Show us the evidence

10502323 - magnified illustration with the word facts on white background.
Where is the evidence that vaccines are either safe, effective, or necessary?

Evidence-based medicine has been the buzz-word of the last 10 years. It makes people feel confident about seeing their doctor and taking the treatments on offer if they are thought to be ‘evidence-based’. After all – medical drugs (and vaccines are a drug) are supposed to be ‘evidence-based’, right? They’ve been through all the standard tests, have been studied for years before being released and have stood the test of time to prove they are both safe and effective.

Only they haven’t. Estimates that pharmaceutical products have any benefit range from a low of 15% to a high of only 50% (Ioannidis JPA (2005) Why Most Published Research Findings Are False. PLoS MED 2 (8)) – a pretty sorry situation – especially when we see industry-sponsored front groups like the Friends of Science in Medicine (FOSIM) trying to destroy 5,000 year old practices like Ayurveda and Chinese Herbal Medicine because they are not ‘evidence based’.

Of course, my focus is and always has been the practice of vaccination, so how can I show that vaccines are not evidence-based?

I have often posted copies of graphs from Greg Beattie’s excellent book, Fooling Ourselves on the Fundamental Value of Vaccines showing the decline in mortality (deaths) well before the introduction of either vaccination or (in most cases) antibiotics. (and these or similar graphs can be found for just about every country that instituted mass vaccination campaigns in the early part of the 20th century)

These graphs demonstrate clearly and scientifically that there is little to no evidence that vaccinations were responsible in any way for the decline in deaths from infectious diseases experienced over the last 2 centuries.

But what about today? 

Australia instituted mass vaccination in 1953. At that time, the only vaccines being used were DPT (diphtheria, pertussis [whooping cough] and tetanus), smallpox, tuberculosis for some individuals, typhoid (mostly for indigenous populations) and a couple of years later, oral polio.

So, we would expect that the introduction of and encouragement to vaccinate all children would have seen an immediate and permanent decline in the rates of infectious diseases we vaccinated against.

But have they?

Pertussis is the most obvious example that all is not right in the state of vaccine effectiveness. We first started using the DPT (whole cell) vaccine in the 1930s, but it was not in widespread use until 1953. In 1991, the National Notifiable Diseases Surveillance System (NNDSS) created a database of all laboratory-confirmed cases of infectious diseases in Australia. This database tracks ALL confirmed cases of these illnesses each year, though it does not track (or even ask) about vaccine status. Now the database itself is suspect because vaccinated people are FAR less likely to be tested for a so-called vaccine-preventable disease than their unvaccinated peers, so we know that this database would underestimate the true rate of infection. But bad data is the only data we have to we’ll go with that for the time being.

For all we know, 100% of those on the NNDSS database who are reported to have had these “vaccine preventable’ diseases were fully vaccinated against them. The fact that this basic information is not requested is an omission so blatant, it would appear to most of us to have been intentional.

But I digress.

Below is the table of reports for pertussis from 1991 (when the NNDSS started collecting data) to 2016. Of course, the 2016 figures are only preliminary and not complete. As you can see, there has been a huge increase in laboratory-confirmed cases of pertussis – an increase that would indicate there must have been a decline in vaccination. After all, if vaccination rates were steady or even increasing and the vaccines provided ANY protection whatsoever, we would expect to see a decline in incidence, not an increase.

Pertussis notifications 1991 to 2016 NNDSS

But over the time period covered by this table, Australia’s childhood vaccination rates went from a low of 68% (in 1991) to a high of 95% in 2008.

Evidence-Based medicine demands that there be at least some proof of a treatment’s or preventative’s effectiveness. Well here, we have proof positive that the whooping cough vaccine is ineffective (and evidence that it might be counter-productive since increases in vaccination rates have been met with concurrent increases in notifications).

To add insult to injury, if we look at the per capita (per head of population) rate of whooping cough, we find that in 1953, when mass vaccination began, the rate of whooping cough was approximately 100 cases per 100,000 Australians. In 2011 when we had nearly 40,000 cases of pertussis reported in Australia (and a 95% vaccination rate), that equated to a rate of over 181 cases per 100,000 head of population – nearly double what it was before the vaccine was used nationally in 1953.

Mumps (see NNDSS table below) has gone from less than 200 cases per year to over 600 in 2015. This year looks like it might be even higher. Again, there is no information about the vaccination status of these children and adults, but if the Australian situation is anything like that in the US, most of them would have been fully vaccinated with 2 doses of MMR. America has now added a third dose of MMR to the vaccination schedule, simply because the number of mumps and measles cases amongst the vaccinated is exploding.

Mumps notifications 1992 to 2016 NNDSS

One has to ask – if 2 doses aren’t working (and when this vaccine was introduced, we were assured that it would be one dose for life), why in the world would 3? Is that really the answer to a vaccine that is not effective – give more ineffective vaccines? I guess if you were a drug company profiting from every shot, it would be the best possible answer. But if we are talking about ‘evidence-based’ medicine, surely we can do better?

