Stop the AVN

[JC]

Hi all.

There is a group called Stop the AVN, or SAVN. I'm interested to hear
what people think about it, and why.

John

[Tasha David]

John,

I would like it very much if you would answer my questions on the posting of Greg's comments to the SAVN page, and will this happen again with other comments from this debate?

On the debating science thread you talk about Meryl's behaviour in harrassing grieving family members as disgusting, yet a member of your own SAVN group did the same thing.  If you go to this link that was posted on the SAVN page just yesterday...


http://www.mycolleaguesareidiots.com/archive/2012/02/02/The-armour-of-grief.aspx

Tasha

[Tasha David]

John,

From what I have read on their page, you get the feeling of some educated people who say they are all about science and not emotion, yet the things they say and do prove the opposite.  They are just like the AVN in their passion and emotion, it's just that their beliefs are different.  But the biggest difference of all is that where the AVN wants to provide support and information to people to who want to make an informed choice considering both the risks and the benefits of vaccination, the SAVN agenda seems to be to destroy or ridicule others who do not share the same belief system as them (when it comes to vaccination and alternative health) and to put in to place a system where parents have no right to choose whether they vaccinate their children. 

Like I said before they come across like bullies, who spend a lot of time copying and pasting everything that Meryl does and says(or any other person who questions vaccine safety and benefits) and ridiculing and demeaning them on their page, to tell the truth it borders on obsession.  I believe in their right to free speech but I just wish they were able to do the same for others who don't necessarily agree with them (especially on vaccination), because there are families and children on both sides of this issue that are hurting and neither group should be more important or more entitled to free speech than the other.

Just my thoughts
Tasha

[Peter McCarthy]

I've put a reply to this on the debating science thread.

Cheers,

P.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Vaccination-Respectful Debate" group.
To post to this group, send an email to vaccination-re...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to vaccination-respectf...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/vaccination-respectful-debate?hl=en-GB.

[JC]

Tasha,

Just take, for example, one recent post to the AVN blog:
http://bit.ly/yYGwxD

And then over on SAVN you'll see a link to a rebuttal to it...
http://bit.ly/wLCCQL

Here's Greg Beattie's latest data on whooping cough:
http://bit.ly/AkFRYf

And then over on SAVN a link to a rebuttal of it...
http://bit.ly/ywUBXp

So it's not really about suppressing free speech is it? It's not
about anti-choice, is it? It's about providing a constant rebuttal
stream to the misinformation and obfuscation that the AVN and it's ilk
constantly come out with. All about balance, which is very important,
don't you think?

John

[JC]

And lastly Tasha, when you think about freedom of speech, consider
this from the Australian Government:
http://bit.ly/73rGWm

"Freedom of speech

Australians are free, within the bounds of the law, to say or write
what we think privately or publicly, about the government, or about
any topic. We do not censor the media and may criticise the government
without fear of arrest. Free speech comes from facts, not rumours, and
the intention must be constructive, not to do harm. There are laws to
protect a person's good name and integrity against false information.
There are laws against saying or writing things to incite hatred
against others because of their culture, ethnicity or background.
Freedom of speech is not an excuse to harm others."

John

[Tasha David]

John,

If it was just about providing balance, there would not be a problem. But the SAVN is out to silence the AVN once and for all as is stated on their facebook page.  Where is the balance in that?

Cheers
T

[Tasha David]

John,

I am still waiting for your response to my questions, why you posted the comments you did to be ridiculed by your fellow members, and is this something that will happen again?  Maybe the moderator would consider amending the rules so that quotes from this debate are not allowed to be used in other public forums, so that situations like this do not occur again?  How do the rest of the you feel about this?

Cheers
T

[JC]

Hi Tasha,

Here's another example of the work of SAVN, and that is pointing out
some of the interesting applications of standards over on AVN...
http://on.fb.me/Alm9M1

John

[punter]

Right. So we are free to say what we want so long as it is done in
good faith.

SAVN believes we aren't acting in good faith therefore free speech
apparently doesn't apply to us.

Is this what you are trying to imply?

[JC]

Tasha,

The SAVN has a purpose stated on it's Facebook page:
"Stop the AVN (SAVN) is dedicated to stopping the deceptively-named
AVN once and for all. It is our mission to see their campaign of
misinformation and lies come to an end. We do this by exposing their
lies, their endemic corruption and their fraudulent practices."

It's quite simple really. Every time the AVN makes a statement in
public that is blatantly wrong, SAVN is there to correct it. It does
so with monotonous regularity because the AVN plays it's role in this
game with monotonous regularity.

Contrary to what you may have heard from the AVN, the SAVN is not anti-
choice, or for suppression of free speech. Conversely, the SAVN is
exercising it's own freedom of speech to correct the AVN. No one in
SAVN is suppressing free speech, and I'm not sure how they'd go about
it if they wanted to. What the SAVN stands for is for provision of
good information, and not the misrepresentations that AVN is known
for. You only need to browse the pages of SAVN or look at
http://scr.bi/zDfA1n
to see how common they are. Does the SAVN do a lot of copying-and-
pasting? Of course it does, because it likes to show the AVN for what
it is. Ridiculing and demeaning? Well if the shoe fits, they should
wear it.

With the right to freedom of speech comes the responsibility of taking
responsibility for that speech. If your words are poisoned, then you
should be tough enough at take ownership of them. In other words, you
can't talk shit, and then claim suppression if that shit is put on
public display. It is not suppression of free speech - it is
exercising it. SAVN is not anti-choice. It is not for compulsory
vaccination. It exists for one purpose only, and once the AVN is
gone, so too will the SAVN. If the AVN starts behaving like they say
they do, by providing balanced opinions, then the SAVN will far seem
less busy.

John

[JC]

No Tristan, and once again you're paraphrasing in order to paint
someone in a less than flattering light. The AVN does this by
describing the SAVN as anti-choice, and pro-compulsory vaccination,
which it is not.

I take it by saying "us" you're a member of the AVN.

Please try and read words for what they are, rather than what you want
them to say. It would be most helpful.

John

> > John- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[JC]

Tasha,

If I was to make up a whole lot of bunkum that was designed to
encourage people NOT to wear seat belts, I would expect others to
criticise me, ridicule me and try to close down my "Anti-Seatbelt
Network". That's called taking responsibility for my actions, and I
would take that criticism as valid. Seat belts and vaccination have
about the same levels of evidence of safety and efficacy. It should
come as no surprise then that SAVN is trying to criticise the AVN when
the AVN consistently comes out with such bunkum. In the examples
provided so far, can you see the misrepresentations that the SAVN has
caught the AVN of coming out with?

John

[JC]

Tasha,

There is no rules document, so I'm not sure were an amendment would
occur to the rules. Secondly, it would be impossible to police given
the fact that this is public, and the internet is vast. This is a
debating forum, and if people are going to contribute bunkum (my
favourite word of the day), then they should be aware that they are
making that contribution in a public forum.

John

[Tasha David]

John,

If this is all the SAVN did, there would not be a problem because they are entitled to voice their opinions...but that is not all that they do, and I think you are well aware of this fact.  They write numerous letters to any place that Meryl is going to present one of her talks and try to pressure the venues to cancel her talks, is this not a perfect example of suppression of free speech I do not know what is?

As for the SAVN not believing in compulsory vaccination, I find this hard to believe, so I am going to ask on your group what their thoughts are on this. 

T.

[Tasha David]

John,

What I see is differing opinions on data presented which again I do not have a problem with but you have yet to address the blog post by one of your SAVN members titled "Armour of Grief".  Is that part of the SAVN's balancing of credible information too?

Tasha

[Tasha David]

John,

So far the responses are that the SAVN is neutral to compulsory vaccination, so I stand corrected in this.

Cheers
Tasha

[QldKiwi]

I believe this is a ruling on how to conduct yourselves during debate
(and this was made clear at the very beginning)
"This is a place for people from both sides of this very polarized
vaccination debate to meet and discuss the issues concerning vaccine
safety, efficacy and necessity.

All viewpoints are welcome provided they are respectful. At the first
sign of abuse, name-calling, etc, you will be banned."
Although I can't find it without going through a lot of postings, it
was made clear that the comments made here were to stay here. We all
knew, but you are choosing to ignore or excuse it because it is a
public forum.
The admins need to clarify the rulings so we all have it in black and
white!

[JC]

See how easy that was?

Not what others would have you believe about SAVN was it?

John

[JC]

Tasha,
What he wrote I am not responsible for. I suspect he thinks the
twitter posts were fakes, but you'd have to ask the author.
John

[Tasha David]

John,

They were very open, honest and respectful (except one)with sharing their views about compulsory vaccination, I was pleasantly surprised at the way they treated me and my questions.  And because of this, something else occurred to me, do you feel it is possible to find a middle ground between the two groups? 

Each group is doing what they feel is in the best interest of children/people everywhere in regards to vaccination, now if they could just keep the animosity and petty comments/actions out of it, it would be beneficial to all involved as well as to the general public.  If they focused solely on discussing the information that they feel is incorrect, in a respectful way, maybe then a more indepth discussion could ensue and who was right or wrong would more likely come out, or at the very least, a healthy "I agree to disagree" may occur.  There is no need for all the nastiness, not with mature and openminded adults.

The way things are now is really immature and petty and I would expect more from a group of obviously well educated people.  I have always believed that along with knowledge comes wisdom, but it is hard to see any wisdom amongst all the put downs and ridiculing of Meryl, Greg etc.  I am not saying that petty comments do not happen on the AVN side, but if you are being honest with yourself, you would admit it is seen a lot more often on the SAVN side of the fence. That would be the key to real free speech and even better a way for us all to leave all the negativity behind.

The other thing that it would stop is the bullying and harrassing of Meryl. I can't even begin to imagine how it would feel to be ridiculed on a daily basis by a group of over 3000 people, and that's not counting the others who are not part of your group!  It takes someone with a lot of inner strength and courage to be able to deal with this and still be able to keep putting yourself in the firing line because you feel that it is for a cause bigger than yourself.  She may not always say the right things but she is fighting for families like my own who are in the expendable section, we don't have a voice that the media and society in general takes notice of, so she has and deserves my respect.

Once again, just my thoughts, but I would love to hear everybody's views on this...
Cheers
Tasha

[Tasha David]

John,

The reason I brought this up is because you said that no member of your group harass a family member of a grieving family, he is a member of your group and he did exactly that.  Also as an admin of your group, are you not responsible for what is posted on your page?

Cheers
Tasha

[JC]

PS: have you ever wondered why the AVN can't or won't correct data
presented on the SAVN site?

[Greg Beattie]

Hi all

For a bit of background on groups like SAVN this makes interesting reading:
http://bolenreport.com/

Particularly this:
http://bolenreport.com/feature_articles/Doctor%27s-Data-v-Barrett/moneytrail.htm

Greg

[Katie Brockie]

Quote from the article Greg has linked to.

In my opinion, the guy is a dangerous, nasty nutcase.

"I have always known pretty much how it all, the quackbuster consiracy, worked.  Pretty much.   It would have been nice, in the past, to have found one special place that wrote the checks, so to speak.  For then it would have been an easy thing to mount one destructive assault, wiping that operation from the American scene.  But it was never that way, or that easy, exactly. 

What used to be isn't happening now.  Certain parts of the quackbuster operation have always been self-funded, not meaning that some person put up their own money, but that certain people found "Expert Witness Fees" testifying in Court cases.  Others, it became obvious, were being, and are being, paid for their activities "under the table," so to speak. "

Plus - this is utter bullshit, and bears no relationship to the reality of the background of "groups like SAVN".

-K

[JC]

Greg,

Those links have nothing at all to do with SAVN. They have nothing at
all to do with justifying the AVN's misrepresentations.

Nice try and smearing, Greg.

John

[JC]

Hi Tasha,

I removed the post that offended you from the SAVN wall. I agree it
doesn't add much to the aim of SAVN.

I have no doubt that the AVN believes they are doing the right thing.
I have no doubt that they present themselves as very sympathetic,
comforting and supportive. that does not, however, make their stance
the correct one. How can there be middle ground Tasha? When the AVN
misrepresents the truth so often, and is caught out every day, and
will not admit a mistake or correct themselves, then how can there be
middle ground. As I've said before, the moment the AVN actually starts
commenting in an unbiased and thoughtful manner, the SAVN will cease
to exist.

You've already seen for yourself that the SAVN is not pro-compulsory
vaccination, no matter what the AVN claims the SAVN's attitude is.

