Despite the best efforts of two anti-vaccination fanatics to sabotage the MeNZB immunisation campaign, more than one million New Zealanders under 20 have been immunised and the epidemic of the B strain of meningococcal disease has been officially declared over. Health Minister David Cunliffe has announced the MeNZB programme is now ceasing.
Meningococcal disease is a frightening illness, particularly for children. Those who contract it often suffer terrible brain damage and can lose limbs. Some die. Despite this, anti-immunisation campaigners Ron Law and Barbara Sumner Burstyn waged war on the MeNZB programme for years, the scare stories they issued in wildly inaccurate “news releases” getting wide coverage in the media.
Over the years, Law, who calls himself a risk and policy analyst, and Sumner Burstyn, a freelance journalist, have attacked every aspect of the MeNZB campaign, with Law even claiming, without a shred of evidence, that children have died from the vaccine.
On one notable occasion when I was interviewing Law, he claimed the vaccine was unsafe in any dosage, but in the same conversation declared that “party pills” were perfectly safe if taken as directed. When I asked for his evidence, he proudly declared he was the analyst for “the Social Tonics Association.” When I asked what that was, he said it was “the party pills industry” and said he had done a risk analysis of party pills, which was presented to Parliament, that proved they were safe.
I was appalled that someone who was campaigning to stop my children being immunised against a life-threatening disease was also helping the campaign to push party pills on them.
The media readily picked up and ran with the nonsense Law and Sumner Burstyn put about, creating huge problems for the health authorities trying to get this awful epidemic under control. The media will always run a story saying some medicine or vaccine is unsafe, with the lack of scientific knowledge in the media ensuring few journalists can tell the difference between evidence and twaddle.
Indeed, the very first item on Morning Report after the 6am news today was an extended interview with Sue Claridge of the (anti) Immunisation Awareness Society, claiming the MeNZB campaign was a waste of money that at most — “if you manipulate the statistics” — had saved 1.7 lives. Naturally, Sean Plunket did not challenge this ridiculous statement.
Such was the commotion against the MeNZB vaccination that even someone as intelligent as blogger Russell Brown fell for the scare stories, writing on Hard News in May 2005 that his son became so sick after the first two doses of the vaccine that he was unlikely to subject him to the third dose needed to ensure effectiveness. Russell reported that large numbers of kids were off school, their flu-like symptoms blamed on the vaccine, a claim quickly lifted from his blog and run with by mainstream media such as Nine to Noon on Radio New Zealand. In fact, the teenagers were ill with a particularly virulent strain of flu that was sweeping Auckland schools at the same time as the immunisation programme. Their illness had nothing to do with the vaccine, but the damage to the campaign was done.
Russell is neither anti-science nor anti-vaccination, so it would be interesting to hear in hindsight if he feels he was fooled by the anti-MeNZB campaign when he wrote that article [Update: Russell has posted his response to this in the comments section below. He also writes about the issue on Hard News].
New Zealand has one of the lowest immunisation rates in the developed world, something I have always put down to the anti-vaccination scare stories that regularly sweep our media.
The international target for vaccination against all the common childhood diseases is to have 95 per cent of children immunised by age two. New Zealand has a long way to go, with a 2005 survey showing just 77.4 per cent of two-year-olds were fully immunised. However, that is a big improvement on the 60 per cent in 1992.
The wonderful thing about anti-vaccine campaigners is their absolute certainty they are right and the health authorities are wrong. Science does not allow claims of absolute certainty, so health experts have to state, quite rightly, that they cannot be certain that any vaccine is 100 per cent safe. This enables anti-vaccine fruitcakes to claim that even the experts agree the vaccines are unsafe, which is utter nonsense.
Some people, particularly children, will occasionally have an adverse reaction to a vaccine. But that reaction – a headache, or swelling at the vaccination site – will very likely be much less serious than catching whooping cough, or diphtheria, or tetanus, or meningococcal B. Of that there is no doubt. Unfortunately, virtually all parents today are too young to remember the terrible epidemics of diseases like polio that killed and maimed large numbers of children here and around the world before vaccines were developed in the 1950s.
Meningococcal disease is a bacteria-caused illness that affects the lining of the brain. There are various strains which have caused epidemics in many countries in recent decades. Vaccines were developed to defeat them. The main New Zealand strain, meningococcal B, broke out in an epidemic around 1991 and by decade’s end was causing serious concern. No vaccine existed for it, so our government put up $200 million for Chiron Corporation (now Novartis) to create one from a vaccine that was developed in the 1990s by the Norwegian Institute of Public Health for another strain of meningococcal B.
The resulting vaccine, called MeNZB, was ready for the immunisation programme to start in South Auckland in 2004, quickly followed by the rest of New Zealand. It was offered to everyone under 20, with three doses required.
The statistics speak for themselves so I am publishing them here. The first column is the calendar year, the second is the total number of meningococcal disease cases in each year, with the third column being confirmed cases of the epidemic B strain. Not all cases are the B strain, but nor can it be shown that all the other cases were not the B strain.
|
Year |
All strains |
B strain |
|
1991 |
71 |
|
|
1992 |
153 |
|
|
1993 |
202 |
|
|
1994 |
208 |
|
|
1995 |
394 |
|
|
1996 |
473 |
|
|
1997 |
614 |
235 |
|
1998 |
438 |
223 |
|
1999 |
504 |
253 |
|
2000 |
480 |
269 |
|
2001 |
651 |
370 |
|
2002 |
556 |
291 |
|
2003 |
541 |
259 |
|
2004 |
341 |
184 |
|
2005 |
227 |
113 |
|
2006 |
160 |
74 |
|
2007 |
105 |
47 |
The effect of the vaccination programme beginning in 2004 is immediately apparent, with the number of cases falling so rapidly that health officials have advised David Cunliffe that mass vaccination is no longer needed. The programme is ending a year earlier than planned, partly also to ensure babies and toddlers are not being subjected to four shots of the new Prevenar vaccine against the rising threat of pneumococcal disease as well as three of MeNZB.
Ron Law will claim that the epidemic was on the wane and would have ended without the campaign, but the evidence does not support him. It would likely have continued for another decade or more without the MeNZB programme.
Yes, the vaccine did not protect everyone. There have been 46 cases of people contracting the epidemic strain despite being fully immunised, and one child has died from the epidemic strain despite being fully immunised. Medical experts say that total protection for everyone cannot be guaranteed.
Several years ago, I did a presentation to a Skeptics Society conference based on research I undertook on the way the media treated medical issues. I analysed a dozen major New Zealand newspapers for a year, looking at whether science-based medicine was treated the same way as “alternative medicine” practitioners.
My findings were clear. The media were very sceptical, and sometimes overtly hostile, to claims being made by doctors, health authorities and drug companies. I felt this was healthy, because journalists should be sceptical of the claims of experts and government authorities. But in sharp contrast, there was precious little scepticism, or even questioning, of the fantastic claims being made on behalf of “alternative medicine.” I felt that was unhealthy, because, while most “alternative medicines,” such as homeopathic preparations, have no active ingredients at all and thus cannot harm anyone, people who turn to it when they need effective medical treatment can do themselves real harm. Journalists need to be aware of this, but my research found most were not.
My presentation compared several major cases that had been in the news. One was poor Liam Williams Holloway, whose parents refused to allow him standard chemotherapy for a common childhood cancer, which was killing him. The media, and particularly Paul Holmes, raged against the medical doctors and upheld the right of Liam’s parents to have him “treated” with a magical box of tricks promoted by a charlatan in Rotorua. Liam duly died.
Around the same time, the Samoan parents of Tovia Laufau, 13, in South Auckland, prayed to God rather than allow doctors to treat the cancer on their son’s knee. Tovia also duly died. Doctors were too scared to go to court to try to save him because of the media hysteria that followed them doing that to try to save Liam.
As an aside, I found it interesting that the media bayed for the blood of Tovia’s religious parents, but fully supported Liam’s New Age parents, whose belief in a magic box was just as misguided as Tovia’s parents’ belief in their god. And just as interestingly, the Samoan parents ended up in court for their son’s death, but no charges were ever laid against Liam’s. I suppose if there is one thing many journalists are more suspicious of than science, it is religion.
Most interesting of all was Paul Holmes. Soon afterwards, he was diagnosed with prostate cancer. Did he rush to Rotorua to avail himself of the magic box, which by then was being advertised with the line “as seen on Holmes”? Of course not. He rushed straight to an oncologist.
The anti-science media attitudes that turned up in my research for the Skeptics presentation are the reason misguided people like Ron Law and Barbara Sumner Burstyn were able to get such massive publicity for their hysterical anti-MeNZB campaign. We live, thank goodness, in a free society, in which people are allowed to believe any old rubbish they like. But the media surely has a duty to treat the claims of anti-vaccine campaigners with the same scrutiny that they treat the claims of the health authorities who promote vaccination. Unfortunately, that does not happen.
Fortunately, with the MeNZB campaign, the great majority of parents were able to see that the disease was so much, much worse than the vaccine could possibly be, and had their children immunised, with the result that this terrible epidemic has now been broken. If only we can now do the same with such illnesses as whooping cough, on the rise again because immunisation rates are so low.
Maybe the success of the MeNZB campaign will give our health authorities the courage to promote the full range of vaccinations with the aim of reaching that 95 per cent coverage level needed to prevent epidemics of many common illnesses immunisation protects against.
77 Comments
April 15, 2008 at 7:23 am
I am not disputing what you saying generally but You say “meningococcal disease is a bacteria-caused illness.” The vaccine is against a specific strain of viral meningitis, it does not protect against the bacterial version as you can’t vaccinate for a bacterial illness. I think was one problem as parents thought their kids would be 100% safe after vaccination but they were still suspectable to other strains or the bacterial one and. I am not against vaccinnation overall but I think people need to understand it better (either way) and you have provided some good info here
April 15, 2008 at 7:32 am
You better read this artandmylife:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neisseria_meningitidis
April 15, 2008 at 7:34 am
Great post.
New Zealand media is much like that of the rest of the world – interested in filling column inches and broadcast time. Tripe is fine – even better if it’s controversial. Using the principle of “balance” in news coverage, they ignore evidence and give credence to delusional, illogical, just plain dumb thinking – after all, controversy sells – who cares that lives are at stake.
April 15, 2008 at 8:11 am
Well done.
April 15, 2008 at 8:23 am
Russell is neither anti-science nor anti-vaccination, so it would be interesting to hear in hindsight if he feels he was fooled by the anti-MeNZB campaign when he wrote that article.
