The obvious response, again making it personal, why should my child be exposed to preventable diseases because some people choose not to vaccinate?

Karen, I have to ask: If your child is vaccinated, then you have chosen to prevent them being infected by someone who hasn't been - why do you doubt the vaccination will protect your child if it is scientifically proven to do so? Or are you concerned about the consequences of the unvaccinated child dealing (or not) with the infection through natural immunity?

Even though my children were exposed to several infections, they seemed to not catch them as easily (or at all) than those immunised. Could there be other factors than just the benefit of vaccination to explain this? (I think, a healthy lifestyle, natural resistance could also play a role). Reading the TC article on the effect of pollution on the increase of several conditions, is it not possible that those already compromised and in higher risk areas benefit more from such treatments? I'm certain other factors play an important role - we just don't understand them yet.

Gillian, re your reference to the Australian Academy of Science’s publication “The Science of Immunisation: Questions and Answers”.
There needs to be more transparency in relation to that publication. For instance, I understand that Professor Ian Frazer, who is co-chair of the Working Group for the publication, receives royalties from the sale of HPV vaccines in the developed world. This fact was acknowledged on his article “Catch cancer? No thanks, I’d rather have a shot!” published on The Conversation, 10 July 2012: https://theconversation.edu.au/catch-cancer-no-thanks-id-rather-have-a-shot-7568
However, there is no mention of this potential conflict of interest in The Science of Immunisation: Questions and Answers, or on the Australian Academy of Science’s website: http://www.science.org.au/policy/immunisation.html
For information, here’s a link to emails I have forwarded to Professor Suzanne Cory, President of the Australian Academy of Science, on this matter: http://users.on.net/~peter.hart/Academy_of_Science_Disclosure_Statements.pdf

Neither measles, mumps or chicken pox are 'mere inconvenience'. There was an extensive discussion about this in the comments on a recent article: 'Parents' decisions about vaccination and the art of gentle persuasion.'

Speaking of shills, Laurie, maybe you should tell people what your potential conflicts are?

I was surprised that a "journalist" would have written this comment, so I decided to do a google search. It wasn't until page three of my search that I came across any reference to Laurie except that wasn't a comment on "the Conversation". It was about winning a local potato bake competition. http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/blogsbitebybite/54899180-60/potatoes-funeral-cheese-salt.html.csp Is this you Laurie?

On search page 7, I finally found reference to a home page for Laurie Willberg - http://www.homeopathyworldcommunity.com/profile/LaurieJWillberg - but it didn't work.

I guess that Laurie isn't a real (or at least not a working) journalist, and that is why there is no reference to the amazing claim that "80% of vaccinated people will contract a disease and only 20% of unvaccinated ones will."

Geoff and Gillain, it is not easy to find anything about Laurie unless you search for Laurie J Willberg. Once you do this you find that she is from Toronto, Ontario, Canada, is training to be a homeopath and "wants homeopathy to become the pre-eminent form of healing in this world."

The only pieces I can see with her name attached are comment posts on various newspapers, blogs, webpages and the like. She seems to like writing letters to the Toronto Sun and the only actual article I can find that she has written appears on a homeopathy site, "THE REBOUND EFFECT OF PHARMACOLOGICAL DRUGS FOLLOWS HOMEOPATHIC PRINCIPLES" Read if you want to see a lack of knowledge about medicine displayed. For someone claiming "journalist" as their profession, there certainly is a lack of digital evidence of her articles, draw what conclusion you will from that. I'm guessing that she is practising homeopathic journalism, where the less articles she writes, the more prominent her journalism.

Elizabeth, you've done some excellent research and your website is exceptionally informative. I can only applaud your determination to demand accountability from public health officials and to expose conflicts of interest with industry.
The recent Purdue study reveals shocking auto-immune damage done by vaccines,
http://www.dogsnaturallymagazine.com/purdue-vaccination-studies/
"The vaccinated, but not the non-vaccinated, dogs in the Purdue studies developed autoantibodies to many of their own biochemicals, including fibronectin, laminin, DNA, albumin, cytochrome C, cardiolipin and collagen.
This means that the vaccinated dogs — ”but not the non-vaccinated dogs”– were attacking their own fibronectin, which is involved in tissue repair, cell multiplication and growth, and differentiation between tissues and organs in a living organism...
Perhaps most worryingly, the Purdue studies found that the vaccinated dogs had developed autoantibodies to their own DNA."
There's no question that vaccines are responsible for the current epidemic of auto-immune diseases in people and their pets.

Actually, if you read the article you will probably agree that it is not about some spurious debate over the efficacy of vaccination.

It merely points out that there is an ethical issue at stake - personal liberty vs. public utility. It is an issue which has been present since the idea of innoculation arose.

Unfortunately, rather than engage in this discussion many people have resorted to impugning the motives of the health fraternity or abusing the word "science."

Proffesor Holden, like all who contribute to the Conversation has noted any relationships that may be considered a conflict of interests.

This is something that commentors do not do.