In addition, the mumps portion of the MMR vaccine is now the basis of a major whistleblower lawsuit in the US. Two Merck scientists have been granted whistleblower protection for their claims that the protective efficacy of the mumps vaccine has been fraudulently overstated! Merck says it protects 95% of those who receive it – these scientists say it could be less than 60% protective. If Merck loses, they could be subject to a fine totalling in the billions of dollars. Just the cost of doing business for a company like Merck, however.

Reports of influenza are a true shocker! According to the NNDSS, there were over 100,000 cases of laboratory-diagnosed influenza last year – a year in which the stated efficacy of the flu vaccine was 17%. Influenza seems to be exploding in Australia and the more the government and the medicos campaign to get people – from 6 months of age through to the elderly – vaccinated – the higher the number of reports of influenza (much like pertussis).

Influenza Notifications 1992 to 2016 NNDSS

There are many more tables that you can access at the NNDSS – click here or on any of the tables above for a searchable page where you can filter by disease so you can see for yourself how little vaccination has done to reduce reports of infectious diseases.

The last illness I would like to cover – briefly – is Hepatitis B. A birth dose of Hep B vaccine was introduced in Australia in the 1990s. As most of you would know, Hep B is a sexually transmitted disease and a disease of intravenous drug users. It is NOT a disease you can contract from casual contact and it is NOT a disease that newborns or children are prone to contracting unless their mothers are carriers (and women are routinely tested for this during pregnancy).

To target babies with this vaccine would require real evidence that they are at risk of contracting and suffering from Hep B. Evidence that is non-existent.

Hep B itself is not a disease that, in most cases, causes disability or serious health problems. In most people, the virus is cleared from the system without long-term issues. In a tiny percentage, however, the virus is not cleared and with those people, it is thought that the infection can lead to liver cancer decades later.

This is why the vaccine was introduced – to prevent liver cancer in those who are affected.

So, we would expect, when looking over the incidence of liver cancer during the period of time after the introduction of the Hep B vaccine, that we would see a huge decline in diagnoses.

Nothing could be further from the truth, however.

Since the introduction of Hep B vaccination in the 1980s, the incidence of and mortality from liver cancer has skyrocketed! (Graph from Cancer Australia)

Liver Cancer Mortality

In conclusion, there is no statistical evidence to show that vaccines have been responsible in any way for a reduction in either the reported incidence of or mortality from most infectious diseases they are meant to prevent.

At a time when all treatments must prove to be ‘evidence-based’ and when our tax dollars are having trouble keeping up with the growing demands for medical services, one has to ask why we are continuing to throw good money after bad on ever-more vaccination campaigns targeting the entire Australian population.

Officials Covered Up “Massive” UK Measles Outbreak in Highly MMR Vaccinated Children & Adults – Officials Withheld The Evidence – Parents Not Warned – Children Unprotected – BBC Directly Implicated

In 2012 and 2013 outbreaks of measles occurred in large numbers of children and adults who had been vaccinated and who were living in areas of highly vaccinated populations in the North of England. The North of England outbreaks involved the same MMR vaccine in use in the USA, Merck’s MMR II.
Instead of warning parents in the North that their children were at risk and taking precautionary measures, nothing was said. The British public were not told the MMR vaccine was failing to protect children from measles.

Vaccination does not equal immunisation


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

Doctors are not above question-vaccines have NOT saved millions of lives!

As stated on the AVN’s Website, we will be critiquing the propaganda booklet just published by the government and Australian Medical Association (AMA)-funded Australian Academy of Sciences.

Many of the dramatic statements made in this booklet are either verifiably incorrect or unscientific. Despite the long list of medical references at the end of the publication, many of the claims made aren’t in any way scientific and one of the first and most egregious comes directly from the introduction:

Immunisation has transformed human health by preventing the deaths of hundreds of millions of people.

As Greg Beattie, Author of Vaccination: A Parent’s Dilemma and Fooling Ourselves on the Fundamental Value of Vaccines has said, this statement is the ‘mantra’ of vaccination. The belief that vaccinations have saved millions of lives and without vaccination, we would see a return to high death levels appears to be baseless. Medical science wants to take credit for a decline in mortality which took place – in most cases – well before vaccines appeared on the scene. Claiming that vaccination was the reason for this decline is not just baseless, it’s fraudulent.

If vaccinations saved lives, we would expect to see an increasing rate of decline in death rates after their introduction. But there IS no increase and in fact, the deaths from infectious diseases declined whether there was a vaccine or not. See the graphs below – all of which were reproduced with the kind permission of Greg Beattie.

Measles and Scarlet Fever

Measles vaccines were first introduced into Australia in 1970. At that time, the death rate  had declined from its high of almost 180 per 100,000 head of population / five years, to nearly to zero / five years in 1970. This decline took place over the 100 years BEFORE the introduction of a vaccine. So did the introduction of the measles vaccine save any lives at all? According to the government’s own data, there appears to be no evidence to indicate that it did.