No, not at all. I was often scathing of those people and I’ve clashed with Ron Law before and since. As the parent of two boys on the autism spectrum I’m constantly confronted with bad science about immunisation. So please don’t patronise me about this.
And my son did have his third shot– not at school, but from his doctor, after he’d fully recovered from the effects of the second, which made him as sick as he’d been in his life.
The symptoms — protracted pain and immobility in the injected arm, awful mouth ulcers, fatigue and malaise — were not merely those of the flu. He suffered symptoms after the third shot too, but we waited until he was in good health so it wasn’t as bad.
Perhaps what was described at the time as an “unheard of” rate of absence from Auckland school was simply a consequence of a particularly virulent flu, although it didn’t appear to manifest in workplace absences amongst adults. I do think the fact that the campaign coincided with that winter’s flu was unfortunate, and that it was a double whammy for some kids. (I was contacted by a doctor who thought much the same thing.) But perhaps the programme couldn’t be derailed once it was underway. Fine. This is important, after all.
But what I was most unhappy with was the level of information provided to parents and schools. The impact of the vaccination was simply greater than people had been led to believe. The MoH was, understandably, so keen for the campaign to go ahead that it downplayed potential adverse reactions, to an unhelpful extent. The official consumer advice was vague, and it wasn’t until I found the official Medsafe data sheet that what had happened made a bit more sense:
http://www.medsafe.govt.nz/profs/datasheet/m/menzbvac.htm
I wasn’t particularly comfortable suddenly being in the media about this (I was asked to go on 3 News after speaking to Linda Clark, but I refused), but I think I had a point. And so did the PA reader I quoted at the time:
So please, don’t lump me in with the anti-vaccination crowd, or attempt to diagnose our son’s repeated adverse reactions on the basis of what you think happened. He had his three shots. But I remain of the view that things could have been handled a lot better.
April 15, 2008 at 8:48 am
Thanks Andrew W .Well there you go mis-information abounds! and I got sucked into it
April 15, 2008 at 10:12 am
> I was appalled that someone who was campaigning to stop my children being immunised against a life-threatening disease was also helping the campaign to push party pills on them.
Well, you could have paid for the vaccine if you’d wanted it that much. I note that 46 kids who have been fully “immunised” have caught the epidemic strain. So in fact your children may yet still catch the disease or one of the other strains. I understand that the only children who have died from the disease since the introduction of the vaccine have been those who have received the jab.
I note that from the table that you produce, there was a massive fall in the number of cases of all strains (and the B strain) between 2001 and 2004. This fall, of course, occurred before the introduction of the MeNZB vaccine. Don’t you think it’s somewhat dishonest of David Cunliffe and others to be trumpeting the effect of the vaccine when:
a) There had been a massive fall in those contracting the virus before the vaccine’s introduction;
b) Kids are still contracting the disease and dying from it;
c) That the Ministry of Health apparently believe there could be another outbreak of the disease, which is why they’ve stockpiled the vaccine.
Given the possibility that there will indeed be another outbreak, one wonders why it was necessary to spend $250 million on a mass immunisation programme whose success seems tenuous at best.
[Poneke says: As my article says, the epidemic would have gone on for a decade or more without the vaccination campaign. The campaign's outcome mirrored a similar one done in the UK, which ours was based on.]
April 15, 2008 at 10:16 am
Nice post, Poneke, and nice response, Russell. That double whammy did seem to be the problem for many kids.
We had of a nightmare time with the vaccinations too, ‘tho in our case, it was due to the twin factor. I took the girls down to our doctor’s surgery for their first shot by myself. I had explained that it would hurt, and that there would be lollies afterward (bribery and corruption is very effective with four year olds), but when the first girl got her shot, and squealed, the other little one got upset, and she was determined to leave the room. I hung on to her, and the nurse gave her the shot, all while her sister stood by the door shrieking, “Don’t hurt my sister. Don’t hurt my sister. No! No! No!” in a piercing pre-schooler voice.
I was shattered. The girls recovered, quite quickly, and although they were tired and scratchy for a day or two, they had no other reaction to the vaccination.
I solved the problem the second time around. My husband took them in for it.
April 15, 2008 at 11:10 am
Excellent post.
Will you post your presentation to the Skeptics Society? To move from the specific to the general, I too am appalled by the easy ride from the media on ‘alternative’ (a.k.a. unproven medicines). It is lazy journalism to think that every story has to have ‘balance’ from someone with an alternative view. We don’t have someone having to provide ‘balance’ by talking on holocaust denial, the merits of domestic violence etc. Sometimes a lone voice in the wilderness should be left out there.
April 15, 2008 at 11:27 am
The wonderful thing about anti-vaccine campaigners is their absolute certainty they are right and the health authorities are wrong. Science does not allow claims of absolute certainty, so health experts have to state, quite rightly, that they cannot be certain that any vaccine is 100 per cent safe. This enables anti-vaccine fruitcakes to claim that even the experts agree the vaccines are unsafe, which is utter nonsense.
I would switch this argument around, since the opinions of anti-vaccine campaigners did not feature in our decision not to partake in MeNZB. I think Lawrence Lessig nailed the issue in his Change Congress launch.
If you don’t trust someone then you’re unlikely to allow them to do something like inject your child. In this case the scientific data had the usual caveats and qualified probabilities of safety. This was completely at odds with a marketing campaign featuring smiling sportspeople proclaiming 100% effectiveness and complete safety.
I wanted real information but the government drew short of providing that because doing so would have lost them a certain percentage of compliance.
Its up to the government now to change their approach if they want to regain the trust from those who lost it. I don’t think that introducing more vaccines for increasingly trivial diseases into the programme is necessarily the way to do it.
April 15, 2008 at 11:55 am
Let me see if I understand your argument here, Steve Baker. You didn’t like the way the government presented the information (a premise about government information processes), so you didn’t get your kids vaccinated (a conclusion about medical / health issues). Surely you had a better reason than just “You (i.e. the government) spoke in a funny voice”?
April 15, 2008 at 12:30 pm
Nice post, Poneke, and nice response, Russell. That double whammy did seem to be the problem for many kids.
Thanks. I hope I didn’t seem to snippy about it, but it was very unpleasant at the time, and the official consumer information was reassuring at the expense of being helpful. The Medsafe document, which took a bit of finding, was much closer to our experience. (Don Christie said the information he was given at a parents’ briefing in Wellington was much more extensive than we received.)
I got several emails from anti-vaccination groups afterwards, and politely replied that I wasn’t anti-vaccination and please go away. It was vexing being stuck up alongside Law et al on Scoop, believe me. I talked to MoH people too.
The main thing I regret, as I noted the next day, was using the dread phrase “anecdotal evidence” in the first post.
I’ve found the comment from the doctor (with a background in public health) who contacted me. He said he figured the bad flu was just the flu, but “your point about rarking up the immune system with vaccinations just as it gets clobbered by the nastiest winter virus for some time is very valid.”
April 15, 2008 at 12:35 pm
> the MeNZB campaign was a waste of money that at most — “if you manipulate the statistics” — had saved 1.7 lives. Naturally, Sean Plunket did not challenge this ridiculous statement.
Maybe you would like to estimate how many lives the campaign has saved. Please note that the number of deaths from the epidemic strain was very low to begin with. I think 5 children died from the epidemic strain in the year that the vaccine was rolled out. (To the best of my knowledge, no unvaccinated kids have died since rollout despite the fact that tens of thousands of kids have not been vaccinated.) You will also need to address the fact that dozens of people die each year on hospital waiting lists. How many of these people do you estimate may have been saved by the expenditure of $250 million which was instead expended on the MeNZB vaccine?
April 15, 2008 at 1:01 pm
You didn’t like the way the government presented the information (a premise about government information processes), so you didn’t get your kids vaccinated (a conclusion about medical / health issues). Surely you had a better reason than just “You (i.e. the government) spoke in a funny voice”?
Lets leave my personal decision out of this, I don’t want to go down that rabbit hole in this forum.
In this case trust is more than the result of being the recipient of “information processes”, the words and actions of all those who represent the institution play a part. There are many scientific studies which demonstrate how subjective and vulnerable our trust judgements are. And just because my final judgement may differ from most doesn’t prove that I’m the one with the faulty judgement.
My basic point is that the government wanted to maximise vaccination rates by adopting a promotion technique which may have the long term effect of reducing overall vaccination rates. They have the opportunity now to step back and acknowledge all the things they have done to lose trust on this issue, then maybe change their approach.
Somehow I don’t think they will.
April 15, 2008 at 4:42 pm
The issue for me as a parent is “what information do you trust”? The scaremongering in the media about all sorts of stuff can be worrying.
I did some research recently about risk in healthcare and one aspect was that the younger the person at risk, the higher the perceived risk and therefore the panic factor and exaggeration of risk. Following on from this more obstetricians get sued than those in eldery care as an example (in the US). I wondered in your analysis of health reporting if the hype factor was increased on issues affecting children and/or babies?
BTW I am not anti-vaccination but I think people need better information (me included obviously) – but again who from and not everyone will want it. To be honest I think info is often dumbed down because many recipients claim “information overload”. Maybe the side effects were played down a bit too in the MeNZB just to get a decent number through the program and reach the needed saturation level, then there was the issue of timing and number of shots required which changed during the program which didn’t engender trust either.
Many people are looking for absolutes which unfortunately there are few of in healthcare – or life generally. A medical specialist I know says his life has been much tougher since ‘everyone got the internet’. Is this questioning good or bad?
Sorry for the long rambling response! Ironically I am tired from having a house full of chicken pox sufferers
April 15, 2008 at 9:23 pm
P said: “Science does not allow claims of absolute certainty, so health experts have to state, quite rightly, that they cannot be certain that any vaccine is 100 per cent safe.”
Yes, and for the same reason it rare that professionals can talk in absolute assurances in any sense in public health issues. Hence, when asked by Pippa (who seems to be following Paul Henry in wearing her bias on her sleeve) whether we could be certain that the disease rates wouldn’t have reduced naturally, Deputy Director of Public Health Dr Fran McGrath did not answer ‘yes’. She just talked of probability and, essentially, risk assessment. Guess what the headline was on the news article following the interview?
That ‘the Deputy Director of Public Health admits immunisations may not have been necessary’. (I can’t remember the exact headline, but something like that; “admits” was definitely in there.) “Admits”? I hate that kind of twisting. They made it sound like Pippa had dragged out some sort of begrudging admission. Instances of the media virtually making up stories seems to be increasing – maybe I’m just getting old.
April 15, 2008 at 9:25 pm
Useful blog Poneke – this was a genuine case of trying to do the right thing, and generally succeeding. Thanks for deconstructing some of the mythology.
