Hi again.
Take a look at this of you like...
http://www.health.gov.au/internet/main/publishing.nsf/Content/cda-cdi3301c.htm
March to May 2006. 33 cases of measles - 27 unvaccinated, 6 at least one dose (some were too young for the second dose). Fortunately, those who had received at least one dose had milder disease.
Hey there AVN, what's your explanation for that? How can you still push your concept that vaccination is not effective?
30 October, 2010
29 October, 2010
Measles status in Australia, and outbreaks in the first quarter of 2009
Hi all.
I just came across this article.
http://www.health.gov.au/internet/main/publishing.nsf/content/cda-cdi3302k.htm
Routine surveillance following an outbreak. Here's some quotes...
"The number of vaccine doses was known for 57 of the 78 cases, of which none had received 2 doses of a MCV, four (7%) had received 1 dose and 53 (93%) had received no doses: the remaining 21 cases were of unknown vaccination status (Figure 3)"
and
"Queensland had a total of 31 cases of measles notified in the 1st quarter of 2009. Of these, 25 cases in a Sunshine Coast high school were linked to an imported case from India diagnosed on 12 January 2009, and were of genotype D4. None of the 25 cases were vaccinated at the time of exposure. In this case an outbreak occurred amongst a cohort of unvaccinated children despite the vaccination coverage in the overall geographical area being estimated at greater than 90%"
So what does this suggest to us? If you're not vaccinated, you're more likely to get measles in an outbreak. Also, if vaccination rates decrease further, outbreaks are more likely to occur.
Can anyone at AVN explain these findings in a plausible manner?
I just came across this article.
http://www.health.gov.au/internet/main/publishing.nsf/content/cda-cdi3302k.htm
Routine surveillance following an outbreak. Here's some quotes...
"The number of vaccine doses was known for 57 of the 78 cases, of which none had received 2 doses of a MCV, four (7%) had received 1 dose and 53 (93%) had received no doses: the remaining 21 cases were of unknown vaccination status (Figure 3)"
and
"Queensland had a total of 31 cases of measles notified in the 1st quarter of 2009. Of these, 25 cases in a Sunshine Coast high school were linked to an imported case from India diagnosed on 12 January 2009, and were of genotype D4. None of the 25 cases were vaccinated at the time of exposure. In this case an outbreak occurred amongst a cohort of unvaccinated children despite the vaccination coverage in the overall geographical area being estimated at greater than 90%"
So what does this suggest to us? If you're not vaccinated, you're more likely to get measles in an outbreak. Also, if vaccination rates decrease further, outbreaks are more likely to occur.
Can anyone at AVN explain these findings in a plausible manner?
An article for all to read
Here's an interesting and thought provoking story...
http://health.msn.co.nz/pregnancy/parenthood/1054243/to-jab-or-not-to-jab-the-case-for-vaccination
http://health.msn.co.nz/pregnancy/parenthood/1054243/to-jab-or-not-to-jab-the-case-for-vaccination
Scientific fraud in drug studies – take 2 sugar pills and call me in the morning…
In this post, AVN presents a blog based on a story based on a published article - a pretty sloppy way of reporting, and it's no surprise here that they get the message completely twisted around. The journal article (What's in placebos: who knows? Analysis of randomized, controlled trials, Golomb BA, Erickson LC, Koperski S, Sack D, Enkin M, Howick J, Ann Intern Med, 2010 vol. 153 (8) pp. 532-5) referred to is a fine display of researchers keeping themselves honest. Basically, they looked at a large number of journal articles and found that researchers hadn't listed the ingredients in the placebos used. No big deal really. Typical good example of sound research. Perhaps people will be more careful in the future. Perhaps some studies have been influenced because of a physiological effect of ingredients in the placebo.
But no - AVN states... “all those studies must now be completely thrown out as utterly non-scientific”. All of them? Really? No – not at all. As the authors say themselves “our analysis does not clarify the frequency with which placebo constituents may influence internal validity, replication, or cross-trial comparisons”. Nothing has to be thrown out at all, and by not reading and appreciating the original article, AVN has done themselves and their readers a gross disservice. That was NOT their conclusion, and AVN's final paragraph misrepresents the paper. So does the introduction for that matter. No clinical trials whatsoever have been invalidated by this study. None what-so-ever. Nor is this proof of the effectiveness of homeopathy, and anyone who claims it is doesn't know anything about scientific method.
If I was responsible for this blog, I’d hang my head in shame.
But no - AVN states... “all those studies must now be completely thrown out as utterly non-scientific”. All of them? Really? No – not at all. As the authors say themselves “our analysis does not clarify the frequency with which placebo constituents may influence internal validity, replication, or cross-trial comparisons”. Nothing has to be thrown out at all, and by not reading and appreciating the original article, AVN has done themselves and their readers a gross disservice. That was NOT their conclusion, and AVN's final paragraph misrepresents the paper. So does the introduction for that matter. No clinical trials whatsoever have been invalidated by this study. None what-so-ever. Nor is this proof of the effectiveness of homeopathy, and anyone who claims it is doesn't know anything about scientific method.
If I was responsible for this blog, I’d hang my head in shame.
Welcome
Hello to you all.
"Like shooting fish in a barrel" was how one of my colleagues described my concept for this blog. You see, I've recently started following the Australian Vaccination Network in order to learn about vaccinations. Unfortunately, the more I looked at it, the more I realised how biased it was. I wrote some comments on their site, but due to the moderator most of them have not been published. Some of the information presented was downright lies, some was just incredibly sloppy journalism - but all was evidence of a person with a grudge who preferred to see what they wanted to, and interpret "data" to bend it to their own needs.
So here we are. This is where I will present my comments, and you can provide your comments too - all in an unmoderated environment. Now, I'd like to keep the language decent, so can you please imagine yourself in a book club. You're among friends, you have beliefs, and you want to discuss them, but you won't swear or belittle your friends - right?
Let me clear the air about myself though. I am not part of a conspiracy. I do not receive payments from an pharmaceutical company. I do not want to brainwash you or your children. Unfortunately I'm quite dull and uninteresting, which is similar to the evidence surrounding vaccination. The facts are quite boring. Quite dull. But quite convincing. A bit like an out-of-control truck going through your bedroom wall - not much to look at, but it sort of gets your attention.
"Like shooting fish in a barrel" was how one of my colleagues described my concept for this blog. You see, I've recently started following the Australian Vaccination Network in order to learn about vaccinations. Unfortunately, the more I looked at it, the more I realised how biased it was. I wrote some comments on their site, but due to the moderator most of them have not been published. Some of the information presented was downright lies, some was just incredibly sloppy journalism - but all was evidence of a person with a grudge who preferred to see what they wanted to, and interpret "data" to bend it to their own needs.
So here we are. This is where I will present my comments, and you can provide your comments too - all in an unmoderated environment. Now, I'd like to keep the language decent, so can you please imagine yourself in a book club. You're among friends, you have beliefs, and you want to discuss them, but you won't swear or belittle your friends - right?
Let me clear the air about myself though. I am not part of a conspiracy. I do not receive payments from an pharmaceutical company. I do not want to brainwash you or your children. Unfortunately I'm quite dull and uninteresting, which is similar to the evidence surrounding vaccination. The facts are quite boring. Quite dull. But quite convincing. A bit like an out-of-control truck going through your bedroom wall - not much to look at, but it sort of gets your attention.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)