Bigot’s Billboard

Written By: - Date published: 8:58 am, October 2nd, 2018 - 284 comments
Categories: accountability, class war, community democracy, health, science, scoundrels - Tags: ,

Anti-science group WAVESnz have paid for a huge billboard on Auckland’s Southern motorway attacking children’s right to be healthy.

The billboard, near the off ramp to Middlemore hospital, is intended to scare young parents off from vaccinating their children. Curiously, it appears to be pitched at fathers rather than mothers.

 

Click here to find out what’s in a vaccine

 

The image is of a tattooed man holding a baby. The tattoo, which has a generic Polynesian motif, also contains English words that may refer to fatherhood. At a guess, the folk at WAVESnz think that Polynesian and Maori men have control over their women, so it’s best to target them. This is a cynical switch from this group, whose website is generously illustrated with photos of happy white folk.

Dr Grant Jacobs has a terrific critique of the damage this billboard is intended to do on his Code for Life blog. It’s well worth a read.

And Emma Espiner is using Twitter to organise against ignorance here.

The Advertising Standards Authority regulates billboards. You can lay a formal complaint here.

In general, the anti-vaxx billboard is misleading, which is a breach in itself. However, if you are minded to contact the ASA, you might point out that the billboard breaches the ‘Special Duty of Care’ in the code that covers advertising that impacts children.

Specifically, advertisers that use children have a responsibility to ensure advertising is not likely to result in physical, mental or moral harm.

It only takes a few minutes to fill in the ASA complaint form and help end ignorance. Do it for the kids, OK?

 

Image result for anti-vaxx

 

UPDATE: Ad-Vantage Media director Duncan Harris has said the billboard would be removed on Tuesday afternoon.

Immunisation Advisory Centre research director Dr Helen Petousis-Harris says on the Stuff website that the billboard perpetuated the myth there are concealed issues with what’s in vaccines, which was absolutely misleading.

Petousis-Harris said the billboard had the potential to impact public health. She also noted its placement in south Auckland targets vulnerable communities who “bear the biggest burden of these infectious diseases”.

“[For] people who are already a little bit hesitant or might have some concerns, this has the capacity to reinforce those ideas and make them nervous … they’re the ones who will be most impacted by this kind of messaging”.

Thanks to all TS readers who took the time to email the ASA. Quick, effective activism. We need more of that.

 

284 comments on “Bigot’s Billboard”

  1. Sanctuary 1

    You need to add a 1080 square…

    • Incognito 1.1

      Because 1080 is somehow associated with vaccines used for humans!?

      • riffer 1.1.1

        No because the anti-1080 crowd are organised and work in almost an identical way.

        • Incognito 1.1.1.1

          Fair enough, but let’s save some squares for other anti-science crowds such as anti-fluoride campaigners, climate change deniers, proponents of coffee enemas, and people who lap up goop.

        • Stuart Munro 1.1.1.2

          The essential feature of science is that it must withstand rational review.

          A program claiming it will eradicate predators by 2050 by aerial pellet drops would be deceiving itself if it weren’t merely deceiving the public – they lose effectiveness as target populations fall. Short of saturation levels that will eliminate all the birds as well, this final solution simply won’t work – which makes a lot of the arguments advanced in its favour moot.

          While we’re talking about manipulative PR, the campaign for 1080 involved very aggressive lobbying on the Coast – to the point that councils overruled dissent in favour of the poison operation owners and their PR flack.

          The reporting of the poisoned Indian family up north, initially reported as possible botulism poisoning, did not match the presentation of botulism at all – but it was a perfect fit for 1080. Never mentioned or investigated in the media.

          When I want my forests air dropped with a persistent poison I’ll let you know. And the science, contrary to DOC assertions, is far from settled. Science is concerned with truth and this Key era policy was never about birds – it’s a subsidy to Gnat supporters.

          • Incognito 1.1.1.2.1

            Not all decisions are based on science alone and nor should they.

            I thought 1080 breaks down in the environment!?

            • Stuart Munro 1.1.1.2.1.1

              It is metabolized until it is exhausted. It interrupts the Krebs cycle so that consuming organisms stop producing ATP for cellular function. Its downstream killing capacity is scary for dog owners (dogs being more susceptible for some reason), because they are inclined to eat carrion. We do have native carrion eaters however – I’ve seen plenty of hawks eating roadkill, and presumably they’ll eat other carrion, possibly fatally. Wekas are pretty omnivorous too.

