Pinnochio womanIn part 3 of the AVN’s series critiquing the new booklet The Science of Immunisation, published by the Australian Academy of Science, Meryl Dorey takes a look at how this booklet incorrectly uses the words vaccination and immunisation as if they both meant the same thing
.

Medical ‘science’ uses the words ‘vaccination’ and ‘immunisation’ as though they described the same phenomenon and were interchangeable. They don’t and they aren’t. In science, an animal or human is immune when they are no longer susceptible to a disease. So, for instance, a child who develops measles naturally, even if exposed to the disease many times over its lifetime, will not develop symptoms again because that child is immune.

A child who receives a measles vaccine does not have the same benefit because vaccination cannot provide true lifetime protection in the same way that natural infection can. So that child can be fully vaccinated yet still get the disease. What’s worse, the vaccinated child may never be capable of developing natural immunity due to having received the vaccine and so, is prone to getting the illness over and over again – a situation which only started to occur after the development of mass vaccination against measles.

Despite the knowledge that vaccines don’t immunise and immunisation cannot be conveyed by the process of injecting vaccines into children, adults and animals, the recent booklet entitled The Science of Immunisation, issued by the Australian Academy of Science with financial backing from both the Australian Government and the Australian Medical Association, continues to peddle the myth that vaccinations and immunisations are equal.

Below is a quote from page 3 of the booklet:

What is immunisation?

The purpose of immunisation is to prevent people from acquiring infectious diseases and to protect them against the associated short- and longer-term complications. Immunisation describes the process whereby people are protected against an infection; vaccine refers to the material used for immunisation, while vaccination refers to the act of giving a vaccine to a person. Vaccines work by stimulating the body’s defence mechanisms (immune system) against an infection, helping the immune system detect and destroy the infection when it is encountered in the future without development of significant symptoms or complications.

Page 3, The Science of Immunisation

When those who present themselves as scientists repeatedly say something that is verifiably untrue – and has been known to be verifiably untrue not just for one or two years but for many decades, it is reasonable to question everything they say.

False in one thing…

There is a saying in the law, falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus (false in one thing, false in everything). In other words, once someone is shown to have made intentionally false statements about one thing, everything else they say is considered to be suspect until proven otherwise.

The words ‘immunisation’ and ‘vaccination’ are quite different and cannot and should not be used interchangeably. The fact that they are used that way in this booklet which is supposed to inform parents about how vaccines work, is quite sinister and I believe is meant to intentionally mislead and deceive Australians about the ability of vaccines to prevent diseases.

In fact, it is known that antibodies are not necessary in order to become immune (perhaps resistant might be a better term) to a disease and in fact, the presence of antibodies only means that you have been exposed to a virus or bacteria – not that you have developed immunity or resistance to it. [1],[2],[3][4]

The role of antibodies – peripheral to protection

The various layers of the human and animal defence systems are not well-understood, but there is knowledge that we have garnered over the last few hundred years about how and why diseases occur in some people whilst avoiding others. Apparently, antibodies have little or no role to play when determining whether or not a person will develop an illness. It is interesting to note that the language in this booklet admits as much.

Rather than saying that vaccines will prevent a person from getting a disease they have been vaccinated against, it simply states that vaccination will “… destroy the infection … without development of significant symptoms or complications.”

This is quite different from what most parents are told by their doctors, the majority of whom also use the words ‘immunisation’ and ‘vaccination’ interchangeably.

Parents in Australia and around the world are told that if they get their child vaccinated against a certain disease – whooping cough for example – their child will be protected against the illness.

How differently might parents look at this issue if they were told that the vaccine isn’t actually intended to prevent infection with whooping cough but simply to “… destroy the infection … without development of significant symptoms or complications …”? In other words, vaccinated people can and do still get whooping cough but supposedly, their symptoms will be less than the symptoms in an unvaccinated person.

What does this admission do to the medical community’s long-held belief in ‘herd immunity’? If vaccination is not actually meant to prevent infection but simply to reduce morbidity (the severity of symptoms), then herd immunity is as much a myth as antibody-induced immunity – the only sort that vaccination is meant to produce in the person or animal vaccinated!

I think most parents would be less likely to subject their children to the risk of vaccines – especially once they knew that there are no clinical studies showing that those who are vaccinated are less likely to develop “significant symptoms or complications”. In fact, due to the alternations in immune function which often follow administration of vaccines, (immune-suppression, autoimmunity, etc.) one could argue that those who are vaccinated may be more likely to have severe symptoms than those who are unvaccinated.

The one study that will set parents’ minds at ease…

Without studies comparing the overall health of the fully vaccinated with the fully unvaccinated – studies which the Australian Vaccination Network has been urging the government to undertake for many years and which they consistently refuse to conduct – we will never know the truth.

So when this booklet claims that vaccines will reduce a vaccinated person’s risk of developing “significant symptoms or complications” from the disease despite a lack of robust scientific data backing up those assertions, it is being both deceptive and misleading. Those who published it must be challenged to show us the science.


[1] Antibodies Are Not Required for Immunity Against Some Viruses; http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/03/120301143426.htm
A new study turns the well established theory that antibodies are required for antiviral immunity upside down and reveals that an unexpected partnership between the specific and non-specific divisions of the immune system is critical for fighting some types of viral infections. The research, published online on March 1st in the journal Immunity by Cell Press, may lead to a new understanding of the best way to help protect those exposed to potentially lethal viruses, such as the rabies virus.

[2] Correlates of Vaccine-Induced Immunity; http://cid.oxfordjournals.org/content/47/3/401.full

The immune system is redundant, and B and T cells collaborate. However, almost all current vaccines work through induction of antibodies in serum or on mucosa that block infection or interfere with microbial invasion of the bloodstream. To protect, antibodies must be functional in the sense of neutralization or opsonophagocytosis. Correlates of protection after vaccination are sometimes absolute quantities but often are relative, such that most infections are prevented at a particular level of response but some will occur above that level because of a large challenge dose or deficient host factors. There may be >1 correlate of protection for a disease, which we term “cocorrelates.” Either effector or central memory may correlate with protection. Cell-mediated immunity also may operate as a correlate or cocorrelate of protection against disease, rather than against infection. In situations where the true correlate of protection is unknown or difficult to measure, surrogate tests (usually antibody measurements) must suffice as predictors of protection by vaccines. Examples of each circumstance are given.

[3] Vaccine Immunology; http://www.who.int/immunization/documents/Elsevier_Vaccine_immunology.pdf

To generate vaccine-mediated protection is a complex challenge. Currently available vaccines have largely been developed empirically, with little or no understanding on how they activate the immune system. Their early protective efficacy is primarily conferred by the induction of antigen-specific antibodies (Box 2–1). However, there is more to antibody-mediated protection than the peak of vaccine-induced antibody titers. The quality of such antibody responses, e.g., their avidity, has been identified as a determining factor of efficacy. In addition, long-term protection requires the persistence of vaccine antibodies and/or the generation of immune memory cells capable of rapid and effective reactivation upon subsequent microbial exposure. The determinants of immune memory induction, as well as the relative contribution of persisting antibodies and of immune memory to protection against specific diseases, are thus essential parameters of long-term vaccine efficacy. The predominant role of B cells in the efficacy of current vaccines should not shadow the importance of T cell responses: T cells are essential to the induction of high-affinity antibodies and immune memory, and novel vaccine targets have been identified against which T cells are likely to be the prime effectors. New methods have emerged allowing us to assess a growing number of vaccine-associated immune parameters, including in humans. This development raises new questions relative to the optimal markers to assess and their correlation with vaccine-induced protection. The identification of immune correlates— or at least surrogates—of vaccine efficacy is a major asset for the development of new vaccines or the optimization of immunization strategies using available vaccines. Thus, their determination generates a considerable amount of interest at all levels, from the immunologist working at the bench to the physician wishing to optimize a vaccine schedule for a specific patient. The tailoring of vaccine strategies for specific vulnerable populations, being the very young, the elderly or the immunosuppressed, is also largely relying on a better understanding of what supports or limits vaccine efficacy under special circumstances. Last, the exponential development of new vaccines raises many questions that are not limited to the targeted diseases and the potential impacts of their prevention, but address the specific and non-specific impacts of such vaccines on the immune system, and thus on health in general. These immune-related concerns have largely spread into the population and questions related to the immunological safety of vaccines, i.e., to their capacity of triggering non-antigen specific responses possibly leading to conditions such as allergy, autoimmunity or even premature death are being raised. The objective of this chapter is to extract from the complex and rapidly evolving fi eld of immunology the main concepts that are useful to better address these important questions.