April 15, 2008 at 10:54 pm
Both my teenage daughters were vaccinated and there were no major problems. One was a bit sore for a couple of days, but it quickly passed. I tend to weigh up the likelihood of getting the actual illness against the consequences of getting it. I nver get flu shots, for example, as I rarely ever get the flu anyway. Having spent much of the last few years knee-deep in the feces of more or less every form of livestock common in New Zealand, I now have an immune system that seems to be all but impregnable.
April 16, 2008 at 6:32 am
Steve Withers wrote wrote: “I tend to weigh up the likelihood of getting the actual illness against the consequences of getting it. I never get flu shots, for example, as I rarely ever get the flu anyway”
So when was the last time you contracted the illness? What are the odds of your child getting it? In fact, the odds your child might get the virus are almost the same now as they were in 2004: extremely low. And the vast majority of kids who contract the virus recover with no ill effects. (Which is why the Health Ministry had to scaremonger by involving Baby Charlotte in the campaign. What an inconvenient truth it was that she hadn’t contracted the epidemic strain!)
Norway was in an almost identical situation to us. They too had a meningococcal epidemic. But by the time they had developed a vaccine, the virus was on the wane. Norway could’ve carried out a mass immunisation campaign but decided that due to the vaccine’s less than impressive results when tested, the cost of any campaign, and the fact that numbers contracting the virus had fallen markedly naturally, the benefits did not outweigh the costs. The same conclusion should have been reached here.
April 16, 2008 at 7:43 am
If a child is sensitive to egg protien, formaldhyde,alumium, antibiotics, or MSG, forgetting Thimerosal, he/she is in major trouble. Giving one vaccine to a 6lb infant is like giving 30 vaccines to a 180lb adult.
Marrching on Washington, June 4th Jenny McCarthy,and Jim Carey are asking to GREEN OUR VACCINES, http://www.tacanow.org
Homeland Security protects Eli Lilly, sectins 1714-1717, Elder ex President Bush sat on the board of Eli Lilly in the late 70’s.
Check out http://www.healthfreedomus.org and get the lowdown. http://www.dandilionsalad.com and http://www.naturalnews are other great sources.
Fight the good fight together we can.
Peace-Love-Oneness
Dona
April 16, 2008 at 1:20 pm
This was a quality blog post. Thanks for the effort of writing it.
At the time of the MeNZB vaccinations all the boys in my rugby team had the vaccinations on Friday afternoon and played rugby on saturday morning. My son and the other front rowers said their arms hurt a bit but they all soldiered on with no complications. The thing people forget about vaccines is that the few bad reactions are and can be tragic, but we don’t live on desert islands isolated from the rest of the world. The vast majority get real benefits from them. The foremost of these is Life.
Cheers Poneke
Brian
April 16, 2008 at 2:13 pm
Thanks. I hope I didn’t seem to snippy about it, but it was very unpleasant at the time, and the official consumer information was reassuring at the expense of being helpful.
Sure — and I think it’s fair comment to say that there was also a deliberate media strategy to scare the shit out of parents, and you know something it appears to have worked in this case. And it’s hardly a novel strategy in health education.
But nobody should have been in the least surprised that it scared some people beyond reason, and in tandem with the generally shit standards of science/health reporting in this country the anti-immunisation folks were quite happy to play on it.
April 16, 2008 at 2:34 pm
Ah, yes. Campaigns of fear.
They are everyday grist to the msm mill.
I wonder how long it will be before we have a “Fence all rivers Bill” and a Bill prohibiting riding horses in the rain.
April 16, 2008 at 5:31 pm
Uh, if the vaccine became available in 2004 like you say, then the number of cases of Meningococcal was already falling. what accounted for the dramatic fall between 2001 and 2002?
April 16, 2008 at 7:22 pm
Poneke,
I doubt that Mr Ron Law is a genuine risk analyst. God help those companies that he is consulting to, because it looks like to me that he is using simple descriptive statistics for risk calculations.
Next time you see or interview Ron Law, please inform him that there is a chap call Falafulu Fisi who can advise him on proper risk analysis methods for free, in exchange, that he disappeared from the face of the earth and not make any negative & uninformed comments about the Meningococcal vaccination programme.
April 16, 2008 at 7:39 pm
pkiwi: Will you post your presentation to the Skeptics Society?
Yes, of course. It is 2500 words long, which is about 1000 more than this article, which is one of my longest. So I will post it at the weekend, probably on Sunday, when people may have more time to read such a thing.
April 17, 2008 at 6:28 am
You will of course give the conference the full story.
[Poneke: It was in 2004, but it was, and still is, a very full story.]
April 17, 2008 at 8:33 am
James: “To the best of my knowledge, no unvaccinated kids have died since rollout despite the fact that tens of thousands of kids have not been vaccinated.”
You are misunderstanding how a vaccine works. You vaccinate a reasonable proportion of the population, and it breaks the epidemic, because there is nobody left to catch the disease from. You can attribute the fact that unvaccinated kids didn’t get the disease to the vaccine as well. Thing is, they were free riding on the other parents who did have their kids vaccinated, which to my mind is just unfair.
April 17, 2008 at 10:04 am
Paul,
It’s apparent you don’t know how a vaccine works. It doesn’t work by magically protecting people who haven’t been vaccinated. If it did work that way, then why give the jab to almost a million NZers? Why not give it to just half a million or a few thousand? The fact is that more than three quarters of the population have not be given the vaccine. To suggest that all of these people are “protected” is about as silly as you can get.
Poneke,
That’s good to hear. I presume you’ll be telling the conference that kids are continuing to die from the disease, that the Health Ministry says a further outbreak is possible, and that the ministry has produced no cost/benefit analysis of the largest and most expensive health campaign in NZ’s history. Will you also tell the conference how many people died on waiting lists whose lives may have been saved if only the necessary funding had come their way (the necessary funding was instead diverted to almost a million healthy NZers)?
Cheers
[Poneke says: James, your ignorance of how a vaccination programme works is profound. To assist you, though I know it will be of no interest to you, a vaccination programme aims to immunise a very high proportion of the group of people most likely to catch a disease. The more who are vaccinated, the smaller the number of the total group who will catch it, including those who are not vaccinated. This is because the more who are vaccinated, the fewer there are who will catch it and pass it on to the unvaccinated. The target for most childhood illnesses is 95pc but thanks to people with attitudes like yours, the rate is much lower, so we are getting regular outbreaks of preventable illnesses such as whooping cough that would not happen at all at a 95pc rate. My biggest worry is that polio will eventually come back.]
April 17, 2008 at 12:55 pm
James, what Poneke said. Your ignorance is showing.
April 17, 2008 at 8:35 pm
Poneke, you don’t seem to have actually read my post. You will see that I said that more than three quarters of the population have not be given the vaccine. So you seem to be saying that the virus could return because so many people haven’t been vaccinated.
In 2001, the Health Ministry told Cabinet that herd immunity – which you’re referring to – was “expected but cannot be quantified”. Hmmm. In 2004, several of the MeNZB vaccine researchers argued that: “Evidence in the literature is inconclusive in relation to whether OMV vaccines lead to a reduction in carriage. It is unlikely that herd immunity will play a role in controlling the epidemic”. (2004, p7)
See http://www.nzma.org.nz/journal/117-1200/1026/content.pdf
I note that there is no mention in your article about the costs/benefits of the vaccine. Surely, the most expensive public health campaign we’ve ever seen has to be based on more than just warm fuzzies. Treasury published a paper in 2001. It showed that the cost/benefit ratios were significantly higher than those used by Pharmac when it approves funding of various medicines. I don’t think there is any doubt whatsoever that Pharmac would have refused to fund the vaccine (as they have also refused to fully fund Herceptin based on cost/benefit criteria).
For Health Minister David Cunliffe to say: “this was a genuine case of trying to do the right thing” is nonsense. To be sure, the right thing would have required some moral courage, something politicians are not known for.
[Poneke says: James, three quarters of the population was not given the vaccine, because the epidemic was affecting the one quarter who were given it. Simple as that.]
April 17, 2008 at 9:16 pm
> the epidemic was affecting the one quarter who were given it. Simple as that.
No. Those in the over 20 age group were contracting the disease and also dying from it. There were almost 600 cases of meningococcal disease in this group between 2001-06 (though fewer epidemic strain cases). But interestingly, 2006 saw the lowest number of cases compared with the preceding years. (Don’t know if 2007 is lower again.) That suggests that the numbers contracting the disease were continuing to fall naturally. Thus, the numbers contracting the virus in the younger age group would probably have also fallen naturally.
April 18, 2008 at 8:31 am
Or, James, that those in the 20+ were catching it from their children, and once their children were immunised they too were protected.
Think beyond the end of your nose, it might help.
[Poneke says: Nothing you say will change such attitudes. As a species, we are truly fortunate his view did not prevail when vaccination was promoted to eradicate smallpox and polio, though with the latter, the loons in Nigeria have probably succeeded in ensuring its comeback.]
April 18, 2008 at 9:03 am
> that those in the 20+ were catching it from their children, and once their children were immunised they too were protected.
Have you got any evidence for your theory, or are you just making it up as you go along? I suggest that you look at the evidence. The over 20s are still catching the virus and are still dying from it. Does that concern you?
> we are truly fortunate his view did not prevail when vaccination was promoted to eradicate smallpox and polio.
Hmmm, having to resort to ad hominem attacks now? Not something that I would expect from a journalist who *should* be able to see both sides of the debate and who *should* be presenting both sides.
I thought you might have apologised for your suggestion that the vaccine confers herd immunity. I guess that would mean you’d have to admit you were wrong. A journalist worth their salt would have no trouble saying that they got it wrong. Why can’t you?
April 18, 2008 at 2:01 pm
Poneke, Congratuations on an excellent quality blog. I too was dismayed by the lack of critical scrutiny and extended air time given to the appallingly ignorant and arrogant Sue Claridge, who takes it upon herself to dispense medical advice unhampered by a total lack of any qualification to do so.
April 22, 2008 at 9:36 pm
James,
You need to look at the number infected in the different age groups and the strains caught at each of the age group to understand the decision to target the young.
With infectious diseases, different age groups typically show different rates of infection. There are three main types of meningococcal meningitis: A, B and C. Each strain has a collection of subtypes; usually one will dominate in an epidemic.
Most of the infected during the epidemic were the young. Strain B was the strain most often caught by these children.
Fewer older people caught the disease. In older people, the infections were (much) less biased to strain B: a more even mix of all three strains (A, B and C) were present than in the younger age groups.