There seems to be a recurring theme on this blog to pillory alternative medicine and shill for the status quo of the pharma and chemical industries. Balance? Yeah, right.
A better title would be "How to Shill Vaccines (now that people have wised up)". You have to go somewhere else to find out what Doctors Don't Tell You and why 50,000 chemicals in the environment are not a good thing.
Themes include: accuse everyone who is not compliant as being "anti-science", "scientifically illiterate" an "anti-vaxxer", a "tinfoil hat wearing kook", a "conspiracy theorist", or my personal favourite, "promoting quackery".
Different day, same crap.

Prof Holden has stated his previous involvement in vaccine advertising campaigns, and, if you read the article it's essentially about benefits to the community vs risk to the individual. The same article could have been written about bicycle helmets, seatbelts in cars or fluoride in water.

"Different day, same crap"

You know what the say, Laurie.

If the crap fits...

Patrick,

firts thoughts,

Perhaps it points to the fact that many people, while intuiting the moral nature of their objections, do not recognise ethical considerations are something that is up for discussion: i.e., It may be that for many the idea that someone is operating on a different moral pardigm is not something they have considered.

It seems to me that if you engage on the assumption that there is no difference in moral outlook, then the point of argument rests on the facts that inform decision making in that context. Thus you argue the science rather than the true source of your opposition.

Thank you Geoffrey, I too see an underlying belief that because a part of society places science as the ultimate authority of what is right/wrong, un/desirable, etc, other world views are therefore insignificant or irrelevant. In many cases, ethics are a more relevant basis of decision-making for some than science (even if it carries a higher risk) and if there was an acknowledgement of the doubts and recognition of risks and outcomes this may be more acceptable to those who see the world through a different lens.
As a society we do rely on many artificial means to improve health and comfort for the majority, but to base the 'common good' on a loss of autonomy is a way of homogenising society rather than allowing diversity.
Some people aren't averse to higher risks and some also have other benefits to share within society, like a higher level of natural health or immunity which they may not want to compromise and which may even be a positive contribution to the 'common good' and on the similar scale as scientific intervention.

Suzy, Talking about loss of autonomy (from pushes to vaccinate) is not the same as talking about enforced isolation and imprisonment to avoid infection (Typhoid Mary is a well known example).

I argue that parents who insist on sending children to school un-vaccinated are actually imposing positive obligations on others in society - ie they are expecting others to bear the increased risk of potentially fatal illnesses. This imposition of "rights" of a small number of individuals over the majority of the population is an ethical issue worth discussing. But, it can't be done without considering the science except on an abstract level.

If we look at this in the abstract, are you saying that public good never out-weights personal rights?

Hi Gillian, I would say that the public good (which needs defining, I suppose) is a social contract between the individual and society. The terms of this contract depend on both parties understanding, and would differ a great deal. One could also argue the reverse, that those who perceive risks as higher impose their views on others by expecting everyone to conform to their own perception, even if circumstances and other life/genetic factors differ.
We are in/frequently at risk (depending on exposure) of those in society who drink and drive, yet those who do not conform to the expectations of the 'public good' are still at large until they break the social contract and actually hurt someone or are caught out. Should alcohol be banned for all eligible drivers because of these?

Suzy, the drink-drive analogy is simplistic, in that, the cause of strife, when it occurs, is usually readily identified, as the perpetrator is usually found at the scene (or, often, not far from the scene). Whereas with infectious diseases, there may be no smoking gun, because resources are usually tied up with treating the ill, rather than tracking down the sentinel case, besides, in the drink-driving scenario, there are laws and penalties which will be applied. In the case of preventable infectious disease, the only 'punishment' is the shaking of a few heads!

Of course it is simplistic, Mark, it was a metaphor to show the difficulty of establishing terms and outcomes of social contracts and not my personal opinion.

For the record, I find the metaphor of the 'free ride' just as simplistic.

Suzy, the analogy wasn't a criticism. The reality is that during outbreaks of infectious diseases, and bear in mind that many sufferers are infants who have not yet received their first immunization, the sentinel cases usually are the un-immunized, yet they (or their parents) receive no penalty!

Thanks Mark, I wonder if this has been proven (the sentinel influence) because I found it extremely difficult to get my un- and discontinued vaccinated kids to catch anything even in a widespread local outbreak of whooping cough or chickenpox - not even personal contact worked or only mildly, yet many of the vaccinated children were worse-affected. This led me to suppose that lifestyle differences like general exposure to toxins and diet may possibly play a significant role in their protection and are in reach of most parents in this country at least as an alternative (despite other cultural habits). Since they did not get sick, could they still transmit the infection to others and be 'to blame'?
Or is a responsible parent who acts to prevent disease by other means and only draws on medical assistance when necessary to protect their child and their contacts not an equally acceptable way of dealing with the perceived threats?

Suzy,

"ethics are a more relevant basis of decision-making for some than science"

You can take a scientific approach to ethics - it is a commonly used approach by ethics committees. Science is simply a process. In fact, it is the *only* process or "way of knowing" where the primary aim is subjectivity reduction.