[4] The kind of research which led to this a broader perspective on the body’s immunological mechanisms included a mid-century British investigation on the relationship of the incidence of diphtheria to the presence of antibodies. The study concluded that there was no observable correlation between the antibody count and the incidence of the disease.” “The researchers found people who were highly resistant with extremely low antibody count, and people who developed the disease who had high antibody counts.35 (According to Don de Savingy of IDRC, the significance of the role of multiple immunological factors and mechanisms has gained wide recognition in scientific thinking. [For example, it is now generally held that vaccines operate by stimulating non-humeral mechanisms, with antibody serving only as an indicator that a vaccine was given, or that a person was exposed to a particular infectious agent.])”

http://alternative-doctor.com/vaccination/obomsawin.html – Obomsawin’s reference:

35 James, W., Immunization–The Reality Behind The Myth, Bergin & Garvey Publishers Inc., S. Hadley, Massachussetts, 1988, p. 64, refers to original source reference: Report No. 272, British Medical Council, London, England, May, 1950

[1] Antibodies Are Not Required for Immunity Against Some Viruses; http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/03/120301143426.htm
A new study turns the well established theory that antibodies are required for antiviral immunity upside down and reveals that an unexpected partnership between the specific and non-specific divisions of the immune system is critical for fighting some types of viral infections. The research, published online on March 1st in the journal Immunity by Cell Press, may lead to a new understanding of the best way to help protect those exposed to potentially lethal viruses, such as the rabies virus.

[1] Correlates of Vaccine-Induced Immunity; http://cid.oxfordjournals.org/content/47/3/401.full

The immune system is redundant, and B and T cells collaborate. However, almost all current vaccines work through induction of antibodies in serum or on mucosa that block infection or interfere with microbial invasion of the bloodstream. To protect, antibodies must be functional in the sense of neutralization or opsonophagocytosis. Correlates of protection after vaccination are sometimes absolute quantities but often are relative, such that most infections are prevented at a particular level of response but some will occur above that level because of a large challenge dose or deficient host factors. There may be >1 correlate of protection for a disease, which we term “cocorrelates.” Either effector or central memory may correlate with protection. Cell-mediated immunity also may operate as a correlate or cocorrelate of protection against disease, rather than against infection. In situations where the true correlate of protection is unknown or difficult to measure, surrogate tests (usually antibody measurements) must suffice as predictors of protection by vaccines. Examples of each circumstance are given.

[1] Vaccine Immunology; http://www.who.int/immunization/documents/Elsevier_Vaccine_immunology.pdf

To generate vaccine-mediated protection is a complex challenge. Currently available vaccines have largely been developed empirically, with little or no understanding on how they activate the immune system. Their early protective efficacy is primarily conferred by the induction of antigen-specific antibodies (Box 2–1). However, there is more to antibody-mediated protection than the peak of vaccine-induced antibody titers. The quality of such antibody responses, e.g., their avidity, has been identified as a determining factor of efficacy. In addition, long-term protection requires the persistence of vaccine antibodies and/or the generation of immune memory cells capable of rapid and effective reactivation upon subsequent microbial exposure. The determinants of immune memory induction, as well as the relative contribution of persisting antibodies and of immune memory to protection against specific diseases, are thus essential parameters of long-term vaccine efficacy. The predominant role of B cells in the efficacy of current vaccines should not shadow the importance of T cell responses: T cells are essential to the induction of high-affinity antibodies and immune memory, and novel vaccine targets have been identified against which T cells are likely to be the prime effectors. New methods have emerged allowing us to assess a growing number of vaccine-associated immune parameters, including in humans. This development raises new questions relative to the optimal markers to assess and their correlation with vaccine-induced protection. The identification of immune correlates— or at least surrogates—of vaccine efficacy is a major asset for the development of new vaccines or the optimization of immunization strategies using available vaccines. Thus, their determination generates a considerable amount of interest at all levels, from the immunologist working at the bench to the physician wishing to optimize a vaccine schedule for a specific patient. The tailoring of vaccine strategies for specific vulnerable populations, being the very young, the elderly or the immunosuppressed, is also largely relying on a better understanding of what supports or limits vaccine efficacy under special circumstances. Last, the exponential development of new vaccines raises many questions that are not limited to the targeted diseases and the potential impacts of their prevention, but address the specific and non-specific impacts of such vaccines on the immune system, and thus on health in general. These immune-related concerns have largely spread into the population and questions related to the immunological safety of vaccines, i.e., to their capacity of triggering non-antigen specific responses possibly leading to conditions such as allergy, autoimmunity or even premature death are being raised. The objective of this chapter is to extract from the complex and rapidly evolving fi eld of immunology the main concepts that are useful to better address these important questions.

[1] The kind of research which led to this a broader perspective on the body’s immunological mechanisms included a mid-century British investigation on the relationship of the incidence of diphtheria to the presence of antibodies. The study concluded that there was no observable correlation between the antibody count and the incidence of the disease.” “The researchers found people who were highly resistant with extremely low antibody count, and people who developed the disease who had high antibody counts.35 (According to Don de Savingy of IDRC, the significance of the role of multiple immunological factors and mechanisms has gained wide recognition in scientific thinking. [For example, it is now generally held that vaccines operate by stimulating non-humeral mechanisms, with antibody serving only as an indicator that a vaccine was given, or that a person was exposed to a particular infectious agent.])”

http://alternative-doctor.com/vaccination/obomsawin.html – Obomsawin’s reference:

35 James, W., Immunization–The Reality Behind The Myth, Bergin & Garvey Publishers Inc., S. Hadley, Massachussetts, 1988, p. 64, refers to original source reference: Report No. 272, British Medical Council, London, England, May, 1950

Drowning in Data?

13756182_s
Cut through internet clutter by subscribing to my free weekly email recap of the latest vaccination information.
Powered by ConvertKit

90 Comments

  1. You say a child who is unvaccinated and gains natural immunity due contracting an illness, will never get it again.
    Well I never recieved any of my childhood vaccinations, and I had both measles and chicken pox twice. The second time I had the measles I was sent away from the house to prevent my little brother getting it as he was a failiour to thrive baby ( yes he was breast fed, mother refused to supplement feed).
    Surely this is not an isolated occurance

      1. Umm! It’s pretty obvious when a child has measles. Blood tests aren’t really needed.

        1. Chris, the British GP Magazine, Pulse, published a study showing that when doctors diagnose measles by clinical symptoms only, 97.5% of the time, they are wrong. So it is anything BUT obvious and the question I asked was an important one.

      2. Fiona’s test results are potentially very interesting. Considering Fiona knows that as a child, tests were done, rather just symptamology alone, then those test results would be invaluable to many today. Is Fiona able to make the results available for all to analyse now?
        I know that my parent’s generation, or perhaps just people in our geographical area, would never have had both symptamology and tests done for measles on myself, so I find it fascinating that Fiona has records of both.

        Dependant on age-group, it is very rare to find a middle-aged person today who did not receive vaccines against chicken-pox and measles. Perhaps Fiona was not in our geographical corner of the world.
        More info is needed.

        1. Harry, I have responded to this question before though I don’t think you will see the irony. It is NOT ok for me to contact the North Coast Public Health Unit to ask about how Dana McCaffery’s whooping cough was diagnosed but it IS OK for you to ask me about the whooping cough experienced by my family. By asking Paul Corben for this information after Dana’s death was used to vilify those who don’t vaccinate, I somehow harassed a grieving family but by you asking me the same question directly, that is somehow not harassment. Can you see the hypocrisy here?

