in highly vaccination populations. 53-58, 86-90, 91-112 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. For more information on the pitfalls of vaccine-based herd immunity, see this post.

 On a side note, one of the most effective ways of protecting an infant from illness is to exclusively breastfeed. Breastmilk helps protect against almost every commonly known pathogen including whooping cough, rotavirus, and even polio. 59

At least when a non-vaccinated person does contract an illness they usually show outwards signs (eg. coughing, runny nose), and know to stay away from vulnerable individuals such as newborns or those with immune disorders. Additionally a non-vaccinated person is given life long, or long term immunity to the illness after contracting it, something vaccination has never been able to achieve.

"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, we know that for the majority of current vaccines, vaccine-based herd immunity simply does not exist. Mia's co-worker's decision not to vaccinate does not affect Mia's family or yours, any more than Mia's decision to vaccinate does. Mia is not stopping the spread of disease by vaccinating, though she ignorantly thinks she is, and like many pro-vaccine advocates, she tries to lord the mistaken belief over those who choose not to vaccinate.

Thirdly, forcing a parent to vaccinate their child – potentially harming or killing their child – with the belief that your child will benefit, 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 developmental delays, just so your child can avoid getting chicken pox, only to find your child's vaccine didn't work and your child gets chicken pox anyway? The hypothetical scenario is made even worse by the fact that forcing another child to get the chicken pox vaccine is unlikely to help protect your child from contracting chicken pox anyway. If exposed to the wild virus the child will still contract the virus and spread it, albeit likely without showing symptoms. They also risk contracting chicken pox or herpes directly from the chicken pox vaccine, and spreading it on to you. 60-85

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 (and provax propaganda in general) 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 children's welfare no matter what our decision.

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

 Update: Mia's article has been removed from the Herald Sun.



Sources

1. Vaccines: What Your Doctors Know and Don’t Know
Jennifer Hutchinson, July 31 2012
http://vactruth.com/2012/07/31/what-your-doctors-know/

These Nurses are Silently Speaking Out Against Vaccines - Find Out Why 

How Much is Taught on Vaccines in Medical School?

2. PENN MEDICINE INFLUENZA IMMUNIZATION POLICY
Vaccine Ethics

3. Vaccine Policy Statement
Primary Care, Haverford

4. Why Are Doctors Silent? Vaccines Uncensored
https://web.archive.org/web/20160102044428/http://www.vaccinesuncensored.org/doctors.php

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.

6. No Author Listed, 2002: Just how tainted has medicine become? Editorial The Lancet, 359, 9313.

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

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.

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.

10. Doctors, Nurses and Scientists on Protecting Your Child and Yourself
International Medical Council on Vaccination

11. The Case Against Immunizatons
By Richard Moskowitz, M. D

12. Doctors Speak
Vaccination Risk Awareness Network

13. Doctors against vaccines
Vaccine Truth

14. Detection of Measles Virus Genomic RNA in Cerebrospinal Fluid of Three Children with Regressive Autism: a Report of Three Cases. J.J. Bradstreet et al. J Am Physicians & Surgeons Vol 9 no.2 2004

15. Abnormal measles-mumps-rubella antibodies and CNS autoimmunity in children with autism.
Singh VK et al. J Biomed Sci. 2002 Jul-Aug;9(4):359-64. PMID: 12145534

16. Do aluminum vaccine adjuvants contribute to the rising prevalence of autism?
Lucija Tomljenovic et al. J Inorganic Biochemistry Vol 105, Issue 11, 2011, Pg 1489–1499

17. Empirical Data Confirm Autism Symptoms Related to Aluminum and Acetaminophen Exposure
Stephanie Seneff, et al. Entropy, November 7, 2012

18. Acetaminophen (paracetamol) use, measles-mumps-rubella vaccination, and autistic disorder: the results of a parent survey. Schultz ST, et al. Autism. 2008 May;12(3):293-307.

19. Autism: a novel form of mercury poisoning
Sallie Bernard et al. Medical Hypotheses (2001) 56(4), 462–471

20. A Case Series of Children with Apparent Mercury Toxic Encephalopathies Manifesting with Clinical Symptoms of Regressive Autistic Disorders
D A Geier et al. J Toxicol Environ Health A. 2007 May 15;70(10):837-51.

