While the NSW parliament is fast running out of pejoratives to use in its descriptions of the Australian Vaccination Network (AVN), a new documentary about the so-called "vaccination debate" is set to air on Australian television.
JABBED will feature on SBS One on Sunday, May 26 at 8:30pm.
JABBED reveals how vaccination is a key
part of public health, yet also acknowledges that there are real and
rare risks. Many people, understandably, have questions and concerns. In
a world of information overload and conflicting stories, JABBED asks
how do you reach a thoughtful, informed decision?
The documentary is enjoying cautious support on the StopAVN Facebook page. If members of that forum remain supportive after the documentary goes to air, then we can safely assume the AVN's Facebook site will be alight with rage, persecution complex, conspiracy theory and martyrdom. This of course, will not be news to anyone who's visited that site once or twice. Rage, persecution complex, conspiracy theory and martyrdom are all they have. Oh, and requests for donations that should, apparently, put an end to the need for rage, persecution complex, conspiracy theory and martyrdom.
If the documentary dismisses links between vaccines and autism, or if it casts doubt on the "evidence" pushed by the anti-vax lobby, or if it merely suggests, in conclusion, that vaccination makes sense, the producers of the documentary best prepare themselves for a nasty-gram or three - and maybe some graphs that show THE TRUTH!
For what it's worth, you can discuss the issue on the SBS Conversation page where some concerned citizens are already complaining that the documentary won't be "balanced". By "balanced" they of course mean giving equal weight to both sides even if the facts of the matter show one side to has little, if any, weight to it. By this definition, I hope the documentary is not "balanced" as I prefer documentaries that deal in reality.
Friday, May 10, 2013
Thursday, May 9, 2013
Another nail in Anti-Vax group's coffin?
In a recent reading of a bill to amend NSW Health legislation, the misleadingly-named, anti-vaccination lobby group Australian Vaccination Network (AVN) was reportedly described as "Wing-nuts, flat-earthers, weird, wacky and wrong."
The terms "willful manslaughter" and "potentially murderous" were also used in reference to the group.
The cross-party parliamentary attack on the group continued as the bill passed through the NSW Legislative Council yesterday.
Here's a few excepts from the Hansard transcript [highlighted by me for your entertainment]...
The Hon. Dr Peter Phelps: [in reference to the AVN's website] I think "insane" is the word you are looking for.
The Hon. TREVOR KHAN: Let us be plain about this: we know that they disseminated material into the community that discourages parents from vaccinating their children. Indeed, we know from what has occurred with the drop in levels of immunisation amongst children, particularly in areas such as the North Coast, that they were in a sense so profoundly disreputable that they were prepared to say that they did not affect an individual client.
Dr JOHN KAYE: Yes. I urge people like Meryl Dorey to stop this campaign that is leading to the death of or permanent impairment of children. Meryl Dorey's campaign is immoral and she ought to stop that happening. She should drop this campaign and understand the damage that she is inflicting on other children.
The Hon. HELEN WESTWOOD: They are the anti-vaccination network. They are anti-vaccination and that has serious public health consequences. In addition, it actually risks the lives of children—infants—and we must all do everything we can to prevent that from happening.
So, the NSW parliament believes the AVN to be not merely opposed to vaccination and not just disreputable but to be wing nuts, wacky, weird, insane and immoral. The parliament further believes that the group puts the lives of children, and others, at risk or death or permanent impairment – indeed to be potentially murderous.
While the parliament enjoys my wholehearted congratulations, all the way from Western Australia, for this change in legislation, I have to ask...
how the hell did this group get - and then "re-get" - a charitable fundraising licence?
If you would like to add your voice to those who stand opposed to the dangerous misinformation spread by the Australian anti-vaccination lobby, and if you're into Facebook, then you might like to join the rational people who post at StopAVN.
The terms "willful manslaughter" and "potentially murderous" were also used in reference to the group.
The cross-party parliamentary attack on the group continued as the bill passed through the NSW Legislative Council yesterday.
Here's a few excepts from the Hansard transcript [highlighted by me for your entertainment]...
The Hon. Dr Peter Phelps: [in reference to the AVN's website] I think "insane" is the word you are looking for.
The Hon. TREVOR KHAN: Let us be plain about this: we know that they disseminated material into the community that discourages parents from vaccinating their children. Indeed, we know from what has occurred with the drop in levels of immunisation amongst children, particularly in areas such as the North Coast, that they were in a sense so profoundly disreputable that they were prepared to say that they did not affect an individual client.