Thanks Patrick,

Yes I agree that there probably isn't a scientific way of "doing" ethics. I think you made the point I was trying to make more succinctly in your second paragraph - my interpretation being that many questions in ethics require scientifically-derived quantifications/qualifications of "what is" and "what could be", so that we know the bounds of the is/ought type arguments. It isn't one or the other, and they certainly aren't mutually exclusive.

Isn't it a prejudice of Western science/academia to expect all to conform to its rules, even non-science subjects, for them to be seriously considered or valued?
Ethics are practised in many ways and on many levels - and not always universally applied even by the same person. (ref. Marc Bekoff, 2008, INCREASING OUR COMPASSION FOOTPRINT, Zygon, vol. 43, no. 4)

Patrick, I argued about vaccination from an ethical perspective in my detailed and referenced letter to Federal Health Minister, Tanya Plibersek, titled “Questions re the Ethics of Australian Government Mandated Vaccination”, which queries the arbitrary second dose of the Measles/Mumps/Rubella (MMR) vaccine: http://users.on.net/~peter.hart/Letter_to_Minister_Plibersek_re_MMR_vaccine.pdf
I raised this matter on the discussion thread of your article “No, you’re not entitled to your opinion” https://theconversation.edu.au/no-youre-not-entitled-to-your-opinion-9978 in which you said “You are not entitled to your opinion. You are only entitled to what you can argue for”. Given I had gone to some trouble to make a detailed and referenced argument in my letter to Minister Plibersek (which her department has refused to answer), I was not impressed with your patronising comments on my letter, nor your one-eyed views on vaccination which merely continue to polarise debate, and hinder justifiable questions about vaccines that continue to be added to the schedule. Vaccines of very questionable value (e.g. the second MMR dose, the HPV vaccine, flu vaccines) are being pressed upon the Australian/international population, and few people in the media or academia seem to be up to the job of critically analysing this matter.

Patrick, you admit that “amateurs like myself simply aren’t equipped to argue about purely scientific questions”. Well you certainly aren’t equipped to argue about vaccination, so why have you taken it upon yourself to enter the vaccination debate?
It appears to me the whole point of your article “No, you’re not entitled to your opinion” https://theconversation.edu.au/no-youre-not-entitled-to-your-opinion-9978 was to attack Meryl Dorey and the Australian Vaccination Network, and impress the likes of the sinister Stop the Australian Vaccination Network.
In doing so, you contributed to the ongoing polarisation of the vaccination debate, which stifles the legitimate concerns of people like me who take the time to research the literature, and other sources, and argue a case.
In regards to my letter regarding the arbitrary second dose of the live Measles/Mumps/Rubella (MMR) vaccine http://users.on.net/~peter.hart/Letter_to_Minister_Plibersek_re_MMR_vaccine.pdf it was not addressed to you, but to the Federal Minister for Health, Tanya Plibersek, who is responsible for policy in this area. Her office has refused to respond to my letter.
Do you think it acceptable for a government minister to refuse to respond to a citizen’s carefully prepared argument challenging questionable government-sanctioned medical interventions for healthy people?

Thanks Patric for your recent response to Elizabeth Hart. I will send a link to an article for anyone interested to view the philosophical argument about at what point respect for individual autonomy can be accepted over mass vaccinations. (there are some, but not many).

Basically Elizabeth, there are three main grounds of objection to vaccination:
(1) Religious; (2) Free Riding; Both of which accept scientific facts about vaccination.
(3) the third category are called in this article, people with divergent risk perception. Ie they don't accept the accepted body of knowledge or risks.

Unfortunately for this group, these views can be discounted regardless of what ethical argument or scientific argument you put forward, because they fail the "reality constraint". ie, they are not valid opinions (they don't conform to the "shared sense of reality that exists within society and community") and they fail the test of claims of freedom, as they are incompatible with the features of citizenship in modern western society, which allows for freedom only when it doesn't put others at risk.

the link to the article is http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18447860

Patrick, as a citizen in our supposedly democratic society, I am entitled to demand transparency and accountability on any matter I wish.
I am under no obligation to obey the questionable dictates of often industry-funded ‘experts’, or ill-informed pundits such as yourself.
As you say, “this isn’t a game”. It seems to me there are some very serious abuses of professional authority occurring in our society in regards to over-vaccination of people/children, and I intend to pursue this matter further.

Thanks Reema, I think everyone posting comments here should take a look at this article.

How would you establish the risk of allergy before beginning vaccinations, particularly at the very young age at which vaccination is commonly started? I didn't find out that my son had a significant reaction until after he had his first immunisation at 9 months of age. It wasn't possible to know this beforehand, so how can it be positively proven and used to exclude particular children? I would think this difficult to resolve - particularly if the individual parents are solely responsible for the outcome of his/her decision to vaccinate or not.

Gillian Cohen's point is crucial - the real difference between individuals deciding to medicate themselves, and communities being vaccinated, is the phenomenon of herd immunity. This overall reduction in circulating pathogens protects the unimmunised.

In a civil society, some rights are sacrificed to greater societal benefit. And vaccination is an easy one, since the benefits so far outweigh the risks.