          My family was exposed to whooping cough from a fully-vaccinated individual who was staying in our home for a couple of weeks. That person was diagnosed by a blood test and our symptoms started within 2 weeks of that diagnosis so we were told that we had whooping cough. This is one of the criteria for whooping cough diagnoses. We treated our whooping cough with homeopathy and all of us were over it within 2 weeks and the cough was only bad at night – during the day, there were only occasional spasms of coughing (and occasionally – over the weeks after, if the kids overexerted themselves, they would sometimes have another coughing spasm but it did not worry them). The only exception was my 2-year old daughter who had one night of severe coughing and vomiting and whose cough took 3 weeks to go away because she needed a different remedy to the rest of us.

          I believe that if homeopathy and other natural therapies were used routinely in these cases and antibiotics were only used in cases of secondary infections (after all, there are many studies demonstrating that antibiotics do nothing to treat the person who has pertussis and can be both counterproductive and dangerous), morbidity and mortality from whooping cough, as well as the duration of the infection, would be far lower then it currently is. That is my belief from my own experience and also from speaking with the thousands of families I know whose children – fully or partially vaccinated or unvaccinated – have come through whooping cough with the help of natural therapies, vitamin supplementation, or fasting. For the government and the medical community to turn its back on these experiences is unethical and unreasonable.

      3. This was nothing to do with you demanding to see the heath record that you were not entitled to. It is about the level of evidence do you find acceptable when someone tells about their experience with a VPD.

        Is it the persons say so like you expect us to believe when it comes to the claim that your family had whooping cough or is it blood tests like you expect in the case of Fiona (and Dana) to provide?

      4. Harry, if you are going to come here and ask questions at least have the decency to read the answers.

        Meryl explained what an official diagnosis of pertussis takes. Either a definitive blood test OR symptoms plus epidemiological connection to another confirmed case. The latter is what Meryl had. You can confirm this with the authorities that you have so much deference for at http://www0.health.nsw.gov.au/factsheets/guideline/pertusis.html. Just in case you find it hard to comprehend it go down to “Case definition” > “Confirmed case” and then look at “3.”

        Of course, I couldn’t care less for such things as I only care about the presence of symptoms, but that is how the NSW Govt defines it.

        Let me help you out on this. You are way out of your depth here. The only thing you can possibly manage is to make yourself look every bit as foolish and ignorant as you are mendacious. All you can do is offer up the usual nonsense that we have all heard a million times before and then, when it is shown to be wrong, retreat to authority.

        And by the way: “oh wait the media doesn’t need good evidence just enough to implicate wrong doing, just look at the storm surrounding Julia Gillard and those accounts, go for it Tristan”

        Let me give you another hint. I understand that people such as yourself are absolutely desperate to demonstrate your adherence to the collective because you are so desperate to be popular, but if you are going to make an analogy in an argument it needs to be one which your adversary would have the same interpretation of as you – rather than the exact opposite.

    1. Sorry Fiona but I just can’t understand why you guys say the things you do. You are so desperate to score points against Meryl you lose sight of what it is you are actually trying to do here. You are trying to tell uncertain parents why they should inject detritus into their children. But the logical consequence of your argument is that the entire concept of immunity (be it from disease or inoculation) is completely spurious.

      Don’t get me wrong I actually agree with you. I just can’t for the life of me understand why you would want people to hear about this as you try and persuade them of the wonders of vaccination. Your experience has just single-handedly proved that the entire edifice of vaccination is a complete lie.

      And Harry, I assume that Meryl was saying that if you have a vaccine then your immune system has been so compromised that you can’t develop immunity from subsequent infections. So there is no inherent contradiction. I disagree with it of course because as Fiona so kindly demonstrated there is no such thing as immunity to disease period. But I have to concede that this is the closest you have ever come to making a coherent argument. So kudos.

      And further to what Meryl said about the ambiguity of measles you need to look at Greg Beattie’s article a few weeks ago on incidence. There is a link there to the UK Health Site that instructs doctors to discount (or at least reconsider) measles diagnoses in vaccinated patients. In other words there are plenty of alternative diagnoses (roseola and others) and doctors prefer to diagnose measles in the unvaxed over the vexed.

      1. I agree punter. Historically, the only reasons vaccines were sold to the politicians, and hence the public, was that it mimicked the protection offered by the disease at that time without having to endure that disease. It was called the Theory of Immunisation. It is still a theory and looking more pathetic every day. I got measles and never got it again – every second kid in the school got it and ill effects were unheard of.
        Anyway, if someone wants to say there is no natural immunity then the whole “Theory of Immunisation” goes out the window. What are we doing here?
        Politicians and especially health bureaucrats have generations of professional pride tied up in this disgusting affair. Not to mention medical schools and their dogmatic rote teaching on this subject.

      2. Any double blind placebo controlled trials published in reputable journals to back up your claim? That’s the level of evidence you require is it not?

        1. Harry, do you not see the hypocrisy in your question? You want us to provide you with double-blind trials to prove that vaccination doesn’t equal immunisation while you are perfectly comfortable with the fact that there are no double-blind trials to prove that vaccination does anything to protect against infectious diseases. Sad, really.

      3. No I dont have the results of the blood test, I was a child and have moved many times. As I could not foresee articles like this at age 7 getting a copy of my test results was unnecessary.
        Why did I post my simple question, because I did have measles twice, the second time my mother thought initially had rubella but she was wrong it was measles.

        1. Amazing that you know then that there was a blood test. It was very unusual – indeed, incredibly rare – for measles cases to receive blood tests until the last 10 years or so. While it is not impossible to have measles naturally twice, it is like being hit by a meteorite – a risk not worth talking about really. And yet, according to your own testimony – and I have no reason to not believe you – you did have measles twice. And lived to tell the tale! What a shame that so many of those who received the measles vaccine can’t say the same.

      4. What a shame that so many of those who received the measles vaccine can’t say the same.

        Name one, just one, a single confirmed case of an individual that died because of the MMR vaccine. Don’t dumpster dive in the VAERS database, that just shows deaths after the vaccine not because of the vaccine.

        1. Harry, as opposed to many of those in your camp, I honestly believe that you are a good person at heart and are simply misguided in your approach of constantly attacking me and others involved in this issue. I also believe that you fell into this subject without having actually done any research and still haven’t done any though I stand ready to be corrected. It’s just that you make statements and ask questions – like this one – which nobody who has done any research at all would ever do. Deaths from measles vaccination are not in question – all vaccines are capable of killing susceptible individuals. The only question is – how many individuals are susceptible to death from vaccines.

          http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/3336455/Secret-report-reveals-18-child-deaths-following-vaccinations.html

          http://blogs.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/staying-alive/entry/26-measles-vaccine-deaths-in-3-years-no-investigative-report-yet1

          http://vactruth.com/2012/08/30/government-document-vaccine-unsafe/

          Lastly, here is one little boy whose death after vaccination from the Measles vaccine was reported to the AVN. I have permission from this child’s mother to share his story with you. Of course, you think that his mother is lying or deluded, but his doctor said that his death was due to measles vaccine.

          <img src="Luke-died from MMR vaccine” alt=”Luke – died as a result of measles vaccination.” />

      5. I am well aware that there are children that die of vaccination. I was unsure if you knew of any, is that photo from the 70’s?. Is that how far back you had to dig to find a single one?

        Any child dying is tragic but like it or not it all comes down to numbers, vaccinate or don’t vaccinate there will be children that die, either from the vaccine or from the VPD.

        It would be great if no children died from either but this is reality. If you have proof that more children are harmed by vaccines than the number of children harmed by the illness then I would love to see it.

        Here are 200 children that died in the just last 12 months in a single country from an illness that could have been prevented, not vaccine injured, not “got autism”, not immune compromised, but they are dead, buried, never to live a life:

        http://www.news.com.au/breaking-news/world/pakistan-child-measles-deaths-surge/story-e6frfkui-1226546303158

        1. Harry, what I’m looking for is proof that vaccines have saved lives. If you are trying to compare the number saved by vaccination by the number who die from vaccines, where are you getting the number saved by vaccinations? This is what I and other parents are asking. You obviously believe the mainstream mantra of ‘vaccines saved millions’ but where is the proof? If you can’t prove that vaccination would have saved millions, then what did Luke die for? And how easy it is for you to write him off – that is really sad. If he were your child, I don’t think you would be quite so blasé.