Dr JOHN KAYE: Yes. I urge people like Meryl Dorey to stop this campaign that is leading to the death of or permanent impairment of children. Meryl Dorey's campaign is immoral and she ought to stop that happening. She should drop this campaign and understand the damage that she is inflicting on other children.
The Hon. HELEN WESTWOOD: They are the anti-vaccination network. They are anti-vaccination and that has serious public health consequences. In addition, it actually risks the lives of children—infants—and we must all do everything we can to prevent that from happening.
So, the NSW parliament believes the AVN to be not merely opposed to vaccination and not just disreputable but to be wing nuts, wacky, weird, insane and immoral. The parliament further believes that the group puts the lives of children, and others, at risk or death or permanent impairment – indeed to be potentially murderous.
While the parliament enjoys my wholehearted congratulations, all the way from Western Australia, for this change in legislation, I have to ask...
how the hell did this group get - and then "re-get" - a charitable fundraising licence?
If you would like to add your voice to those who stand opposed to the dangerous misinformation spread by the Australian anti-vaccination lobby, and if you're into Facebook, then you might like to join the rational people who post at StopAVN.
Saturday, April 27, 2013
Christian Lobby opposed to chaplaincy subsidies?
I caught a tiny bit of the TV news this morning and saw a representative of the Australian Christian Lobby (ACL) say something like...
“Taxpayer funding of this means everyone who does not support it has their freedom of conscience trampled upon by making them complicit in it.
“The government should not force those who do not agree with such things to help pay for them"
I was certain he must have been referring to chaplains in public schools, or to the multi-million-dollar subsidies handed out to church-run private schools, or to the billions of dollars in taxes that church-based enterprises don't have to pay.
But no. Apparently he only meant people shouldn't have to fund things Christian fundamentalists are opposed to, not things that the churches benefit from.
I was shocked, shocked I tell you, at the hypocrisy!
I was going to comment on the ACL page but I got an unencrypted link warning:
Although this page is encrypted, the information you have entered is to be sent over an unencrypted connection and could easily be read by a third party.
One would have thought people with a direct line to God could at least put a secure comment form together.
“Taxpayer funding of this means everyone who does not support it has their freedom of conscience trampled upon by making them complicit in it.
“The government should not force those who do not agree with such things to help pay for them"
I was certain he must have been referring to chaplains in public schools, or to the multi-million-dollar subsidies handed out to church-run private schools, or to the billions of dollars in taxes that church-based enterprises don't have to pay.
But no. Apparently he only meant people shouldn't have to fund things Christian fundamentalists are opposed to, not things that the churches benefit from.
I was shocked, shocked I tell you, at the hypocrisy!
I was going to comment on the ACL page but I got an unencrypted link warning:
Although this page is encrypted, the information you have entered is to be sent over an unencrypted connection and could easily be read by a third party.
One would have thought people with a direct line to God could at least put a secure comment form together.
Friday, April 12, 2013
Dumb anti-vax quote of the day
Yes, I realise "dumb anti-vax quote" is redundant but you'll manage.
Quote of the day goes to Meryl Dorey, of the Anti-Vaccination Network, who commented on an article about chicken pox death and vaccination here:
Meryl opens with a cracker:
"Nowhere in this article does it say what the vaccination status of this girl was."
In fact, the fourth paragraph of that article is a quote from a doctor:
"It is likely that death would have been prevented with prior vaccination"
That seems pretty clear to me - but it was apparently invisible to someone who claims to be better at reading scientific research than the scientists who carry out that research.
Meryl then launches into a bit of conspiracy theory before delivering today's dumb quote about the vaccine:
"The rationale for its introduction was to keep women in the workforce rather than home taking care of sick children."
As usual, Meryl provides no reference for this claim but that's not why it's dumb. It seems to me that in order for the vaccine to deliver on that "rationale", it would have to prevent the kids from getting sick.
And Meryl thinks that's a bad thing?
Quote of the day goes to Meryl Dorey, of the Anti-Vaccination Network, who commented on an article about chicken pox death and vaccination here:
Meryl opens with a cracker:
"Nowhere in this article does it say what the vaccination status of this girl was."
In fact, the fourth paragraph of that article is a quote from a doctor:
"It is likely that death would have been prevented with prior vaccination"
That seems pretty clear to me - but it was apparently invisible to someone who claims to be better at reading scientific research than the scientists who carry out that research.
Meryl then launches into a bit of conspiracy theory before delivering today's dumb quote about the vaccine:
"The rationale for its introduction was to keep women in the workforce rather than home taking care of sick children."