Reply to Suzy Gneist: while it is impossible to be 100% sure in advance of the presence of allergy to a particular vaccine component, the most common reactions are relatively easy to predict - they are egg proteins (only present in a minority of vaccines).

In the same way that egg allergy can;t be predicted until the child is exposed to eating egg, the allergic reaction can be treated, and the allergen can be either avoided or pre-treated in future. It is well-know that egg allergy reduces and generally disappears with age.

In reply to Suzy. It is difficult to work out just who will have an allergic reaction to vaccine components, and the infant who doesn't react to the 2, 4, 6 month vaccines, may react to a vaccine later in life. the good news is that modern vaccines contain much less allergenic substances than earlier versions and most allergic reactions are quite mild.

I work in Neonatal Intensive Care, and our preterm graduates are in the group who will react, not through allergy, but by, possibly experiencing apnoea post-immunization, therefore, these children are admitted to a day-stay ward, and monitored for eight hours post jab.

Thank you Mark, observation is a proactive response to a parent's concern or perceived risk. As a lay-person I found it difficult to establish what a significant negative response of a 9-month old who never had any major issues before actually looked like, but he was in considerable distress after receiving a triple and two single administrations in one day (although probably more than 8 hours later, as the jabs happened in the morning and the response got worse by evening). Could the multiple vac's also be a factor in the level of response and make it difficult to pinpoint the exact cause of the individual's reaction?
@Sue, he has never been allergic to eggs by the way, other factors/substances may play a role too.

"It’s the same as the person who leaves the pub when it’s time for their round ... This “free rider” behavior in non-vaccinators appears to be part of a larger avoidance of personal responsibility and individualized culture we live in today. Everyone wants their rights respected, but there is not much discussion on responsibilities that go with rights"

Gillian, I think that's the wrong way to go ... people I know who didn't vaccinate took exceptional time, trouble and responsibility to see that their children had the healthiest childhood they could provide. They are the ones who will seek out unpasteurised milk, enrol their kids at Steiner schools etc. Totally different to "the person who leaves the pub when it’s time for their round "

I think you are missing my point, Ian. In reply to Gillian, I make the point that I think that most anti-vaccination parents don't do this because they are short on a sense of responsibility, but in fact, take their responsibilities as parents very seriously and go to a lot of trouble to provide the best circumstances for their children as they can manage.

You may think that they have taken a wrong decision about vaccination, but it is also wrong and unhelpful to criticise them for some lack of responsibility. In the case of my nephews, nieces and their children, I've never seen more healthy children/people - lucky, maybe, but they also take a lot of trouble to be healthy.

Russel, I'm not sure how 'sending one's kids to a Steiner school' is doing the best for their kids. I won't comment on unpasteurised milk!

In your opinion it may be, Ian, possibly you base your profession on this worldview also. But I too agree that reducing processed input (additionally shortening food miles) and selecting a clean natural diet (of which raw milk can be a part - we do have the technology and hygiene to make its consumption safe, although this does not increase its shelf-life) to boost natural childhood immunity is a valuable alternative to medicating risks apart from other benefits.

Russell,

"Totally different to "the person who leaves the pub when it’s time for their round "

- You are looking at the analogy in the wrong way. Free Riders are people who benefit from something without any input or responsibility themselves.

It is not a question of wether they are good parents who love their children and take steps to ensure their health, and it is not neccesarily selfish, un-ethical, or anti social behaviour - depending on the context.

A free-rider is simply that, someone who gets a free ride.
In the case of the person who leaves the pub early, they get N drinks for free and incur no personal financial cost.

In the case of vaccination, they gain the benefits of a certain level of herd immunity while not venturing the risk that others have taken to achieve that level.

For example: Let us say 95% of people choose vaccination thereby significantly decreasing the possibility of a given infection. This decreased risk is also enjoyed by the 5% who do not vaccinate, but without having risked in potential adverse affects from the vaccine. The gain a benefit but have not contributed to the means of realising that benefit.

See here for a philosophical treatment:

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/free-rider/

Hmn, some people seem to have trouble following an argument. Mark, I am not saying that Steiner schools or unpasteurised milk is better for children, but that people who seek these things out are doing so because they think that they are doing the best for their children. They are not careless.

Geoffrey, a person who leaves the pub to avoid buying their round is doing so only to escape their reciprocal obligation. I don't think that that is any part of the motivation of parents who don't vaccinate.

I think Ian's statement that "This is the very opposite of providing a healthy childhood" would better phrased "This could be the very opposite of providing a healthy childhood". Whatever, not to be able to see that some non-vaccinators do that because they are trying to be responsible parents seems to betray some inability or unwillingness to understand other people.

I'm sorry Russel, I don't think that I'm having much trouble following the argument, at all. I speak to non-vaccinating parents around once a month. They are all so well informed that they haven't seen, or bothered to look at, any of the information that's freely available from NSW and Commonwealth Health Department websites.

Mark, you are having trouble following my argument, because I haven't mentioned anything about being well-informed, another issue altogether.