      6. Don’t put words in my mouth Meryl, I said ANY child that dies is a tragedy, that includes this child that should be in his 40’s with his own family by now.

        There is plenty of evidence that vaccines saves lives, you have been shown this evidence again and again, I see no point in showing you the evidence for the hundredth time, you will just make some excuse AGAIN why the evidence is not acceptable to you.

        The evidence is there, you don’t like it but that does not mean that it does not exist.

      7. Got to love the shifting of goal posts there by Harry. First he denies that anybody has died from the MMR and then, when he is shown to be as wrong as wrong can be, he says “oh yes well I know they can die but the only thing that matters is deaths from vaccination vs deaths from measles.” Of course he can’t find any evidence that vaccination reduced deaths so he just resorts to the age-old tactic of saying all the evidence is out there somewhere he just doesn’t know where it is.

        Absolutely pathetic.

        Now come on Harry, give us all an appeal to authority as a retort. You know you want to. What will it be? Calling us conspiracy theorists? Saying we have a lot of nerve questioning people? There has to be some variant of this fallacy yet to be tried by you guys on this page.

        And by the way – not that it matters with you because you seem to have a Katie Brockie like ability to plow on despite having your arguments ripped to shreds – but the story you gave about measles was just a convenient lie. The WHO admitted that it was malnourished children in the flood-ravaged areas that died and they didn’t do lab tests to prove that it was measles. It was just another piece of propaganda designed to stoke the extremely gullible into jumping up and down calling for more vaccines. I guess it worked.

  2. ….a child who develops measles naturally, even if exposed to the disease many times over its lifetime, will not develop symptoms again because that child is immune.

    ….the vaccinated child may never be capable of developing natural immunity due to having received the vaccine and so, is prone to getting the illness over and over again

    Do you see the contradiction between these two statements?

    1. No, I don’t. The two statements are quite different. One describes vaccination, the other describes immunisation. Perhaps you need to read the blog again.

  3. falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus in law refers to a single witness supplying uncorroborated evidence and contrary to your comment does not mean the rest of their testimony is suspect.

    You can’t refer to a whole body of evidence, find one error and then apply that error to everything. That’s like saying because one scientists slips up in an experiment that all the other scientists who have corroborated the finding are wrong too.

    Here you make the fatal (beginners) error of applying a legal principle to a group instead of one witness.

      1. A Roman legal principle indicating that a witness who willfully falsifies one matter is not credible on any matter.
        Translated to our society’s time, is similar to “once a thief, always a thief”
        So, a valid use of the term in the context used. Nothing contrary at all. Apt.

  4. Two things.
    1. You link to an article on correlates of protection to prove that antibodies are not necessary to become immune. This may be true in the case of viruses such as HIV, but for all diseases we vaccinate against, measurable antibody levels are the correlate of protection.
    Interestingly, you use whooping cough as an example of how antibodies from the vaccine are not protective, yet from the very article you quote…

    “Bordetella pertussis causes a mucosal infection and a toxic disease due to pertussis toxin … Antibodies to pertussis toxin, pertactin, and agglutinogens, as well as cellular responses, have all been proposed as correlates on the basis of evidence from trials in humans and in animals… Whether they are surrogates or cocorrelates is difficult to judge, but antibodies to several different components have been associated with protection by vaccines, probably because protection can be mediated both by antitoxin to pertussis toxin and by antibody to attachment factors.”

    Are antibodies alone enough to offer full protection? No, but nobody has ever suggested they are. They are a major component of the adaptive immune system, and but one part of a series of events. Are they the most important component? Arguably yes.

    2.Why did you paraphrase the quote from the science of immunisation booklet?

    You say “Rather than saying that vaccines will prevent a person from getting a disease they have been vaccinated against, it simply states that vaccination will “… destroy the infection … without development of significant symptoms or complications.””

    The booklet actually says “Vaccines work by stimulating the body’s defence mechanisms (immune system) against an infection, helping the immune system detect and destroy the infection when it is encountered in the future without development of significant symptoms or complications.”

    Why not quote it fully and in context?

  5. “Was your measles diagnosed by clinical symptoms only or by blood test?”

    If she was diagnosed by serology, what correlate of protection are they measuring? Unicorns… or antibodies?

    1. You’re the one who words for the health department Katie – what do serology tests measure? And if you don’t know whether it is unicorns or antibodies or other mythically protective beasts, what does that say about the ‘science’ of immunology?

  6. So following the precept of falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus, after reading the excerpt from the academy of science paper, they DON’T use immunisation and vaccination interchangeably. So is the rest of this article false if even your basic comprehension is poor?

  7. Vaccinating any organism interferes with the development of Major Histocompatibility Complex (MHC). MHC is a constantly evolving protein/cytokine that in effect innately inoculates/vaccinates the host organism against all known Human Endogenous Pathogens (virus, retrovirus, bacteria, nano-bacteria, fungi). Empirically, vaccination, in content and by design is inconsistent to life. Anyone who has done any rudimentary research would know this, except of course the ne’re do wells, the great unwashed and the illiterate: sceptics like Bowditch, Buzzard, Rafaelle and McLeod. No surprise that they then are reduced to utterances of death, sexual assault, and mutilation.

    1. “DrHealth” – the vaccination booklet being discussed here was co-authored by people like Professor Fiona Stanley – a child health researcher and former Australian of the Year, and Prof Basten – one of the country’s leading immunologists. How do you think they managed to get it so wrong?

      1. But NCV – some of these people actually developed parts of the science of vaccination. Should we withdraw their qualifications and awards? Which bits did they get wrong, and how can you show that they are wrong?

        1. Sue, your question appears to be obtuse while I know that you are anything but. Nobody is suggesting that people’s awards and qualifications be withdrawn (and I never said that nor did anyone else on this thread so your trying to twist words is noted). What I object to is people being believed simply BECAUSE of their qualifications and awards. Just because someone has knowledge about an area of science is no reason to believe whatever they say without the need to provide evidence. These people are expecting us to believe them because of their qualifications and they have completely ignored all evidence which indicates that their statements are not based in fact. What you are doing is appealing to authority and that is not something a scientist should ever do.

  8. I would like to ask a question to the author of this article: on what basis should we prefer your interpretation of immunology over the authors of the information booklet?

    Let’s look at who the authors are:
    Tony Basten – one of Australia’s foremost teachers and researchers in immunology
    Fiona Stanley – highly experienced child health researcher
    Julie Leask – public health physician
    Terry Nolan – population health researcher

    to name a few – and the booklet production was overseen by a committee chaired by Sir Gus Nossal – one of Australia’s most prominent scientists.

    Why does the author think that this group of people got the immunology so wrong? This is hardly a group of “Big Pharma” shills – they are people who have dedicated their lives to public health. How does the author of this article, without any health science training, challenge the fundamentals of immunology?

    1. Sue, appeals to authority don’t work in science. Either there is proof of what someone is saying or there is not. There is no proof (or even evidence, in some cases) of many of the statements made in this booklet so it wouldn’t matter who was saying it – the fact is that this booklet is filled with unscientific rubbish that is only allowed to stand because people like yourself are willing to accept what someone says because of who they are – not because of the truth of their statements.

      1. Critical analysis of any information always starts with a basic assessment of the credibility of the author or authors, including their professional background. I think it is safe to say this test has been passed with flying colours. You can only dream of having a fragment of the scientific knowledge and wisdom of these people.

        1. Sian, critical analysis of information starts with evidence – the person providing the evidence doesn’t matter so long as they can back up what they say with hard facts and those facts are able to be repeated or reproduced by others to achieve the same result. If you are describing your impression of what science is and stands for, it is no wonder you still believe that data can be defined by who it comes from rather than what it says and how logical it is.