With the bulk of the infections coming from the young, they are understandably the main target age group. (You can add PaulL’s idea to this as well, as an “bonus” catch if you target the young.) With most of these people showing a particular subtype of strain B, this subtype is the disease organism targeted. (Bear in mind, too, that there are no “general purpose” vaccines currently available that target a broad range of meningococcal meningitis strains as far as I know: I am aware that there is work towards developing one.)
If the ages of, and strains found in, were more uniform across people of all ages, a different strategy would likely to have been called for.
I am, of course, simplifying this, but the general essence holds. Anyone familiar with the medical science is welcome to elaborate on this. (Or correct me, if need be!)
Excuse my anonymous “name”: Heraclides (387 – 312 BC) is in fact a Greek philosopher who proposed that the stars moved because the earth rotated on its axis
(This is not to say that he proposed the heliocentric theory, by the way.)
April 23, 2008 at 10:42 am
The reason Sean Plunkett did not challenge my statement that at best the meningococcal B vaccine had prevented 1.7 deaths ( and 54 cases of the disease) was that he probably knew that to be true. I didn’t hear the replay of my interview with Radio NZ but I do know that I backed that statement with reference to a paper published in July 5 2007 issue of the American Journal of Epidemiology, authored by four New Zealanders involved in the meningococcal campaign.
One of the authors was Dr Jane O’Hallahan (together with Colleen Kelly, Richard Arnold and Yvonne Galloway); if Poneke thinks hard enough he might just remember that she was the public face of the MeNZB campaign and the head of the team implementing the vaccine programme.
That paper, A Prospective Study of the Effectiveness of the New Zealand Meningococcal B Vaccine, states that “An estimated 54 epidemic strain, laboratory-confirmed meningococcal cases were prevented in the 2 years since the Programme began … and an estimated 1.7 deaths were prevented.”
The reason I suggested that the statistics were manipulated and that they may overstate the benefit of the vaccine programme was because of a follow-up letter to the Editor, published in the same medical journal, from Dr Diana Lennon. Again, if Poneke racks his brain he may just come up with the information that Dr Lennon was the principal researcher in the clinical trials of the MeNZB vaccine. Now, you’d think she would know something about the efficacy of the vaccine, and if anyone was going to be extolling the virtues of the vaccine it would be her.
Not quite. In her letter, written in response to the Kelly et al paper, and published in the 21 March, 2008, issue of the American Journal of Epidemiology, she questioned the methodology of the Kelly et al paper. She said that the model they used was a poor fit, that “there appear to have been difficulties with the model that may influence the vaccine effectiveness estimate” and that “antibody decay occurred very rapidly”. For the uninitiated this last statement refers to the fact that any protection offered by the vaccine disappeared very quickly and within months of completing the third or fourth dose the majority of babies and children had no antibodies.
This was again discussed in an article written by Mark Bolland, a Research Fellow at Auckland University and published in the NZ Medical Journal in March 2008. He wrote data “suggest that, with the current administration schedule (6 weeks/3 months/5 months/10 months), 45% of infants are not seroresponders after 3 doses, increasing to 87% at the time of the fourth dose. Seroresponders are those that actually produce antibodies in response to the vaccine. He went on to show that six weeks after their fourth shot only 69% of babies had antibodies.
Back to Dr Lennon; in her letter referring to the Kelly et al paper, she concluded that “Although it seems likely that the mass vaccine program has indeed had some effect, the concerns raised above shed some doubt on the reliability of the estimates as quoted.”
You can believe what you like about the safety and efficacy of the MeNZB vaccine; after all, that is your right. However, the right of parents to make an informed decision about any medical procedure that their child might undergo is upheld by New Zealand law. As a person who is, by his or her own admission, socially aware, it behoves you to assist in that process and at the very least get your facts right before you start to criticise other people. In your blog, you have implied that I was lying or bending the truth or misrepresenting the facts when I claimed that the MenZB vaccine campaign had prevented an estimated 1.7 deaths over two years.
I was not!
I did my research and I reported what was published in a peer reviewed medical journal and written by none less the some of the most enthusiastic proponents of this vaccine. Perhaps you could have spent a small amount of time bothering to verify your assertion that what I said was a “ridiculous statement.”
I challenge you to:
a) publish my comments on your blog.
b) do your own research; check out the papers I mentioned above (shouldn’t be hard as I have given you the journal names, authors and dates.
c) apologise to me on your blog for the inference that I am lying or misrepresenting the facts.
Sue Claridge
April 23, 2008 at 12:16 pm
Well said, Sue, but don’t hold your breath for Poneke to do his or her own research. Poneke’s mind is made up on this issue.
The fact that the MeNZB vaccine might have saved one or two lives doesn’t seem to matter. The fact that the vaccine doesn’t confer herd immunity doesn’t seem to matter. The fact that the campaign cost a quarter of a billion dollars which could have been better spent elsewhere doesn’t seem to matter. The fact that people of all ages are continuing to die from the disease doesn’t seem to matter either. What matters, it seems, is that anyone who has the temerity to question the effectiveness of this campaign is labelled a nutter. You know you’ve won when ad hominem attacks replace rational debate.
April 23, 2008 at 3:11 pm
Poneke, several people have referred your blog to me… When did you interview me? I do not recall any interview such as you describe. The closest would be an interview with a Leah Haines… is that you? You obviously missed much of the data released by the MOH which showed an equal and parallel decline in epidemic cases of the disease in the unvaccinated over 20 year group compared to the vaccinated under 20 year old group. Also, can you point to a single publication of mine that demonstrates that I am anti-vaccination? Just one… Regards, Ron Law
[Poneke says: I have answered you in a separate article, Ron. Just click here.]
April 23, 2008 at 3:46 pm
[Poneke says: ....the epidemic would have gone on for a decade or more without the vaccination campaign. ...]
Diana Lennon said in a March issue of NZMJ, strain B epidemics only last for 15 years anyway, as happened in Norway, and as has happened in most other strain b epidemics, if you would care to study the literature… which is what skeptics are supposed to do.
the vaccine was rolled out in Counties Manukau June 2004 and the rest of the country in 2005. On that basis, it is not possible, given the data you put in your post, to attribute the “massive decline” which started before 2005, to a nationwide campaign. That is statistical massage.
Re the “double whammy” of the flu and meningococcal B vaccine. No, the “severe flu” didn’t touch the adults. Three children died ostensibly of the flu, all of them after their vaccines. Coincidence of course!
Funny then, that the briefing paper which the Health Department uses as the background document for this years publicity :
http://www.esr.cri.nz/NR/rdonlyres/24FBC82E-90DO-47A0-88BE-2E5B1ED49A9/0/breifingDecember07lowres.pdf-Accessed22/02/08.
Says that there were NO DEATHS from the flu at all for that year. Amazing. So what did those kids die of? If you believe ESR, it wasn’t the flu.
If you can’t access the article, contact the Health Department or ESR and they will send you a copy.
To those who think the next meningitis vaccine, Prevenar will be the best thing under the sun, for the rising tide of serious pneumococcal infections, perhaps this series of medical article analysis might shed another slant onto that story.
http://insidevaccines.com/wordpress/?p=16
http://insidevaccines.com/wordpress/?p=89
http://insidevaccines.com/wordpress/?p=119#more-119
And please read all the medical articles as well as doing a related articles search and read before bleating.
To David Cunliffe,
Deconstructing mythology? That is a joke. The statistics used to justify the MenZB campaign at the time, bore no relationship to the actual statistics of the strain type, neither did they narrow it down to only the cases in the ages subsequently targetted. Those who watch these things know, because they collect both the press releases you and the health department put out, the newspaper articles, and the actual data from ESR. The three don’t mesh. Obviously, mythology means different things to different people.
Have you revised the answers to parliamentary questions for the past two years, on the numbers of hospitalized cases of serious pneumococcal disease, and deaths from 1999 onwards? If so, are you going to do something about the spuriously inflated figures we are now being served up with, compared the the ones your predecessor was forced to produce to the house?
To Brian Smaller,
Your illogic baffles me. What is the point of saying that we don’t live on a desert island isolated from the rest of the world? In this case, New Zealand had a unique strain which developed in Auckland in 1989 (hard on the heels of Menomume A vaccine, … funny that… in the light of the Sisyphus series, there might be a train of thought worth considering out of that!) , and by the time the MeNZB vaccine came around in 2005, our strain had long since been let loose on the rest of the world!
To Falafulu Fisi. Did you get all the raw data from medsafe yourself? I’m just wonderint, sinc eyou used the word “appears” about Ron Law. I look forward to seeing a fully documented article in the NZMJ disputing all his graphs on Stuff.co.nz, and Diana Lennon’s contentions in a March issue of NZMJ, so that we can see who the real statistician is.
I’m sure all those here who vaccinated, will be grateful to you for amply dispelling the “myth” that the epidemic would have gone away on its own. In the meantime, epithet and bluster doesn’t quite match actual evidence. I’ll watch out for your masterpiece of deconstruction. But I won’t hold my breath waiting.
To Paul L. Your comment about the unvaccinated free-riding is incorrect. There are medical articles, newspaper quotes and Dr Nikki Turner stating repeatedly on radio and TV, as part of the “shock and awe’em all” speil she developed, to make the non-vaccinating parents quake in their shoes. She said many times that MenZB *** did not *** under any circumstances, confer herd immunity. How was it you didn’t hear that? Perhaps you should give her a ring at IMAC and check it out with her for yourself?
And Poneke, for you to back up the (non-existent) herd immunity for MeNZB is amazing…, and here you call yourself a skeptic?
I thought the first tenet of a skeptic was to check out the fact before spouting opinion.
[Poneke says: Kia ora Hillary, old friend from the Immunisation Awareness Society. Good to see you come out of retirement. I've never used the term "herd immunity" in my life. It was actually used by your committed friend James in the comments section above.]
April 23, 2008 at 4:15 pm
James, “straw man” arguments such as the one you just posted can be viewed as a form of ad hominem attack, too
Arguments along the lines of “who is more worthy” never seem to have a “correct” answer (like political questions, people’s opinions will differ).
The “one or two” lives comparison is a bit out of context. The comparison should be to the epidemic continuing without vaccination for, say, ten years or whatever.
April 23, 2008 at 6:37 pm
Ron Law, it is pure sophistry for you to suggest that you are not anti-vaccination, as Poneke’s well-chosen example shows.
Sue Claridge, a question for you: is there ever going to be any data that would persuade you that vaccination is safe and effective?