Meryl would not be "harassed and bullied" is she did not attract the
attention of the SAVN every time she speaks. Take for example the AVN
Facebook comment, "It shows that a majority of those getting whooping
cough are fully vaccinated against it." This statement is, on the
surface of it, true, but it's only half the story. Do the sums, and
you quickly see that unvaccinated people suffer whooping cough 6 to 10
times more often than the vaccinated. Let me say that again - the
numbers show that vaccination reduces your chances of getting whooping
cough by 6 to 10 times less than if they are not vaccinated. The AVN's
statement is a direct result of the small numbers of unvaccinated
people in the age group, so their numbers are small. The actual story
behind it is that vaccination is very very protective against whooping
cough.

So this was taken to SAVN, and explained in great detail over several
entries. It's quite clear and unambiguous. So will Meryl publish a
story on the real message behind Greg's data? Of course not. Will she
claim the the SAVN is bullying her? Of course, but for doing what? For
analysing the numbers with a little more thought than she did? For
looking for the actual message behind the figures? That's not
harassment - that's simply being critical.

I don't doubt that she believes in her principles, or that she is
strong. But she and the AVN are, more often than not, wrong. If you're
going to persistently make incorrect and fallacious statements in
public on a continual basis, then it should come as no surprise to
you, Tasha, or her that she is feeling bullied - yet she will not, for
a moment, consider that the AVN is wrong. Never. "Never admit a
mistake" must be the AVN mantra, no matter how wrong they are. I also
doubt that Meryl really feels as bullied as she makes out. You can't
be strong, yet claim being weak at the same time.

Let me ask you something. To the "average Joe", do you understand the
numbers Greg presented? And which to you sounds more important - the
actual number of whooping cough notifications as per AVN, or the
protective effects of the vaccination, as per SAVN?

John

[Tasha David]

Hi John,

 

Sorry for the late reply, I must admit I was really happy to see that you removed the link from your page, not because I found it offensive but because you felt it was contrary to the goals of the SAVN.  To me this is a great example of finding the middle ground and if we can find a middle ground why can’t the SAVN and the AVN?

 

If the SAVN was to approach the AVN in a non combative and respectful way about the comments and information that they disagreed with, then the communication channels would not be shutdown.  When people are attacked and ridiculed are they really open to criticism constructive or otherwise, especially from their attackers?  Of course not, this is probably the first major hurdle to real discussion between these two groups. Now if we were to rectify this, would this not be a goal that would be beneficial for all concerned?

 

Take the situation that is happening at the moment, where Greg has released this data that the SAVN has interpreted differently to the AVN, how was this difference communicated to Greg?  He was called an “innumerate dingbat” after which he was ripped to shreds for making a comment that was approved by the department.  How different would it have been, if the person making the comments had simply said I disagree with the information presented, and this is why?  The exchanging of views could have been done without any of the nastiness and Greg would not have had to take the high ground alone.

 

How much could be learned especially for the average joe like myself, if both sides were able to communicate and really discuss their different points of view, instead of the bickering we see now. 

 

As for your view that Meryl can’t really feel that bullied, because you can not be strong and weak at the same time, I would have to disagree with this.  Everybody is made up of strengths and weaknesses, the challenge has always been facing up to your weaknesses and not letting them prevent you from doing what is most important to you.  This is what I feel Meryl has and continues to do, at her own personal expense.

 

Now to your question about Greg’s data, I find both notifications and protective effects interesting but both are still open to unquantified confounders, as stated by both Greg and Jason.  I do see why you feel that this data actually supports your argument, but I personally would consider the high incidence of whooping cough and the high vaccination rates, as well as the mutation of the pertussis bacteria which we discussed on the pertussis thread more noteworthy.

 

Cheers

Tasha

[JC]

Tasha,

It is the AVN who doesn't permit contradictory comments on their blogs
and Facebook page. I myself have posted several times to the AVN blog
in a respectful way and have never had these comments go through
moderation. Unfortunately I cannot prove this as Meryl is in control
and she can simply delete them.

What it comes down to is that Meryl and the AVN will not admit that
they are ever wrong. It is impossible for them to. Just recently she
gave blatantly incorrect advice to a student nurse. There used to be
a AVN moderator called "SB" who used to correct Meryl, but alas she is
no longer seen. In other words, all critics are silenced.

So what do the critics of the AVN do when their voice is not heard?
We use our freedom of speech and express a dissenting view, and we
call ourselves the SAVN. As for myself, I did not call Greg a
dingbat, so I cannot comment on that.

As for whooping cough, it's alarming that it is on the increase, but
it does that in 5-7 yearly cycles. The question is to vaccinate or
not. Is vaccination protective? Yes, it clearly is based on those
figures.

Here's another question - will Meryl admit she was wrong?

John

[shotinfo]

Hi Tasha -

I think I can answer your question. John has no intention of
discontinuing his posting of listemembers' information on the SAVN
Facebook page (or elsewhere) since the post that I put up this morning
was - within a matter of minutes - posted to Facebook. As for what we
think of SAVN - to me that is an irrelevant question. This is a place
to debate the pros and cons of vaccination - not the ability of hate
groups to attack a group providing information on a political and
health issue. SAVN is irrelevant as is this question - to me at least.

Thanks,
Meryl

On Feb 4, 1:35 pm, Tasha David <tashamda...@gmail.com> wrote:
> John,
>

> I would like it very much if you would answer my questions on the posting
> of Greg's comments to the SAVN page, and will this happen again with other
> comments from this debate?
>
> On the debating science thread you talk about Meryl's behaviour in
> harrassing grieving family members as disgusting, yet a member of your own
> SAVN group did the same thing.  If you go to this link that was posted on
> the SAVN page just yesterday...
>
> http://www.mycolleaguesareidiots.com/archive/2012/02/02/The-armour-of...
>
> Tasha

[Peter McCarthy]

Terms like "hate group" are subjective, derogatory and inappropriate for this debate site. Trying to demonise a group that argues against you/yours in this way demonstrates anything but a desire for open and constructive debate.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Vaccination-Respectful Debate" group.
To post to this group, send an email to vaccination-re...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to vaccination-respectf...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/vaccination-respectful-debate?hl=en-GB.

[JC]

Dear Meryl,

There's a thread here called "Stop the AVN" that has had 30 posts to
it. Clearly there's some people who are interested enough in it to
debate it. I don't go to other threads and declare my non-interest in
it, so why do you do it here? Are you trying to exert some sort of
influence over topics to be discussed? If so, you should have
remained as a moderator. Why don't you try and contribute where you
can, and leave your thoughts on relevance to the other debaters.

I know you think SAVN is irrelevant. Calling it a hate group is like
calling it anti-choice or anti-information, something that Tasha found
isn't true when she asked a question on the SAVN Facebook page
recently. You can throw it, Meryl, but it doesn't stick.

Calling AVN a source of misinformation though remains valid though, as
you persistently demonstrate.

John

[Meryl Dorey]

John,

In case you haven't read it, here is the description of this group. It
might be a good idea for you to refresh your memory about this as you
have obviously either never known or have forgotten:

This is a place for people from both sides of this very polarised

vaccination debate to meet and discuss the issues concerning vaccine
safety, efficacy and necessity.

SAVN has nothing to do with the pros and cons of vaccination. The
members of SAVN have said many times that they are not there to
discuss, give advice or provide information on vaccination. They are
simply there to try and force the AVN to close down in any way they
can. This is not involved with a discussion of the issues concerning
vaccine safety, efficacy and necessity, is it? So this discussion, in
my opinion, has nothing to do with the issues at hand.

As for your claim that SAVN is not a hate group, I beg to differ. Here
is an excellent definition of what constitutes a hate group:

an organization or individual that advocates violence against or
unreasonable hostility toward those persons or organizations
identified by their race, religion, national origin, sexual
orientation, gender or disability. Also including organizations or
individuals that disseminate historically inaccurate information with
regards to these persons or organizations for the pupose[sic] of
vilification.[1]

SAVN fits in there very nicely.

John, I'm worried about you, I really am. It can't be good for your
health to be so angry all the time. You might want to take a few deep
breaths before posting next time, just to calm yourself down. All that
bile can make you really, really sick.

Kind regards,
Meryl

[JC]

See what she did there Tasha?

She called SAVN a hate group. She said it, and so people fall for
it. As you can see, the SAVN is merely about correcting Meryl's
misinformation. Just today she's provided more than enough examples
of her mistaken opinions of subjects that she is not an expert in.
It's my freedom of speech that allows me to publicly correct her. Is
that hate? No, of course not. It's just that when she makes so many
errors, the corrections are also numerous. Painting SAVN as a hate,
anti-choice and anti-information group is yet another Meryl mistake,
but I suspect a deliberate one to make us look evil. She's
convincing, she's sympathetic, yet she's wrong.

John

[Katie Brockie]

I'm sorry Meryl, but that definition of a hate group bears no resemblance to SAVN at all.
SAVN has never encouraged any sort of violence, it also does not disseminate historically inaccurate information. Or, if it does, and then gets corrected, it will disseminate historically correct information.
And as for this: " unreasonable hostility toward those persons or organizations identified by their race, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, gender or disability." Where does the AVN come into this? The AVN is a group which provides information. Information upon which people make important decisions for their children's health. If the information is incorrect or misleading - SAVN will point it out. Nothing to do with race, sexual orientation, religion etc etc etc.

Calling SAVN a hate group is casting slurs and smears against a very large group of people who are all involved for various reasons in this debate.

There are also good split-off FB pages and groups which are all about proving accurate information about the latest in vaccine safety, the latest studies etc. A good one is: The AVN Corrected.

Cheers
Katie

[JC]

Meryl,

Why don't you take a trip over the the Woodford thread and defend some
of you (alleged) inaccuracies there? That might be more useful than
lambasting around on this one.

John

[Peter McCarthy]

I tried to reply to Meryl's "hate group" post. It turns out this is not allowed because her post no longer passes moderation so including it in my response has led to my post being denied. I'm not sure I follow the logic here but regardless, this was MY reply to her.

Projecting personal problems onto others is a trait demonstrated by nearly all anti-vax people I've encountered on this board. With the exception of Tasha; Christine, Tristan, Greg and now Meryl all appear to believe psych analysis of people's posts constitutes valid or useful contributions to discourse. The reality is, it doesn't. In fact, it's not only laughable, but (unsurprisingly) completely off the mark. Please try and stay on topic Meryl. Maybe even have a crack at approaching some of the real issues here. For instance, your misinterpretation of the pertussis data Greg posted on his website.

[Tasha David]

Hi John and all,

 

I know this has nothing to do with vaccination but I feel that it is important to the topic of the problems with the SAVN and AVN. 

 

I just gave a talk yesterday about embracing people with special needs, (which is why I haven’t been around for awhile.) It was, as you know, a topic very close to my heart and something that I really wanted to get right.  In it I had to tell people what they needed to do and not do, to accept these very special people.  It could have been a very negative talk because there were so many ways that people in general were failing these people, but instead I started by trying to get them to understand the challenges that are faced by special needs people.  After that I spoke about what they needed to change to make these very special people feel accepted and important, now because they were given an insight in to the world that special needs people live in everyday, they felt compassion towards them and this gave them the motivation to want to change and to take onboard the suggestions that I was making.  Instantly you could see the change in these people’s eyes when they looked at my children and the other disabled people in the room, for the first time they really saw them as people worth investing some of their time and energy, instead of the usual avoidance or staring that they used to get. Then they started coming over and talking to them, and asking me about what they could do help include them more effectively.  This is the change that is possible when you speak to people with respect and in this case love, but I don’t expect to feel the love on this forum, that is asking way too much!!! Lol!

 

Now what the heck has this got to do with the SAVN and the AVN you ask???  We let me tell you…

 

No one can learn anything or be motivated to make any changes when they are attacked, they need to understand why you are doing the things you are doing and likewise they need to feel like you are willing to try and understand why they are doing the things that they are doing, before you can even think about making corrections or suggestions.  Once you do this, people’s defences come down, and they actually start really hearing you, and then change is possible.

 

John, you feel like Meryl is unwilling to make any changes or accept any criticisms but if you constantly attack her, how can she be anything but defensive.  Her criticisms of you and the SAVN are based on the treatment she has received, not on the information you are trying to give to her.  If correcting misinformation is the real goal, then respectful discussion is vital to the process.  Other wise you end up just arguing AT each other, and it just goes round and round, both sides having their little stab at each other. Like I said before, the SAVN are not the only ones at fault in this breakdown in discussion, but they are at fault for the ridiculing, demeaning and persecution of the AVN, and also in their attempts to suppress Meryl’s right to free speech.  If balancing the information is the priority, then this is only counterproductive.

See how defensive the response was when Meryl accused the SAVN of being a hate group, imagine how Meryl must feel when you call her a liar, idiot, hypocrite etc, does this make for anything other than a breeding ground for more negativity and animosity?  You can disagree with someone without resorting to name-calling and disrespect, it is pointless and a real waste of energy! 