      2. NCV – you have committed a common logical error – confusing credibility from genuine knowledge and experience with unearned “authority”.

        If one is to find credible opinions, should one prefer an uneducated opinion that lacks “authority” with authoritative opinions gained from actually doing the research?

        Your comment suggests you are not aware of Fiona Stanley’s role in researching Child Health. YOu can read about some of her work here:
        http://medicine150.mdhs.unimelb.edu.au/stanley

        Tony Basten’s background and achievements are summarised here:
        http://www.garvan.org.au/about-us/our-people/professor-antony-basten

        Prof Basten, in particular, is one of the pioneers of modern immunology. To challenge the validlity of his immunological knowledge requires a special type of hubris.

        1. Sue – I could not care less about ‘credible opinions’. Keep opinions to yourself – I’m looking for evidence. If you want to provide some, please do so. Where is the evidence that vaccines have saved millions of lives? I would be very interested for what you come up with to answer that question.

        1. Harry, again, please do your research. All vaccines can cause either encephalitis or meningitis as a side effect in susceptible individuals. Encephalitis and meningitis can lead to the changes in the brain which used to be called post-vaccinal encephalitis but which, today, are called ASDs. So since all vaccines are capable of causing these reactions, all vaccines can be linked with autism. They are only one of the environmental causes of autism, but they are definitely in there as a cause.

      3. I acknowledge that there is a remote and vanishingly small possibility of that happening with vaccines, any vaccine.

        You do know they have looked at the rate of that happening and the rate it happens when people catch the illness the vaccine is trying to prevent and which one do you think has the much much lower rate?

      4. Sue, I hope for your sake you have never criticised homeopathy or chiropractor. You know that many of the practitioners of this have devoted their lives to their respective studies? Criticising their expertise takes a special kind of hubris.

        Or alternatively, the premise behind your ridiculous argument is faulty.

        I will explain it very slowly for you. Immunologists ARE NOT experts in the validity of their theories anymore than homeopaths are. They are experts in the details of their beliefs but not whether or not they are correct. The fact that the government has decreed that one expert is more experty than the other is neither here nor there.

        Isn’t it embarrassing to come here and advertise your inability to engage in independent thought? Why would anybody do that?

    2. “they are people who have dedicated their lives to public health”

      Yep. And that’s exactly why they have such a huge vested interest in this. They want to be thought of as heroes not criminals.

      1. If you have evidence that these people have done more harm than good then I suggest you bring it to the attention of the police… or if you don’t think you will be taken seriously because the cops are in on the conspiracy then go to the media.

        Nothing sells papers like authority figures being caught out, they will eat that up.

        Of course your evidence had better be good… oh wait the media doesn’t need good evidence just enough to implicate wrong doing, just look at the storm surrounding Julia Gillard and those accounts, go for it Tristan.

        1. Harry, at this point, this is not a criminal matter (though it is my belief that anyone who intentionally covers up or ignores information which may put the lives and health of others at risk are behaving in a criminal manner, I have no evidence that these particular people are intentionally withholding information, they may simply be uninformed). And if you truly expect the media or the government to do something about this at great financial cost to themselves through loss of advertising and political contributions, you must also believe in the Easter bunny and Santa Claus…

          1. Harry, if there is plenty of evidence that vaccines save lives, you should have no trouble providing it. I’m waiting.

            Also, what are your comments on the Australian government graphs showing that (for example) deaths from measles had declined by over 99% prior to the introduction of measles vaccines in Australia in 1970? Do you still believe that measles vaccines saved lives here when there were virtually no deaths from that illness before the vaccine was introduced? If your answer to that question is yes, where is your evidence?

      2. You’re right Harry, every single criminal action in all of history has seen justice. No exceptions. There are absolutely no instances of authority figures getting away with crimes. Ever.

        Maybe you should stick to your time honoured technique of caling everybody who disagrees with you a stupidhead. You are better at vile abuse than you are at logic.

        Again I ask. Wh do you guys come here and tell us all so proudly of your inability to engage in independent thught? Why wouldn’t you want to keep this sort of thing to yourselves?

    3. The fundamentals of immunology? – It may be a good time at this point to spell them out again? I have already divulged my thoughts, and the success of such a theory appears doomed. Obviously others think differently and maintain some hope that something may be“scientifically” proven. Scientific in this instance is the “method” and not the “Title” of a person making a statement. As a previous contributor has indicated, Titles are enjoyed by those who are well trained and do not ask awkward questions.

  9. Your first reference directly contradicts the thesis of your blog post. The study found that all the mice without antibodies died when given VS virus intravenously, and yet all of the mice with antibodies given the same dosage survived. In the discussion the authors understandably go on to describe this antibody-mediated protection as ‘critical’ to surviving this infection.

    Can I ask why you thought this paper supported your claim? You can find the full text here if you’d care to read the paper first before commenting on it: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3359130/

    Your second reference is a recent review discussing correlates of immunity. It’s a great read, but I can’t find a part that supports the statement you’re citing it after. It discusses the best known ways to assess immunity to particular infectious agents, and regularly compares more effective classes and specificities of antibodies
    – which seems completely at odds with the view of antibodies which you are putting forward. Could you explain how the contents of this review in any way suggest antibodies are not immunologically active?

    Your third reference appears to be a textbook chapter on immunology. A pretty straightforward read, but again can you please explain how you believe it supports your underlying thesis?

    Your forth reference appears to be a report from 1950 on a study, published in 1946, which surveyed anti-diphtheria antibody levels in 425 diphtheria patients – I believe the full text can be accessed through here: http://www.jimmunol.org/content/54/4/325.abstract?ijkey=bad5796f15c1d5a573fb60de7b2503fb98ef00ca&keytype2=tf_ipsecsha

    This study was the first to establish (beyond just deferring to the ‘Schick level’) with a large survey the present use of 0.01-0.1IU anti-diphtheria antibody level as a correlate of protection. At multiple points the study seems to contradict the interpretation you’ve quoted from Walene James’ anti-vaccine book (such as “In the case of the vaccinated the course of the disease was distinctly milder than that of the unvaccinated, while at the same time the antitoxin titre was much higher for the former than for the latter.” and “Nevertheless it is quite clear that there can be no question of an antitoxin- level capable with any reasonable certainty of giving protection against diphtheria. Nor is there any threshold which with full certainty precludes either complications or death after an infection with diphtheria. But even if this is so, the circulating diphtherial antitoxin has an effect, in that it reduces the probability with which the infection occurs and the probability that an infection will involve complications. “), while table 10 (illustrated graphically in figure 6) demonstrates just how much more protected the vaccinated were from complications and deaths from diphtheria, risks that decreased as the absolute amount of anti-diphtheria antibody increased.

    Remember the last time you decided to blog that antibodies are not mediators of immune responses and you cited for support a study which actually found that the presence of anti-measles antibodies was the biggest predictor of whether a person would get measles or not? Once again, you have cited for support only articles which contradict your underlying thesis.

    May I suggest *reading* the sources you cite to see if they actually support your contentions, *before* citing them, and may I also suggest that if you find yourself unable to understand them when you read them, perhaps you shouldn’t cite them either.

    1. Sorry Tom, but I don’t see what the problem with Meryl’s statements are. The study on antibodies in mice said that in terms of normal routes of infection, antibodies were irrelevant. Whatever the merits of the study, that was their conclusion. Meryl was pointing out that antibodies don’t necessarily infer protection despite the sayso of the authors of the Science of Immunisation booklet. Did these authors specifically qualify their position that antibodies meant protection but only for routes of infection that never happen in the real world? If that were true then their statement would be supported by this study and Meryl would be the one being deceptive. If not, Meryl seems perfectly justified in her comments.

      1. Here, I’ll put it simply since my other comment hasn’t been moderated through:
        Not only is VSV a known arbovirus (transmitted by insect bites) but such transmission to mice has been shown in the lab: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10467765

        The suggestion that intravenous infection is somehow a ‘route of infection that never happens in the real world’ seems contradicted by its spread in blood meal-feeding insects. This defence of Meryl Dorey’s use of one of the four citations that contradicts her seems therefore incorrect.