As usual, Meryl provides no reference for this claim but that's not why it's dumb. It seems to me that in order for the vaccine to deliver on that "rationale", it would have to prevent the kids from getting sick.
And Meryl thinks that's a bad thing?
Thursday, April 11, 2013
Sarah Wilson rides anti-vax tsunami
Discussion on Channel Seven's Sunrise program turned to the increasing rate of anti-vaccination in Australia. Commentator Sarah Wilson claims she was told to look at the anti-vax side of the discussion and then, after doing exactly the same sort of research that anti-vaxxers do (Googling anti-vax info), she apparently came to the same conclusions that anti-vaxxers do.
Wilson said:
"I'm not going to take a stance on this myself because I don't know fully but the research is not conclusive,"
Err, that is taking a stance. Wilson made a contrary statement about the science of vaccines, science that is widely supported - by scientists. She made a blanket statement on a subject about which she admits she knows nothing. Why does she think she is qualified to make that statement when the medical profession, and health authorities the world over, clearly disagree with her? Only Wilson can answer that.
On her blog, in response to the storm of protest that followed her nonsensical diatribe, Wilson repeated her on air claim about vaccine trials:
"Without a doubt, 100 per cent conclusive (double blind, crossover, placebo etc) evidence that vaxing is completely safe doesn’t exist. It can’t. I made this point on air. It would be unethical to conduct such a trial."
Wilson apparently thinks it's notable that crossover trials aren't carried out for vaccines. She says this is because it would be unethical (though she doesn't say why she thinks that). But what she doesn't get, just like the anti-vax authors who wrote the nonsense she was repeating, is that crossover trials would seem impossible on vaccines for childhood diseases.
A crossover trial requires subjects to be switched to different treatment groups throughout the trial. For something like pain medication, this would make sense since effects wear off quickly so different treatments are effectively exclusive and the data collected from using different treatments makes for more-reliable findings. But how do you un-vaccinate someone so you can cross them over into the un-vaccinated arm of the trial?
And while we're at it, 100% conclusive proof that something is "completely" safe is a ridiculous expectation in the real world. Nothing is 100% safe. Water, sandwiches, woollen jumpers, organic almonds, lentil soup... they all carry risk. Seat belts are risky. Breast feeding is risky. Bridges are risky. Staying at home is risky. Going out is risky. But reality isn't about risk, it's about relative risk and that's the bit anti-vax nutters don't get because they show a distinct lack of understanding of basic statistics.
The long and short of it is that if you don't know what you're talking about, especially if the issue is one of life and death, then you should probably decline the invitation to express a public view on the matter or at least have the good grace to support the expert consensus.
For me, though, this does not raise a question so much about Wilson's apparent anti-vax sympathies (and her defence of her comments lacks sincerity given her repetition of nonsensical anti-vax concerns). For me, the question is why Channel Seven would tell someone they have to publicly support a position against vaccination?
Is this just a case of "false balance for ratings"?
MORE:
Anti-vax position is thick
Wilson controversy
Wilson said:
"I'm not going to take a stance on this myself because I don't know fully but the research is not conclusive,"
Err, that is taking a stance. Wilson made a contrary statement about the science of vaccines, science that is widely supported - by scientists. She made a blanket statement on a subject about which she admits she knows nothing. Why does she think she is qualified to make that statement when the medical profession, and health authorities the world over, clearly disagree with her? Only Wilson can answer that.
On her blog, in response to the storm of protest that followed her nonsensical diatribe, Wilson repeated her on air claim about vaccine trials:
"Without a doubt, 100 per cent conclusive (double blind, crossover, placebo etc) evidence that vaxing is completely safe doesn’t exist. It can’t. I made this point on air. It would be unethical to conduct such a trial."
Wilson apparently thinks it's notable that crossover trials aren't carried out for vaccines. She says this is because it would be unethical (though she doesn't say why she thinks that). But what she doesn't get, just like the anti-vax authors who wrote the nonsense she was repeating, is that crossover trials would seem impossible on vaccines for childhood diseases.
A crossover trial requires subjects to be switched to different treatment groups throughout the trial. For something like pain medication, this would make sense since effects wear off quickly so different treatments are effectively exclusive and the data collected from using different treatments makes for more-reliable findings. But how do you un-vaccinate someone so you can cross them over into the un-vaccinated arm of the trial?
And while we're at it, 100% conclusive proof that something is "completely" safe is a ridiculous expectation in the real world. Nothing is 100% safe. Water, sandwiches, woollen jumpers, organic almonds, lentil soup... they all carry risk. Seat belts are risky. Breast feeding is risky. Bridges are risky. Staying at home is risky. Going out is risky. But reality isn't about risk, it's about relative risk and that's the bit anti-vax nutters don't get because they show a distinct lack of understanding of basic statistics.