Fig1_measles


Now, let’s look at a disease for which there was never a vaccine in use such as scarlet fever. The graph below combines the information on deaths from measles (the dotted line) with deaths from scarlet fever (the solid line). Scarlet fever killed more people in Australia than measles, so there is no doubt that it was a deadly disease at a time when hygiene, nutrition and living conditions left a bit to be desired. But unlike measles, there was never a vaccine for scarlet fever (there were several vaccine candidates but they killed more people then they helped so they were never released in Australia). Scarlet fever is a bacterial disease so antibiotics can be used to treat it, but antibiotics were not widely available until the late 1940s – early 1950s by which time, deaths from scarlet fever were virtually nonexistent. Neither vaccinations nor antibiotics had anything to do with the decline in deaths from either measles or scarlet fever.

Fig4_scarletmeasles

Now, let’s take a look at whooping cough. This situation is slightly more difficult because there was an early vaccine that was used in the 1940s in Australia though it did not have widespread acceptance until 1953 when it was combined with diphtheria and tetanus vaccines as part of the DPT. As you can see from the graph below, the deaths from whooping cough (solid line) were not quite down to zero in the 1940s at the time of early vaccination but it had certainly shown a huge decline before that period of time. Again, this graph compares the deaths from whooping cough with another deadly disease for which we never used vaccines – typhoid fever.

Fig5_typhoidWhoop

Typhoid fever (dotted line) was killing almost 80 per 100,000 head of population every 5 years in the early part of last century. Without any vaccination whatsoever, deaths from typhoid declined in line with deaths from whooping cough. In fact, the decline in deaths from whooping cough seemed to plateau when we first started to use the vaccine while typhoid’s decline was steady and consistent throughout that period.

Regardless of your interpretation of these differences, it seems obvious that vaccination had nothing to do with the decline in deaths from whooping cough and anyone who says they did is not basing their statement on facts or science.

Dr Cory needs to provide her evidence

Dr Suzanne Cory, President of the Australian Academy of Science, has made a statement from her esteemed position. She has said that vaccinations have prevented the deaths of hundreds of millions of people, but according to the available evidence, vaccines may have played little to no role in reducing mortality from infectious disease.

I call on Dr Cory to publicly present any proof to support her assertions. She’s made a grand claim which is, on the surface and according to all the available data, completely absurd. We, the healthcare consumers of Australia, demand that she provide evidence to back up these claims..

Alternatively, I am very happy to meet her in a public venue where both of us can present our information so that the parents of Australia can decide for themselves whose side is evidence-based and whose is not.

 

Lies, damned lies and statistics

There have been many comments since I originally posted Dr Obomsawin’s original graphs and subsequent response. A lot of people are saying that we should not be looking at the death rates from infectious diseases. Rather, since vaccines are meant to prevent the diseases themselves, the incidence should be the bar we use to measure their success.

In theory, that sounds like a good idea. In actuality however, it doesn’t work.

You see, incidence tends to be a very subjective and inaccurate measure. For instance in 1998, a study was done to determine how accurately doctors were diagnosing cases of measles. It turned out that 97.5% of what doctors were calling measles wasn’t measles at all. In other words, they were only right 2.5% of the time.

97.5% of Measles Diagnoses are Incorrect

From Europe Today, April 1998 comes an interesting report about the level of error occurring in the diagnosis of measles. The feedback comes from the UK’s Public Health Laboratory Service, which found that 97.5% of the time, British doctors are wrong in their diagnosis of measles. This conclusion was reached after saliva tests were performed on 12,000 person diagnosed with measles. Roger Buttery, an advisor on transmissible diseases at the Cambridge and Huntingdon Health Department, said “a majority of doctors say they can recognize measles ‘a mile off’ but we now know that this illness occurs in only 2.5% of the cases.” If the information offered by Buttery et al. is correct, then the true incidence of measles in the UK is not the reported 6,000 per year, but more like 150.

Professor Gordon Stewart who published widely on the problems with the pertussis (whooping cough) vaccine in the UK in the 1970s and 1980s said that during the time when parents were questioning the safety of the pertussis vaccine and vaccination rates plummeted, all you needed to do was go to the doctor with a runny nose and you would be diagnosed with whooping cough.

Here in Australia, there are long periods of time – decades in some cases – where we were not tracking the incidence of these infectious diseases but were still tracking mortality. The same holds true for many other developed countries.

In addition, for many diseases, the criteria for being diagnosed with the illness includes not having received the vaccine. So if, for example, you have been vaccinated against measles and then come down with the symptoms of the disease, you are less likely to be diagnosed with measles simply because of your vaccination status even though we know that the vaccine does not provide perfect protection.

When the polio vaccine was introduced, anyone who had been vaccinated within 30 days of developing symptoms was automatically excluded. In addition, the paralysis needed to involve more limbs and last for a far longer time then had been necessary for a clinical diagnosis prior to the introduction of the polio vaccine.