Hi Ian, I'm interested, can you point me to a study of these facts?
I grew up in Europe and it is still common that those living near a dairy farm come to pick up their milk in the morning for personal consumption. It is quite legal I believe, the rest of the milk is collected, treated and consumed further away. I am not aware of an increased risk connected to this at all, and apart from the taste, I would think unadulterated milk has other advantages. Of course risk of disease is much lower in today's practice as it was in the past when pasteurisation was introduced to deal with bad or unhygienic practices and to make the milk safe to drink as it often wasn't prior to treatment.
Your view of what is responsible parenting and what is acceptable risk or unacceptable for society as a whole is firmly based in your worldview - and this seems to be closed to any other ideas that do not correlate with your established one.
I believe the arrogance of Western Science in discarding other implications, views or developments is part of the reason why its relevance is questioned more and more (and disregarded by some). This attitude of 'here's the solution' doesn't make scientists popular with those who do not agree on whatever level.
I am not against science, although I believe that by Western Science basing itself in duality we create oppositionalism on every issue anyone differs on (health, climate change, politics, etc, etc). All issues are complex and all solutions are also complex as a result and to value one over another does not help. Solutions are on a continuum and can come from anywhere and be individual. There is no one 'answer' to anything. We live in a rich country, we have choice (too much at times and not always beneficial) and we have access to information. Really listening to where other people come from would help in accessing areas hitherto disregarded in the pursuit to find 'the' scientific solution.

Russell,

"Geoffrey, a person who leaves the pub to avoid buying their round is doing so only to escape their reciprocal obligation. I don't think that that is any part of the motivation of parents who don't vaccinate."

- You are again focussing on the particular aspects of the examples rather than the essential feature that makes both an example of the "free-rider" problem.

Obviously, the motivations of someone leaving the Pub to avoid paying for his drinks are completely are different to that of Parents who choose not to vaccinate.

But what motivates people in these cases is beside the point.

The point is that in both cases, someone gains a benefit without bearing the related costs of achieving that.

No one is arguing that your friends are morally equivalent to a cheapskate who drinks and make merry before skipping out with their wallet intact.

We are arguing that despite their decision not to vaccinate, they still reap the advantage of the fact that the majority of people do choose to do so.

The analagous point is the benefit gained, not the motivation.

Russel, one would think that being well informed is part of doing what's best for one's children.
If not, I'll desist!

Mark, maybe one issue is that people do not trust the information they receive on government websites or from scientific discourse. This could be based on perception (like conflicting interests) or real issues (like corruption). If so, the lack of trust needs to be addressed by all parties - and this requires acknowledging other than one's own persuasions.

Good grief!

Geoffrey, Gillian wrote: "The people who choose not to vaccinate are “Free Riders”. They are taking the benefits of vaccination, but not taking any risk. It’s the same as the person who leaves the pub when it’s time for their round".

I object to that, and you say "No one is arguing that your friends are morally equivalent to a cheapskate who drinks and make merry before skipping out with their wallet intact."

Russel,

I also wrote: "The analagous point is the benefit gained, not the motivation."

If you still don't get it, then so be it.

Mark, I'm sure we can all agree that "being well informed is part of doing what's best for one's children." But do you know of anyone who wants to be mis-informed? People want to be informed, but very few are educated about how to research and deal with information.

Geoffrey, before I start banging my head on the desk .... I'm not disputing the concept of 'free-riders' and that non-vaccinators benefit as free-riders. My whole point is objecting to Gillian's "It's the same as .." - it's not the same as the person who skips their round, because the motivations are different.

Russell,

"...it's not the same as the person who skips their round, because the motivations are different."

Fact: their motivations are different

Fact: they are both examples of "free riders."

One fact does not cancel the other.

Only one fact is important in the context.

Guess which one.

Hmmm.... what's that noise?

'People want to be informed, but very few are educated about how to research and deal with information.'

Given that most households are bristling with PCs. laptops, iPads and smartphones, I would think that most folk would be able to access some info on vaccination. Perhaps Suzy hit the nail on the head when she spoke of mistrust of government websites.

"Only one fact is important in the context"

Geoffrey - I think we have a "two cultures" situation.

Patrick,

My next step was to suggest that the difference may be whether you consider that intention or consequence are the morally relevant factor or, like many people, make the judgement based on a little bit of both.

Too my mind from strict utilitarian calculation they are obviously both free riders and "the same." But I also noted further up that I don't consider them "morally" equivalent.

I think that many of us who are not ethicists use elements from both.

Two people are convicted of stealing: One stole to feed their family. The other to cause he wanted the cash to buy new shoes.

In both cases the crime is the same, but our the sum of our moral judgement will often be different. Both guilty of the same crime but intuitively we do not deem them to be morally equivalent.

Unless you're total...

"Getting high quality information from the internet is not as easy as you would think"

Lord, Ian and I agree on something.

Patrick Stokes, who brought the word 'alone' into this? On the basis that when confronted with a choice it's usually best to try to have both, I'll agree that consequences of an action matter, and the motivation of the agent also matters.

thanks Ian, interesting material. personally I've only had such bad experiences from dodgy restaurant food, never from raw milk, but since we drink it rarely, and certainly not as under 3 year olds, that may have been a mitigating factor.