The long and short of it is that if you don't know what you're talking about, especially if the issue is one of life and death, then you should probably decline the invitation to express a public view on the matter or at least have the good grace to support the expert consensus.
For me, though, this does not raise a question so much about Wilson's apparent anti-vax sympathies (and her defence of her comments lacks sincerity given her repetition of nonsensical anti-vax concerns). For me, the question is why Channel Seven would tell someone they have to publicly support a position against vaccination?
Is this just a case of "false balance for ratings"?
MORE:
Anti-vax position is thick
Wilson controversy
Sunday, April 7, 2013
Woo laws long overdue
The Federal Government has proposed changes to legislation that could see sellers of nonsense medicines like homeopathy in trouble.
Cynic that I am, I doubt it will happen because it's a massive market, but the proposal is there.
Such laws are long overdue. When someone can run a TV advertising campaign claiming that a rubber band with a magnet in it can help you beat arthritis, or anything else really, there's something wrong with our consumer laws.
Such products appear on the market frequently. The theory is that the magnets can affect blood flow - because there's "iron" in blood – and everyone knows iron is magnetic and therefore – magic happens!
But is blood magnetic?
Look what an MRI (MAGNETIC Resonance Imaging) machine can do to a heavy hospital gurney...
So it seems to me that if blood could be usefully affected by one tiny, tiny
magnet (or a tiny, tiny array of them) worn on just one wrist – ie, if blood was remotely magnetic – we would
surely explode in an MRI machine!
Consumer laws should protect people from miracle-medicine nonsense but instead, the federal regulator lists them on the register and then sits on its hands unless someone complains. Even then, nothing much happens and the snake oil continues to be sold with little chance of penalties ever being imposed.
The regulator is so useless that the snake oil merchants aren't even shy about advertising errant nonsense as if it were the best thing since vaccines. Did I mention homeopathy? But it's not just homeopathy...
UPDATE:
Swisse to sue ABC?
Cynic that I am, I doubt it will happen because it's a massive market, but the proposal is there.
Such laws are long overdue. When someone can run a TV advertising campaign claiming that a rubber band with a magnet in it can help you beat arthritis, or anything else really, there's something wrong with our consumer laws.
Such products appear on the market frequently. The theory is that the magnets can affect blood flow - because there's "iron" in blood – and everyone knows iron is magnetic and therefore – magic happens!
But is blood magnetic?
Look what an MRI (MAGNETIC Resonance Imaging) machine can do to a heavy hospital gurney...
follow the link for more
Consumer laws should protect people from miracle-medicine nonsense but instead, the federal regulator lists them on the register and then sits on its hands unless someone complains. Even then, nothing much happens and the snake oil continues to be sold with little chance of penalties ever being imposed.
The regulator is so useless that the snake oil merchants aren't even shy about advertising errant nonsense as if it were the best thing since vaccines. Did I mention homeopathy? But it's not just homeopathy...
UPDATE:
Swisse to sue ABC?
Wednesday, March 20, 2013
Vaccination Comedy Central
I am really trying hard not to blog but sometimes the universe just prods and prods until I can't help myself.
Comment of the Day goes to a woman who posted on a prominent anti-vaccination website that she doesn't trust vaccines but, instead, sprays everything with Glen 20.
Glen 20 is an aerosol disinfectant so I looked for the Product Safety Data Sheet (PSDS) for it. The PSDS is the equivalent of a vaccine package insert and lists hazards associated with chemicals contained in the product.
Here's some of what I found in there [I've bolded and coloured some interesting information. I have also added some comments in brackets and italics]...
Firstly, the product is made by Reckitt Benckiser, a British multinational consumer goods company and manufacturer of, among other things, Nurofen - a pharmaceutical product for pain relief.
Safety data includes...
Contains:
Ethanol 64-17-5
(A psychoactive drug, solvent and fuel. Causes liver damage, birth defects and death. It is the major ingredient in highly toxic methylated spirits.)
Hydrocarbon propellant 106-97-8/74-98-6
(Hydrocarbons come from crude oil)
Aerosol cans may explode
Ingredients:
Butane 106-97-8
(butane is used in motor fuel, LPG and cigarette lighters)
Propane 74-98-6 asphyxiant - may present an explosion hazard
(propane is an industrial fuel and refrigerant)
Handling:
wear suitable safety glasses, protective clothing and impervious gloves.