 

You and I were able to discuss the SAVN and both admit to mistakes in judgement while still being respectful, this shows me that it is possible for people who don’t agree on controversial subjects like vaccination to still listen and learn, even though they still disagree.  Another example was the way the whooping cough thread was going before the polarizing views on Greg’s data.  There you saw people bringing information that the other side was not necessarily aware of, then being able to discuss the pros and cons reasonably and respectfully, isn’t this a goal worthy of us all pursuing?

 

Once again my two cents…

Cheers

Tasha

[Phil B]

Tasha, I tried to reply to you earlier, but the post was moderated and not allowed to be published.  I'd like you to read my reply.  I won't link it, because that's effectively just side stepping moderation, but I will invite you to contact me and I can provide you with a link to it.  It is also linked on the SAVN FB page, but it may be difficult to find given the volume of traffic.

[Meryl Dorey]

Hi Tasha,

Thank you so much for expressing this so beautifully!  I really, really appreciate it. :-)

All the best,

Meryl

On 20/02/2012, at 1:56 PM, Tasha David wrote:

Hi John and all,

 

I know this has nothing to do with vaccination but I feel that it is important to the topic of the problems with the SAVN and AVN. 

 <snip>

[Katie Brockie]

Tasha,
thanks for your thoughtful comments. I would love it if there was a place for rational debate, which did not bring personalities into the discussion.
I would like to be able to post this, for example:

http://www.medwire-news.md/45/97614/ObGyn/Maternal_influenza_vaccination_benefits_mothers_and_babies.html

"MedWire News: Maternal influenza immunization during pregnancy is associated with better neonatal outcomes, a post hoc analysis of trial data suggests.

In the cohort of pregnant Bangladeshi women, those who were immunized during the influenza season were less likely to have babies that were small for gestational age or of low birthweight, than nonimmunized women.

The finding comes from a secondary analysis of data from the Mother'sGift project, a randomized trial designed to test the safety and efficacy of inactivated influenza and pneumococcal vaccines during pregnancy."

And be able to discuss it calmly and rationally. It seems that having the flu vaccine during pregnancy produces better outcomes for the baby. There has been another study which shows similar results.

"Link Between Influenza Vaccination in Pregnancy and Reduced Risk of Premature Birth

ScienceDaily (May 31, 2011) — A new study published in PLoS Medicine suggests that there might be an association between maternal immunization with inactivated influenza vaccine during pregnancy and reduced likelihood of prematurity and the baby being small for gestational age."

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/05/110531180929.htm

Now - to me, this shows the benefit of having the influenza vaccine when pregnant.

I'd like to hear others' points of view in a respectful manner! (Ie: without being called an idiot, a nazi, an obfuscator, a sheeple, a big pharma shil, etc etc etc)

cheers

Katie

[punter]

OK Katie,

The conclusions ostensibly look really good for the vaccine.

Unfortunately, it is based on secondary analysis of primary data.
Nothing wrong with that per se but it assumes that the primary data
doesn't suffer from the usual tricks of poison laced placebos, making
random assumptions that more antibodies necessarily means less disease
etc etc.

Do you have the primary data? Do you know what they meant by
"controls"?

On Feb 21, 7:52 am, Katie Brockie <katiebroc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Tasha,
> thanks for your thoughtful comments. I would love it if there was a place
> for rational debate, which did not bring personalities into the discussion.
> I would like to be able to post this, for example:
>

> http://www.medwire-news.md/45/97614/ObGyn/Maternal_influenza_vaccinat...
>
> *"MedWire News*: Maternal influenza immunization during pregnancy is

> associated with better neonatal outcomes, a post hoc analysis of trial data
> suggests.
>
> In the cohort of pregnant Bangladeshi women, those who were immunized
> during the influenza season were less likely to have babies that were small
> for gestational age or of low birthweight, than nonimmunized women.
>
> The finding comes from a secondary analysis of data from the Mother'sGift
> project, a randomized trial designed to test the safety and efficacy of
> inactivated influenza and pneumococcal vaccines during pregnancy."
>
> And be able to discuss it calmly and rationally. It seems that having the
> flu vaccine during pregnancy produces better outcomes for the baby. There
> has been another study which shows similar results.
> "Link Between Influenza Vaccination in Pregnancy and Reduced Risk of
> Premature Birth
>

> ScienceDaily (May 31, 2011) — A new study published in *PLoS
> Medicine*suggests that there might be an association between maternal

[Katie Brockie]

Punter,
I don't think one can have a rational discussion and uses phrases like "poison laced placebos".
as you can see, here is the info about the Bangladeshi study.

http://bit.ly/A6EFqf

Here's part of the explanation:
"In this randomized study, we assigned 340 mothers to receive either inactivated influenza
vaccine (influenza-vaccine group) or the 23-valent pneumococcal polysaccharide
vaccine (control group). Mothers were interviewed weekly to assess illnesses until
24 weeks after birth. Subjects with febrile respiratory illness were assessed clinically,
and ill infants were tested for influenza antigens. We estimated the incidence of illness,
incidence rate ratios, and vaccine effectiveness."

If you read the study, it explains all about the controls.
I'm not sure where the random assumption about antibodies and disease comes from... If you look at the study (which was blinded and randomised), you'll see that the outcomes were measurable in terms of how many infants got (laboratory confirmed) influenza, and also by the babies birthweight.

As for the other study - again, it's dealing with pregnant women and resultant baby birthweight and prematurity.

"Methods and Findings: We conducted a cohort analysis of surveillance data from the Georgia (United States) Pregnancy Risk Assessment Monitoring System. Among 4,326 live births between 1 June 2004 and 30 September 2006, maternal influenza vaccine information was available for 4,168 (96.3%). The primary intervention evaluated in this study was receipt of influenza vaccine during any trimester of pregnancy. The main outcome measures were prematurity (gestational age at birth ,37 wk) and SGA (birth weight ,10th percentile for gestational age). Infants who were born during the putative influenza season (1 October–31 May) and whose mothers were vaccinated against influenza during pregnancy were less likely to be premature compared to infants of unvaccinated mothers born in the same period (adjusted odds ratio [OR] = 0.60; 95% CI, 0.38–0.94). The magnitude of association between maternal influenza vaccine receipt and reduced likelihood of prematurity increased during the period of at least local influenza activity (adjusted OR = 0.44; 95% CI, 0.26–0.73) and was greatest during the widespread influenza activity period (adjusted OR = 0.28; 95% CI, 0.11–0.74). Compared with newborns of unvaccinated women, newborns of vaccinated mothers had 69% lower odds of being SGA (adjusted OR = 0.31; 95% CI, 0.13–0.75) during the period of widespread influenza activity. The adjusted and unadjusted ORs were not significant for the pre-influenza activity period."

The study can be accessed here - there's a free PDF.

http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pmed.1000441

So - it definitely seems that, during a period when flu is active in the community, it benefits pregnant women (and their babies)  to have flu vaccinations.

cheers
K

[Tasha David]

Phil,

I read your post, and I appreciate your concerns so I have responded on the SAVN page.  I won't repost it here because I will be repeating what I have said before, but hopefully at the least it will be something to consider.  I must admit it is really nice to be able to finally talk about this problem with all those concerned in a rational and constructive way.

Cheers
Tasha 

[Tasha David]

Hi Katie,

Thank you for your comments, it is great when we can discuss things without the negativity.  As for personalities, I love the banter that comes from the different personalities on here, it keeps it interesting, we just need to keep the nastiness out.

With the articles you posted, I have a couple of concerns.  The Bangladeshi one seems to be a post hoc analysis of trial data, which I take to mean that more study needs to be done to confirm the findings.  As for the second one it has some pretty hefty conflicts of interest as shown below.

Funding: The study was partially funded through the Emory University, Global Health Institute Faculty of Distinction Fund award (recipient: SBO). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

Competing interests: SBO was awarded the Maurice R. Hilleman Early-stage Career Investigator Award by the National Foundation for Infectious Diseases. The award is funded by an unrestricted educational grant to the National Foundation for Infectious Diseases from Merck and Co., Inc. However, SBO had no direct interaction with Merck related to this award. The other authors report no competing interests.

http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pmed.1000441

 

 

Dr. Omer's research interests include vaccine coverage and efficacy, which includes questions of effectiveness and program sustainability.

 

http://www.globalhealth.emory.edu/programs/facultyPrograms/omer.php

 

 

NIH Awards Emory $23.7 M as New National Vaccine & Treatment Evaluation Unit Emory University and its physician/scientists will play a leading national role in evaluating promising new vaccines and therapies for infectious diseases in adults and children as one of the newest members of a group of Vaccine and Treatment Evaluation Units (VTEUs). The VTEUs are funded by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), one of the National Institutes of Health (NIH).

 

"Emory's strong basic and translational science programs within the Emory Vaccine Center and our infectious diseases programs in the Emory Children's Center, combined with our track record in clinical trials and infectious diseases treatment and research in adults and children, presented a very strong portfolio to the NIH," says Mark Mulligan, MD, principal investigator of the Emory VTEU, professor of medicine in Emory University School of Medicine and executive director of the Hope Clinic of the Emory Vaccine Center.

 

http://www.whsc.emory.edu/press_releases2.cfm?announcement_id_seq=12224

 

Cheers

Tasha

[Tasha David]

Hi Meryl,

Your welcome.  I just hope that in some way it helps.

Cheers
Tasha

[Phil B]

It would be nice to be able to talk freely, Tasha.  And, you know, I really appreciate the effort that you are going to - it's genuinely commendable.

 

If only both sides were open to dissent and open discussion?

 

Remember, you're always welcome to comment and post at SAVN (not that I have any control over that - I don't - but it's pretty clear that's the case :-)

 

I hope, too, that Meryl (since she posted below) might check out my forbidden response and in particular look at the things I said I could support the AVN doing (yes, I said some other things, let's leave them aside for now in the spirit of what you're trying to achieve).

[Katie Brockie]

Tash - if you read the study link which I provided to punter, you'll see that the study is robust and they have reached several conclusions, although, as always with science, they said it would be good to have more studies.

As for your conflicts of interest. The Emory University had NO ROLE in study design, data collection and analysis etc. You have quoted it yourself.

The second one says "However, SBO had no direct interaction with Merck related to this award. The other authors report no competing interests."
So that's fine as well.

"Dr. Omer's research interests include vaccine coverage and efficacy, which includes questions of effectiveness and program sustainability."

What better person could be studying vaccination effects? It's his job.

Also, I don't see any problems in a University which exists to study vaccines and immunization. Surely it's a good thing?

cheers
K

[punter]

<In this randomized study, we assigned 340 mothers to receive either
inactivated influenza
vaccine (influenza-vaccine group) or the 23-valent pneumococcal
polysaccharide
vaccine (control group). >

>I don't think one can have a rational discussion and uses phrases like
"poison laced placebos<

But it was a poison laced placebo wasn't it? At any rate, the results
are completely worthless.

> http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pm...

[JC]

Hi Tasha,

The way I imagine the AVN is if I pretend that I had the impression
that seat belts were dangerous. Maybe I suffered some bruising from
one when I was in an MVA. Rightly or wrongly, I take a disliking to
them. I'm no automotive engineer, but I quickly realise that there's
no good randomised controlled trial that supports seat belts. People
do actually get injured by them, and there's companies out there
making a profit by selling them! Not only that (and this is where the
story differs) there are laws that make them mandatory! The parallels
between seat belts and vaccination are remarkable when you consider
many of the aspects.

Anyhow, I set up an organisation called the Australian Seatbelt
Network (ASN), and publish my opinions that seat belts are dangerous.
My advice is that they should never be worn, and that they're part of
a conspiracy of Big Weaver. Now what would you expect to occur?
Well, automotive engineers and safety advocates might start
disagreeing with me. They might give up and let me continue, or they
might become a little more persistent after I dig myself deeper and
deeper holes. I tap into a small minority of people who have similar
concerns. Maybe some others have had seat belt injuries, but haven't
realised that if they weren't wearing them they would have been worse
off.

My opponents create a group called Stop the ASN (SASN) that publishes
on my blog counter arguments to my opinions. They start to embarrass
me, so I remove their posts from my blog and my Facebook page. The
SASN starts to get more organised, and before too long I find that my
accounts are being audited, my charitable status has been revoked and
it is declared officially that the ASN is a danger to public safety.
I can either keep going with my opinion, or I could take a moment to
listen to what the experts are saying. I choose to "bat on", but I
need to fight back. I can't do it with a sustained argument, so I
challenge scientists to a live, staged debate which will allow me to
present my fallacious arguments without giving a dull boring scientist
the chance to explain the nuances of my misinformation and my logical
fallacies.

