Who’s REALLY picking cherries, Jane?

I got an email from my old ‘friend’, Jane Hansen this morning and really, it’s been far too long since we two have communicated. You know how it is. Life gets busy, kids are growing, places to go, people to see…

cherry cartoon

But Jane took the time to drop me a quick line and for that, I’m very grateful

I had just sent a copy of Dr Brian Martin’s latest article, News with a negative frame: a vaccination case study, to some social networking pages I follow and the email lists I help maintain. And darned if I didn’t forget to include Jane on that email – so sorry! But all’s well because she got the email anyway.

For those who haven’t yet read this article, I highly recommend you do! It concerns negative and biased coverage regarding Dr Judy Wilyman’s PhD from the University of Wollongong by Kylar Loussikian of the Australian newspaper in particular, and the Australian media in general.

You see, there are some journalists out there who apparently believe that those who hold a contrary position on scientific issues (such as vaccination) should not be able to obtain a PhD – nor, it seems, should they be allowed a voice in the public debate. Hard to imagine, I know!

And Jane, bless her little heart, appears to be one of those journalists too. Jane, we really do have to talk…

In her usual spontaneous style, Jane’s email to me was direct and straight to the point:

You’re the queen of twisting truth Meryl

Gardasil is one of the most heavily studies vaccines around and one of the most effective. To ignore the vast body of science on this is pure ignorance.

Now Jane, I really am trying to work with you on this – really! But I have searched Dr Martin’s article for even one mention of Gardasil and it might surprise you (or not) to know that it is not mentioned even once. There is a short mention of HPV – the virus that Gardasil is meant to protect against – but that mention is made, not to discuss the science behind HPV vaccination, but simply to quote a paragraph from the Australian newspaper article in question.

So, trying to be helpful because after all, I really ‘get’ you, I offered the following response:

Did you actually read the article, Jane? If so, what is your objection to what Dr Martin has said? Where has he gone wrong? Please feel free to share your insight on this article with either myself or Dr Martin.

He was most particularly NOT not talking about the science behind vaccination which is what leads me to believe that you did not read the article you are replying to. Dr Martin was speaking about how the media uses language to frame an argument in such a way that the truth of matters is ignored and instead, a particular barrow is pushed based purely on what it is the media wishes to propound.
Please read Dr Martin’s article and if you have any criticisms, I am sure he would be most happy to hear them and to respond to you.
Meryl
PS – why are you bringing up Gardasil? What did that have to do with Dr Martin’s article or Dr Wilyman’s PhD from the UOW? You seem to have strayed very far from the point, Jane.

Instead of thanking me for so kindly and politely pointing out the errors of your way, Jane, you instead sent me the following email:

I don’t engage with cherry pickers. Goodbye

Well! May I remind you, Jane, that you were the one who contacted me! So any engagement was totally and absolutely down to you.

Is this any way to carry on a conversation? You start talking and when someone gives a reasoned and civil reply, you attack them and storm off in a virtual huff? That’s neither mature nor is it productive.

These are Australia’s children we are talking about here, Jane. Their health, wellbeing and their very lives. Don’t they deserve better than what you are giving them?

Oh, forgive me! How silly.

I seem to have forgotten that you work for Murdoch.

Forget I said anything.

by Meryl Dorey

Please note: Blog posts are opinion pieces which represent the views of the authors. They do not necessarily represent the viewpoints of the nocompulsoryvaccination blog. This blog is a forum, support and information site and outlet for discussion about the relative benefits and risks of vaccinations in particular – and medical procedures in general. We do not provide medical advice but believe that everyone has the opportunity and the obligation to do their own research before making decisions for their families. The information we provide (including your personal review of the references we cite) should be taken in conjunction with a range of other data, including that obtained from government, your health care provider and/or other medical source material to assist you in developing the knowledge required to make informed health choices.

People who want other people’s children vaccinated to protect their vaccinated kids are selfish (and not very bright).

