Comments on: Meningococcal B epidemic over — MeNZB vaccine programme hailed a success despite efforts by anti-immunisation fanatics to sabotage it http://poneke.wordpress.com/2008/04/15/menzb/ Media, politics, justice, transport and odd things in Wellington New Zealand Sun, 15 Nov 2009 12:37:10 +0000 http://wordpress.com/ hourly 1 By: Francine http://poneke.wordpress.com/2008/04/15/menzb/#comment-5344 Francine Fri, 29 Aug 2008 12:19:45 +0000 http://poneke.wordpress.com/?p=215#comment-5344 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. 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.

]]> By: artandmylife http://poneke.wordpress.com/2008/04/15/menzb/#comment-4728 artandmylife Fri, 25 Jul 2008 00:28:06 +0000 http://poneke.wordpress.com/?p=215#comment-4728 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 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

]]> By: adc http://poneke.wordpress.com/2008/04/15/menzb/#comment-4122 adc Wed, 25 Jun 2008 04:08:44 +0000 http://poneke.wordpress.com/?p=215#comment-4122 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. 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.

]]> By: Carol http://poneke.wordpress.com/2008/04/15/menzb/#comment-3019 Carol Sun, 04 May 2008 23:13:07 +0000 http://poneke.wordpress.com/?p=215#comment-3019 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. 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.

]]> By: Heraclides http://poneke.wordpress.com/2008/04/15/menzb/#comment-2708 Heraclides Mon, 28 Apr 2008 04:00:26 +0000 http://poneke.wordpress.com/?p=215#comment-2708 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. 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.

]]> By: Muerk http://poneke.wordpress.com/2008/04/15/menzb/#comment-2681 Muerk Sun, 27 Apr 2008 21:35:37 +0000 http://poneke.wordpress.com/?p=215#comment-2681 But still Ron, prior to vaccination there were _some_ cases of wild-polio, now post-vaccination we are wild-polio free. But still Ron, prior to vaccination there were _some_ cases of wild-polio, now post-vaccination we are wild-polio free.

]]> By: Ron Law http://poneke.wordpress.com/2008/04/15/menzb/#comment-2680 Ron Law Sun, 27 Apr 2008 21:10:07 +0000 http://poneke.wordpress.com/?p=215#comment-2680 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 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

]]> By: Muerk http://poneke.wordpress.com/2008/04/15/menzb/#comment-2670 Muerk Sun, 27 Apr 2008 09:38:01 +0000 http://poneke.wordpress.com/?p=215#comment-2670 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. 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.

]]> By: Ron Law http://poneke.wordpress.com/2008/04/15/menzb/#comment-2669 Ron Law Sun, 27 Apr 2008 09:12:18 +0000 http://poneke.wordpress.com/?p=215#comment-2669 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 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

]]> By: Heraclides http://poneke.wordpress.com/2008/04/15/menzb/#comment-2631 Heraclides Fri, 25 Apr 2008 23:01:49 +0000 http://poneke.wordpress.com/?p=215#comment-2631 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. 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.

]]>