SASN though are a persistent bunch. They don't seem to want to stop.
Every time I make a claim, they show it to be perhaps not as solid as
I first thought. Before too long I find myself calling the SASN a
group of Nazi's, a hate group, that is repressing my freedom of speech
and harassing me. I see myself as being bullied and oppressed. I
tell people that SASN are getting money from Big Weaver, and that it's
all a plot to discredit me, and that it's all unfair and that the
government is taking sides!

Well what is the truth with regards seat belts? Seat belts work.
Sometimes people get injured by them, but they would be worse off had
they not been wearing them. So what do you do about the ASN,
spreading misinformed opinions that endanger public safety? What if
you were a motivated automotive engineer? You’d persist. You’d
doggedly counter every false argument that they come out with. You’d
ignore their claims of being a hate group, you’d ignore their snide
remarks and their personal insults. You’d remain astonished at the
logical fallacies that they produce. You’d persist. You use the same
freedom of speech that the ASN have and advertise in newspapers some
of the lies of the ASN, and point people to reputable sources of
information regarding seat belts. The ASN claims that is harassment
and oppression, but it is just freedom of speech.

The SASN is a persistent group. What else can you do when faced with
misinformation that endangers public health?

John

[Tasha David]

Thanks Phil,

I really hope that a middle ground can be found, it would be nice to be able to discuss the issues without the negativity.

Cheers
T

[Tasha David]

Hi Katie,

 

I just read the original study that you posted to Punter, they are comparing pneumoccal vaccinated mothers vs influenza vaccinated mothers, so all it is really saying is that the group that had the pneumoccal vaccine only had an increased risk of of premature and SGA babies.  If the control group was completely unvaccinated this would mean a lot more.

 

“After providing written informed consent, pregnant women were randomly assigned to one of four groups for the primary study, with women in groups 1 and 2 receiving pneumococcal vaccine and those in groups 3 and 4 receiving influenza vaccine. For our analysis of the effect of maternal influenza immunization, the mothers and their infants were analyzed in two groups: those who received influenza vaccine and the control group”

 

And the vaccine effectiveness is relatively low in this study.

 

“Results

Mothers and infants were observed from August 2004 through December 2005.

Among infants of mothers who received influenza vaccine, there were fewer cases

of laboratory-confirmed influenza than among infants in the control group (6 cases

and 16 cases, respectively), with a vaccine effectiveness of 63% (95% confidence interval

[CI], 5 to 85). Respiratory illness with fever occurred in 110 infants in the influenza-

vaccine group and 153 infants in the control group, with a vaccine effectiveness

of 29% (95% CI, 7 to 46). Among the mothers, there was a reduction in the rate

of respiratory illness with fever of 36% (95% CI, 4 to 57).”

 

In regards to the conflicts of interest in the other study, whether SBO was talking to Merck in relation to the award, he still was getting a unrestricted grant from them through the NFID, certainly you would think that if he were to present a study that showed their vaccine in an unfavourable light, it could lead to a suspension of this grant.  So I really believe bias would not be unreasonably questioned in this case.

 

As for the Emory University, they not only study vaccines they actually have a vaccine that they have in phase I trials, it is not a flu vaccine, but it demonstrates where a possible bias favouring positive outcomes for vaccines in general could be possible.

 

http://www.vaccines.emory.edu/trials/trials.shtml

 

Cheers

Tasha

[Tasha David]

Hi John,

Wow, that is actually a really good analogy!  You are quite the storyteller! ;)  But the part I just don't understand is why the comparison with seat belts? 

1)  For one thing you do not insert the seat belt in to your body.

2) You have the option to take the seat belt off when you want to.

3) You can choose not to drive a car and so do away with the necessity of the seat belt altogether, ie you can still ride a bike, the bus, walk etc.

4) Your children are not discriminated against for choosing a lifestyle that does not include the wearing of seat belts.

5)  You are not financially punished for avoiding the need to wear a seat belt.

I could go on, but I had to say this last thing if you don't wear seat belts you are most likely to have a much healthier life style, you would naturally be more active instead of depending on cars to get you around.

Cheers
Tasha

[Phil B]

On Thursday, February 23, 2012 1:36:24 PM UTC+11, Mumof8 wrote:

Hi John,

Wow, that is actually a really good analogy!  You are quite the storyteller! ;)  But the part I just don't understand is why the comparison with seat belts? 

1)  For one thing you do not insert the seat belt in to your body.

 

No, but seat belt injuries in a crash can be severe.

 

2) You have the option to take the seat belt off when you want to.

 

Not whilst driving, not for most people.  The law says you must wear one if one is fitted and you don't hold an exemption.  You have the option of not vaccinating.  The law doesn't compel you.

 

3) You can choose not to drive a car and so do away with the necessity of the seat belt altogether, ie you can still ride a bike, the bus, walk etc.

 

And you can go through life without a vaccine.  To carry your point further, you could deliberately avoid populated areas where you may be exposed to diseases etc., but that would significantly restrict you just as never riding in a car would restrict you.  But you have the choice much the same.

 

4) Your children are not discriminated against for choosing a lifestyle that does not include the wearing of seat belts.

 

Yes, they are.  If your children choose not to wear seat belts they will not be allowed to ride in cars, or in busses which have seat belts fitted (some coaches, for example, which might be used as transportation for excursions or private vehicles used for the same purpose or for taking children to and from extra-curricular activities and so forth.

 

5)  You are not financially punished for avoiding the need to wear a seat belt.

 

Yes, you are.  You are fined.

 

That said, I am not in favour of financially disadvantating someone for not being immunised EXCEPT to remove the immunisation bonus (after all, that's not disadvantaging someone - it's bonusing someone else for a specific, targetted government policy to promote immunisation.  Other payments, I feel, should not be removed for lack of immunisation.  I prefer carrot over stick.

 

I could go on, but I had to say this last thing if you don't wear seat belts you are most likely to have a much healthier life style, you would naturally be more active instead of depending on cars to get you around.

 

I wonder how many of the fittest people in the world never ride in cars, Tash?  Sorry, this is fallacious logic.  Lack of a seat belt does not gaurantee a healthier life style or even make it more likely.  Someone may never ride in a car because of a physical or financial situation.

 

[Katie Brockie]

Tasha,

You said:
"In regards to the conflicts of interest in the other study, whether SBO was talking to Merck in relation to the award, he still was getting a unrestricted grant from them through the NFID, certainly you would think that if he were to present a study that showed their vaccine in an unfavourable light, it could lead to a suspension of this grant.  So I really believe bias would not be unreasonably questioned in this case."

This is still supposition. However, even IF it were the case, how can one of the authors affect the outcome of a study where they basically counted the records of thousands of women and looked at whether they were vaccinated for influenza when pregnant, and then looked at the outcomes for the babies.
How can this one, suppositional conflict of interest cause you to completely write off the whole study?

Here's another study, which also shows a protective effect of mothers getting immunised for influenza when they are pregnant - it protects the babies after birth:

"Our results indicate that hospitalized infants whose mothers received influenza vaccine during pregnancy were 45-48% less likely to have laboratory-confirmed influenza during their first influenza season compared with infants of unvaccinated mothers. Adding history of influenza-like illness during pregnancy to the analyses had little impact on the OR for having an influenza-positive, hospitalized infant. Given that infants <6 months of age have the highest hospitalization rate among all children², ³, ⁴, ⁵, ⁶ and that the vaccine is not licensed for that age group,¹⁶ these data support that infants born to vaccinated mothers benefit from the transfer of maternally derived antibodies.

Four previously published studies support our conclusions."

http://www.ajog.org/article/S0002-9378%2811%2900232-8/fulltext



cheers
K

[Mike Mayfield]

Hi Tasha. Pardon me for having my two-bobs worth here, but I've been
following the debate, and I think the questions you ask have some
obvious answers to them:

> 1)  For one thing you do not insert the seat belt in to your body.

The concept of doing yourself harm is independent of whether the cause
is inside or outside of your body. People tend to naturally be more
apprehensive of something they might ingest into their body, like
something toxic or poisonous. But catching your arm in a meatgrinder
or being backed over by a bulldozer can be every bit as permanently
damaging, I would think.

> 2) You have the option to take the seat belt off when you want to.

I suppose you do, but there are consequences you need to think about
before you choose to take a seatbelt off. Likewise, you can refuse to
be vaccinated. The Government won't throw you in prison or kidnap you
and force needles into your arm. But there are other consequences
you'll need to consider.

> 3) You can choose not to drive a car and so do away with the necessity of the seat belt altogether, ie you can still ride a bike, the bus, walk etc.

Well, you can choose not to vaccinate and still do most things too. As
above, there are consequences you need to think about which might
inconvenience you. But that's your choice.

> 4) Your children are not discriminated against for choosing a lifestyle that does not include the wearing of seat belts.

What do you think your kids will say the first time their friends say
"hey we're all piling into the car and going down the coast to the
beach, wanna come"? What will you son say when he is refused a job
because it requires a car, but he doesn't have one because he has
"chosen" not to wear seatbelts? Once again, there are things which
might appear to be discriminatory but which are a natural consequence
of your seatbelt decision. So too, with vaccinations.

> 5)  You are not financially punished for avoiding the need to wear a seat belt.

You're not punished financially for not being vaccinated either. Sure,
you won't get the maternity immunisation allowance component of the
Family Tax Benefit. But why should you get the maternity immunisation
allowance if you refuse to be immunised? It always struck me as a
little odd that you could "conscientiously object", and still get an
allowance for something you refuse to do, which was designed to
encourage you to do it in the first place. It's like demanding to get
the "baby bonus" even if you conscientiously object to having a baby!

regards,
Mike

[JC]

Tasha,

Analogies are like springboards - you use it, but it doesn't follow
you into the pool. My analogy isn't perfect, and none will be until
you discuss the case at hand. The story was to maybe explain why the
SAVN is so persistent, why we're called a hate group and even Nazi's,
when indeed we are not, and why the AVN reacts the way they do to
opposition.

John

[Tasha David]

John,

I think I may have come off as being facetious, but I actually didn't mean to be that way.  I really did like your analogy, I thought it was very clever, I was just picking on the seat belt part.  Maybe I should of used the smiley emoticon instead of the winking one, lol!

I understand the gist of what your analogy was saying, you feel you are doing what is in the best interests of society in general, but I feel society would be much better served by discussion with (rather than suppression of) the opposing argument.

Cheers
Tasha :)

[Tasha David]

Mike,

You are more than welcome to add your two bobs worth, I am guilty of doing the same on quite a few occasions, especially lately :)

 

"The concept of doing yourself harm is independent of whether the cause
is inside or outside of your body. People tend to naturally be more
apprehensive of something they might ingest into their body, like
something toxic or poisonous. But catching your arm in a meatgrinder
or being backed over by a bulldozer can be every bit as permanently
damaging, I would think."

The difference is the act of putting the seat belt on itself is not endangering it is only when the car is moving and impacts something else that the seat belt becomes dangerous.  When you inject the vaccine you are causing harm to yourself, and opening yourself up to the possibility of more harm.

"I suppose you do, but there are consequences you need to think about
before you choose to take a seatbelt off. Likewise, you can refuse to
be vaccinated. The Government won't throw you in prison or kidnap you
and force needles into your arm. But there are other consequences
you'll need to consider."

The difference is you can take the seat belt off when you get to your destination, you cannot take the vaccine off, once vaccinated it is with you 24/7.

 

 

Well, you can choose not to vaccinate and still do most things too. As

above, there are consequences you need to think about which might
inconvenience you. But that's your choice.

You have got me there, should have thought that one through further.

 

What do you think your kids will say the first time their friends say

"hey we're all piling into the car and going down the coast to the
beach, wanna come"? What will you son say when he is refused a job
because it requires a car, but he doesn't have one because he has
"chosen" not to wear seatbelts? Once again, there are things which
might appear to be discriminatory but which are a natural consequence
of your seatbelt decision. So too, with vaccinations.

Funny you mention that, my son is 22 has no drivers licence and has a job that he loves, he uses public transportation which does not require the use of seat belts.  As for the beach scenario, by the time they are old enough to jump in their friend's car the decision would be there's to make.

 

You're not punished financially for not being vaccinated either. Sure,

you won't get the maternity immunisation allowance component of the
Family Tax Benefit. But why should you get the maternity immunisation
allowance if you refuse to be immunised? It always struck me as a
little odd that you could "conscientiously object", and still get an
allowance for something you refuse to do, which was designed to
encourage you to do it in the first place. It's like demanding to get
the "baby bonus" even if you conscientiously object to having a baby!

They are now penalising families from receiving their end of year family tax benefit part A if their children are not vaccinated on time.