        Meryl Dorey, the three journal articles and one text book chapter all contradict you. Please comment on your use of them to supposedly support your contention.

      2. No Punter – VSV is a known arbovirus and has been demonstrated to be spread to mice by blood-meal feeding insects http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10467765 – so IV is a perfectly natural route of VSV infection, negating your defence of Dorey’s use of her first reference. I guess Meryl Dorey *is* the one being deceptive (your words).

        Interestingly you make no comment on how Dorey’s other three references also directly contradicting her.

        More interestingly, Meryl Dorey herself has failed to do so, despite being the moderator of this blog and therefore having to approve each individual comment.

        I am curious why she let my initial comment through at all when it demonstrates that she can’t have read her own references.

        Meryl, you know you do not have evidence to support your statements on immunology. Maybe you should read that textbook chapter you linked to.

      3. From the article: “Most studies exploring the role of antibodies during VSV infection have challenged mice via the i.v. route (Bachmann et al., 1997; Bründler et al., 1996). However, VSV is usually transmitted in the wild by bites of infected insects (Smith et al., 2009), so subcutaneous (s.c.) infection arguably represents a more physiological route.”

        Again, I am not endorsing the article nor do I place any value of the notion of seroconversion (such as used in your reference on arbovirus transmission) I am merely stating what the paper said. After all, that was your point wasn’t it? That Meryl was misrepresenting what the papers actually said. But it is you who are doing that. Sorry.

        As for her second reference here is the money quote:

        “In situations where the true correlate of protection is unknown or difficult to measure, surrogate tests (usually antibody measurements) must suffice as predictors of protection by vaccines.”

        The researchers are saying that antibodies by themselves don’t have a great deal of meaning they simply use them to infer protection because they are easy to measure. Again, doesn’t matter whether you believe them, it is what they are saying.

        As for the third reference this is the money quote: “However, there is more to antibody-mediated protection than the peak of vaccine-induced antibody titers”. Now, this paper certainly isn’t saying that antibodies are irrelevant but it is still challenging the notion that those with a strong (measurable) antibody response are definitely protected. Of course it wouldn’t be telling you anything revolutionary but it would certainly come as a surprise to the average parent.

        As for the fourth reference, I looked for it and couldn’t see that your reference was the same as Meryl’s. Not saying it isn’t I just couldn’t tell.

  10. Hi scienceguy,
    Fiona Stanley actually has the following qualifications:
    Bachelor of Medicine and Surgery (MBBS), The University of Western Australia (1970)
    Master of Science (MSc, Epidemiology), The University of London (1976)
    Membership of the Faculty of Public Health Medicine (MFPHM) of the Royal College of Physicians
    (UK, 1976), awarded Fellowship status (FFPHM) in 1989
    Doctor of Medicine (MD), The University of Western Australia (1986)
    Foundation Fellow of Australian Faculty of Public Health Medicine (FAFPHM) (1991)
    Fellow of the Faculty of Community Child Health (FFCCH) (1991)
    Fellow of the Royal Australian College of Physicians (FRACP) (1994)
    Fellow-ad-eundem of the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (FRANZCOG) (1995). In 1998 The Royal Australian College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists amalgamated with the Royal New Zealand College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists to form the FRANZCOG.
    Fellow of the Academy of Social Sciences in Australia (FASSA) (1996)
    Honorary Doctor of Science (Hon DSc), Murdoch University (1998)
    Honorary Doctor of the University (Hon DUniv), Queensland University of Technology (2001)
    Fellow of the Australian Academy of Science (FAA) (2002)
    Honorary Fellow of the Royal Australian College of General Practitioners (Hon FRACGP) (2004)
    Honorary Doctor of Medicine (Hon MD), University of Sydney (2005)
    Honorary Fellow of the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health (UK) (Hon FRCPCH) (2006)
    Honorary Doctor of University of Melbourne (2008) Honorary Bragg Member, Royal Institution of Australia (2009)
    Honorary Doctor of Science (Hon DSc), Edith Cowan University (2010)

    So did you want to revise your statement about her having a “Doctor of Philosophy”?

    1. Fiona Stanley is a self-described expert on vaccines. She was educated to believe in them. Very well educated. Enough so, to influence many others.
      Such as you.
      I though, believe that injecting toxins and poisons into our children is wrong.
      I hope I may receive an award for being the Australian Of The Year.
      Just like Fiona.

      1. These “toxins” you talk about, what are they? What are their LD50 levels? At what levels do we encounter them in our normal everyday existence? At what levels are they in the vaccines?

        Did you know in high enough doses water can become toxic? Do you suggest we avoid anything and everything that contains water? Do you know that under certain conditions oxygen becomes toxic? Do you suggest we stop taking in oxygen?

        Do you recognise that it is the dose that makes the poison? You may have a very simplistic view that the body is so delicate that it cannot tolerate even the lowest levels of these “toxins” but the evidence is all around us that is simply not true.

        Sorry in advance for destroying your world view.

        1. Harry, if you don’t know what toxins are in vaccines, I suggest you get hold of a copy of the manufactuerer’s package inserts for several of the shots and do some reading. You might find it instructive. And realise that these toxins have never been tested in combination for their synergistic or cumulative effects nor do we know the level at which these ingredients will affect a newborn baby, child or adult. Oh, and the evidence of this toxicity IS all around us – in the 40% of children in Australia who are now being treated for at least one chronic condition; in the rate of autism which has gone from 1 in 10,000 to 1 in 20 over a 30 year period and in the huge epidemic of allergic and autoimmune illnesses. The evidence is clear for those who are not too brainwashed to see it. It isn’t just vaccines – it’s over use of toxic drugs and our diet as well as pollution in the environment – but vaccines play their role.

      2. Harry, you actually support my world view.
        The toxins have ben addressed at length on this blog, other blogs, mainstream and non-mainstream media. And you still ask “what are they?”
        I have not suggested anything, but just alluded to the fact that that the body is not designed to be injected with toxins and poisons. Sure it can withstand stuff, but really, to willingly inject it? Crazy. What’s your limit? What’s an infants? Do you have factual and scientific proof of the limit? Give me a “GREEN VACCINE” any day.
        Prove to me that current vaccines do no harm.

      3. You believe injecting toxins into your children is wrong?

        I must be correct in assuming then, that if your child was bitten by a funnel-web spider or a tiger snake, you would refuse anti-venom injections which themselves are often toxic, but just less so than the venom itself. After all, they are derived using similar principles to vaccines.

        So you’d prefer just to let nature take its course with a funnel-web bite and your kid? Life’s not as simple as you want it to be, is it?

        1. A little simplistic Mike. Antedotes can be considered life-saving. Vaccines injected into a healthy being are not the same. And most definitely do I believe injecting toxins into a child is wrong. How about you Mike? I take it you see nothing wrong with injecting toxins into a child and otherwise healthy human beings in faith and your belief that they may be of benefit? A bit like the crusaders marching on wielding their banner.You have a faith that I do not share. As stated earlier, give me a “green-vaccine” anyday. I am sure mankind will wise up soon and realise that our last 100 years has not actually been the saviour of mankind. Wind it up, they are now promoting around 36 vaccines for a 4-yr old child. And all those new diseases that modern medicine just does not know the cause. Perhaps it is blind faith.

          1. Mike you feel so strongly about vaccinating the hell out of our kids with a scheduled and recommended 36 vaccines by age 4 then I think you should set a good example and have them all (but make sure you increases the dose based on your weight) so we can monitor your health over the next 20 years. Doctor, Vaccine Share holder and developer Paul Offit says the human body can cope with 100,000 vaccine injections at ONCE. C’mon Mike, do it! It’s completely safe you know. Don’t leave out the annual flu shots. Get the Meningitis one too. And if you’re travelling make sure you get those rabies and malaria shots too.

      4. Paul Offit says the human body can cope with 100,000 vaccine injections at ONCE

        Can you provide evidence that is what he actually said? I don’t think you can.