Using incidence alone to determine the effectiveness of vaccination is at best inaccurate – at worst – deceptive.

Mortality statistics are more accurate

Death rates provide a much better picture of how a disease is declining over time since there is almost always some form of testing done to determine the cause of death.

And consistently, in every developed country, we see that the vast majority – 90% and more – of the death rate from these diseases occurred before the introduction of the vaccines to prevent them. Even antibiotics didn’t seem to do much to prevent these deaths. It seems that engineers had far more to do with the decline in mortality and morbidity in the first half of the 20th century than doctors.

Please view the following graphs from New Zealand and ask yourself why we are still being told that the vaccines for measles, pertussis or diphtheria had any effect at all in reducing deaths from these diseases:

There are many similar graphs from medical journals that demonstrate the same exact trends – high levels of mortality or morbidity in the 1800s declining through the first half of the 1900s to the point where vaccines were introduced when they were historically already at their lowest level.

Please see the following graph from What is the evidence for a causal link between hygiene and infections?; Allison E Aiello and Elaine L Larson; THE LANCET Infectious Diseases Vol 2 February 2002; http://infection.thelancet.com. The US made vaccination compulsory in 1978. As you can see, vaccination had nothing to do with the massive decline in mortality from infectious diseases.

Please note the increase in mortality from the early 1980s. Much of this increase is from HIV AIDS mortality. Ironically, this may be the one way in which vaccinations have influenced infectious disease mortality – by the increase in deaths from AIDS – a disease which may have had its origin in contaminated vaccines. (http://www.uow.edu.au/~bmartin/dissent/documents/AIDS/refs.html)

The following information which shows a very similar trend is from Trends in Infectious Disease Mortality in the United States During the 20th Century; Gregory L. Armstrong; Laura A. Conn; Robert W. Pinner; JAMA. 1999;281(1):61-66

Is this evidence that vaccines were involved in any way with the decline in these diseases? With the exception of polio (which is another story because the diagnostic criteria for polio changed as soon as the vaccine was licensed, leading to a huge decline in cases virtually overnight) it is obvious that vaccinations had NOTHING to do with the improvement in infectious diseases statistics for the last 100 years.

Those critics who have been talking about the gap in Dr Obomsawin’s graph and the smoothing of his lines are trying to put up a smoke screen to hide what the can’t dispute – the fact that the scientific evidence demonstrates very clearly that vaccinations did not cause the decline in deaths from infectious diseases that the Western world experienced over the last 100 years or more.

One has to wonder whether, were we to export the technology for clean water, efficient food growth and proper sanitation to developing countries instead of vaccines, we might see the sharp decline in deaths from these diseases there as well?

Vaccinations saved us from…what, exactly?

There are those out there who claim that questioning the effectiveness of vaccinations is tantamount to killing children. I kid you not.

According to them, those who dare to ask about the safety and effectiveness of childhood shots; who presume to try and comprehend scientific information that doctors seem to feel is written in a language that can only be understood by the medical elite, is not only wrong, it is immoral as well.

According to these geniuses, it is irrational to even ask about whether or not the decline in infectious diseases through the 20th century was related to the vaccines that had been introduced to prevent them. The only obvious answer is that vaccinations are our saviour and, as the American media medico, Dr Laura so succinctly put it, “Just take the damned vaccines!”

Unfortunately for those pushing the party line, the evidence which is available in every developed country shows that it is most likely that vaccines had absolutely NOTHING to do with the decline of infectious diseases.

Actually, I take that back. Vaccination may not have contributed to this decline but in some cases, it appears that their introduction may have led to a plateauing of the drop in deaths and incidence prior to vaccination. In fact, as we saw with pertussis in the US, there was a marked increase in the incidence once the vaccine was mandated.

Dr Raymond Obomsawin has worked in both government and non-government health authorities in Canada where he currently resides. He has published widely on the problems with vaccinations and is a well-respected academic in the area of public health. He recently (2009) released graphs that demonstrate visually – using government statistics from around the world – the fact that vaccination had nothing to do with the decline in both incidence and mortality from diseases such as measles, pertussis (whooping cough), tuberculosis and more.

We who are sceptical of the government and medical community claims that credit vaccines with virtually wiping out infectious diseases over the last 50 years have been quoting official statistics for decades to prove that this is simply not to case.

Below is a graph of the incidence of measles in Canada from 1935-1983. Australia did not keep track of measles incidence for a long period of time so we can’t compare the Canadian figures with our own but there is no reason to assume that they would be substantially different. As you can see, measles had declined by over 90% before the vaccine was introduced in 1963.

What follows is a graph of the mortality (deaths) from measles in England and Wales for the the 115 years before the introduction of the measles vaccine. As you can see, the decline in deaths parallels the decline in incidence – without the use of vaccines.