21. Hypothesis: conjugate vaccines may predispose children to autism spectrum disorders.

22. Risk of neurological and renal impairment associated with thimerosal containing vaccines
Center for Disease Control (CDC)

23. How to boost your immune system

24. Vit C studies
Vitamin C function and status in chronic disease.
Nutrition in clinical care : an official publication of Tufts University.

25. Vitamin C and human health--a review of recent data relevant to human requirements.
International journal for vitamin and nutrition research.

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.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

28. Ample evidence exists from human studies that vitamin D reduces the risk of selected bacterial and viral infections.
Experimental Biology and Medicine

29. Vitamin D-Mediated Induction of Innate Immunity in Gingival Epithelial Cells▿
Journal of Infection and Immunity

30. 1,25-Dihydroxyvitamin D3 Treatment Shrinks Uterine Leiomyoma Tumors in the Eker Rat Model
Journal of Biology of Reproduction

31. Prevalence of eczema and food allergy is associated with latitude in Australia.
Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology,

32. The Global Burden of Disease study and applications in water, sanitation and hygiene
World Health Organisation

33. Estimating the burden of disease from water, sanitation, and hygiene at a global level.
World Health Organisation

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

35. Does tomato consumption effectively increase the resistance of lymphocyte DNA to oxidative damage?
The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition

36. DNA damage and repair activity after broccoli intake in young healthy smokers
UK Environmental Mutagen Society

37. Watercress supplementation in diet reduces lymphocyte DNA damage and alters blood antioxidant status in healthy adults
American Journal of Clinical Nutrition

38. A randomized trial of isonitrogenous enteral diets after severe trauma. An immune-enhancing diet reduces septic complications.
Annals of Surgery

39. Upper respiratory tract infection is reduced in physically fit and active adults
British Journal of Sports Medicine

40. Risks of Formula Feeding
Natural Mama NZ

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.

42. 'ASIA' - autoimmune/inflammatory syndrome induced by adjuvants.
Journal of Autoimmunity

43. HPV Vaccine Policy: At Odds With Evidence-Based Medicine?
Medscape

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

45. Early childhood infection and atopic disorder
THORAX: An International Journal of Respiratory Medicine

46. A case-control study of risk factors for asthma in New Zealand children.
Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health

47. Atopy in children of families with an anthroposophic lifestyle.
The Lancet

48. Pertussis vaccination and asthma: is there a link?
JAMA

49. Vaccination and Allergic Disease: A Birth Cohort Study
American Journal of Public Health

50. Childhood Vaccinations and Risk of Asthma: Discussion
Medscape

51. Deadly whooping cough warning - Sadly this article has since been removed. 

52. Acellular pertussis vaccines protect against disease but fail to prevent infection and transmission in a nonhuman primate model. Jason M. Warfel, et al. 10.1073/pnas.1314688110

53. The 1993 epidemic of pertussis in Cincinnati. Resurgence of disease in a highly immunized population of children. Christie CD et al. N Engl J Med. 1994 Jul 7;331(1):16-21. PMID: 8202096. Study Type : Human Study

54. Outbreak of pertussis in a fully immunized adolescent and adult population.
Mink CA, et al. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 1994 Feb;148(2):153-7. PMID: 8118532

55. Pertussis infection in fully vaccinated children in day-care centers, Israel.
Srugo I et al. Emerg Infect Dis. 2000 Sep-Oct;6(5):526-9. PMID: 10998384. Study Type : Human Study

56. Infant pertussis epidemiology and implications for tetanus toxoid, reduced diphtheria toxoid, and acellular pertussis (Tdap) vaccination: King County, Washington, 2002 through 2007.
Hanson MP et al. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2011 Jul ;165(7):647-52. PMID: 21727277. Study Type : Human Study

57. A field survey carried out on the confirmation of a pertussis case in a village of Kirikkale Province, Turkey. Coplü N, et al. Mikrobiyol Bul. 2007 Apr;41(2):175-83. PMID: 17682703

58. Author Insights: Higher Pertussis Rates in Children Vaccinated With Newer Pertussis Vaccine
Bridget M Kuehn. JULY 31, 2012

59. The Immunologic Significance of Breast Milk
Susan Orlando, RNC, MS. Infectious Diseases, Volume 24, Number 7, September 1995

60. Acyclovir-resistant chronic verrucous vaccine strain varicella in a patient with neuroblastoma.
Bryan CJ, rt al. Pediatr Infect Dis J. 2008 Oct;27(10):946-8. PMID: 18776818

61. Development of Resistance to Acyclovir during Chronic Infection with the Oka Vaccine Strain of Varicella-Zoster Virus, in an Immunosuppressed Child - full text
Myron J. Levin et al. J Infect Dis. (2003) 188 (7): 954-959.