"...you will have to agree Moskowitz is not."

No, not "wild eyed." But simply delivering your ideas in a calm manner does not make them any more reasonable.

Sadly, he makes the initial appeal to moral considerations before immediately proceeding to argue that the science is inconclusive.

He describes his own sense of unease and links this to a few acontextual data points to construct his particular narrative

I don't think he adds to the debate in a meaningful sense.

Hi John, my first thought on skimming this article was, which journal was this published in? (ie. How credible is it?) And I started looking for the Journal of the AIH, March 1983 – I couldn’t find it. I found the American Industrial Hygiene Association Journal –I thought this was a stretch, but I checked out their March 1983 edition – no paper by By Richard Moskowitz, M. D.

I did a google scholar search, again, only references to the article you have provided but no reference to the AIH article.

So, I searched for abbreviations of journals AIH…. No luck. Next step, a google search, where I found three additional associations that may have published this journal. These are: American Institute of Hydrology – probably not relevant; American Institute of Homeopathy – getting more likely; Australian Institute of Health – unlikely given this is an American GP.

I next did an Author search in Web of Science, where I couldn’t locate the article in question, but did find a paper by Richard Moskowitz that shows that he is a GP in favour of homeopathy.

So, the first point to make is that although he is a GP, he’s not a believer in evidenced based medicine, and he has only used very old observations (1943), as examples of a natural decline in particular illnesses. I’m sure there is someone more qualified than me on this site to explain the prevalence of particular diseases; the incidence of diseases outbreaks over time, and how the trajectories have changed dependent on vaccination and why this paper is not very credible.

John Newton - your link is to an opinion piece by a 73 yr old ex-GP whose website says "Since 1974, I have practiced homeopathy more or less exclusively."

The opinion piece opens with a puzzling statement: "I have always felt that the attempt to eradicate entire microbial species from the biosphere must inevitably upset the balance of Nature in fundamental ways that we can barely imagine."

But vaccines do not eradicate microbes - they induce the recipient to mount an immune response to fight off future infection.

He uses the old anti-vaccine fallacy "introduction of foreign proteins or even live viruses into the bloodstream..." (vaccines are not injected into the bloodstream).

His dissertation includes references that go back to the 1950's. It is too long for a detailed rebuttal, but here are some key concepts that he has wrong:
- He proposes that vaccination "only drives the infection deeper into the interior and causes us to harbor it chronically, with the result that our responses to it become weaker and weaker, and show less and less tendency to heal or resolve themselves spontaneously." There is no evidence for this, and there are very few live organism vaccines.

- His comment that bypassing the mucosal defenses somehow leads to less immunity make no sense because the infection (and subsequent immunity) occur when the infection has become systemic - having entered through the mucosa.

- He asserts "Artificial immunization isolates antibody production, a single aspect of the immune process, and allows it to stand for the whole, in somewhat the same way that chemical suppression of an elevated blood pressure is taken as a valid substitute for healing the patient whose blood pressure happens to be elevated." But this is plainly wrong. Vaccines do not stop the full immune system from reacting to all the other allergens that are still all around us. The number of vaccinations we have, even if they increased ten-fold, would be only an infinitessimal percentage of the existing micro-organisms.

There are many, many other fallacies in that long dissertation which I don't have the time to address.

I still don't understand why people use sources such as this to inform themselves, rather than reading the actual science and research. There are many accessible sources that explain, in plain language, how immunity operates and how vaccines work.

"the medical industry has been called into question by the profit motive that now seems to be a primary driver."

As opposed to companies and practitioners involved in "alternative medicine" approaches? The *only* thing these entities do is profit, as there is almost no evidence that any of their approaches work.

Trent, re your comment "Vaccination is *not* mandatory, and guardians are free to chose if they feel the risk of side-effects are too great not to proceed. Informed consent is part of all medical care - public health or clinical and to suggest otherwise is misleading."
I wonder what public hospital clinician Sue Ieraci has to say to that...?

Trent, revisiting your comment: “Vaccination is *not* mandatory, and guardians are free to choose if they feel the risk of side-effects are too great not to proceed. Informed consent is part of all medical care - public health or clinical and to suggest otherwise is misleading.”
I’ve been trying to find out how ‘informed consent’ is obtained from parents of babies/children before vaccination. I think this is very much a grey area, particularly as immunisation is generally required to qualify for Family Tax Benefits: http://immunise.health.gov.au/internet/immunise/publishing.nsf/Content/faq-related-payments#immunised It seems that vaccination is, in effect, mandatory for the general population of children.
In this regard, I recently forwarded an email to Professor Terry Nolan, Chair of the Australian Technical Advisory Group on Immunisation (ATAGI). Professor Nolan is also a member of the Australian Academy of Science’s Working Group for the publication “The Science of Immunisation: Questions and Answers”: http://www.science.org.au/policy/documents/AAS_Immunisation_FINAL_LR_v3.pdf
In my email to Professor Nolan I raise the issue of consent in relation to the second dose of the live Measles/Mumps/Rubella (MMR) vaccine, questioning the ethics of this arbitrary second dose, as it’s likely most children will be immune after the first dose, which can be verified by serological testing for those cautious parents who might prefer this option.
For information, my email to Professor Nolan can be accessed via this link: http://users.on.net/~peter.hart/Email_to_Prof_Terry_Nolan_ATAGI_MMR_11_March_2013.pdf
I have previously forwarded correspondence on this matter to the Federal Health Minister, Tanya Plibersek, in June 2012, but, as mentioned previously on this thread, her office refused to respond to my letter: http://users.on.net/~peter.hart/Letter_to_Minister_Plibersek_re_MMR_vaccine.pdf