So, we are told on a daily basis that vaccines have been the reason that children are no longer dying from or even contracting measles; we are told that if the disease comes back from wherever it has been hiding since the early 1960s, it will be the fault of those who have not taken the measles vaccine, but what we are not told is that vaccine or no vaccine, measles incidence and mortality had declined to bugger-all BEFORE the vaccine was used. This vaccination success story isn’t a success story at all – it is just more propaganda that will not survive even the smallest bit of scrutiny.

Epidemic of measles or good excuse to push vaccines?

I was interviewed for this weekend’s edition of the Tweed Daily News regarding an ‘epidemic’ of measles in a High School in Tweed Heads. One of the things I asked the reporter to find out (because of course, it hasn’t been reported anywhere) is how many of the 8 confirmed cases of measles had received the measles vaccine. Below is the response from Mr Corben (the same Mr Corben from the Health Department who contacted the parents of the 4 week old child who died of whooping cough last year to tell them that I had requested information on their daughter’s diagnosis…) to that question. According to Mr Corben, “The overwhelming majority of them had not been vaccinated.” There’s a scientific answer for you! Out of 8 cases, the overwhelming majority were not vaccinated. What is that Mr Corben? 7 out of 8, 6 out of 8? If you know the number, why don’t you release it? And if you don’t release the number, are people to assume that means you really don’t know? Either they are vaccinated or not. Either you know or you don’t. It is time to get some straight answers to straight questions. Especially when the unvaccinated are being blamed for this outbreak.

There is a vaccine poll on this page so please be sure to vote.

Below is the quote from the Journalist at the Tweed Daily News who interviewed me – this was in response to my request that he find out whether or not the 8 cases were vaccinated or unvaccinated:

Hi Meryl.

I put the question to Mr Corben about how many of the eight confirmed cases of measles in the latest outbreak were vaccinated.

“The overwhelming majority of them had not been vaccinated,” Paul Corben.

Of course, despite a long interview, the reporter did not use any of the information I had given him in his 3 articles on this subject. To give him some credit, it was probably the sub-editor who deleted any reference to my interview or the AVN. At least they did include the information I had given them on the fact that vaccination is not compulsory and parents won’t miss out on any government entitlements if the choose not to vaccinate. Below are the articles. I will highlight some of the important points. If you would like to respond to this newspaper on their reporting, the editor’s email is:

Growing fear of measles epidemic

James Perkins | 28th August 2010

HEALTH authorities are adamant immunisation is the best way to combat disease, but are battling low childhood vaccination rates across the Far North Coast.

NSW Health targets a minimum 90 per cent of vaccinated kids to create a “herd immunity” to disease in the community.

The Tweed Shire has a 89.1 measles, mumps, rubella vaccination rate for children aged 24 to 27 months, but that figure drops off to 83.3 per cent who return for the follow-up shot at five years of age.

Parents can become conscientious objectors against vaccination and not lose government benefits usually reserved for those who do.

While vaccination statistics are only available at shire level, Paul Corben, the North Coast Area director of Public Health said Tweed Valley had a high conscientious objector rate.

“Certainly in the area around Murwillumbah, we do see conscientious objector rates of about 25 per cent and that is extraordinarily high,” Mr Corben said. (Murwillumbah is about 20 kms from Tweed Heads. If the objector rate is so low in Murwillumbah – why are we seeing the outbreak in Tweed Heads? What point is Mr Corben trying to make here?)

Doctor Graeme Burger, spokesman for the Tweed Valley General Practice Network said some parents didn’t want their children vaccinated “for all sorts of strange reasons” and acknowledged it was their decision. However he is an advocate of the practice.

“Vaccination is one of the major advances in medicine and is a way of preventing diseases that is simple, easy and without complication,” he said.

There had been a few concerns raised with vaccination in the past few decades, including fears it could lead to autism, but Dr Burger said they had been totally debunked.

Dr Burger urged people to vaccinate their children and continue with the recommended vaccination schedule.

“Vaccination is the single most effective thing we can do to prevent major, catastrophic and killer diseases.”

In the case of measles, a person vaccinated as a child was considered vaccinated for life. (why are we now seeing vaccinated adults being pushed to take boosters for measles then? And where is the information that those who are getting a measles vaccine are actually getting mumps and rubella vaccination as well?)

Measles spreads to eight in Tweed

James Perkins | 28th August 2010

Protected: Public Health nurse Sue Devlin vaccinates Kara Garchevic yesterday.

EIGHT students have contracted measles in a Tweed Heads outbreak and health authorities are expecting more victims.

A student recently brought the disease back from an overseas holiday and subsequent cases have been confined to the student’s siblings and fellow school students.

But there are fears more people will soon come down with the highly infectious preventable disease, and health authorities have renewed their call for parents to have their children vaccinated.

The Far North Coast has some of the lowest vaccination rates in Australia, and North Coast Area Health Service director of public health Paul Corben said there had been multiple opportunities for people outside Tweed River High School to have been exposed to the outbreak.

Mr Corben said the overwhelming majority of the eight people already infected were unvaccinated.