62. Chickenpox attributable to a vaccine virus contracted from a vaccinee with zoster.
Brunell PA et al. PEDIATRICS Vol. 106 No. 2 August 1, 2000 pp. e28

63. Disseminated varicella infection due to the vaccine strain of varicella-zoster virus, in a patient with a novel deficiency in natural killer T cells. Levy O, et al. J Infect Dis. 2003 Oct 1;188(7):948-53.

64. DNA sequence variability in isolates recovered from patients with postvaccination rash or herpes zoster caused by Oka varicella vaccine. Loparev VN, et al. J Infect Dis. 2007 Feb 15;195(4):502-10.

65. Herpes zoster after varicella-zoster vaccination
Fahlbusch M, et al. Hautarzt. 2013 Feb;64(2):107-9. PMID: 23358727

66. Genetic Profile of an Oka Varicella Vaccine Virus Variant Isolated from an Infant with Zoster
Andreas Sauerbrei et al. J. Clin. Microbiol. December 2004 vol. 42 no. 12 5604-5608

67. Herpes zoster and meningitis due to reactivation of varicella vaccine virus in an immunocompetent child. Han JY, et al. Pediatr Infect Dis J. 2011 Mar;30(3):266-8. PMID: 20844461

68. Herpes zoster and meningitis resulting from reactivation of varicella vaccine virus in an immunocompetent child. Iyer S, et al. Ann Emerg Med. 2009 Jun;53(6):792-5. PMID: 19028409

69. Herpes zoster by reactivated vaccine varicella zoster virus in a healthy child
Barbara Uebe, et al. European Journal of Pediatrics 2002, Vol 161, Issue 8, pp 442-444

70. Herpes zoster due to Oka vaccine strain of varicella zoster virus in an immunosuppressed child post cord blood transplant. Chan Y, et al. J Paediatr Child Health. 2007 Oct;43(10):713-5.

71. Herpes zoster with skin lesions and meningitis caused by 2 different genotypes of the Oka varicella-zoster virus vaccine. Levin MJ, et al. J Infect Dis. 2008 Nov 15;198(10):1444-7.

72. Live attenuated varicella vaccine use in immunocompromised children and adults.
Gershon AA, et al. Pediatrics. 1986 Oct;78(4 Pt 2):757-62.

73. Rashes occurring after immunization with a mixture of viruses in the Oka vaccine are derived from single clones of virus. Quinlivan ML, et al. J Infect Dis. 2004 Aug 15;190(4):793-6. PMID: 15272408

74. Secondary transmission of varicella vaccine virus in a chronic care facility for children.
Grossberg R, et al. J Pediatr. 2006;148: 842– 844

75. Severe Varicella Caused by Varicella-Vaccine Strain in a Child With Significant T-Cell Dysfunction
Patrick Jean-Philippe et al. PEDIATRICS Volume 120, Number 5, November 2007

76. The incidence of zoster after immunization with live attenuated varicella vaccine. A study in children with leukemia. Varicella Vaccine Collaborative Study Group.
Hardy I, et al. N Engl J Med. 1991 Nov 28;325(22):1545-50.

77. Transmission of vaccine strain varicella-zoster virus from a healthy adult with vaccine-associated rash to susceptible household contacts. LaRussa P, et al. J Infect Dis. (1997) 176 (4): 1072-1075.

78. Transmission of Varicella Vaccine Virus, Japan
Taketo Otsuka et al, Emerg Infect Dis. 2009 October; 15(10): 1702–1703. PMCID: PMC2866412

79. Transmission of varicella-vaccine virus from a healthy 12-month-old child to his pregnant mother.
Salzman MB et al. Homeopathy. 2009 Apr;98(2):77-82. PMID: 9255208. Study Type : Human Study

80. Transmission of varicella-zoster virus from a vaccinee with leukemia, demonstrated by polymerase chain reaction.
A Hughes P, et al. J Pediatr. 1994 Jun;124(6):932-5.

81. Vaccine Oka Variants and Sequence Variability in Vaccine-Related Skin Lesions
Judith Breuer et al. J Infect Dis. (2008) 197 (Supplement 2): S54-S57.