Thanks Peter, I'm only 52, but my dad remembers his eldest brother dying a bloody painful death of tetanus in 1942, the same year that penicillin (clostridium tetani is still usually sensitive to penicillin) was made available, but prior to immunizations.

I do remember an old aunt, who had a promising career as a golfer cut short by polio. She only ever walked in a frame, or forearm crutches many months after the acute illness.

T Packer - there is lots known about the rare adverse reactions. They are most commonly Type I hypersensitivity ("allergy"), with some other reactions relating to inflammatory or autoimmune reactions. This is easy to find - there are no secrets or conspiracies to hide them.

Autism and MMR have been looked at extensively since the scandal of Wakefield (who only looked at twelve children any, who were referred by lawyers who wanted to sue). Due to this attention, there has been plethora of investigation here - which does NOT show a relationship between vaccination and autism.

Who is treating you as stupid? Who have you asked about the rate adverse reactions? Has any informed person claimed that there aren't any? Why would you think that paediatricians and early childhood nurses would have an interest in harming children and keeping it secret? Don't treat them as stupid and they might not ignore you.

No fuel in that, Peter Hindrup.

Here's why:
1. Tamiflu is an anti-viral, not a vaccine
2. Your link is to a news story, not a research paper
3. The story says that the Cochrane review found that Tamiflu reduced flu symptom duration by just under a day, but they weren't able to make other findings because the full results were not released.

There are lots of papers assessing the effectivess of oseltamivir ("Tamiflu"). But this thread is about vaccination.

Thank you, Reema and Sue both. I have learned a little, and anyway knew I ought keep out of this discussion!

What if, by vaccinating our children, we are undermining immunity and weakening the human gene pool? Would this be for the greater social good? http://childhealthsafety.wordpress.com/2011/08/26/new-survey-shows-unvaccinated-children-vastly-healthier-far-lower-rates-of-chronic-conditions-and-autism/

Lisa, thanks for muddying the waters with a whole lot of unsubstantiated BS!

Lisa Hodgson reports the results of a push-poll conducted by an anti-vax organisation - hardly scientific - nor credible, Ms Hodgson.

In the past, the only way children could become immune to the range of infectious diseases was to survive the infection intact - and many didn't. Now, they can be exposed to the same antigens without having to suffer the infection (through vaccines) and get their immunity primed anyway. How could this possibly be construed as "undermining immunity"?

Peter, on Tamiflu, see more re the BMJ's open data campaign via this link: http://www.bmj.com/tamiflu .

The Tamiflu story is the BMJ's "first open data campaign initiative"... It's about time the (often industry-funded) journals started getting proactive in this area...

The BMJ's Tamiflu site links to correspondence with the World Health Organisation and the Centers for Disease Control, organisations which are major players in the vaccine industry.

The BMJ says: "This open correspondence of letters offers readers the chance to witness attempts to compel greater accountability and responsibility in public health decision making and policy."

"...greater accountability and responsibility in public health decision making and policy..." That's a novel idea, eh?! When are we going to see 'greater accountability' to the community about the ever-growing list of questionable vaccines being added to the vaccination schedule, e.g. the very questionable HPV vaccine which has been promoted on The Conversation, i.e. "Catch cancer? No thanks, I'd rather have a shot!" https://theconversation.edu.au/catch-cancer-no-thanks-id-rather-have-a-shot-7568 and "Study should dispel HPV vaccine myths" https://theconversation.edu.au/study-should-dispel-hpv-vaccine-myths-9914 and which I discuss in my letter "Is universal HPV vaccination necessary?" http://users.on.net/~peter.hart/Is_universal_HPV_vaccination_necessary.pdf ?

You conveniently omitted this statement in the conclusion of the article:

'The effect of pathogen adaptation on disease impact may depend on factors such as vaccine coverage and the quality of the vaccine used, which may differ between countries. A relatively weak vaccine used in the Netherlands may have exacerbated the effect of the emergence of ptxP3 strains on disease impact (3). Our results underline the important role of Ptx in the transmission of B. pertussis and suggest that an effective way to control pertussis is the improvement of current vaccines to induce Ptx-neutralizing antibodies which persist longer.'

'Perhaps vaccines undermine immunity by creating new and unusual virus strains?' No 'new and unusual virus strains' were created in the Netherlands. This statement deliberately misconstrues the conclusion of the article.

Ms Hodgson - how can a vaccine possibly create a new virus strain?