“Measles can be a serious condition which can be trivialised by some anti-vaccination groups, but one-third of people who get the disease suffer complications including ear infections, pneumonia and diarrhoea,” Mr Corben said. (first of all, ear infections and diarrhoea are NOT considered to be serious complications. Secondly, the figures used here come from a CDC publication called the Pink Book and in that publication, there are NO references to this information whatsoever. So our Health Department is referencing a CDC publication which references nothing. In other words – they are saying whatever the heck they like – may as well say that measles kills everyone who gets it and the vaccine is absolutely harmless – there is as much evidence of those statements as there is of the one-third complication rate)

He said 10 to 15 per cent of cases could result in inflammation of the brain. (Could result. Where is the reference, Mr Corben? I can easily say that 10 to 15% of Public Health Officials misquote and make up statistics…but unless I actually have a reference for that, it would just be an assertion on my part. Without Mr Corben’s reference, this is just an assertion on his part.)

Doctor Graeme Burger, spokesman for the Tweed Valley General Practice Network, said vaccination was the single-most-effective measure to prevent major, catastrophic and killer diseases.

And the last article in the trilogy. Whilst I have great sympathy for any parent who has lost a child to a disease – the fact is that those families whose children have died of vaccine reactions are ignored, vilified and treated like dirt in many cases. It is time for both sides to be heard.

Mum speaks out about measles death

James Perkins | 28th August 2010

Protect your kids: Immunisation advocate Cecily Johnson with a picture of her daughter, Laine, who died of measles complications 15-years ago.

Blainey Woodham
IT was 15 years ago this week that Cecily Johnson lost her daughter Laine to a terrible, degenerative disease she suffered because of a measles infection.

Laine died of subacute sclerosing panencephalitis, or SSPE , a disease that left her blind within two weeks of diagnosis at seven years old, mute not long after and bedridden by her death, aged 12.

Ms Johnson has understandably become a passionate advocate of vaccination because of the ordeal. The Pottsville woman said she usually tried not to mark the anniversary of her child’s death, but rather remembers her birthdays as a more positive anniversary.

But it was hard not to remember it this week after a measles outbreak in Tweed Heads that has infected at least eight people.

Laine became infected with measles at 10-and-a-half months old, too early for her 12-month measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) vaccination.

SSPE usually hits seven to 10 years after a young child has had measles. About one in 100,000 people who catch measles get the disease.

Ms Johnson was, and still is, a registered nurse who regularly administers vaccinations, which made Laine’s infection with measles and subsequent death more tragic.

“I am big time for it (vaccination),” Ms Johnson said. “SSPE is a terrible disease, every time I hear of an outbreak of measles I freak out.”

Not only is there a risk of suffering SSPE, but contracting measles itself can be devastating for anyone with a compromised immune system.

Unvaccinated babies are among the hardest hit by measles. (Which is another reason to question why we vaccinate since it is KNOWN that women who are vaccinated – even if they subsequently contract measles – are less likely to be able to pass on placental antibodies to their unborn children that will protect them from measles within the first 15 to 18 months of life)

Ms Johnson goes to anti-immunisation meetings to ask questions, then shows the audience pictures of her daughter, even ones of her body in a coffin on the day of her funeral.

“I went to one two days after my daughter’s funeral,” she recalled.

A chiropractor told the audience no child had died as a result of measles. “I pulled out photos of her in the coffin and told them it was my own daughter.

“They say there could be a reaction to vaccination … but look at it, look at the odds, a lot more kids died of measles itself, or later of SSPE than suffer a side effect from a vaccination. (when most of those who die or react as a consequence of vaccinations are denied – how can she say that more kids die of measles and SSPE than from the vaccines? This is just a guess)

“All of you who don’t want to vaccinate … I get so upset, because you are putting all the little bubs at risk,” she said.

Perth Seminar – Another fantastic AVN event

I meant to write about this seminar as soon as I got back from WA, but it seems to take 3 days just to catch up from 5 days away – why does it work like that? 🙂

Tuesday night saw the AVN hosting yet another fantastic seminar at the State Library in Perth. We would like to thank the library staff for their help, support and kindness – especially in the face of continued attacks from the skeptics who oppose parents’ right to hear information from both sides of this issue. 

About 120 people attended – many of them either pregnant or with young bubs (and better-behaved babies I’ve never seen!) and there was great interest in the talks by Judy Wilyman and myself with lots of fantastic questions afterwards and many people requesting the slides from the evening.

I am in the process of putting the audio together but we had some problems with the audio system (feedback was an issue) so I am not sure whether it will be good enough to post to the blog or not. If it is, look to see it by Monday – if not, I will try to put up whatever is salvageable.

Judy’s talk was about the Gardasil vaccine and the supposed connection between the HPV virus and cervical cancer. She drew together a lot of the most recent information on these shots and many of those who attended were astounded at how much referenced information never makes the mainstream media nor do most doctors tell patients these details (chances are most of them don’t even know).