82. Vaccine Oka Varicella-Zoster Virus Genotypes Are Monomorphic in Single Vesicles and Polymorphic in Respiratory Tract Secretions. Mark A. Quinlivan et al. J Infect Dis. (2006) 193 (7): 927-930.

83. Vaccine-associated herpes zoster opthalmicus and encephalitis in an immunocompetent child. Chouliaras G et al. Pediatrics. 2010 Apr;125(4):e969-72. Epub 2010 Mar 1. PMID: 20194287. Study Type : Human Study


84. Virus Variant Isolated from an Infant with Zoster
Andreas Sauerbrei, et al. J. Clin. Microbiol. 2004, 42(12):5604.

85. The Case against Universal Varicella Vaccination
Gary S. Goldman. International Journal of Toxicology, 25:313–317, 2006

86. Chickenpox outbreak in a highly vaccinated school population.
Tugwell BD, et al. Pediatrics. 2004 Mar;113(3 Pt 1):455-9.

87. Younger age at vaccination may increase risk of varicella vaccine failure. 
Galil K, et al. J Infect Dis.2002;186 :102– 105

88. Outbreak of varicella at a day-care center despite vaccination. 
Galil K, et al. N Engl J Med.2002;347 :1909– 1915

89. An elementary school outbreak of varicella attributed to vaccine failure: policy implications. 
Lee BR, et al. J Infect Dis.2004;190 :477– 483

90. Vaccine Effectiveness During a Varicella Outbreak Among Schoolchildren: Utah, 2002–2003
Maryam B. Haddad et al. PEDIATRICS Vol. 115 No. 6 June 1, 2005. pp. 1488 -1493

91. Effectiveness of inactivated influenza vaccines varied substantially with antigenic match from the 2004-2005 season to the 2006-2007 season. 
Belongia EA, et al. J Infect Dis. 2009 Jan 15;199(2):159-67.PMID: 19086915. 
92. Effectiveness of the 2003-2004 influenza vaccine among children 6 months to 8 years of age, with 1 vs 2 doses. Ritzwoller DP, et al. Pediatrics. 2005 Jul;116(1):153-9. 

93. Effectiveness of influenza vaccine during pregnancy in preventing hospitalizations and outpatient visits for respiratory illness in pregnant women and their infants. 
Black SB, et al. Am J Perinatol. 2004 Aug;21(6):333-9. PMID: 15311370

94. Effectiveness of trivalent inactivated influenza vaccine in influenza-related hospitalization in children: A case-control study. Authors: Joshi, Avni Y et al,  Allergy and Asthma Proceedings, Volume 33, Number 2, March/April 2012 , pp. e23-e27(5)

95. Efficacy and effectiveness of influenza vaccines: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Osterholm MT et al. Lancet Infect Dis. 2012 Jan;12(1):36-44.PMID: 22032844. 
Study Type : Meta Analysis

96. Evidence of bias in estimates of influenza vaccine effectiveness in seniors
Lisa A Jackson et al. Int. J. Epidemiol. (April 2006) 35 (2): 337-344.

97. Further Evidence for Bias in Observational Studies of Influenza Vaccine Effectiveness: The 2009 Influenza A(H1N1) Pandemic
Michael L. Jackson et al. Am. J. Epidemiol. (2013)

98. Impact of influenza vaccination on seasonal mortality in the US elderly population.
Simonsen L et al. Arch Intern Med. 2005 Feb 14;165(3):265-72. PMID: 15710788. 
Study Type : Human Study

99. Impact of maternal influenza vaccination during pregnancy on the incidence of acute respiratory illness visits among infants.
France EK, et al.  Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2006 Dec;160(12):1277-83. 

100. Influenza Vaccination During Pregnancy: A Critical Assessment of the Recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) 
David M. Ayoub, M.D., F. Edward Yazbak, M.D, Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons Volume 11 Number 2 Summer 2006

101. Influenza vaccination for healthcare workers who work with the elderly. Thomas RE et al. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2010(2):CD005187. PMID:20166073. Study Type : Meta Analysis

102. Influenza vaccination for healthcare workers who work with the elderly.
Thomas RE et al. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2006 ;3:CD005187. Epub 2006 Jul 19. PMID:16856082. Study Type : Meta Analysis

103. Influenza vaccine effectiveness among children 6 to 59 months of age during 2 influenza seasons: a case-cohort study. Szilagyi PG,et al. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2008 Oct;162(10):943-51. New Vaccine Surveillance Network. Strong Memorial Hospital, Rochester, NY 14642, USA. 