Vaccines consist of bacterial or viral particles, antigens or inactivated toxins. They don't do anything to microorganisms - they induce the body to make an immune response.

You appear to be confusing vaccines with antibiotic resistance. Again, the antibiotic doesn't cause the organism to mutate, but selection of resistant organisms can occur. The actual mutations occur spontaneously.

It's advisable to read up on the physiology of immunity before making these sorts of assertions.

Ms Ieraci, Mr Amey,

you two need to get over yourselves. I did not assert, nor conveniently omit anything, nor deliberately misconstrue. Did you both not see the question mark?

Ms Ieraci,

can selection of a virus strain occur? Can mutation of a virus occur?

Mr. Amey,

I love that you quote about differing vaccine qualities between countries. An that you quote about a relatively weak vaccine in the Netherlands. Many so-called "anti-vaxers' might just rest their case there.

Oh, so a question mark excuses your deliberate attempt to misrepresent the article cited.

Ms Ieraci, and myself, will have to get 'over ourselves' then.

Ms Hodgson:

I will assume that your question marks mean that you are asking me questions, so I will answer them for you:

"Can selection of a virus strain occur?"
The term selection generally refers to the case of antibiotic resistance, where a spontaneous mutation that is resistant is selectively favoured. The antibiotic doesn't cause the mutation - it just kills the strains of the organism that are sensitive to it.

"Can mutation of a virus occur?"
All living cells can - and do - spontaneously mutate. Antibiotics don't cause the mutations, and vaccines don't do anything to micro-organisms - they simply prime the innate immune system.

Ms Hodgson, if your knowledge of this area is so limited, why not do a bit more reading and a bit less commenting?

Ms Ieraci,

I used the word *selection in a much broader sense, Darwinian if you like. From what I have already read the answer to this question is yes of course viruses go through the natural selection process. Mr Amey agrees that it did in fact happen in the pertussis virus as referenced above. Hence my suggestion that vaccines could conceivably compromise human immunity by creating new and unusual viruses and bacteria.

Are you saying this is not possible?

BTW your passive aggressive backhanders are becoming quite ugly. I have as much right to comment here as you do.

'Perhaps vaccines undermine immunity by creating new and unusual virus strains? '

I believe that Dr Ieraci, and my, issue with this statement is that it is clearly wrong.

'BTW your passive aggressive backhanders are becoming quite ugly. I have as much right to comment here as you do.' The way I read Dr Ieraci's comments about your posts is simply as one of disagreement. I think it's odd that you view this as 'passive aggressive'.

Lisa, I'm confused about pertussis vaccination too. In this regard I recently forwarded the following enquiry to Associate Professor Ruiting Lan, University of New South Wales:
Professor Lan
I have recently read your JID Brief Report regarding the Australian pertussis epidemic in 2008-2010 (1) which states
"B. pertussis isolates collected from 4 Australian states during an ongoing pertussis epidemic that began in 2008 were classified using SNPs, MLVA, fim3, prn, and ptxP typing. SNP cluster 1 strains, primarily SP13 and SP14, accounted for 86% of isolates...This is a significant increase from our previous study of isolates collected between 2000 and 2007, in which SNP cluster 1 represented only 31% of isolates. This suggests increasing selection among the B. pertussis population in Australia in favor of strains carrying antigens that differ from those represented in ACVs."
and
"The prn2-ptxP3 isolates have the potential not only to evade the protective effects of ACV but also to increase disease severity as a double act of B. pertussis adaptation. Therefore, vaccine-induced selection could contribute to the expansion of cluster I, specifically SP13 and SP14, because of the presence of both prn2 and ptxP3. These 2 SPs have swept across Australia during the epidemic period.
Given these statements, I was confused by your comments in the UNSW website article (2) on this subject, i.e. "The prolonged whooping cough epidemic in Australia that began during 2008 has been predominantly caused by the new genotype of B. pertussis...The genotype was responsible for 31 percent of cases in the 10 years before the epidemic, and that's now jumped to 84 per cent - a nearly three-fold increase, indicating it has gained a selective advantage under the current vaccination regime...The vaccine is still the best way to reduce transmission of the disease and reduce cases, but it appears to be less effective against the new strain and immunity wanes more rapidly. We need to look at changes to the vaccine itself or increase the number of boosters."
Professor Lan can you please clarify for me how increasing the number of 'boosters' of the existing vaccine protects against the new strain?
Also, how is vaccination "still the best way to reduce transmission of the disease and reduce cases" particularly if "vaccine-induced selection could contribute to the expansion of cluster I"?
I would appreciate your response on this matter.
Yours sincerely
Elizabeth Hart
References:
1. Octavia, S. et al. Newly Emerging Clones of Bordetella pertussis Carrying prn2 and ptxP3 Alleles Implicated in Australian Pertussis Epidemic in 2008-2010. JID 2012:205 (15 April). Brief Report.
2. Sharp rise in cases of new strain of whooping cough. UNSW Australia Newsroom, 21 March 2012: https://newsroom.unsw.edu.au/news/health/sharp-rise-cases-new-strain-whooping-cough