I think you are misrepresenting the facts, and I don’t think Poneke needs to apologise for anything. As Heraclides has pointed out, it is probably misleading to refer to the saving of ‘one or two’ lives as the final outcome of the vaccination programme (which you did; I was listening to the radio) when the comparison should be with the epidemic continuing without the vaccination programme for several more years. Also, you dwell at length on how you have quoted data from official sources, but you don’t explain how you have reached such a different conclusion about the overall effectiveness of the vaccination programme than the authors. Are you more qualified in evidence-based medical research than the authors? Please tell us about these qualifications, and the research you have had published in peer-reviewed journals.
Of course you are entitled to your opinion, but you go well beyond this and try to influence other people’s opinions on a large scale too, so I think you are fair game to be challenged.
April 23, 2008 at 8:59 pm
Carol, I was contacted by Radio NZ and asked for comment as the spokesperson of the Immunisation Awareness Society; I was asked for my opinion as their representative and I gave it!
I don’t really care whether you think I’m misrepresenting the facts, but if you are going to make public accusations to taht effect, at least read the papers yourself. Perhaps then you will be more qualified to comment.
The other point, which Poneke and you, among others, seem to conveniently ignore is that the issue is not always just about safety and efficacy of a vaccine. In this case, and increasingly with the vaccines that are being introduced in NZ, the issue is as much about whether or not spending $222 million on this vaccine was a good use of the public health dollar. While no doubt there are many people who would disagree, I believe that that amount of money could have a far greater impact on improving the health of NZ children if spent in other ways, such as addressing the known risk factors for meningococcal and many other diseases, such as a lack of breast feeding past three months, exposure to tobacco smoke and poor nutrition (even if it was too much to ask that successive governments really tackle overcrowding and substandard living conditions). Even if the vaccine could have been proven to be 100% safe and effective – which it was not – the IAS and many others believe it was still a very poor use of public health money.
April 23, 2008 at 9:48 pm
Even if the vaccine could have been proven to be 100% safe and effective – which it was not – the IAS and many others believe it was still a very poor use of public health money.
Sue, thanks for your comments, and I value you making them.
Just out of interest, can you let us know if there are any vaccines you do believe are safe and are an effective use of public money, and if there are any, which ones?
April 23, 2008 at 9:52 pm
Sue, you don’t respond to the matters I raised, although I take your point that Radio NZ contacted you for a comment.
I have read the scientific papers in question, so please don’t patronise me. And I am quite good at interpreting them, having written a fair number myself.
April 24, 2008 at 6:14 am
Hi Poneke.
I note when I posted my first comment it was posted on the website immediately… my subsequent posts now have to be moderated… Is this an indication that you are now censoring responses? You claim you have never used the term ‘herd effect.’ Am I correct in reading your above comments, “[Poneke says: James, your ignorance of how a vaccination programme works is profound. To assist you, though I know it will be of no interest to you, a vaccination programme aims to immunise a very high proportion of the group of people most likely to catch a disease. The more who are vaccinated, the smaller the number of the total group who will catch it, including those who are not vaccinated. This is because the more who are vaccinated, the fewer there are who will catch it and pass it on to the unvaccinated. The target for most childhood illnesses is 95pc but thanks to people with attitudes like yours, the rate is much lower, so we are getting regular outbreaks of preventable illnesses such as whooping cough that would not happen at all at a 95pc rate. My biggest worry is that polio will eventually come back.]”
What you are describing IS the herd effect…
Regards
Ron
April 24, 2008 at 11:33 am
Poneke and Carol in response to your comments, my greatest qualification is as a citizen and a consumer. If I think there is something wrong with the system, any system, it is my right in a democratic country to express my concerns. However, I, unlike many, do temper the expression of those concerns with a sense of responsibility.
Despite the constant labeling, I am not anti-vaccine. I am pro-informed choice. I may have chosen not to vaccinate my children, but I respect the right of others to decide to vaccinate themselves and their children. My only desire is that they make an informed decision; that they clearly understand the reasons for doing it, and come to a decision by weighing all the known benefits against all the known risks.
I have never once said that people should not vaccinate. I have presented information that they may not have access to through the “official” channels. I encourage people to do their own research; just as I encourage people to question the “official” information they are given, I also tell people not to just take my word for it, to find out for themselves. I would be just as horrified if someone just blindly chose not to vaccinate as I am that people blindly do it because “that’s what everyone else does”.
I have a major problem with the way that our medical system (here and internationally) is driven by the pharmaceutical industry. Increasingly we hear about the way in which negative results are suppressed, about licencing of drugs being fast-tracked through the approval process, conflicts of interest particularly in the American system. This would not be so bad if it were not for the fact the NZ seems to blindly follow where the US has stumbled before.
Several prestigious medical papers (BMJ, JAMA, NEJM, etc.) have published papers over the last few years that demonstrate the stranglehold that Big Pharma has on medicine. In one paper it was found that only 5% of industry funded papers published any negative results, yet 38% of independently funded studies published negative results. There is the “selling of sickness”, the overmedicalising of normal everyday life in order to sell more and more drugs (have you read any of Ray Moynihan’s work?)
If the pharmaceutical industry had its way we would all be taking 10 to 20 pills a day for the rest of our lives. That is why they focus is on drugs for chronic diseases rather than promoting preventive lifestyle and dietary measures. Why do you think we’ve had relatively few advances in antibiotics. They have a very limited market – you take them for ten days and then you’re better. Nowhere near as profitable as a statin if you can convince everyone over the age of 40 that they should be on them for the rest of their lives!
If you or anyone else really thinks that the pharmaceutical industry has your best interests at heart, that they really want to see you stay healthy, then you are simply deluding yourself. Their bottom line is money and that end justifies their means.
Ask yourself why they persist in presenting their results as relative risk not absolute risk? Many doctors don’t even understand the difference or why it is important, so how can the general public be expected to understand (e.g. with the Rotovirus vaccine they tell you that vaccine reduces risk of disease by 75% – but that was the relative risk reduction. The absolute risk reduction was only 9.88% and Rotovirus is an infection that can be completely mitigated by breast feeding.) A 2002 JAMA review of 564 papers on the results of randomised controlled trials absolute risk figures were provided in only 18 papers and the number needed to treat was only provided in eight papers. A healthy skepticism of what is published in the medical literature is vital.
Regarding vaccination – in answer to both Carol’s and Poneke’s question – no I don’t think there is a vaccine that is sufficiently necessary, safe and effective that I would be happy to give it to myself or my child. As far as I am concerned (and I was vaccinated as a child and an adult, and got whooping cough as a young adult despite having been vaccinated) the theory is flawed. Wellness doesn’t come out of a needle, it comes from good nutrition, exercise, clean water and sanitation…. Look, I could go on for hours, but why don’t you just read my book – all my arguments are in there. Oh, yes, but you’ve read so much you’re bound to have read my book too…
The point is that medicine is a wonderful, wonderful thing – when it is used properly. Increasingly, though, it is not being used properly. I wouldn’t be without modern medicine. But I also wouldn’t be without complementary therapies as well (acupuncture, osteopathy, naturopathy, etc.), or breast feeding for an extended period, good nutrition and avoidance of toxins in our environment. Medicine isn’t the answer to everything, and I don’t think we should be raising our children to believe that a jab with a needle or popping a pill is the way to stay healthy. What sort of messages does that send?
The important thing is that I get to choose, my right to chose is upheld by law, but those rights are increasingly being eroded. Some doctors have said “if you reject vaccination, then you should reject everything”. Is that how we work in the rest of our lives? Imagine if we went to the supermarket and the owner said to us, “you can’t shop here because you chose to buy your meat at the butcher. It’s all or nothing.” How ridiculous. Medicine has become a one size fits all system – but we aren’t all one size, and that fact is most poignantly illustrated by the fact that some children suffer catastrophic reactions to vaccines and other don’t, and by the fact that two people with the same disease and the same treatment will have vastly different outcomes – just look at cancer patients!
The thing that bugs me the most – and for the sake of decency I won’t word that any more strongly – is the scaremongering and manipulation and lies that are employed by those pushing vaccination. If it is so great then why do so many of us have so many concerns – including doctors and other health professionals. In international studies characterising those who choose not to vaccinate (as opposed to those who just don’t bother) non-vaccinators are largely highly educated people (tertiary level), and in an Israeli study 20% of non-vaccinators had careers in the health and medical professions compared with only 2% among those who chose to vaccinate. What does that tell you?
Those of us who choose not to vaccinate are not a new phenomenon, and it is not because we don’t know how awful diseases like polio are. Opposition to vaccination started in the times of Edward Jenner and people were just as voiciferous in the early 20th century, when many diseases were rife (prior to the provision of clean water and sanitation, improved living conditions, etc) as they are now.
I don’t doubt that some vaccines may reduce the incidence of a specific disease. I also don’t doubt that vaccine failure in highly vaccinated populations has lead to severe outbreaks of disease and that in many cases vaccination has changed the epidemiology of the disease; from childhood to adulthood when many illnesses are much more severe. I personally know parents of children who have been severely damaged by vaccines, including some whose damage has been acknowledged by government agencies. I have weighed the benefits and the risks of both the diseases for which there are vaccines, and the vaccines themselves (and yes, some diseases actually offer benefits to both normal development and to the immune system) and my belief is that the costs, on many levels, outweigh the benefits.
And for those that are caught up with the whole qualification thing, I trained and worked as a scientist. I have an M.Sc., worked for 6 years (before having my first child) in research, and science management and education in both the public and private sector here and in Australia, and published in a peer reviewed journal and presented papers at scientific conferences. I have been researching and writing about vaccination for 8 years, and for the last six years have spent approximately half my working life (as a researcher, writer, editor and publisher) researching and writing about public and environmental health issues on a contract and freelance basis. I have had articles published in various NZ magazines and work for a major breast cancer organisation as their researcher, writer and editor.
I would like to point that I don’t hide behind the skirts of anonymity; I have always put my name in front of my beliefs and since 2001 been publicly identified with these issues, despite the personal and professionals risks that doing so presents. As a measure of my convictions I have used my own name in these posts.
Poneke, Carol – science is about transparency – who are you, what are your qualifications?
April 24, 2008 at 1:38 pm
Sue, actually science is primarily about peer review. What peer reviewed work on vaccination have you done that might give you credibility and qualify you to influence public opinion?
April 24, 2008 at 2:32 pm
Carol, what gives YOU the right to influence public opinion?
Answer Sue’s question, if you have to play by the wave the shingles competitive rules?
How pathetic!
Poneke, were you an old friend, you would know that firstly, my name, as above, has one L not two; and secondly, that I never retired. I may have left IAS, but I never left the vaccination issue. Just put my name in google and you will see that.
Secondly, since I don’t know who “my committed” friend “James” is, that too is more than journalistic licence.