104. Influenza Vaccine: Review of Effectiveness of the U.S. Immunization Program, and Policy Considerations
David A. Geier, B.A., et al. Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons Volume 11 Number 3 Fall 2006. Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, Inc.

105. Influenza-related mortality in the Italian elderly: no decline associated with increasing vaccination coverage. Rizzo C et al. Vaccine. 2006 Oct 30;24(42-43):6468-75. PMID: 16876293. Study Type : Human Study

106. Interim within-season estimate of the effectiveness of trivalent inactivated influenza vaccine--Marshfield, Wisconsin, 2007-08 influenza season. 
CDC. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2008 Apr 18;57(15):393-8. PMID: 18418344

107. No effect of 2008/09 seasonal influenza vaccination on the risk of pandemic H1N1 2009 influenza infection in England. Pebody R, et al.  Vaccine. 2011 Jan 31. Epub 2011 Jan 31. PMID: 21292008. 
Study Type : Meta Analysis

108. Vaccines for preventing influenza in healthy adults
Tom Jefferson et al, 2010, DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD001269.pub4

109. Vaccines for preventing influenza in healthy children. 
Jefferson T et al. Altern Ther Health Med. 2009 Sep-Oct;15(5):44-6. PMID: 18425905. 
Study Type : Meta Analysis

110. Vaccines for preventing influenza in people with cystic fibrosis.
Dharmaraj P et al. http://www.greenmedinfo.com/article/there-currently-no-evidence-randomised-studies-influenza-vaccine-given-people-cf-benefitCochrane Database Syst Rev. 2009 Oct 7;(4):CD001753. PMID: 19821281
ArtiStudy Type : Meta Analysis

111. Vaccines for preventing influenza in the elderly.
Jefferson T et al. http://www.greenmedinfo.com/article/there-no-solid-evidence-available-supporting-belief-vaccines-are-effectiveCochrane Database Syst Rev. 2010(2):CD004876. Epub 2010 Feb 17. PMID:20166072. Study Type : Meta Analysis

112. What, in Fact, Is the Evidence That Vaccinating Healthcare Workers against Seasonal Influenza Protects Their Patients? A Critical Review. 
Zvi Howard Abramson et al, Int J Family Med. 2012; 2012: 205464.

113. Progress in Autoimmune Diseases Research Report to Congress 
National Institutes of Health. THE AUTOIMMUNE DISEASES COORDINATING COMMITTEE. 2005

114. Global vaccine market revenues from 2014 to 2020 (in billion U.S. dollars)

114a. Erectile Dysfunction Drugs Market Worth $3.2 Billion By 2022
https://www.grandviewresearch.com/press-release/global-erectile-dysfunction-drugs-market

114b. Big Pharma and Big Profits: The Multibillion Dollar Vaccine Market
https://www.globalresearch.ca/big-pharma-and-big-profits-the-multibillion-dollar-vaccine-market/5503945
115. Swine-Flu Bribe Fever!
Chelsea Schilling, 2009

116. National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program

116a. Pharma CEO: We’re in Business of Shareholder Profit, Not Helping the Sick
https://www.healthfreedoms.org/pharma-ceo-were-in-business-of-shareholder-profit-not-helping-the-sick/

116b. Pharma chief defends 400% drug price rise as a ‘moral requirement’
David Crow, Sept 12, 2018
https://www.ft.com/content/48b0ce2c-b544-11e8-bbc3-ccd7de085ffe

 116c. Incidence of adverse drug reactions in hospitalized patients: a meta-analysis of prospective studies.
Lazarou J et al. JAMA. 1998 Apr 15;279(15):1200-5.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9555760

11d. Johns Hopkins study suggests medical errors are third-leading cause of death in U.S.
https://hub.jhu.edu/2016/05/03/medical-errors-third-leading-cause-of-death/

 117. Vaccines are among big pharma’s best-selling products
https://www.ft.com/content/93374f4a-e538-11e5-a09b-1f8b0d268c39
The Average Profit Margin of Pharmaceuticals
https://yourbusiness.azcentral.com/average-profit-margin-pharmaceuticals-20671.html

118. United States Mortality Rates

119. Achievements in Public Health, 1900-1999: Control of Infectious Diseases. 1999