(This stuff is obviously not safe around babies)
Possible side effects:
irritation to the upper respiratory tract
depression of the central nervous system
(That sounds like it could cause serious long-term learning problems in a child)
The chronic toxicity of this product has not been determined
(Why has it not been tested for this? How can anyone trust a product that hasn't been adequately tested?)
approved by TGA
(Vaccines are approved by the TGA)
Clearly Glen 20 is not some all-natural, feelgood, unicorn-fluff love-fest. It's a dangerous product with very real risks. This isn't Grandma's chicken soup, people - it's serious stuff - and it is made for profit by a multi-national company worth around £31.6 billion [wikipedia].
Despite the very obvious risks (known to anyone who does their research), the chronic Glen 20 user also wrote that she wipes this toxic soup on shopping trolley handles. Those same trolleys are presumably also used by people who are completely unaware of this unsolicited exposure to toxic chemicals. That's right, she apparently forces it on other people against their will and without their knowledge. It's like Compulsory Disinfection!
Note, I'm absolutely sure Glen 20 is safe when used as directed but if the minimal risks of vaccines scare you then products like Glen 20 have no place in your home...
Instead, stick with vinegar. Oh hang on, that's primarily acetic acid, a corrosive liquid for which even latex gloves offer no protection. Acetone is a volatile industrial solvent used as a paint thinner. If you think vaccines contain anti-freeze, then you have to believe vinegar is another name for acetone.
Maybe just water then - but that contains hydrogen, which is incredibly explosive. Again, if you think vaccines contain aluminium or mercury, with all the associated ill-effects, you have to believe water is explosive. Stay well away from it.
Screw it, just let the bugs live.
Comment of the Day goes to a woman who posted on a prominent anti-vaccination website that she doesn't trust vaccines but, instead, sprays everything with Glen 20.
Glen 20 is an aerosol disinfectant so I looked for the Product Safety Data Sheet (PSDS) for it. The PSDS is the equivalent of a vaccine package insert and lists hazards associated with chemicals contained in the product.
Here's some of what I found in there [I've bolded and coloured some interesting information. I have also added some comments in brackets and italics]...
Firstly, the product is made by Reckitt Benckiser, a British multinational consumer goods company and manufacturer of, among other things, Nurofen - a pharmaceutical product for pain relief.
Safety data includes...
Contains:
Ethanol 64-17-5
(A psychoactive drug, solvent and fuel. Causes liver damage, birth defects and death. It is the major ingredient in highly toxic methylated spirits.)
Hydrocarbon propellant 106-97-8/74-98-6
(Hydrocarbons come from crude oil)
Aerosol cans may explode
Ingredients:
Butane 106-97-8
(butane is used in motor fuel, LPG and cigarette lighters)
Propane 74-98-6 asphyxiant - may present an explosion hazard
(propane is an industrial fuel and refrigerant)
Handling:
wear suitable safety glasses, protective clothing and impervious gloves.
(This stuff is obviously not safe around babies)
Possible side effects:
irritation to the upper respiratory tract
depression of the central nervous system
(That sounds like it could cause serious long-term learning problems in a child)
The chronic toxicity of this product has not been determined
(Why has it not been tested for this? How can anyone trust a product that hasn't been adequately tested?)
approved by TGA
(Vaccines are approved by the TGA)
Clearly Glen 20 is not some all-natural, feelgood, unicorn-fluff love-fest. It's a dangerous product with very real risks. This isn't Grandma's chicken soup, people - it's serious stuff - and it is made for profit by a multi-national company worth around £31.6 billion [wikipedia].
Despite the very obvious risks (known to anyone who does their research), the chronic Glen 20 user also wrote that she wipes this toxic soup on shopping trolley handles. Those same trolleys are presumably also used by people who are completely unaware of this unsolicited exposure to toxic chemicals. That's right, she apparently forces it on other people against their will and without their knowledge. It's like Compulsory Disinfection!
Note, I'm absolutely sure Glen 20 is safe when used as directed but if the minimal risks of vaccines scare you then products like Glen 20 have no place in your home...
Instead, stick with vinegar. Oh hang on, that's primarily acetic acid, a corrosive liquid for which even latex gloves offer no protection. Acetone is a volatile industrial solvent used as a paint thinner. If you think vaccines contain anti-freeze, then you have to believe vinegar is another name for acetone.
Maybe just water then - but that contains hydrogen, which is incredibly explosive. Again, if you think vaccines contain aluminium or mercury, with all the associated ill-effects, you have to believe water is explosive. Stay well away from it.
Screw it, just let the bugs live.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