Cheers
Tasha

[Tasha David]

Hi Phil,

I think that most of my replies would be covered by my post to Mike, except for this

"I wonder how many of the fittest people in the world never ride in cars, Tash?  Sorry, this is fallacious logic.  Lack of a seat belt does not gaurantee a healthier life style or even make it more likely.  Someone may never ride in a car because of a physical or financial situation."

I think some of the fittest people I have seen ie the long distance Olympic champions are from third world countries like Ethopia, Uganda etc and I don't know for sure but I would assume that they did not spend a lot of time in cars especially growing up.  I never said that not wearing a seat belt guaranteed a healthier life I said it was most likely, and I still believe that if people were walking around like I used to do when I was a kid, rather than being driven around they would be much healthier, even people who have physical disabilities.  I actually don't see the fallacious logic at all in this statement.  But I must admit when I first made the statement I was being a bit cheeky, but I actually do stand by it.

Cheers
Tasha

[punter]

>Maybe some others have had seat belt injuries, but haven't
realised that if they weren't wearing them they would have been worse
off. <

So let me get this straight: If I had seen one of my children die or
become paralysed as a result of seat belts I should still conclude
that they would have been worse off if they hadn’t worn them? Just how
dead would they have to be?

>The SASN starts to get more organised, and before too long I find that my
accounts are being audited, my charitable status has been revoked and
it is declared officially that the ASN is a danger to public safety. >

>and that it's all unfair and that the government is taking sides!>

Sorry, which is it? Is the government taking sides or not?

<I can either keep going with my opinion, or I could take a moment to
listen to what the experts are saying. I choose to "bat on", but I
need to fight back. I can't do it with a sustained argument, so I
challenge scientists to a live, staged debate >

Aaah I see, so we challenge people to debates because we are scared of
sustained arguments.

which will allow me to
present my fallacious arguments without giving a dull boring
scientist
the chance to explain the nuances of my misinformation and my logical
fallacies. >

I don’t think I will ever again be able to hear the word nuance (TM)
without cracking up.

> You’d doggedly counter every false argument that they come out with. You’d
ignore their claims of being a hate group, you’d ignore their snide
remarks and their personal insults. You’d remain astonished at the
logical fallacies that they produce. You’d persist. You use the
same
freedom of speech that the ASN have and advertise in newspapers some
of the lies of the ASN, and point people to reputable sources of
information regarding seat belts. The ASN claims that is harassment
and oppression, but it is just freedom of speech. >

And then you’d wake up...

[JC]

Tasha,

No one is suppressing the AVN. This is a concept that the AVN has
coloured the SAVN with, by persistently making the claim. Sure, we
use the freedom of speech to analyse and criticise the claims of the
AVN, and we inform people to go to reputable sources of information,
but how is that suppression? Do we use force to quieten the AVN
down? Of course not. Do we publicly denounce the alleged
misinformation that the aVN comes out with? Of course we do. That's
called freedom of speech, and not Nazism.

John

[Phil B]

On Thursday, February 23, 2012 11:05:33 PM UTC+11, Mumof8 wrote:

 

The difference is the act of putting the seat belt on itself is not endangering it is only when the car is moving and impacts something else that the seat belt becomes dangerous.  When you inject the vaccine you are causing harm to yourself, and opening yourself up to the possibility of more harm.

 

Unless you mean that a very, very tiny puncture of the skin is "harm" then no, that is not a given.  The vast, vast, vast majority of people never suffer an adverse reaction to a vaccination just as the vast, vast, vast majority of people are not seriously injured by seatbelts.

 

You are assuming that vaccines are inherently harmful, but there's no data to show that.  None.

 

The difference is you can take the seat belt off when you get to your destination, you cannot take the vaccine off, once vaccinated it is with you 24/7.

 

But that's not quite right.   The vaccine itself does not stay with you forever.  It's true you can't turn it on and off, but then if you're in a car you can't take the belt off (you shouldn't).  The vaccine promotes an immune response and the creation of antibodies, but the substance used itself does not necessarily stay in the body.  Indeed, vaccinations against whooping cough, for example, are not "for life" and need periodic boosters.

 

Also, it's an analogy, not an exact equivelant :-)

 

They are now penalising families from receiving their end of year family tax benefit part A if their children are not vaccinated on time.

 

Something I disagree with.

 

Remember - you do have a choice.  Yes, there's an issue as per above and I'd support a change there (but I do not support non-vaccinated receiving the vaccination bonus - that would be silly - and I could even be convinced that cash payments are not a good incentive.

 

But here's the key - it's not compulsory and it's disingenious when people argue that they're fighting against compulsory vaccination when it doesn't exist.

 

 

[Tasha David]

John,

Are you saying that no members of the SAVN have ever contacted venues were Meryl was going to speak and tried to influence them not to let her speak? That the SAVN  only corrects information they deem to be incorrect or misrepresented and nothing else?

Cheers
Tasha

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Vaccination-Respectful Debate" group.
To post to this group, send an email to vaccination-re...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to vaccination-respectf...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/vaccination-respectful-debate?hl=en-GB.

[Ashley L]

Tasha,

One of the big problems that SAVN have with the AVN is the fact that
they will not tell anyone, ever, that the only information they
provide is anti-vaccination. I will agree that they also provide pro-
choice information, some of which I find factually lacking, but the
information they provide on vaccines is entirely negative. Well,
except when they're admitting that the pertussis vaccine DID work, but
now isn't. SAVN are of the belief that venues who host Ms Dorey should
be fully informed of the information that she is providing, disclosure
which Ms Dorey has previously not been forthcoming with. Which fact
is, in and of itself, most curious considering Ms Dorey's desire for
"informed choice".

On Feb 24, 4:11 pm, Tasha David <tashamda...@gmail.com> wrote:
> John,
>
> Are you saying that no members of the SAVN have ever contacted venues were
> Meryl was going to speak and tried to influence them not to let her speak?
> That the SAVN  only corrects information they deem to be incorrect or
> misrepresented and nothing else?
>
> Cheers
> Tasha

[Tasha David]

Ashley,

I see the AVN and the SAVN in a way as opposing political parties ie Labour and Liberals.  Each party believes that they will be best able to lead the country, and they criticize (usually respectfully) each other constantly, but they do not try to stop the other from being able to speak and they are not trying to destroy each other.  This is a healthy and effective way for people to be able to make up their minds about who is best suited to lead the country.

Criticise (respectfully) the AVN as much as you want, the information being presented should be able to hold up to scrutiny, just stop trying to suppress and ultimately destroy them.  If your arguments are valid then they will be able to stand their ground without needing to silence the opposition.

T

[punter]

I want to know. I have seen several posts on the SAVN site saying that
the pertussis and diphtheria immunisation can provide herd immunity.
But that is impossible right? Being immunised doesn't stop the
bacteria does it (irrespective of whether you agree the vaccine
works)? So how can there be herd immunity? Now I have never once seen
a correction to this egregious mistake on the SAVN site or indeed any
public health website. So are you going to do so?

[Phil B]

Unfortunately, Tash, that only works if both sides allow discussion. It appears that the AVN prevents any dissent or counter argument being made.

 

In my opinion, the AVN DOES actively suppress SAVN from speaking, by submitting false DMCA take down requests to Facebook regarding SAVN posts that contains quotes of AVN material (legal under the copyright acts in both Australia and the US).

 

These DMCA takedowns appear to be false because when challenged, MD never follows up with proof (as required under the DMCA).

[JC]

No Tasha, I did not say that.

SAVN has used in the past, and will continue to do so in the future,
our freedom of speech to inform the people that the AVN comes into
contact with the "real" message of the AVN, and that is that it is
entirely anti vaccination. That is not suppression, but free
expression of our opinions.

John

[Mike Mayfield]

Tasha,

my posts on the AVN blog were polite, although very firmly argued.

They have now all been deleted by Meryl, after she presumably tired of
me pointing out inconsistencies or factual errors in her writings.
There are a couple of screenshots I took which prove this. Also you
can see it on the blog itself where Meryl answers to my name and to
something I obviously wrote, but the post in question is now
mysteriously absent.

She banned all of us from the AVN facebook page very early on. She
made it clear that the page was only for people who agreed with AVN,
not for those who didn't. This too was after many posts correcting
factual errors. Many of these corrections were posted by actual
doctors, specialists, infectious disease researchers, and so on.

Your last sentence, about "if the arguments are valid then they'll be
able to stand their ground", is something I totally agree with. I said
almost exactly that on my last attempt to post on the AVN blog,
imploring to Meryl that if her arguments were so good, then my
criticism of them would simply make a fool of me, so why not allow the
comments to stand for all her supporters to see? It never made it
through moderation.

I guess you really just have to look at Meryl's actions, rather than
take her word that the AVN encourages debate and fair criticism.

[Tasha David]

Hi Mike,

I know there needs to be movement from both sides for any open discussion, but when you think about it, isn't that what we are trying to do here in our debate? 

Meryl set this up so we, the supporters of both sides of the argument, could argue the facts without the nastiness, so isn't this her showing her willingness to encourage open discussion?

Cheers
T

[Ashley L]

Moderator, I have reviewed the post and made the appropriate
qualifying remarks.

Tasha, you seem to be mistaken about the relationship between that
exists between the AVN and its detractors. AVN and SAVN are not
diametric opposites in the "vaccine debate". The purpose of SAVN is
NOT to articulate the pro-vaccine side of the argument. Not in the
slightest. Why? Because, fundamentally, they believe that it is the
role of physicians and public health authorities to advocate the
benefits of vaccines. This is clearly reflected in the material at the
bottom of the SAVN page (and repeatedly by its members):

For reliable information on immunisation, speak to your GP or go to
http://www.immunise.health.gov.au/

No, the focus of SAVN is quite clearly on what they believe to be the
deceptive, anti-
vaccination information distributed by Ms Dorey and the AVN.
Personally, I don't see much point in making a distinction, casual
analysis of the operating mechanics listed in the constitution of the
AVN suggest that the entire
operation can, and most likely IS, run entirely at the sole discretion
of Ms Dorey with one other signatory required to meet requirements.
Which is, in and of itself, quite a questionable business
model by my interpretation.

Before I move on to anything else, I will ask this: IF someone is
repeatedly making false claims which are demonstrably damaging or
hurtful to others, which have little to no basis in reality, should
society be responsible for holding them accountable for their
actions?

Also, how do you feel on the restriction of pharmaceutical companies
to engage in marketing practises?

Just for funsies I'd also like to point out that free speech was
enshrined in the US Bill of Rights almost twenty years before duelling
was made illegal.

As always, there are several things wrong with Punter's argument.
One, like most of his material, it's flagrantly off topic. Why he
can't just start a separate thread like everybody else, I do not know.
Two, he implies that in order for SAVN to be watchdogs of the AVN they
must be watchdogs for ALL health service providers, which is utter
nonsense.
Three, nobody to whom he is addressing his question believes that he
regularly reads the SAVN page or that he
could be trusted to not misrepresent what he has seen on the SAVN
page,
especially when he's predicating an argument on something that he
hasn't seen.
Four, he is making the same misrepresentation that he has made a
thousand times, that the professional members of SAVN actually believe
that vaccination is some sort of fantabulous, perfect, infallible,
guardian of health instead of the numbers game which it quite clearly
is.
Five, he is fundamentally in error about herd immunity re: pertussis
and once again has demonstrated his wonderful talent at assuming he is
logic is infallible and simultaneously giving a wonderful showing of
his abysmal ability to do his own research. On the first google, using
the following string: (mechanism, pertussis herd immunity) one finds
the first link is from science based medicine (http://bit.ly/qIn4MX)
which states, in plain english and with sufficient referencing:

"The vaccine is good, but not perfect. Vaccine efficacy is 64% for
cases defined by mild cough, 81% for paroxysmal cough, and 95% for
severe clinical illness (11). Note the vaccine is good for attenuating
the disease, not preventing it entirely. Patient with a cough are
very infectious. Cough is a great way to spread disease (15). "

So the numbers (that were fabricated by magic number generators) show
that the vaccine makes the infection asymptomatic, as it was intended,
reducing the total disease load and considerably reduces the risk of
passing on infection. Heavens to Murgatroyd, a method in which herd
immunity can POSSIBLY work for pertussis, DESPITE the claims of
Tristan Wells?! IMPOSSIBRU! Honestly, what a lark.

I also have to agree with some of the recently posted sentiment: a
free speech defence on behalf of Ms Dorey is, to me, gallingly
hypocritical. I can, if you like, produce a screenshot where Ms Dorey
was laughing (I don't meant that metaphorically, she was ACTUALLY
laughing) at the fact that she had banned me; I had posted to the AVN
wall twice, once to ask Ms Dorey if she would consider my lengthy post
in response to her "mercury mythy busting" a post which I should point
out, nobody here wanted to address, and once more when she was
gloating that nobody had taken up her Respectful Debate challenge,
pointing out that many people would be uncomfortable in the lack of
transparency in which the moderation was decided. Banned posts are
hidden and bans cannot be reversed. I can also provide you with copies
of EVERY post which I have submitted to the AVN blog in which I have
factually and respectfully pointed out serious errors in Ms Dorey's
posts to have them languish indefinitely "awaiting moderation".