With an emphasis on ensuring that parents are able to make educated vaccine choices instead of using blind faith as so many do – on both sides of this issue – Judy’s talk was a scholarly contribution to this debate.

My talk – Investigate BEFORE You Vaccinate – discussed many but not all of the common childhood vaccines and the diseases they are meant to prevent. With a discussion of why vaccines don’t immunise (antibodies are not a sign of immunity – they simply indicate exposure) and how they can cause such side effects as asthma, eczema, autism, permanent brain damage and death, the parents in attendance were able to see a side of this medical procedure that is not generally available in mainstream literature.

In addition, they were informed that vaccinations are not compulsory for school, preschool or childcare (many of them thought that it was) and that they can still get all of their financial entitlements whether they vaccinate fully, selectively or not at all.

We were sorry that Prof Fiona Stanley was, once again, unable to schedule the time to speak at our seminar as we would have welcomed her input and her alternative point of view. 

I thank those who made the effort to come out at night  - especially since I know how hard it can be to plan to attend these sorts of seminars with children and young babies. 

I also thank Greg, Georgie, Callum, Ken and everyone else who helped out at the door and on the sound system – you were all troopers and worked so hard to ensure that the seminar ran smoothly and well.

 

Vaccination Dangers – No Thought Allowed – What the Immunisation Register Won’t Tell You

Just a bit of history – right on the cusp of the birth of the AVN. This article describes how the Australian Childhood Immuisation Register was created and why the government and the medical community choose to ignore vaccine reactions, attack those who question the safety of shots and downplay any risks which using scare tactics and untruths to make people think that their children are at great risk from these diseases – a risk that can only be alleviated by vaccination.

by Meryl Dorey
(This article was originally published in Living Now magazine)

Like most mothers, Jan Sinclair had hopes and dreams for her son Danny. Those hopes were cruelly shattered however a few hours after Danny received his routine four-month vaccinations.