      5. Harry, you actually support my world view.

        I don’t think so. Did you know that consuming too much water can be fatal? Are you suggesting we avoid anything and everything that when you have to much is fatal? Are you aware that Jenny McCarthy has the number one neurotoxin (botox) injected into her face?

        How do we survive drinking water? Why is Jenny still alive? Could it be that the dosage is at a level that our bodies are able to handle the substance with no problems?

        I just provided 2 examples that it IS the dose that matters. If you think that no matter how small the dose it is toxic then please provide evidence of your claim. … and avoid everything with water in it while you look.

        1. Harry, not sure how Jenny McCarthy, an ex Playboy Playmate, who uses Botox, relates to the subject of this blog. I am well aware of her usage, as it keeps being talked about among you skeptics. You obviously were not well read on the subject of Offit though. Are you aware he has an enormous conflict of interest, financial at least, when he promotes vaccines? I guess not, as you had not even known of one of his most silliest comments as to how many vaccines a youngster can tolerate.

          You state that our bodies can handle anything because of the levels of the dosage. But It has been suggested that the new diseases being found in our children and even adults now, could very well be a result of this level of dosage. Sounds a fair assumption to me, given that our medicos simply have no idea what causes these autoimmune disorders.
          Is there anything wrong with wanting to have a GREEN vaccine, ie: one that contains no toxins? Why are you so anti this?
          As for your question to me regarding water, I will choose to ignore your chide and will not respond. We both know, or I hope we do, that our bodies are mostly made up of water. It is a requsite to life. I never heard that Polysorbate 80 and heavy metals are also required in our body, to live.

          Oh, and the toxins within Jenny’s botox, do you have results available of the studies made on long-term effects? It would be good if you could reshape your reply to be more in tune with the blog’s subject.

      6. I am not surprised you can’t grasp the concept of “dosage makes the poison”, why would you, it would destroy your anti-vax world view.

        Is there anything wrong with wanting to have a GREEN vaccine, ie: one that contains no toxins? Why are you so anti this?

        As soon as you provide a meaningful definition of that means then I will see what I can do. As I have said before, water at certain levels is toxic, should I make sure the vaccine contains no water? Oxygen at certain levels is toxic, should I make sure it contains no oxygen.

        Name a single substance that is NOT toxic.

        Oh look botox is real really really toxic but at a low enough level the body is able to handle it with no problems, maybe just maybe the levels of the “toxins” in vaccine are ALSO low enough for our bodies to handle them with no problems… now I wonder why oh why the pro-evidence side keeps trying to use Jenny as the perfect example of how the dosage makes the poison…hmmmmmm….

        1. Harry, can you please provide us with clinical trials to indicate what the safe levels of vaccine toxins are in each age group to which they are commonly administered? Studies which look at both the synergistic and cumulative toxicity would be appreciated.

          If you CAN’T provide this evidence, then what are you fighting about? We are asking for scientific proof of safety – you are giving us faith and belief.

      7. Sure Meryl why not, I am up tot he challenge to find information that you can’t despite having 20 years experience and billing yourself as Australia’s vaccine Expert. You name the vaccine ingredient and I will find the toxicity level and compare it to the level contained in the vaccine.

        Meanwhile can you provide that evidence that Paul Offit said that kids could take 100,000 injections. the last link you provided said 100,000 vaccines. In case you are not aware there is a difference number of vaccines and number of injections, one single injection can contain more than 1 vaccine, like MMR or DPT, those are both 3 in 1. Looking forward to it.

        1. Talk about grasping at straws, Harry! 100,000 vaccines is – to most intelligent people – 100,000 vaccines in an injection. But if that’s not clear enough for you…

          As for the other issue – I can’t find that information because as far as I’ve been able to tell, no studies have ever been done. Like most things concerned with vaccination, assumptions have been made as to safety and efficacy without any hard clinical data to back it up.

          But, since you’ve offered, please show me a clinical trial which shows what the same level of mercury, aluminium and formaldehyde are when injected in one day into the body of a 3.5 to 5 kg 2 month old. I am really interested to hear what you find out. And if you can’t find any trials to prove that these injections are safe, then what will that do to your blind faith in vaccines? I personally think it won’t make any difference to you Harry because your belief in vaccines is religious in nature – not scientific. But I would happily stand corrected.

      8. Wait, pentxa said 100,000 injections, I said where is the proof, you said I made a fool of myself and posted a link to Paul Offit saying 100,000 vaccines…. now you are agreeing with me that he never said 100,000 injections he meant 100,000 vaccines in a single injection?

        You have me confused, are you joining me in being a fool? Or are you saying that pentxa is not an intelligent person and they misinterpreted what Paul Offit actually said.

        Can you provide a link where mercury is included in vaccines or are you talking about it being part of thimerosal? Here is your logic:

        1. Thimerosal “contains” mercury.
        2. Mercury is toxic.
        3. Therefore there will be toxic effects from Thimerosal

        Now I use the same logic on oxygen:
        1. Water “contains” oxygen
        2. Oxygen makes fires hotter
        3. Therefore putting water on a fire will make it hotter.

        Aluminium is also an element, do you mean elemental aluminium is in vaccines? I never heard that before… are you sure? Maybe it is also “contained” within a substance that has completely different properties than elemental aluminium. Let me know what that substance is.

      9. Wait, pentxa said 100,000 injections, I said where is the proof, you said I made a fool of myself and posted a link to Paul Offit saying 100,000 vaccines…. now you are agreeing with me that he never said 100,000 injections he meant 100,000 vaccines in a single injection?

        You have me confused, are you joining me in being a fool? Or are you saying that pentxa is not an intelligent person and they misinterpreted what Paul Offit actually said.

        Can you provide a link where mercury is included in vaccines or are you talking about it being part of thimerosal? Here is your logic:

        1. Thimerosal “contains” mercury.
        2. Mercury is toxic.
        3. Therefore there will be toxic effects from Thimerosal

        Now I use the same logic on oxygen:
        1. Water “contains” oxygen
        2. Oxygen makes fires hotter
        3. Therefore putting water on a fire will make it hotter.

        Aluminium is also an element, do you mean elemental aluminium is in vaccines? I never heard that before… are you sure? Maybe it is also “contained” within a substance that has completely different properties than elemental aluminium. Let me know what that substance is.

        1. Harry – please stop playing the fool – if you can help it. Find me clinical trials on the toxic ingredients in vaccines – thiomersal which is 49.5% mercury by weight, aluminium which is found in several different compounds and formaldehyde which is also found in several different compounds. It seemed to be a simple question – if you can’t find the answer, then please admit that you can’t.

      10. Did you want the safety data on “oxygen”? It is also contained within multiple different vaccine ingredients. What about sodium? It is highly explosive yet it is contained within table salt. The format of the element matters… ALOT.

        Do you comprehend basic chemistry? Saying “aluminium” is pointless unless you are talking about elemental aluminium. So you have the following choices, tell me which vaccines contain elemental aluminium, specify which substance “contains” aluminium you want information about or admit you can’t even comprehend the very basics of chemistry and vaccination.

        1. Harry, I asked for toxicity information from clinical trials on 3 vaccine ingredients only. If you can’t find that information, please don’t try to distract – it won;t work. I’m waiting….

      11. Ok then it looks like I have to do what your 5th grade teacher was supposed to have done many many moons ago and teach you a little about chemistry. I will start with the easy ones so you can grasp the concepts:

        1. Water is not hydrogen, water is not oxygen, water is a combination of hydrogen and oxygen. Water does not have the same chemical properties as hydrogen, water does not have the same chemical properties as oxygen.
        2. Table salt is not sodium, table salt is not chloride, table salt is made up of sodium and chloride. Table salt does not have the same chemical properties as sodium or chloride, it has the chemical properties of sodium chloride.
        3. Thiomersal is not carbon, hydrogen, mercury, sodium, oxygen or sulfur. It is made up of carbon, hydrogen, mercury, sodium, oxygen and sulfur. It does not have the chemical properties of carbon, hydrogen, mercury, sodium, oxygen or sulfur.
        4. Aluminium hydroxide is not aluminium, oxygen or hydrogen, it is made up of aluminium, oxygen and hydrogen. It does not have the chemical properties of aluminium, oxygen or hydrogen.
        5. Aluminium potassium sulfate is not aluminium , potassium, sulfur, oxygen or hydrogen, it is made up of aluminium , potassium, sulfur, oxygen and hydrogen. It does not have the chemical properties of aluminium , potassium, sulfur, oxygen or hydrogen.