[punter]

>Patient with a cough are
very infectious. Cough is a great way to spread disease <

Oh of course! That's right. I forgot that the only people who ever
coughed were those with pertussis. So tell me Ashley, why do they have
all these PCR tests and other fancy equipment (I might even be
prepared to say random number generators). After all if someone has a
cough, then they MUST have pertussis right otherwise that explanation
completely falls apart (even ignoring the fact that is an ad hoc
explanation anyway)?

And correct me if I am wrong, but aren't the coughs generally
associated with pertussis sporadic rather than consistent? Surely if
that dastardly bacteria wanted to transmit itself (through coughing)
to as many people as possible millions of years of evolution would
have made the cough consistent wouldn't it?

>Tasha, you seem to be mistaken about the relationship between that
exists between the AVN and its detractors. AVN and SAVN are not
diametric opposites in the "vaccine debate". The purpose of SAVN is
NOT to articulate the pro-vaccine side of the argument. Not in the
slightest. Why? Because, fundamentally, they believe that it is the
role of physicians and public health authorities to advocate the
benefits of vaccines. This is clearly reflected in the material at
the
bottom of the SAVN page (and repeatedly by its members): <

You're almost there Ashley. The purpose of the AVN is to take a group
of people (and one particular individual especially) and intimidate
them into silence with shrill abuse. It is not about persuading people
to vaccinate because it is not in the nature of such people (the
SAVNs) to engage in persuasion. For them if you don't agree with them
(which means you don't agree with the authorities) you are wrong and
you should either be forced or at the very least intimidated into
doing as they tell you. They are like Napoleon's dogs in Animal Farm.

They practically ALL believe in mandatory vaccination - regardless of
what they may tell you. Otherwise there is no way to make any sense of
such tactics. If you want to persuade people then you take the best
(or most persuasive) arguments of the other side and refute them. If
your tactic is to persuade people then telling people that Meryl isn't
an authority makes no sense because nobody believes Meryl for any
reason other than because she is a highly articulate purveyor of a
chain of reasoning that resonates very strongly with them. But holding
her out as an example of what certain people will do to you if you
don't follow the party line makes perfect sense when understood
through the prism of what the SAVN truly is all about - justifying the
mandatory vaccination of our children.

On Feb 26, 10:07 pm, Ashley L <lockeas...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Moderator, I have reviewed the post and made the appropriate
> qualifying remarks.
>
> Tasha, you seem to be mistaken about the relationship between that
> exists between the AVN and its detractors. AVN and SAVN are not
> diametric opposites in the "vaccine debate". The purpose of SAVN is
> NOT to articulate the pro-vaccine side of the argument. Not in the
> slightest. Why? Because, fundamentally, they believe that it is the
> role of physicians and public health authorities to advocate the
> benefits of vaccines. This is clearly reflected in the material at the
> bottom of the SAVN page (and repeatedly by its members):
>

> For reliable information on immunisation, speak to your GP or go tohttp://www.immunise.health.gov.au/

> > take her word that the AVN encourages debate and fair criticism.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[Mike Mayfield]

Yes Tasha, I agree with you that at least we are able to debate on
this forum.

This fact still doesn't explain Meryl's actions though. I find her
actions in systematically deleting dissenting viewpoints on the other
forums very puzzling. Particularly of interest to me is that those
forums - the AVN facebook page, and the AVN website blog - are the
forums that most of her fans are more likely to regularly visit. They
are certainly the forums most likely to pop up or be led towards in a
google search. I don't see many referrals (well, any at all actually)
on those sites for people to "go check out the google groups to get
both sides of the debate".

If she wanted her fans and friends to see both sides of the debate,
I'd think that having it on those other forums would be ideal.
Wouldn't you agree? In my opinion, there are not too many explanations
for this behaviour. Well, none that Meryl would like anyway.

Regards,
Mike

[Tasha David]

Ashley,

If I am incorrect in my portrayal of the SAVN, by all means correct me, because I am only going on what I am hearing from my fellow debatees.  John says the SAVN does not believe in suppressing free speech, do you feel the same?

A few other questions for you,

1)  If the SAVN believe that physicians and public health authorities are the ones to advocate the benefits of vaccines, then why do they not tackle the "misinformation" and "deceptive information practices" that the AVN has been accused of? 

2)  If these same organisations believe that AVN is such a danger to society, why have they not shut them down? 

3)  And since they haven't why do the SAVN feel the need to do so?

"Before I move on to anything else, I will ask this: IF someone is
repeatedly making false claims which are demonstrably damaging or
hurtful to others, which have little to no basis in reality, should
society be responsible for holding them accountable for their
actions?"

If they break the laws that are in place to protect society then they should be held accountable, if they do not then there is nothing to be held accountable for.

It really comes down to this simple question should people be allowed to make their own health choices?  If this is the case, then there is no reason to stop the AVN.  As you have all said before the majority of doctors, experts, health officials, governments all say vaccines are fundamental to the health of our people, why do you want to silence the small voice that questions this statement?


Cheers
Tasha

[Tasha David]

Hi Mike,

I can understand why you would feel the way you do about the AVN facebook page and blog page but my impression (and this is solely my impression) is that these pages are for the members of the group that are more vulnerable ie families with vaccine injured children, or new or prospective parents that are wanting the information that they were not able to get from their doctors or health professionals.  It provides a place where they can come without fear of harassment or ridicule for having fears about vaccines, ask their questions or share their stories.  So I feel this is why Meryl is much more selective about what comments she lets through.

That is a valid point about promoting the respectful vaccination debate as somewhere they could come if they want to hear both sides on her website, that seems like quite a reasonable request.  Would you feel better about the AVN if that was to happen?

Cheers
Tasha

[Tasha David]

John,

The difference is when you ask or try to influence venues not to allow her to speak, then you cross the line into suppression of free speech.  If you are not doing this and only telling them that you consider her to be only anti vaccine, (which is your opinion) then I see no problem.  But I am pretty sure that the venues that allow Meryl to speak are already aware of yours and others views of her and her message.

Cheers
Tasha

[JC]

Tasha,

The AVN uses their influence to spread alleged misinformation. Why
can't we use our influence to let people know that it is entirely anti-
vaccination. The venue owners can make up there own mind after that -
it's not suppression. It is a neat tactic of the AVN to call it
suppression, but that's just to paint us in an unflattering light. If
the AVN is going to tell fibs, then they should toughen up and expect
opposition. It's a world of adults out there who take responsibility
for their statements, and not a playground.

John

PS: have you ever read anything pro-vaccine on an AVN page? It's not
my opinion that the AVN is anti-vaccine: it's a statement of fact.

[Mike Mayfield]

Tasha, if you read through both the AVN blog and facebook page, paying
particular attention to the subject titles and commentary by Meryl and
her moderators, you will notice the following:

1) Only a relatively small proportion of comments and posts have
anything to do with attempting to support allegedly vaccine-injured
children. I say alleged, because although I'm sure there are some
genuine vaccine reactions, there is also an awful lot of the "post hoc
ergo propter hoc" argument which goes on there. "My child got sick. It
wasn't long after the vaccination. Therefore it was caused by the
vaccination". Ignoring the fact that young kids do actually get sick
for a multitude of reasons.

2) A significant number of moderator comments allege pretty much that
all, or at least most, mainstream doctors are corrupt and/or
incompetent and/or negligent and/or have no idea what they're talking
about.

3) A significant number of moderator comments allege gigantic
conspiracies which span the entire globe and all of the mainstream
medical profession.

The proportion of "support for vaccine injured kids and answering
questions" compared to the proportion of making very serious
allegations is quite tiny. This is simply an observation.

Mike

[Greg Beattie]

To all you people who wonder why you are banned from the AVN facebook page,

Why can't you understand this simple point? You've been told many times the AVN set the facebook page up for its supporters... its 'friends'. It's a place where aggreived people can discuss things without fear of intimidation. A place where supporters can exchange ideas, thoughts, and stories. A place where they can try and find some SUPPORTIVE company. It is NOT your debate site. Stop moaning.

On the other hand, the AVN set THIS site up for those who would like to debate. Do you get it yet? You are HERE. The AVN set it up. Go ahead and debate. Stop moaning that they don't want your debate on their facebook 'friends' page. Good grief!
Greg

[Ashley L]

"The difference is when you ask or try to influence venues not to
allow her to speak, then you cross the line into suppression of free
speech."

I'm curious, aren't you suppressing their free speech by telling them
what they're doing is wrong and that they should stop? Let me
temporise that by saying I'm not trying to be deliberately difficult,
I'm just trying to point out what I see as a fundamental flaw of
defending one person's speech over another from a free speech point of
view.

" But I am pretty sure that the venues that allow Meryl to speak are
already aware of yours and others views of her and her message. "

Actually, Tasha, SAVN queried this initially and not all of them were.
The ones that did cancel seemed to be genuinely shocked, in fact. I
have seen correspondence from venues to this effect, would you like me
to see if it can be provided to you?

We've ALL heard Ms Dorey's justification, Greg, but it's a relatively
unmalleable concept, Greg: If you're for "free speech" you're for free
speech everywhere. If you start designating place where it's free and
where it's not, it's limited speech. Not quite the same, rallying the
troops around that chestnut, eh?

I don't think anyone at SAVN really terribly minds being banned from
posting on the AVN page, it irritates them, certainly does me, Peter
Bowditch, for example, doesn't terribly mind being slandered, as he
MOST assuredly was on the AVN blog recently (I'll provide the
screencap for you, and remind you that Ms Dorey chooses which comments
she publishes on said blog), but he would like the opportunity to
respond to his detractors or, at the very least, have the courage to
address their comments to him directly and not on not-so-covert
mailing lists. No, indeed, the thing SAVN and I, find galling is that
Ms Dorey frequently invokes a free speech defence: that she should be
permitted to make whatever remarks she chooses, wherever she should
choose, but does not, herself, have the conviction to enforce such a
freedom in her own domain.

This is, as I see it, exactly how the argument was framed when I was
banned: "They shouldn't be allowed on our page because they're
suppressing the free exchange of ideas and speech. Also, HAH HAH HAH,
I banned you." Try and tell me, with a straight face, that's not
remarkable hypocrisy?

I would also like to point out that, to the best of my knowledge, none
of the many facebook accounts of Ms Dorey are banned from the SAVN
page. Several of the contributors there have banned Ms Dorey from
viewing their profiles, but that was because they tired of her
attempts to censor her critics using DMCAs. Incidentally, if anyone
would like, I'll provide the DMCA Ms Dorey filed against one of the
SAVN members alleging copyright content was hers when, in fact, her
signature sits at the bottom of a deed assigning the content to the
ABC who gave me assurances they did not believe THEIR content was
being infringed.

[Mike Mayfield]

Greg,

It appears I have to repeat this for a second time as you didn't
understand the way I put it the first time:

The AVN facebook page makes some pretty outrageous and serious
allegations against the medical profession, often, and repeatedly. Do
you honestly believe that there should be no right of reply?

Is that the way you like things to run? Make serious allegations of
incompetence, lack of knowledge, unprofessionalism, conspiracy,
coverups, etc, with complete and total immunity, and where any
response to such allegations is instantly suppressed? Truly, that's
how you like it Greg? And you honestly want it to stay that way? The
AVN facebook page "moderators" are clearly not controlling that page
so that it simply "provides support" or a forum for "ideas and
stories". They are actively encouraging the behaviour I just
mentioned.

I really don't see what is so difficult to understand about why that
might be a bit of a problem, both on principle, and with how your
group is perceived by "outsiders".

[JC]

Greg,

No one is wondering why. None at all. The reason is clear, and that
is that the AVN removes any comments on their Facebook pages that
could be considered as contradicting their advice, or that sounds pro-
vaccine. We all know why. I think what people are amazed at is that
when the AVN turns around and states that they're pro-choice and not
anti-vaccine, it is clearly not the case.

Let me make this clear Greg. No one is wondering why we're banned.
The banning process is proof that the AVN is anti-vaccine, and will
not tolerate any comments that contradict their opinion, or that are
seen as supportive of vaccination. So where does this lead us? When
the AVN states that they are pro-choice, they are not. That's all.

John

[Tasha David]

John,

It is suppression when you try to stop someone else from being able to speak pure and simple, if you are not doing this, then it is not.