Last week, one of the most gob-smackingly ignorant articles I’ve read to date on the issue of vaccination (and trust me, I’ve read plenty of ignorant articles on this subject – especially from the Murdoch rags) appeared in – of all papers – the Melbourne Age.

I say of all papers because the Age used to have a reputation for excellent reporting. I especially remember the series by Ryle and Hughes in the 1990s about the scandalous vaccine testing done on orphans by the Walter and Eliza Hall Institute. These articles and more made people consider The Age to be one of the more authoritative, trustworthy and intellectual journals in Australia.

How the mighty have fallen!

The current article in question, entitled People who don’t vaccinate their kids are selfish, plumbs new depths never before charted. Lower even than those attained by Claire Harvey or Jane Hansen – and in my personal opinion, those depths were already pretty low!

This article discusses an ‘outbreak’ of measles in Brunswick, VIC. And by outbreak, they mean 10 cases – almost all in adults – not children. At no point are we told the vaccination status of those involved. For all we know, every single one of them was fully vaccinated against measles. Funny how newspapers almost never report the vaccination status of cases when trying to blame outbreaks on the unvaccinated. I guess the effect would be ruined if we were to find out that those being affected were all supposed to have been protected by vaccination.

Or, maybe not.

You see, Brunswick has a vaccination rate of 94% for one-year-olds. And the article actually implies it is that 1% difference between the mythical nirvana of ‘herd immunity’ – a 95% vaccination rate – and the reality of cases amongst adults, that makes all the difference.

At 95% vaccination compliance, measles couldn’t get a look in! The virus would be running up against an invisible wall with a big transparenKeep Outt KEEP OUT sign that only these tiny little buggers can see.

But at 94%, the gate is wide open and the MEASLES WELCOME, ENTER HERE sign is flashing its garish neon message that, again, only the virus can see.

Isn’t science grand?

But it gets better (and by better, I mean worse).

Because, believe it or not, this genius of a news hack (I won’t deign to call her a journalist. I don’t believe that moniker suits her at all) actually states that:

“The more unimmunised children there are in the room, the more likely the immunised children will be affected and catch the virus.”

Where do I begin?

Is this writer really claiming that the vaccine will only protect children up to and until the point where they are exposed to it and then, it doesn’t work? Well, though I personally believe that to be the case, I don’t use this evidence of vaccine ineffectiveness to try and force other people to be vaccinated to protect – well – the vaccinated!

In addition, what possible difference can it make whether there are Skull Biker2 unvaccinated children in the room or 18? Do viruses get stronger in groups? Are they like bikie gangs – feeding on each other’s violent impulses in a tiny little example of mob rule? I can just picture them – pathogens in leather jackets with slogans emblazoned on the back – MEASLES GANG – VIC BRANCH.

Lastly, how can the vaccinated children who are so terrifyingly at risk of contracting the ‘deadly’ measles virus possibly be considered to be immunised when immunised means by definition – immune? Either you are immune and you don’t have to worry about catching an illness (eg if you have already had measles, you are immune for life – a benefit no vaccine can give you) or you are just vaccinated and still have to worry about getting the disease.

You can’t have it both ways. And trying to blame some mysterious unvaccinated child for an illness in the vaccinated is like a woman blaming her unwanted pregnancy on the fact that her neighbour stopped taking birth control pills a month earlier.

Melbourne Age – you should be thoroughly ashamed for actually paying someone to write this ridiculous claptrap. It’s time for your paper to start reporting the news with investigative reporters like Ryle and Hughes rather than regurgitating corporate sponsored lies .

by Meryl Dorey

Please note: Blog posts are opinion pieces which represent the views of the authors. They do not necessarily represent the viewpoints of the nocompulsoryvaccination blog. This blog is a forum, support and information site and outlet for discussion about the relative benefits and risks of vaccinations in particular – and medical procedures in general. We do not provide medical advice but believe that everyone has the opportunity and the obligation to do their own research before making decisions for their families. The information we provide (including your personal review of the references we cite) should be taken in conjunction with a range of other data, including that obtained from government, your health care provider and/or other medical source material to assist you in developing the knowledge required to make informed health choices.