Also, I missed this bit in your reply to James:
***The target for most childhood illnesses is 95pc but thanks to people with attitudes like yours, the rate is much lower, so we are getting regular outbreaks of preventable illnesses such as whooping cough that would not happen at all at a 95pc rate.***
Again, I am assuming you have not read all the medical literature on this, because firstly, the whooping cough has never made much difference in this country, as the latest shuffle act by the whooping cough gurus in this country PMID:17316188. This article, like so many that went before, is laughable, given that the pertussis vaccine is, and always has been dreadful PMID 12927532. Or do you need to come to my house and read the decades of medical articles and statistical facts on pertussis in this country? That would sure be easier than having to chase it down from pillar to post.
Perhaps you could explain to us why the two countries in the world with the highest pertussis vaccination rates, also have ongoing epidemics which they say are worsening by the year. Not that I believe that, but perhaps we should spare your readers the agony of that wee discussion!
Carol, since when has “qualifications” ever been the real test of who has brains and understanding and who does not? Did you consult the CV’s of Copernicus, Einstein, Marconi, Wallis Barnes, and even, wait for it… the man who invented and designed internet, to see what their qualifications were?
It doesn’t matter what the qualifications, or lack of, are, even in a doctor! The only doctor who is “credible” is the person who espouses the dogma to the letter. If a person doesn’t toe the line, they are considered a “rogue element” and dropped into the abyss of epithet and pillory.
When it comes to doctors, so-called qualifications are a very recent phenomenon. Jenner essentially bought his, and if you’ve read Dr J.R. Paul’s book called “History of Poliomyelitis”, where he talks about the “qualifications” of everyone, the funniest thing to me, is that many of the doctors who graduated at the turn of the 20th century and supposedly went on to become medical greats and heavyweights, not only bought their medical degrees, but only had to attend about five short lectures to do so! The difference between them and other people being that they had the money to do so, the desire for letters after their names, and others didn’t.
Why is it then, that doctors, reporters and politicians, revere these doctors of the past who had no “qualifications”, which you would consider worthy names to roll out, yet you think that all people who have 7 years of “training” and alphabet soup after their names are the only one worth listening to?
Did you hear the Ninetonoon interview with Cheryl Koenig on Wednesday 23rd April?
http://www.radionz.co.nz/audio/national/ntn/feature_guest_-_cheryl_koenig
If you are so enamoured with the medical profession across the board, and you had been in her shoes, then your son would still be comatose, or even dead. If your son wasn’t comatose he would be unable to eat, speak, or even walk.
What did Cheryl have that perhaps you might not?
Cheryl had a healthy “disrespect” for every single pronouncement which hourly, daily, came out of either a doctor’s or nurse’s mouth with relentless repetition, and a mother’s intuition that doctors don’t know everything. Her book “Paper Cranes” should be compulsory reading for all doctors.
And while it took ten years, Cheryl eventually shut the naysaying mouths of the medical people. And she has now a son who now works, talks, walks, runs, swims and in her words is a much more rounded person. She believes that his brain injury, supposedly not compatible with life, and his family who worked to bring him to the point where he is now, have not only made him a better person, but have “made” them as a family. Listening to her, was an inspiration, and again, should be compulsory listening for doctors.
But she said one interesting thing in her interview, when talking about some of the methods she used to provoke her son to “come back to them.” In particular in relation to eating… she removed his tubes, and let him get hungry, which provoked him to learn to eat really fast…. and as she pointed out … “they wouldn’t let you do that today…”. Why not? Because not only has the medical profession become a dictatorial nanny state, they have conditioned people, just like the pro-vaccine readers on this column, to treat anyone who disagrees with them, as some eco-Queda ebola carrying biological terrorist.
If vaccine work, no-one should be “scared” that polio will come back. If vaccines work, no-one should be scared of unvaccinated people.
Caarol, You ask Sue to explain why she has reached such a different conclusion about the overall effectiveness of the MenZB vaccine programme, than the authors. Which authors are you talking about?
Diana Lennon never had such a conclusion. At least, not in the medical papers I’ve read written by her. Her lack of support for MenZB is no doubt tempered down her decades of pro-vaccine talk for which she is famous. She of all people couldn’t be seen publicly, as being “anti” even one vaccine. But that doesn’t mean she believes the MenZB vaccine did anything near what you, the medical profession, or Poneke allege.
Having read all the medical articles Sue was referring to, your question to her about her conclusions is quite astonishing. On the basis of the questions asked by Diana Lennon, and Mark Bolland, why you asked the question you did? Surely, if everything was as “clear” to them, as it is to you, neither would have had to ask the questions they did. So are you saying, they don’t know what they are talking about, in spite of the fact that Diana Lennon was the principal researcher until she pointed out a few things to the Health Department that they clearly didn’t want to hear?
April 24, 2008 at 2:49 pm
Hilary, sorry I don’t a lot of time to reply. I think you have to differentiate between an opinion on a blog – for which no CVs, qualifications etc are needed – and the public arena, which the IAS are clearly in and for which I think it is reasonable to ask people about their qualifications.
And I stand by my point that science is fundamentally about peer review. Sue can’t claim to be a ‘researcher’ in the realm of science if her work hasn’t been peer-reviewed in the realm of science.
April 24, 2008 at 3:11 pm
Carol, since when has “qualifications” ever been the real test of who has brains and understanding and who does not? Did you consult the CV’s of Copernicus, Einstein, Marconi, Wallis Barnes, and even, wait for it… the man who invented and designed internet, to see what their qualifications were?
I am awed that you compare yourself with Copernicus, Einstein, Marconi, Barnes Wallis (for that is his name) and Vint Cerf.
I’ve even met Vint Cerf. Nice guy, and unselfconciously modest.
April 24, 2008 at 3:25 pm
First, Hilary, thank you for your support.
Carol, this will be my last post. Primarily, I have a lot of work on, not to mention children to be a mother to. That notwithstanding, I really can’t be bothered continuing a debate with someone who insists on hiding behind a meaningless first name – you might as well have called yourself Jane Doe. At least Poneke provides some background, even if he or she doesn’t have the courage to put a real name to his or her opinions.
Obviously the fact that I pointed out that I have always used my own name and have the guts to stand up for what I believe in, come what may, was too subtle for you.
(and speaking of that which does come as a result of being strong enough to stand up for what one believes…. History is littered with the bodies of those who bring unpopular messages no matter how truthful they turn out to be – think Copernicus, and Ignatius Semmelweiss – oh, but you must know about him, being the learned academician that you profess to be. After all, he was pilloried and vilified for suggesting that doctors wash their hands between slicing up cadavers and attending to pregnant and labouring women. Interesting, too, that in the 21st century, doctors still need to be reminded of the importance of such a basic technique, including through articles in recent peer reviewed medical journals.)
I find it very interesting that Ron, Hilary and myself are prepared to use our real names and not go into hiding. But you, who is so ready to call me “appallingly ignorant and arrogant” and you, who demands to know what qualifies me to have an opinion and express it, isn’t prepared to face the same scrutiny or answer the same questions.
When you have grown a spine, Carol, and cultured some courage – enough at least to support your convictions – and told me who you are and what qualifies you to attack me without knowing me at all (other than the distorted view that the media has presented over the years) all that you need to know about me you can find out, as Hilary pointed out, by googling me.
In the meantime, this experience has reminded me why I have never before responded to a blog, and probably never will again.
April 24, 2008 at 4:47 pm
In the meantime, this experience has reminded me why I have never before responded to a blog, and probably never will again.
Sue, you have responded very well, in depth, and, even though I think you are basically misguided — just ask yourself, how was smallpox eradicated? — you can hold your own in the face of provocation.
The commenters on this blog are a very polite bunch by comparison with those on some others, believe me.
Please drop by again, and feel free maybe to comment on issues that aren’t so important to you, so you can have a bit of fun.
April 24, 2008 at 4:48 pm
Carol, such a reply as yours, is always the way it goes, when people have no intelligent response. May the door hit you on the behind as you make your escape.
But before you go, if science is fundamentally about peer review, then perhaps you can answer the question, as asked by Mark Bolland in the March issue of NZMJ, where is the data? Why don’t you go and ask Diana Lennon about that? When the lead researchers, including Diana Lennon were never been allowed to see the raw data, it doesn’t matter who else peer reviewed what. If the actual raw data has only been reviewed by Chiron, then the whole of the rest of the deal is meaningless. There is nothing about MEnZB that could honestly be called “peer review”. Have you read the medical articles studying the “quality” of peer review these days?!! Makes for very sobering and disappointing reading.
Perhaps like the VIOXX/Merck scam, we will hear one day, that all the MenZB articles were Chiron ghostwritten with handsome fees paid to the doctors whose names are on them, as well as the so-called peer reviewers.
Poneke, since when did I compare MYSELF to Copernicus or anyone else in that list? I was referring to Carol’s meaningless quest against Sue and Ron about whether their qualifications permit them permission to think let alone speak. Anyone who has the brains, like Cheryl, to come to the right conclusion, and can come and intelligently discuss them, and prove the point, are the people worth talking to. Anyone with any brains, who knows any history at all, know that what qualifications a person has is irrelevant to truth. Though plainly it suits you, to somehow mangle my statements about famous people without qualification, so that you can indulge in your lowest form of wit, … sarcasm. But it does you no favours, since such a post as yours (I bow to your superior knowledge), is the typical red flag which shows that you, Pokene, instead of dealing to the actual issue prefer to try to shoot the messenger.
I thought you said you are a skeptic. Your last post and characterisation of me, makes a mockery of that, and shows that the reality is that when it comes to honest enquiry and debating an issue, you talk, talk and walk bullshit.
[Poneke says: Yes, I apologise for the "bow to your knowledge" snipe, it was sarcastic, unworthy, uncalled for and I deleted it almost straight away. If I am mistaken in believing you compared your work to that of Copernicus etc then I apologise for that too, but it is how it reads to me.]
April 24, 2008 at 5:05 pm
I’m a mother with four sons, so the vaccination debate is something I have thought about. Vaccination has stopped smallpox and polio, both diseases that you can catch despite having good nutrition, being breastfed, clean water etc. What concerns me about people not vaccinating their children is that it creates a pool of warm bodies to host and spread diseases.
I think having healthy kids is really important, but I don’t want to see polio return because of people not getting vital vaccines. Vaccinating helps community health and I worry about unvaccinated children.
April 24, 2008 at 5:30 pm
Sue, I’d like to say that I respect the sincerity of your convictions, appreciate the time you have taken to express them, and also appreciate the generally civilised tone of discourse that you maintain.