I have been thinking a lot lately about the whole "anti vaccine" label, especially after reading the latest blog about Fran Sheffield's views.  I can see what she is trying to say and respect her courage for saying it, but I personally would disagree with this description of the AVN.  Just because they think vaccines are dangerous and ineffective in promoting health does not justify the label of "anti vaccine". 

I think sky diving is dangerous but does that make me anti sky diving?  No, because I am not out there trying to ban people from being able to sky dive.  I believe that other people should be able to sky dive if they want to, but there is no way you will ever see me throw myself out of a plane! lol!

I am a Christian so I don't believe in other religion's, but does that make me anti Muslim, Judaism, Bhuddist, Atheist etc? No, because I believe everyone has the right to express their own spirituality in whatever form they want, and I don't want other people's belief systems to be banned just because I don't believe in them.

The same can be said for the AVN, even though they believe that vaccination can be dangerous and ineffective, they still believe that people should be able to vaccinate themselves and their children if they choose to. They are just trying to provide the information that is missing on the risks of vaccination which is not being provided by doctors and medical professionals.  Yes, the information that they provide is almost completely about the dangers or ineffectiveness of vaccines, but when people come looking for information from the AVN, they are coming to hear the other side that they don't hear from the vaccine advocates, and if they aren't they soon leave, which is the way it is supposed to be.  If you don't like the information you are hearing you go elsewhere, you don't try and shut down the message (unless it breaks the law).

The other problem I have with the "anti vaccine" label, is that it is exactly that, a label, one which has very negative connotations in society at the moment. It is a label that is being used to separate, discriminate, stigmatize and to portray us as deviant from society and this causes people to feel very strong negative feelings towards people they consider different from them. 
These labels lead to people making comments like "your children should not be allowed to go to school with vaccinated children", "you are an irresponsible parent, and I feel sorry for your children", "You are responsible for the deaths of babies and you should not be allowed to be part of society", "you and your children are reservoirs of diseases" etc and believe me when I say I have had all of these things said to me( not to my face of course but the feeling is still very unpleasant).  Feelings like these are not conducive to a healthy and accepting society, the SAVN may be concerned with the health of the body but the health of the mind and heart is equally important and to me even more so. 

Little actions start the process, labeling and stereotyping, then on to suppression and discrimination and if things continue this way then you really start spiraling down towards ostracism, fear and hatred. This is another reason why I thought that this discussion is important we are still in the beginning stages of this negative process, but if we can start understanding and accepting people's differing views without hostility how much better off are we as a society?  There are more ways than one, to achieve good health, we have to stop trying to make people conform to our own views of what it is and have some faith in the system that we have chosen for ourselves to protect us.

Cheers
Tasha

[Jason Brown]

Tasha, your analogy is deeply flawed.

Sure, merely thinking skydiving is dangerous does not make one anti-
skydiving. However if one started a "non governmental organisation" to
highlight that perceived danger, and to actively campaign against
current policy on skydiving, and publish material that is solely about
the dangers of skydiving with absolutely no mention of safety
provisions such as advances in canopy design, and to exaggerate
statistics on fatalities, then you'd move most assuredly into the
category.

You're welcome.

Jason

[Tasha David]

Ashley,

 

 “I'm curious, aren't you suppressing their free speech by telling them

what they're doing is wrong and that they should stop? Let me
temporise that by saying I'm not trying to be deliberately difficult,
I'm just trying to point out what I see as a fundamental flaw of
defending one person's speech over another from a free speech point of

view.”

 

No, I’m not, interesting twist though.

 

The reason I’m not, is simply because I am pointing out that their actions are contradicting their words, the choice is theirs whether to continue to engage in these actions or not.  What I am also doing is discussing motives, I am not telling them what to do, I am suggesting how things could be better and nothing more.

 

“Actually, Tasha, SAVN queried this initially and not all of them were.

The ones that did cancel seemed to be genuinely shocked, in fact. I
have seen correspondence from venues to this effect, would you like me

to see if it can be provided to you?”

 

That is surprising to me, but it’s alright I don’t need proof. 

 

Cheers

Tasha

[Katie Brockie]

Tasha, this is what I have a problem with

"They are just trying to provide the information that is missing on the risks of vaccination which is not being provided by doctors and medical professionals."

Please tell me what information is missing? What information is not being provided by doctors etc? The answer is NONE. There is no sinister, hidden information. Usually, people who make this statement (I'm not saying it's you) have a deep distrust of Doctors and/or the Medical profession .

" Yes, the information that they provide is almost completely about the dangers or ineffectiveness of vaccines, but when people come looking for information from the AVN, they are coming to hear the other side that they don't hear from the vaccine advocates,"

Again - this is just not true. There are many neutral websites and sources of information which contain everything a parent needs (or wants) to know about vaccination.

" If you don't like the information you are hearing you go elsewhere, you don't try and shut down the message (unless it breaks the law). "

No - I will never go elsewhere when the message I am hearing actually puts children's health at risk.


cheers

K

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Vaccination-Respectful Debate" group.
To post to this group, send an email to vaccination-re...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to vaccination-respectf...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/vaccination-respectful-debate?hl=en-GB.

--
ph: 03 4728585
Mob: 021 1881282

[Mike Mayfield]

Tasha, this is where I have a bit of an issue with the AVN way of
thinking. That way of thinking (IMHO) distorts the concept of "risk"
into something it really isn't.

Everything in life is a balance of the following two simple
considerations:

1) The probability of success
2) The (adverse) consequences of failure

Skydiving, in the example you used, has a high probability of success
(the chute usually opens), but also extremely high consequences of
failure (almost certain death if the chute doesn't open). Thus it
cannot fit into a "low risk" category if you were to do a proper risk
analysis on it.

Vaccination has also been shown to have a high probability of success.
It works for the great majority of people. However it is different
from skydiving in that the adverse consequences of failure are also
relatively low. A reaction more severe than the average person - a
temporary and brief illness for example. These "failures" (and they're
actually pretty rare in any healthy person) have low consequences in
the vast majority of cases. The failure of a chute while skydiving has
fatal consequences in almost every case.

So what you define as "dangerous" gets massaged and skewed into
something it really isn't, when you stand back and assess it from a
distance.

The anti-vaccine label does indeed have negative connotations. For
example, the banning of polio vaccinations back in 2003 by a state in
northern Nigeria was grossly irresponsible. Unsurprisingly, not long
after the ban, polio broke out in exactly that state, crippling
thousands of children, exactly as predicted by our scientific
knowledge of what the polio vaccine does and the demographics of that
disease (Nigeria promptly became responsible for 2/3 of the world's
polio cases at the time). It was a tragedy caused by gross ignorance
and more than a little bigotry (the original ban was a result of
religious differences, the polio vaccine not being made in a "Muslim"
country!). This whole episode is very well documented, and very
tragic.

So yes, the anti-vaccination movement has to live with certain
negative connotations. However I agree that some things people say
about it are unduly harsh. There is no evidence, for example, that
anti-vaccine proponents are intentionally trying to make children
suffer. Quite the opposite in fact. They honestly believe that what
they are doing is a good thing and will reduce suffering.
Unfortunately very little of the available medical and scientific
evidence supports that belief. Most of it actually contradicts it.
What I don't really understand is how we got into that situation. Lack
of communication perhaps? Misplaced fear? Misunderstanding? Mistrust?
I don't know the answer nor do I really know how to correct it.

Regards,
Mike

[Tasha David]

“Please tell me what information is missing? What information is not being provided by doctors etc? The answer is NONE. There is no sinister, hidden information. Usually, people who make this statement (I'm not saying it's you) have a deep distrust of Doctors and/or the Medical profession .”

 

You are right most of it is not hidden at all, it is just either not mentioned or down played because they have read some of the studies you have read and none of the ones I have.  I have been a mother for 22 years now, I have seen many doctors for my 8 children from 2 different countries, and 2 different states in Australia, not once when I took my 6 children in for their vaccinations was I told that there could be adverse reactions other than a slight bump and a little temperature that a little panadol would get rid of.  I have talked to many parents who have experienced the same lack of information when going to get their children their vaccinations also, this is what I am talking about.

 

But even though my doctors did not tell me the information that I needed to make an informed choice, I do not harbour a deep distrust about them or the medical profession, I know that they believed that they were doing what they thought was the best thing for my family, unfortunately it wasn’t.  So I am now aware that there are other ways to treat general health that a doctor or medical profession may not be trained to help me with, that does not mean that I don’t believe in the worth of medical professionals, there are definitely many things that they alone can provide like surgery, emergency treatment etc.  I just believe in a more integrative approach to my family’s health care.

 

“Again - this is just not true. There are many neutral websites and sources of information which contain everything a parent needs (or wants) to know about vaccination.”

 

Which neutral websites and information?  Can you post some links and I will check them out, I am curious to see what they say.

 

“No - I will never go elsewhere when the message I am hearing actually puts children's health at risk.”

 

That’s how I feel when I hear people talking about how wonderful and safe vaccination is, but people seem to forget about the children hurt by vaccines.

 

Cheers

Tasha

 

 

[Tasha David]

"Vaccination has also been shown to have a high probability of success.
It works for the great majority of people. However it is different
from skydiving in that the adverse consequences of failure are also
relatively low. A reaction more severe than the average person - a
temporary and brief illness for example. These "failures" (and they're
actually pretty rare in any healthy person) have low consequences in
the vast majority of cases. The failure of a chute while skydiving has
fatal consequences in almost every case."

My analogy wasn't comparing vaccination with sky diving, though if it was you would have had me with the fatal consequences! lol
I was comparing my feelings/actions against something I consider dangerous and whether it would qualify me as being "anti".

I would be very interested in reading the article/study on the polio outbreak in Nigeria, can you post it please?

"So yes, the anti-vaccination movement has to live with certain
negative connotations. However I agree that some things people say
about it are unduly harsh. There is no evidence, for example, that
anti-vaccine proponents are intentionally trying to make children
suffer. Quite the opposite in fact. They honestly believe that what
they are doing is a good thing and will reduce suffering.
Unfortunately very little of the available medical and scientific
evidence supports that belief. Most of it actually contradicts it.
What I don't really understand is how we got into that situation. Lack
of communication perhaps? Misplaced fear? Misunderstanding? Mistrust?
I don't know the answer nor do I really know how to correct it."

I appreciate that you don't believe we are all evil anti vaxxer's, sometimes it helps to know the other side can see our motivations are actually honourable! :)

As for how we can get out of this situation, I don't know about everyone else but for me, it would help immensely if...

They could study vaccines objectively and work out all of the disorders that can be caused or triggered by vaccination. 

An independent research group was able to study all of these vaccine adverse reactions, to truly gauge how many there really are.

To have all medical professionals tell parents all of the possible adverse reactions and how to recognize them before they give vaccinations. 

They could take note of family history of autoimmune disorders, allergies, neurological disorders before considering vaccination.

Study families that believe that they have vaccine injured children/adults. 

Study a large cohort of fully vaccinated vs fully unvaccinated children and compare health outcomes and if they couldn't do children then maybe monkeys.

But above all else they can accept that there will always be people who do not vaccinate, so maybe they should try to make vaccination more effective so that it does not depend on herd immunity to be able to protect people from diseases and then everyone can be free to follow their own health choices without fear of hostility or discrimination.

Now that would be ideal don't you think?  Then everybody would be happy!

Cheers
Tasha 

[A MacDonald]

Hi Katie,

allow me to help you with your problem.

 

The 769 page reference you supplied to me on another thread, states words to the effect that the jury is still out on alumimum being used in vaccines. Studies link it to Alzheimers and other neurological disorders. I made further comment on the other thread. They say further studies are required before this heavy-metal should be accepted as being safe in mankind. They say many more worrysome things too.

 

I have never seen this written in any government brochure, nor heard of any doctor telling their patients this prior to vaccination. I guess we all know why the study's findings and recommendations have not appeared on the front (or any) page of our daily newspapers

 

So, when you claim there is no information being withheld, well, that is one piece of information that many parents would consider in order to make a balanced choice.

The AVN has hundreds of other examples that the doctor does not tell a patient prior to vaccination, or found in government brochures that a parent has access to, in the normal preparation of having their child vaccinated.

 

You go on to say "There are many neutral websites and sources of information which contain everything a parent needs (or wants) to know about vaccination."

Many "neutral" websites are not really "neutral" at all. They lower themselves to their advertiser's dollars.

Most parents would consider Johnson and Johnson to be a reputable source of advice.

They sell products with talc (we all know about that don't we), and when one looks into the ingredients of many of their other products, well, we as a family chose not to use their product. And yet, it is a major supplier of baby products in Australia, and would be considered as a legitimate source of information on vaccination and health-care. They are not.