        Now I am hoping after that explanation you have grasped the concepts so I will repeat my question. Which ingredient of vaccines did you want information on? If you are going to repeat the same ingredients list please provide a list of the vaccines that contain mercury and aluminium.

        None of the vaccines I have ever seen contains these as elements, they ARE in there as an element of another compound. If you believe that doesn’t matter please provide a video of you breathing the “oxygen” contained in water as evidence.

        1. Harry, you are a sad and sorry case, do you know that? I asked you for something very simple. Here you are, saying that vaccines are safe and the ingredients are safe because they are on there in small quantities. So I asked you for proof. Where are the clinical trials showing what the safe levels of three of many vaccine ingredients – mercury via thiomersal, aluminium and formaldehyde – are in children and adults of different weights and ages. You obviously can’t find any clinical trials to back up your assertions of safety so you start rambling about all sorts of extraneous rubbish thinking that it will distract me – but it won’t. Easy Harry – answer the question or admit that you can’t.

      12. I have a question for penxta, do you admit you made slight mistake when you claimed:

        Paul Offit says the human body can cope with 100,000 vaccine injections at ONCE

        If you read the link Meryl provided it clearly says 100,000 vaccines at once. Maybe the person that you heard it from did not realise that one single injection can contain more than one vaccine, you were just repeating what someone told you and did not realise it was a lie.

      13. So after coming up with a bunch of incoherent drivel on the vaccination respectful debate page predicated on his astonishing predisposition to misunderstand our statements Harry comes here with more of the same.

        1) The dose doesn’t always make the poison. Some substances are toxic in all quantities (although obviously the greater the quantity the greater the damage ceteris paribus) and they accumulate. But even if it were true, it still wouldn’t upset our world view because noone has demonstrated what the safe levels of the injection of these substances are.

        2) I love your nonsense about 100,000 vaccine injections vs vaccines. Obfuscation par excellence – John Cunningham would be so proud. But it just goes to show the intellectual poverty of vaccination that its defenders are forced into such childishness with alarming frequency. But regardless of how you interpret Offit’s claim Harry, do you agree with it? Would you be prepared to demonstrate it?

        3) The compound thing. Which compound of lead is safe? Can you provide us a compound of plutonium that you would be happy to inject into yourself? Reasons for toxicity vary between elements. Sodium is safe after it has reacted with chlorine but I personally doubt there are any chemical reactions which would make mercury safe. Nonetheless, if our conformity on this matter means so much to you, you are welcome to put your body on the line and prove to us which ones are perfectly safe.

        Anyway, I look forward to your next bit of obfuscatory drivel.

        1. Beautifully Put Punter.

          Thank God we have the AVN and it’s network of information sources to debunk the non science that comes from Harry.

      14. But even if it were true, it still wouldn’t upset our world view because noone has demonstrated what the safe levels of the injection of these substances are.

        I offered it to Meryl and I will offer it to you in the hopes you are not as incompetent as her, give me an ingredient and I will try and find the study. Aluminium  is not an ingredient, mercury is not an ingredient.

        I love your nonsense about 100,000 vaccine injections vs vaccines.

        I have already proven the 1 vaccine does not equal 1 injection, what else do you need? What penxta said is wrong, an easy mistake to make. I was not reading any malice into it. They have probably heard it said and did not investigate it for themselves.

        The compound thing. Which compound of lead is safe?

        Wait… did I say there was a compound of lead that was safe.. let me check….nope, congratulations your logical fallacy is “strawman”

        Can you provide us a compound of plutonium that you would be happy to inject into yourself?

        Wait… did I say there was a compound of plutonium that was safe.. let me check….nope, congratulations your logical fallacy is “strawman”

        Reasons for toxicity vary between elements.

        Yay at last one of you anti-vaxers display a small amount of chemistry knowledge… but still, it’s not just elements, hydrogen go boom, oxygen go boom, put them together water go splash, different compounds also have different toxicity, half mark for you.

        I personally doubt there are any chemical reactions which would make mercury safe.

        You personally doubt? Congratulations, your logical fallacy is “personal incredulity”

        I love it when you post punter, I really do, every single one demonstrates you have the intellectual rigour of a wet noodle and the logical capacity of a fleas gonads.

      15. “I offered it to Meryl and I will offer it to you in the hopes you are not as incompetent as her, give me an ingredient and I will try and find the study. Aluminium is not an ingredient, mercury is not an ingredient.”

        These are the ingredients for the DTaP (Infanrix): Aluminum hydroxide, bovine extract, formaldehyde, glutaraldhyde, polysorbate 80.

        Why don’t you have a go at each of those ingredients? Remember they have to have been tested using injections of one group compared to a group of people who received an inert placebo as a control. And then once you have provided the research into each of them you can then find a study of the effects of the ingredients together (ie the whole vaccine) vs an inert placebo control group. Good luck!

        “I have already proven the 1 vaccine does not equal 1 injection, what else do you need?”

        Wow! You proved that. That is amazing!

        “What penxta said is wrong, an easy mistake to make. I was not reading any malice into it. They have probably heard it said and did not investigate it for themselves.”

        No. What penxta said was perfectly correct in the context she was making it. If she was making it in the context of a belief that 100,000 vaccines would kill people as a result of puncture wounds rather than poisoning them you may have had a point – but she/he wasn’t, so you didn’t. Hence, your statement was nothing but transparent obfuscation.

        “Wait… did I say there was a compound of lead that was safe.. let me check….nope, congratulations your logical fallacy is “strawman””

        You seemed to imply that compounds necessarily had different toxicological properties than their elemental components. If that wasn’t what you were implying, what was the point of your argument?

        “Yay at last one of you anti-vaxers display a small amount of chemistry knowledge… but still, it’s not just elements, hydrogen go boom, oxygen go boom, put them together water go splash, different compounds also have different toxicity, half mark for you.”

        And you still miss the point. Lead isn’t very chemically reactive but it is nonetheless very reactive in the body. Potassium is very chemically reactive but once it has reacted with chlorine it is harmless (unless in high doses). Just because the substance is no longer chemically reactive doesn’t mean that the body will find it harmless. It just doesn’t work that way. At least not necessarily – that is, again, for you to prove in each individual case. A good rule of thumb though is “have humans been exposed to this kind of thing over millions of years of evolution?”. If we have, then chances are we should be fine. If not, then we need some real scrutiny.

        I have to ask: how is this not completely obvious? Do you believe that the only way to get useful iron in your diet is if you eat it in its elemental form? Zinc? Manganese? Selenium? Elements matter in the body. The compounds that we ingest them in might matter too but only a complete fool would pretend that the properties of the elements themselves are always irrelevant.

        “You personally doubt? Congratulations, your logical fallacy is “personal incredulity””

        I’m sorry? Are you seriously telling me that I should believe that the injection of mercury and its compounds in children are safe based purely on faith?

        Ladies and gentleman: I give you A Skeptic!

        I don’t think you quite understand what the “personal incredulity” fallacy entails. I guess some might describe that as ironic.

        “I love it when you post punter, I really do, every single one demonstrates you have the intellectual rigour of a wet noodle and the logical capacity of a fleas gonads.”

        Possibly. Still, my “flea gonad” logic seems better than your efforts here: https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/vaccination-respectful-debate/zF14yjazdrE

        With the obvious exception of JC, anybody else on this planet would have died of shame after being so badly humiliated but kudos for keeping on coming back.

        And by the way, if you want to make this a game of insults you might want to make them a little more witty and biting than feebly protesting that I’m a “stupid-head” – but I suppose we all have to play within our limits.

Comments are closed.