He immediately fell into a deep sleep from which he didn’t awaken until 7:30 the next morning. When he did wake up, it was to begin a massive grand-mal seizure that lasted for more than 2 hours and that doctors could do nothing to stop. Today, Danny is permanently brain damaged, partially paralysed, has uncontrolled seizures and will need his mother to care for him for the rest of his life. He is a victim of the vaccines that he was given in a vain attempt to keep him safe from disease.
Genene Howell’s son, Benjamin, received a first DPT (diphtheria, pertussis & tetanus) and polio vaccine in the morning. For more than 24 hours, he cried continually and ran a high fever. By midnight the following night, he was dead. Genene’s doctor informed her that the death was caused by the vaccination and they should make sure their other children knew about it for future reference. Despite admitting that the vaccine had killed this child, the doctor did not report this death to the Public Health Unit.
Jan, Genene and the more than 250 families who have reported their child’s death or adverse vaccine reaction to the Australian Vaccination Network (AVN) are angry about the one-sided coverage of this issue. They have learned the hard way that the propaganda being distributed by the government and the medical community is not based on fact. They know that the vast majority of children who are being affected by vaccines are never counted in the official statistics and suspect that the risks/benefits ratio used to coerce reluctant parents into vaccinating their precious children are based more upon increasing profits for the pharmaceutical companies and medical doctors than upon scientific fact.
The Australian government has instituted a series of draconian measures designed to force parents who have made an informed choice not to vaccinate their children into changing their minds by penalising them financially. There is a $4 billion deficit in the Medicare budget and yet this government has managed to find $100 million a year to bribe doctors to push, and push hard, to achieve a 90% vaccination rate among their patients for a bounty of $2,500.
This madness was precipitated by the case of a couple, Greg Beattie and Jacqui Butcher, who had taken their local council (Maroochy) to the Human Rights and Equal Opportunies Commission because their healthy unvaccinated children had been denied a place at a council-run child care centre. The assertion that unvaccinated children could place vaccinated children at risk was the council’s argument. Despite the fact that the expert witnesses hired by the Maroochy Council showed no evidence to prove this claim, whereas Greg Beattie brought reams of medical journal articles to refute it, their case was lost. The Commission did not have jurisdiction to decide a case such as this, but it was still used as a precedent by some schools and childcare centres to discriminate against children who were unvaccinated. A whooping cough epidemic was ‘manufactured’ by the government and the fear campaign began in earnest. One way or another, the Government intended to increase the number of Australian children being vaccinated.
Within days of Greg and Jacqui losing their case, headlines appeared about an whooping cough epidemic in Sydney including the deaths of 3 babies who were supposedly too young to have been vaccinated. This was very convenient timing – especially since the epidemic may never have taken place!
The CDI Bulletin (23/1/97) which tracks infectious disease reports, shows that for the period 8/12/96-7/1/97, when there was supposedly an epidemic ripping through Sydney, the entire state of NSW reported only one case of whooping cough. The three deaths from whooping cough were supposed to have occurred at the New Children’s Hospital but when an AVN member contacted the infectious diseases ward, they were told there had been no deaths from whooping cough. The final nail in the coffin was the information from the Australian Bureau of Statistics which showed that there was only one case of whooping cough from November 1, 1996 to January 1, 1997 and no deaths at all.
With the emotional press reports, people flocked to health centres and doctor’s offices to get their children vaccinated through fear. AVN received many phone calls from parents who had children killed or injured by vaccines. They were angry about the biased reporting and misleading information given to parents by both doctors and journalists.
This campaign was engineered specifically to engender fear and anger in the community at large towards unvaccinated children and it was working We started to hear horror stories of people who were no longer allowed to visit family members because their children were unvaccinated; of people being barred from play-groups and public meetings as a result of their decision not to expose their children to the risks of vaccination.
The newspapers have been filled with angry letters and editorials about this situation. The editor of the Tweed Daily News said that: “For a child to die from a preventable disease in this day and age is not only tragic, it is almost criminal”. The Sydney Morning Herald (21/1/97) quoted Dr. Michael Wooldridge, the Federal Minister for Health as saying: “It’s more likely your child will die because of a meteorite falling from space than die from immunisation”. The 1997 Australian of the year, Peter Doherty (a man who doesn’t even live in Australia) said that allowing the ‘anti-vaccination’ lobby equal time to air its views is akin to giving equal time to murderers.
Assurances by the Government and medical community that: “the benefits of vaccination far outweigh the risks” are of little comfort to parents whose child has been killed or injured after vaccination. Despite this, the Government’s tactics had an effect on vaccinating and non-vaccinating parents.
The latest proposals by the Australian Government are to penalise parents who do not vaccinate their children by witholding a portion of the baby bonus, and by not allowing them to collect the childcare payments. These are both entitlements and should be untouchable.
Parents can register as conscientious objectors by signing a statutory declaration and visiting a doctor to be counselled on the risks of not vaccinating – without any mention of the risks of vaccination at great expense to the taxpayer and a bonus to doctors ($25.00 medicare fee).
Less than a year ago, the Government said that: “information from the Register will not be linked with other databases such as those from the Department of Social Security, nor will there be financial or other penalties for parents who choose not to immunise their children”. (Implementation of the Australian Childhood Immunisation Register). It has taken them less than 12 months to go back on their word.
All of this diatribe does nothing to address the legitimate concerns of parents whose children are being placed at risk every day by vaccines. A quick look at figures from the Australian Bureau of Statistics will show that the questions we are asking about vaccines must be considered seriously. The majority of the decline in mortality from infectious diseases occurred years before the introduction of vaccines — the death rate from measles was down by more than 90% before the measles vaccine was introduced in 1970. Scarlet Fever, which used to kill a great number of children, has disappeared despite the fact that there has never been any vaccine against it.
The vaccines are also extremely ineffective. For instance, the whooping cough vaccine has just undergone clinical trials in Italy and Sweden with alarming results, published in the New England Journal of Medicine (8/2/96). These studies showed the vaccine to be only 36%-48% effective, meaning that more than half of those who get this vaccine will not receive any protection at all. In a recent outbreak of measles in Western Sydney which was reported in the Medical Journal of Australia, it was found that 79% of those who were affected had been fully vaccinated against measles.
Vaccines cannot provide life-long immunity — only natural infection can do that — so even those who get some protection from a vaccine will only be protected for a short time, leaving them susceptible to many of these childhood diseases as adults – when the risks from the diseases can be much greater.
Vaccines contain many toxic substances which can severely affect and even kill vulnerable children and adults. The Queensland Poisons Control Centre has informed us that formaldehyde, which is contained in every vaccine, is extremely toxic and there is no safe level for the human body. Vaccines also contain mercury and aluminium compounds – also known to be toxic and to cause allergic reactions. In fact, vaccines have been linked with all kinds of auto immune disorders, such as asthma, eczema, autism, ADD, ADHD, multiple sclerosis, lupus, Guillain Barre paralysis, cancer and chronic fatigue. Vaccines have also been linked with the development of epilepsy, permanent brain damage and death.
As evidenced by the AVN’s vaccination reaction register, the great majority of doctors never report adverse reactions when they occur so we have not got an accurate idea of how safe vaccines are. On January 20, 1997, we reported more than 200 serious adverse vaccine reactions and vaccine-related deaths to Dr. Wooldridge. To date, there has been no response to our reports as the Government tightens its grip on Australian families, making it even more difficult for us to make informed choices for our children and ourselves.
It must be obvious that while questions exist about the safety and effectiveness of vaccines, parents must be free to choose not to vaccinate. Compulsory medical procedures are unconstitutional according to Section 51 Part 23A of the Australian Constitution.
The decision to vaccinate must be made through conviction and not fear. If we speak out together, we will ensure our freedom to choose and the freedom of others to investigate remains. If we remain silent, our children will be placed at risk.
Meryl Dorey is the President of The Vaccination Awareness Network, NSW.