 

Are there any in your list of "neutral" websites, which do not promote vaccination? or do they all adhere to current establishment belief, not wanting to step out of line and be ostracised by the local media pack.

Is there anything wrong having a Muslim website, linked to a Christian website?

In Mecca, they co-exist, both providing benefits to the other.

 

Why does the SAVN persist? Why do they not just positively prove their points.

The AVN FB page is reasonably safe from them, but most other places, in my opinion, they seem to think they have the right to just march on in and bully. They say it's fun!

 

Anyway, I hope your problem is now resolved.

Andrew.

[Tasha David]

Jason,

Even with your modified version of my analogy, it still only talks about highlighting dangers of sky diving and neglecting benefits.  Where is my opposition to the sport of sky diving, where is the lobbying of government to change laws so that sky diving is made illegal in Australia, where is my call to the public to say boycott sky diving companies because sky diving will kill you and must be stopped?  Nowhere to be seen. 

Thank you....

I just thought I should say it so your "you're welcome" comment made more sense. :)

[Mike Mayfield]

Tasha, it might be ideal, but we don't live in an ideal world.

Scholarly Articles Nigerian Polio Crisis (I have omitted many articles
where journal subscription is required to view them)

http://www.ajol.info/index.php/nmp/article/viewfile/28905/5211

http://www.eldis.org/vfile/upload/1/document/0708/DOC21227.pdf

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1125279/

News Articles Nigerian Polio Crisis (there are very many more than
this)

http://www.danielpipes.org/2644/a-conspiracy-theory-spreads-polio

http://articles.boston.com/2004-07-20/yourlife/29200759_1_polio-vaccinations-kano-state-polio-cases

http://www.scienceinafrica.co.za/2004/july/kano.htm

>They could study vaccines objectively and work out all of the disorders that can be caused or triggered by vaccination.

What is "objective", by your definition? By default, people
undertaking studies have to have some idea of what they're talking
about and some experience in the field they're studying. This is why
you don't call Jim's Mowing to repair a fault in your electricity
meter box, even though there is no doubt their opinion of how the job
should be done would be totally independent and completely
uninfluenced by the biases in the electrical repair industry. Of
course an electrician would be biased and say it needs "x" repairs and
is going to cost "x" dollars. But isn't that in his best interests to
do that, as he's in it for the money? ;) So medically qualified
professionals do many of these studies, not just drug companies.
Medical literature is already littered with studies on vaccine
effectiveness and part of that process is reporting side effects. None
of these studies (which haven't been shown to be fraudulent or
unethical), to anyone's knowledge, reports spikes or clusters of
unusual disorders post-vaccination.

Also by default you will probably have to rule out all conditions that
existed before vaccination. Which is an awful lot.

>An independent research group was able to study all of these vaccine adverse reactions, to truly gauge how many there really are.

See above.

>To have all medical professionals tell parents all of the possible adverse reactions and how to recognize them before they give vaccinations.

What do you define as "possible"? They can only tell them of
recognised reactions from medical studies, not reactions that are
"suspected by anti-vaccination groups". The list of recognised
reactions is very. very small and minor. Having said that, when I was
vaccinated for Anthrax, I was indeed told of the risks of reaction,
which were slightly more than for the "average" vaccine at the time.

>They could take note of family history of autoimmune disorders, allergies, neurological disorders before considering vaccination.

Doctors who treat you are supposed to do a history. I've always been
asked about allergies, etc before being given any injection.

I accept there are people who do not vaccinate. For example, if you
wanted to go to a country where Yellow Fever is endemic and you refuse
to vaccinate against it, well good luck to you (aside from the fact
they probably won't let you in, but ignore that for the moment). You
are the master of your own destiny, even where that destiny might be
rather unpleasant. Where the situation gets a bit murky is where
adults make decisions on their children's behalf. All adults "believe"
they're doing the right thing for their kids. It's just that based on
the available evidence we have, not all of them appear to be "fully"
or "correctly" informed. It's not necessarily their fault, but it's an
unfortunate fact of life we see in many areas, not just vaccination.
Some of them are making risky decisions based on innate fears or very
small amounts of quite tenuous evidence they've dug up from the bowels
of the internet, which aren't justified by the overwhelming majority
of evidence from professionals in the relevant fields of research. As
I pretty much stated above, would you really call Jim's Mowing for a
totally unbiased and "industry-independent" opinion on an electrical
fault in your house?

[Katie Brockie]

Tasha,
I don't think information is not mentioned or played down because the Doctors have not read the same studies as you have. I think it's because, in real life, the effects from vaccines are absolutely miniscule. Serious side effects are a 1 in a million event. This has been studied and re-studied.
I am so sorry that you happen to be the parent of one of those 1 in a million, but, seriously, do doctors tell you the full extent and risks faced by your children if they were to catch measles? or polio? or diptheria? or meningitis? I mean - which information do you choose to take on board and why? I would seriously ask myself that.
When I took my kids in for vaccinations, I was told about all possible side effects and the chances of them happening. I thought I would rather not risk a 1 in a thousand chance of brain damage compared to a 1 in a million chance.
If you want information - ask the Doctor!! it's that simple. My Doctor has always been open and honest with me, and has always answered my questions.

Here are some neutral websites with vaccination information:

http://www.health.govt.nz/yourhealth-topics/children/immunisation

http://www.who.int/vaccine_research/en/index.html

http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/default.htm

http://www.immune.org.nz/?t=604


Plus - the number of children who have been hurt and killed by vaccine preventable diseases is millions and millions more than those who have been affected by vaccines.
Every single death or bit of damage to any child is tragic. But to me, the more children we can save, the better.

cheers
K

[Tasha David]

Katie,

These are not neutral websites, they are very pro vaccination, but it is interesting that you would consider them neutral.  I also think I responded to part of your post in my other post on the autism mercury thread, sorry about that.

Cheers
T

[Tasha David]

Mike,

Here is an article about Nigeria that has linked an epidemic of a mutated vaccine strain of polio, that they can actually date back to 2005.

"In 2007, health experts reported that amid Nigeria's ongoing outbreak of wild polio viruses, 69 children had also been paralyzed in a new outbreak caused by the mutation of a vaccine's virus.

Back then, WHO said the vaccine-linked outbreak would be swiftly overcome — yet two years later, cases continue to mount. They have since identified polio cases linked to the vaccine dating back as far as 2005.

It is a worrying development for officials who hope to end polio epidemics in India and Africa by the end of this year, after missing several earlier deadlines. "It's very disturbing," said Dr. Bruce Aylward, who heads the polio department at the World Health Organization.

This year, the number of polio cases caused by the vaccine has doubled: 124 children have so far been paralyzed, compared to 62 in 2008, out of about 42 million children vaccinated. For every case of paralysis, there are hundreds of other children who don't develop symptoms, but pass on the disease."

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2009-08-14-nigeria-polio_N.htm

As for calling Jim's moving to fix my electrical fault, I am not asking for someone unqualified to do the studies, of course they need to be experts in the appropriate fields.  I just want them not to be free of conflicts of interest, researchers or scientists who are objective and as unbiased as possible.

Mike, can you imagine how it feels to see your child go downhill after vaccinations and in your gut you know that it was the vaccinations that caused it, yet when you tell the doctors they say"No, no, it wasn't the vaccines, we don't know what causes it but it definitely isn't the vaccines.".  Then to have thousands of other parents say the same thing and yet they too are dismissed as parents who are just looking for something to blame.  This is the real reason we are in the situation where we are, standing on one side of the fence are parents with vaccine injured children (thankfully we have some of our own medical professionals and scientists as well )and on the other side are all the other medical professionals and scientists looking at us like we are crazy, hippy, irresponsible threats to their vaccination coverage rates.  If they start listening to us instead of dismissing us, the fence can come down and we can work together to uncover the real answers to the mystery of vaccine injuries and hopefully Autism too!

Cheers

Tasha

[Tasha David]

Mike,

I just found this too, this is before the boycott also.

Progress Toward Poliomyelitis Eradication --- Nigeria, January 2000--March 2002

"During 2000--2001, the national AFP case detection rate increased from 1.0 per 100,000 children aged <15 years to 3.5, the nonpolio AFP rate increased from 0.6 to 2.2"

Cheers
Tasha

[Katie Brockie]

Hi Tash,
I consider them neutral websites in that they have no vested interest in the information they are putting out. They are not selling anything. Yes, they are pro-vaccination, but that is because the vast majority of evidence and science shows that vaccination is a good thing for public health.
The same websites will give you excellent information on , say, smoking, or exercise or diabetes prevention - so why do you not trust or agree with their vaccination info?

cheers
K

[shotinfo]

Re: [vaccination-respectful-debate] Re: Stop the AVN09:49 (2 minutes ago)

Katie,

By trying to stifle or censor the AVN, you are setting yourself up as THE arbiter of truth and I'm sure you would have to admit that you are not qualified to hold that position. None of us is.

Censoring public debate on this issue and on ALL issues is not in the public interest. It is not up to you, or SAVN or doctors to say what parents, health professionals or any sector of the Australian public can and cannot know. Information that is utter garbage will be shown very quickly to be utter garbage. You are not the one to say what is and is not true.

The attempts by SAVN to stop the AVN are anti-democratic and anti-freedom. 

If you do not like what is being said - you have every right to stop listening and stop participating. You do NOT have a right to tell us we can't speak.

As an example, I am involved in a public seminar on the Sunshine Coast on the 18th of April with 2 other speakers. As soon as I announced my talk, members of Stop the AVN started writing to the venue (we had warned them in advance that this would happen) with letters that the venue manager felt were abusive (their words - not mine). In the words of the manager, these letters were, "Using words such as shameful, disgusting, supporting liars, misinformers and even.... the killing of babies!"

Now, what gives SAVN the right to make such claims? Do they have a monopoly on truth? Has the medical community really done anything to deserve their assertion that they are infallible and questioning their procedures is tantamount to a crime?

I say (and I will not comment on this thread any further because to me, I would prefer to do what this page was set up for - debate vaccination - not debate the debate) that nobody has the right to tell me or anyone else what they can and cannot say outside of slander or defamation (which SAVN is guilty of over and over again). So if you want to argue the issue, please do. If you want to argue the right to argue the issue, you are in the wrong place indeed.

Meryl 

[Tasha David]

Katie,

In the study about antibodies being passed from flu vaccinated mothers to their babies, I found this…

“Our study has several limitations. Although we enrolled a large proportion of eligible infants, a number of them had to be excluded because of protocol violations, and infants who were and were not included in the study population could have systematically differed. Neither confirmed influenza vaccination status nor documented influenza disease status was available from mothers, and serologic assays were not performed on either infants or mothers. Since the study focused on hospitalized infants and not those seen only in the outpatient clinic or emergency departments, the generalizability of these results to outpatient settings is unknown.”

 

These are some pretty big limitations.

 

And I would like to add this to the mix,

 

Vaccines may have increased swine flu risk

"Some interesting data has become available which suggests that if you get immunised with the seasonal vaccine, you get less broad protection than if you get a natural infection," he said.

"It is particularly relevant for children because it is a condition they call original antigenic sin, which basically means if you get infected with a natural virus, that gives you not only protection against that virus but similar viruses or even in fact quite different flu viruses in the next year.

"We may be perversely setting ourselves up that if something really new and nasty comes along, that people who have been vaccinated may in fact be more susceptible compared to getting this natural infection."

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-03-04/vaccines-may-have-increased-swine-flu-risk/1967508

So if these mothers grow up getting vaccinated for flu when they are children just as they are recommended to by medical professionals, wouldn’t the anti bodies passed to their babies also be less protective than it would have been had they been unvaccinated?

The anti bodies passed from vaccinated mother to baby are weaker than unvaccinated mothers to their babies, as shown here in this article regarding Measles. This is also another situation where the vaccine to me has made things much worse. We are now seeing Measles hit children much younger (under 1yrs) when the outcome is more serious.

As Vaccinated Girls Grow Up, Their Babies Face Higher Risk for Measles

“BOSTON — A generation ago, doctors began routinely vaccinating every child against measles. No one worried much about what would happen when the children grew up and had babies of their own.

In hindsight, perhaps they should have. These new mothers fail to pass on the strong resistance to measles at birth that an eternity of women before them have done.”

“CDC figures show how this has changed the face of measles. In 1976, just 3% of all cases occurred in children under age 1. Typically their mothers were born in the 1950s, well before the measles vaccine became routinely available a decade later.

In the 1980s, as teen-agers who were vaccinated as children began to have babies, those numbers started to change. In 1985, almost 8% of measles cases were in infants younger than 1. By 1991, it had climbed to 19%. And so far this year, 28% of all measles cases have occurred in babies under a year old.”

http://articles.latimes.com/1992-12-27/news/mn-5079_1_measles-vaccine

Cheers

T