But don’t get so hung up on who people are – it is a blog, these are our opinions and surely the ideas are the important thing. I think transparency is hugely important in the domain of public process, but less so in the world of blogging and arguably less so in the world of science (it is interesting that peer review of papers is generally an anonymous process – there is a notion that the work should stand or fall on its own merits regardless of the authors).
I’d also have to point that for such a gleefully sceptical bunch you are awfully sensitive to critical scrutiny…
Go well and as Poneke says don’t be put off commenting on blogs.
April 24, 2008 at 6:51 pm
Sue,
First, if its any consolation if you think you’re getting harsh criticism, you want to see top-end scientists abolishing a rival’s work
Just ruminating away, I think “healthy skepticism” is good, but I would have thought only if its applied equally. Which would mean applying it to “natural remedies”, “normal” foods, and so on, too. And others applying a healthy skepticism of your claims, too
If its not applied equally, it seems to me that it can just become another basis of bias.
“That is why they focus is on drugs for chronic diseases rather than promoting preventive lifestyle and dietary measures.” They’re in the business of selling drugs, not books about lifestyles and diets. You don’t see many book publishers doing a line in pharmaceuticals, do you?
(More realistically, most businesses stay within their line of business for good reasons.)
“the pharmaceutical industry [...] Their bottom line is money and that end justifies their means.” This is true of all companies, including “natural remedy” companies, those that sell children’s toys, food, books, dishwashing machines (Fisher and Pakyel, anyone?), etc. Applied equally it seems a bit of a moot point as far as I can see since every other industry is the same too.
“Medicine has become a one size fits all system” There is a lot of research investigating so-called personalised medicine. More broadly, my perception is that, if anything, medicine is becoming less “one size fits all” than it once was. (A modern understanding of genetics and modern technologies for genetic analysis have a lot to do with this.)
“And for those that are caught up with the whole qualification thing, [...] I have an M.Sc.” Are you able to tell us in what field?
With all respect, I have to admit I’m a little wary of people with undergraduate or Master’s qualifications who compare themselves with research scientists, or imply that they should be compared with them. There is a fair difference in the natural of the work. (If you push me, I’ll elaborate on this to the point of boring you silly
)
For a full scientist post, the minimium qualification is usually a Ph.D. A M.Sc. qualification usually limits you to technician or support positions (not putting these down, just saying how it goes).
April 24, 2008 at 7:51 pm
I’m not sue what subject Sue Claridge got her Msc in or where her scientific research has been published (pubmed doesn’t know about her) but I second her suggestion to look at her book. I did once – it was dreadful nonsense. Lots of “vaccines have been proven to cause autism” type stories and it had a forward by a crackpot who thinks that a) vaccines cause permanent genetic changes in you and b) that megadoses of vitamin C can cure ALL viral infections and many bacterial ones.
Interestingly, I see that googling her, as one commentator suggested, brings up a 16 page debunking of her book.
April 24, 2008 at 8:47 pm
Dear Poneke
I’ve been following these exchanges. My only comment to you is – please go ahead, inject your children with anything the pharma funded researchers tell you is safe. It’s your choice to believe. Then enjoy your sick child; the constant ear infections, throat infections, tummy bugs, flu’s, colds, asthma and eczema – all these are the constant companions of the modern child, the new well-child paradigm – someone who is always suffering from some low-level infection of illness. Bon appetite
April 24, 2008 at 9:29 pm
Thank you for the apology Poneke.
Carol, you were not “criticising” Sue. You called her appallingly ignorant and arrogant, yet now you say you respect her? You were insinuating that her credentials were such that she had no right to have her opinions put on RadioNZ, even if it was a 6 second sound bite out of a 20 minute interview?
And now you tell her not to get hung up on who people on a blog are? If the “ideas” are the really important thing, then who was it here, who first demanded to know what Sue’s credentials were? And why?
You say that transparency is not important in science: “I think transparency is …. arguably less so in the world of science …” … that suggestion above is totally ludicrous.
The reason peer review has to be anonymous is that a reviewer might find a big hole in someone’s argument, and there are some scientists around, who are small minded enough to get personally pissy with anyone who disagrees with them, if they know who they are, and if that guarantees the their work doesn’t get published.
As to science itself, why has every paper got a methodology section if it is not at least an attempt to try to project transparency relating to the processes applied, in the course of the research?
MenzB research fails abysmally in the transparency of the data, let alone the provision thereof. But I suspect, actually, that you know that, which is why you won’t argue the issue….
Why will you not state who you are? You claim to have written academic papers. Do tell us what they are, since you wanted to know what Sue’s were… and tell us why your credentials are such that they give you the right to take a high and might swipe at anyone else?
Or is your post above a belated attempt to weasel out of a situation you brought upon yourself, and now you are uncomfortable being held to the same standards of accountability that you demanded of others?
It’s not an issue of people being sensitive to critical scrutiny, for none of your scrutiny has been factually based. Any criticism by you has been personal slagging. You’ve answered none of the questions asked of you, then you have the temerity to cry off with “it’s just a blog…”?
It is the lack of quality factual discussion and honest debate, coupled with the generic inquisitional need to “shoot” people, rather than discuss the message, which leaves people like Sue feeling that their time is better spent elsewhere.
April 25, 2008 at 6:57 am
My children, who are fully immunised, rarely get ill and are models of health and fitness. The eldest has not had a single day off school ill, while the two younger ones have only had time off when they broke their arms on the school monkey bars.
I do not put their good health down to vaccination at all. However I do rest easy by them being vaccinated that they have not succumbed to any of the childhood diseases that ravaged my parents’ generation and every human generation that went before them. Polio anyone? Wait till that comes back.
April 25, 2008 at 8:15 am
I find it interesting that you keep referring to polio – when the topic is the MeNZB vaccine. (But if you’re going to go off-topic, why not discuss whooping cough? In 2004, 3489 cases of whooping cough were reported in NZ. Who would’ve thought?)
Out of interest, have you been vaccinated against meningococcal strains A, C and Y? There are adult vaccines for these strains. I wonder how many adults have taken up the opportunity to be vaccinated – very few I suspect. Clearly, many adults don’t think their chances of catching the disease are great enough to warrant vaccination.
> Or is your post above a belated attempt to weasel out of a situation you brought upon yourself, and now you are uncomfortable being held to the same standards of accountability that you demanded of others?
That’s correct, Hilary. Poneke’s lack of research on this topic has been exposed. One hopes that if he or she wants to resurrect this topic ever again, we will see a much better, and more honest, discussion of the facts. Memo to Poneke: leave your bias (and ego) at the door.
April 25, 2008 at 8:38 am
Poneke – you sound like a caring parent – I imagine you even read the labels on food at the supermarket to ensure your kids get the best food – but for some reason you are happy to inject them with live viruses, killed bacteria and toxic chemicals including aluminium, mercury and formaldehyde.
As for Polio – I’m confused by your statement (or the fact that you seem to do no research) – the disease is as rampant today as ever – albeit in communities of great poverty. There is a rarely mentioned epidemic raging in the world today, one that is crippling children in more than 100 countries. In extreme cases the disease starts with a fever, which is followed by vomiting, delirium and spreading pain. Within days of being infected, the motor-neurone cells in victims’ spines cease to function properly. Pain intensifies as victims’ limbs are paralysed. In the very worst cases, their chests are also paralysed, which prevents them from breathing. Even when the children recover, the illness often returns in later life. Health authorities say it has no cure. The number of cases increased by over 250 per cent worldwide between 1996 and 2003 1. It is a disease with a long history and many names. The condition’s official name now is ‘Acute Flaccid Paralysis’ but it was once known as ‘infantile paralysis’/ ‘poliomyelitis’ (polio for short). Some people called it ‘the crippler’. Polio is a devastating disease; the preferred method for fighting it is vaccination.
During the first half of the 20th century infantile paralysis surged like a bush fire, moving from place to place, afflicting large numbers of children, but only in the industrialised West. Prior to these outbreaks it affected very few and was often called ‘palsy’.
Poneke – I challenge you to read on at this URL (and do your own research – and btw ‘research’ does not mean reading pharma funded pamphlets at the doctors) and then talk about ‘polio’
http://www.theecologist.org/archive_detail.asp?content_id=278
April 25, 2008 at 9:26 am
As for Polio – I’m confused by your statement (or the fact that you seem to do no research) – the disease is as rampant today as ever – albeit in communities of great poverty. There is a rarely mentioned epidemic raging in the world today, one that is crippling children in more than 100 countries.
I normally see little point in responding to every bizarre claim made by fanatics, but I cannot let complete falsehoods about an issue as important as polio lie on my blog lest someone read and believe them.
Polio raged through the industrialised world until vaccines were introduced in the 1950s which caused a massive decline in the disease. In 1988, the World Health Organisation, emboldened by the defeat by vaccination of smallpox, embarked on a vaccination campaign to eradicate polio.
It almost worked. The number of cases world-wide fell from 350,000 in 1988 to under 2000 in 2006, with Nigeria being the last country with major outbreaks of the disease. Some Muslim clerics there claimed the vaccination was a Western plot to sterilise Muslims. The disease broke out there again and has also re-emerged in parts of India, Bangladesh, Afghanistan and Pakistan, where Muslim clerics have also used the Western conspiracy claim. Many of the outbreaks have been caused by isolated travellers from an infected area going elsewhere. Health officials and politicans in those countries are making its eradication a priority.
The risk in a country like New Zealand, which has one of the world’s lowest vaccination rates thanks to decades of anti-vaccination misinformation, is that polio could re-establish here by an infected traveller coming or returning here and unleashing it among the large section of the young population not vaccinated against polio. That is too awful even to contemplate, polio being such a hideous disease.
This website is about the worldwide polio eradication effort:
http://www.polioeradication.org/
April 25, 2008 at 12:04 pm
Hilary,
I read Carol’s reference to “transparency” to be regards who the author(s) is(are), not to the material being put forward.
Just to help you see peer review of papers more clearly, I’ll jot out a few loose points. (But by no means a complete exploration: that’d be a small book!) In particular, one person “objecting” to another’s work usually just makes the review process more irritating than you’d like it to be, than anything more substantial like “guarantees the[at] their work doesn’t get published”.
In practice, the editors stand in between the reviewers and the decision to publish. The editors are old hands in the science game, having widely published themselves. It’d be reasonably hard for a reviewer to get away with a pasting of a rival. The authors are given an opportunity to reply to reviewers’ comments and if the reviewer’s comments ring hollow in terms of science, its usually easy to point that out politely—my experience is that editors pick this sort of thing up easily enough.
Objections can delay a publication, though, through making it take longer in the peer review. But, again, if the reviewer is very clearly “playing games”, the authors can (politely!) ask if the editor would consider that. Most editors want good papers out fast, so that their journal has the first publications of new findings, after all.
Its common practice in the “stronger” journals for at least one reviewer to be a competitor in order to flush out weak papers and so that at least one reviewer plays “bad cop”
The editors know that, they choose the reviewers after all, and bear in it mind. By keeping the reviewers names out of it, it hides if the particular reviewer is a known competitor. (Admittedly, if they are too well known, you can sometimes guess! Likewise, if a reviewer is too kind, you can guess that they are a friend.)
The editors don’t particularly want to have to waste time with personality clashes, so the reason you gave is part of the reason why its anonymous, but only part.
Some journals and research fields differ and don’t use a fully anonymous system, by the way. Several of my favourite journals disclose the editor responsible for accepting the paper. For many journals, reviewers can choose to reveal themselves, should they want to.
Methodology sections are there for several reasons. One is that so the work can be repeated by others: “repeatability” is part of the science process—if others can’t repeat findings, they don’t stack up. Another is because of the “the devil is in the detail” issue—the exact protocol (experimental method) used can impact on the results found and hence conclusions drawn.
Barabara,
You wrote:
“the disease is as rampant today as ever”
You might want to look at these statistics: http://www.who.int/vaccines/globalsummary/immunization/timeseries/tsincidencepol.htm
They certainly don’t support your assertion.
They don’t yet have last year’s figures, but it is very clear only a small number of countries have more than a handful of cases. Using 5 cases in 2006 as the criteria for inclusion, they are: Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Ethiopia, India, Niger, Nigeria, Pakistan and Somalia. Only two countries in 2006 had more than 100 cases per year (Nigeria and India). The figures have since greatly reduced for Somalia (apparently no cases reported) and Nigeria; I don’t about India.
Having written all that, I ran into:
“As of end of 2007, Nigeria remained the only country in the region with endemic wild poliovirus circulation. Following the implementation of innovative activities/strategies in Nigeria and the use of monovalent polio vaccine type I and type III, the number wild poliovirus cases between 2006 and 2007 has gone down by 75% from 1122 to 286 cases.
As of March 2008, only four countries in the world (Afghanistan, India, Nigeria, Pakistan,) are still considered to be endemic for Polio. As of 19th March 2008, the African region reported 84 wild poliovirus cases in five countries – Nigeria (77), Niger (3), Chad (2), Angola (1) and DR-Congo (1).”
(http://www.afro.who.int/polio/overview.html)
Until polio is eradicated worldwide, other countries need to maintain their vaccine programmes, as Poneke was writing.
You also wrote:
“but only in the industrialised West.”
Its far more likely that this reflects the count of cases reported, not a count of cases present. It probably was only formally identified and reported in the West, but was present elsewhere but not formally reported. This is a common “mistake”: that something is not reported (or counted), doesn’t mean its not present, just that its not reported (or counted).
April 25, 2008 at 12:16 pm
Some reading:
Suckers: How alternative medicine makes fools of us all
April 25, 2008 at 7:00 pm
Poneke, you haven’t read what Barbara said… she said it is now called acute flaccid paralysis… they are the paralytic cases that used to be classified as polio … then there are cases of aseptic meningitis which also used to be classified as polio prior to the redefining of polio when the vaccine was introduced. Ron
April 26, 2008 at 11:01 am
Ron, The name itself is just a label, so its seems a moot point to me. Most people use ‘polio’ as its better known; even the WHO statistics I linked does. I really doubt anyone is confusing polio as its understood today with how it was once diagnosed.
April 27, 2008 at 9:12 pm
Heraclides, you say, “I really doubt anyone is confusing polio as its understood today with how it was once diagnosed.” That’s Barbara’s point… the fear that people remember was due to a collection of diseases, most of which are still quite common, but which are not promoted as the ‘fearful polio.’ There are on average 10 or so NZ children afflicted with Acute Flaccid Paralysis… AKA polio in the good old days. Before the polio vaccine testing wasn’t done routinely… so it could have been anything… now heaven and earth is moved to prove it is not actually polio. Like meningococcal disease… did you notice how before the vaccine every case, confirmed or not, epidemic strain or not, under 20’s and over 20’s was used to ramp up the fear… now only confirmed epidemic cases in under 20’s are used to say the epidemic is over… that is the whole point of Barabara & my meningococcal gold rush series… we pointed out that the data was amplified by using all cases and all deaths to justify a strain specific vaccine… how corrupt. Ron
April 27, 2008 at 9:38 pm
I have just done a google search for Acute Flaccid Paralysis. I have found two relevant pages for New Zealand. The first is:
http://www.paediatrics.org.nz/PSNZold/nzpsu/nzpsu3_afp.html
This states that “All cases of AFP must have a full clinical, epidemiological and virological investigation, including the collection and analysis of 2 adequate stool samples, and a clinical follow up 60 days after the onset of paralysis.”
“The purpose of this is to determine
1. the incidence of acute flaccid paralysis (AFP) in children in New Zealand
2. whether any cases of AFP in New Zealand are caused by polio”
My other page was:
http://www.esr.cri.nz/competencies/communicabledisease/PolioAFPisolation.htm
Isn’t it positive that “heaven and earth is moved to prove it is not actually polio”? I think knowing the cause of the AFP is incredibly important. If the AFP is caused by polio then the tests will show that.
Certainly if in the past non-polio AFP was designated “polio” then that is a fault, but that can’t be changed and it seems logical to test for the polio virus in patients with AFP now.
April 28, 2008 at 9:10 am
Muerk, I agree with your post… but my point was that people are comparing two sets of data and claiming the difference is due to the polio vaccine when in many cases it is not. AFP, aseptic meningitis and other conditions were lumped in with polio before the vaccine was introduced… including conditions with short onset… then the definition was changed… if one plots the incidence of aseptic meningitis, for example, it rises at exactly the same time as cases of polio fall… ie, many cases of what was called polio before the vaccine was introduced were reclassified as aseptic meningitis AFTER the vaccine was introduced… If the rigor of testing to exclude polio now was done in the 60’s I doubt there would have been much polio around then either. In 2006 India had 15,216 cases of AFP… but only 155 confirmed cases of polio… everyone gets excited about the low number of polio, but ignore the 15216 cases of AFP… in a former era there would have been 15216 cases of polio (and that doesn’t include the perhaps hundreds of thousands of cases of aseptic meningitis.) It’s easy to get a miracle when one redefines definitions before/after the intervention.
Ron
April 28, 2008 at 9:35 am
But still Ron, prior to vaccination there were _some_ cases of wild-polio, now post-vaccination we are wild-polio free.
April 28, 2008 at 4:00 pm
Just to clarify so people don’t confuse my point about understanding what polio means with Ron’s. “That’s Barbara’s point” might be read as saying my point was the same as what Ron is presenting. Its not, I was writing the opposite: I was saying that people understand what it means now and what it meant then and aren’t confusing the two.
The ‘people’ I were referring to were those researching the disease, treating it, etc. Ron wrote about diagnosis and statistics: my reply referred to the people behind this. I really doubt all of these people misunderstand and are claiming a false success “by redefinition” as Ron touts.
I’d like to think that researchers aren’t as thick Ron would make out
And likewise, Ron is not the authority to rule them all. And thank goodness. (Excuse my reworking of a line from Lord of the Rings…)
Muerk has a point: there were “still” large numbers of cases polio after altering the reporting criteria. Changing the reporting criteria to more correctly reflect the disease certainly didn’t make it go away by itself, as Ron would seem to be trying to imply.
Even if you aren’t willing to get into the details, you only need to see the cases where polio has re-emerged after a falling level of vaccination, followed by the subsequent suppression of the disease after raising vaccination levels back to higher levels, to see that the effect is due to the vaccine.
May 5, 2008 at 11:13 am
Hilary, I can see that we are unlikely to find any common ground.
My point was a simple one. I have no problem with yourself, or Sue, or anyone else, ‘daring to think for yourselves’ and having independent views. Splendid. Where I do have a problem is where you (or rather the IAS) dispense public health advice; in this case I think the public at large are entitled to ask what this advice is based on. It’s my belief that public health policy should be based on the best available science, which is in turn based on peer review and robust, rigorous critical scrutiny. I think it would be excellent if you and Sue could present your research in an open scientific forum such as a journal or at a conference, such that its merits could be freely debated. I know Sue has written a book called ‘Investigate before you Vaccinate’ but I am unconvinced that a self-published book confers much in the way of scientific credibility.
You ask about my qualifications. I’ll happily admit upfront that I have no medical expertise whatever (and neither do I dispense public health advice). I have a PhD in environmental chemistry, close to 20 years experience and a bunch of peer-reviewed papers and science reports. I mention this not to pull rank, but to illustrate that I do understand scientific method and the peer review process. I’ve had the odd paper rejected; I’ve had to address some harsh reviewers’ comments, and the end results have been much better for it. One of the great things about science is that it is self-correcting.
I think if you read this post carefully you will find that I haven’t made any personal attacks.
I’d just like to add that the new IAS website looks good, and I am delighted to see that you have included links to sites offering conventional advice on immunisation. For completeness, you should add a link to the IMAC centre at Auckland University.
June 25, 2008 at 4:08 pm
Aluminium hydroxide anyone? That MeNZB jab contains 1650 mcg per hit.
http://www.vaccinetruth.org/aluminum_hydroxide1.htm
Read esp the bit about Mercks testing of aluminium hydroxide against a saline placebo (i.e. no antigen). Non-zero result.
July 25, 2008 at 12:28 pm
I was just wondering what you (Poneke) makes of the lastest news about the effectiveness of the vaccine. http://www.3news.co.nz/Video/Reviewofmeningococcalvaccinationshowseffectivenessworeoffwithinmonths/tabid/309/articleID/64012/cat/64/Default.aspx
August 30, 2008 at 12:19 am
This post was so comical I just had to leave a comment. With such emotive phrases as “fanatical”, “sabotage” and “anti-science” it’s hard to take you seriously. People are allowed to make their own decisions are they not? Or do we always have to do as we’re told? Why do have to control what other do? Do you think we should just check our brains at the door? Why do you persucte those who have a different opinion? Why are you so worried about the “fanaticals”? Maybe you need to just chill out a bit. If I ever question my decision not immunise all I have to do is read a blog like this and realise that the day when we can have a robust discussion about the pros and cons of vaccinations are a long way off in the future. If only you could stick to the facts you’d have some credibiltiy. But this game of playing the person and not the ball really doesn’t do you any favours. And if you REALLY want people to believe that MenZb vaccinations had anything to do with declining cases reported you might want to change the numbers in that box. It would be better if the numbers went down AFTER the vaccination program started not before.