            • Stuart Munro 1.1.1.2.1.2

              This seems to be a balanced and well-informed link on the matter:

              https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/discussion-new-zealand-conservation-issues-around-1080-geoff-booth/

              • JC

                On the contrary…..

                This seems to be a balanced and well-informed link/s on the matter:

                https://civicanalysis.wordpress.com/2018/09/27/1080-when-fake-news-trumps-facts-our-debate-is-poisoned/

                https://thespinoff.co.nz/society/18-09-2018/separating-fact-from-fiction-in-the-1080-debate/

                http://www.1080facts.co.nz/

                “unfortunately, like the anti-vaccination lobby, the vociferous and vigorous anti-1080 crowd will maintain their vehemence. They will continue to reinforce each other’s views and carry on bombarding the public. No number of independent reports nor any amount of unbiased information will sway them!”

                https://www.odt.co.nz/opinion/editorial/1080-debate-should-die-will-not

                • One Two

                  The ODT article is low level, emotive and borderline illiterate in context and content…

                  It jumps around, employs belittling tactics, minimising and dismissive while appealing to various authorities, while referencing independent , unbiased reports without citation…as if independent and unbias can exist in such space…

                  It is a mirror article which can be found targetting the so called ‘anti vaxxers’… even managing to smear the two dastardly groups into a single amorphous blob…

                  No wonder people can’t form a coherent view if this is the level at which they onboard information…

                  • KJT

                    Give up 1/2, you have successfully made a fool of yourself, “playing the man, not the ball when the facts are against you, giving “evidence which is not credible to anyone who knows even a smidgen about science, chemistry and statistics (Correlation is not causation), and showing an appalling level of creduality.

                    Much like most of the anti-science lobby.

                    • Hang on, the waxing poetically is an outlet obviously sorely needed.

                    • One Two

                      Coming from someone who openly states…

                      Not vaccinating is child abuse

                      You’re so far out of your lane you don’t even realise it…

                      Anti science…tell me…what does that mean to you?…

                      Go ahead…

                    • KJT

                      Refusing to vaccinate your children, when there is no good reason not to, such as a compromised immune system, exposes them to several nasty and potentially debilitating or lethal diseases.

                      If that does not meet the definition of child abuse, what does?

                      Do you make your kids play on a busy road?

                    • One Two []

                      It obviously meets a defination in your own mind, kjt…but that’s as far as it goes…and no…that’s not anti science…

                      You have no idea what youre actually talking about…it is beyond you…you’ve illustrated that in no uncertain terms…

                      It’s likely I’m exacerbating your mental limitations…and I’ve not even gone into second gear…

                      I’ll leave you to the pit of ignorance you seem only too pleased to reside in…

                      [Time for you to have a cuppa and a lie down, One Two. No more comments on this post, please. TRP]

                    • One Two []

                      Acknowledged…

                      Ironic you’ve singled one of my comments out…given whats going on in here…

                      But as I’ve said…you know what you’re doing…

                      Perhaps you can write about tolerance and encourage genuine discourse…even though you have extreme bias on this subject…

                      The bar needs to be raised…censorship is not the way to do it…not of my comment…wider landscape eh…opportunities need to be fostered…not shut down through fear or predjudice…

                  • JC

                    Rather selective don’t you think …..?

                    There were several other sources referenced… yet you Only choose to select One! ..

                    “No wonder people can’t form a coherent view if this is the level at which they onboard information…” (Your quote by the way)

                  • KJT

                    Give up 1/2, you have successfully made a fool of yourself, “playing the man, not the ball when the facts are against you, giving “evidence which is not credible to anyone who knows even a smidgen about science, chemistry and statistics (Correlation is not causation), and showing an appalling level of credulity.

                    Much like most of the anti-science lobby.

                • Stuart Munro

                  Well your first link certainly fits the criteria to be posted on a bigot’s billboard – it’s not informed by anything but a desire to slander the anti 1080 crowd. No evidence of either qualifications or experience.

                  The Spinoff article is likewise a shallow rant that is incapable of acknowledging there are problems with 1080 – as there will be with any pest destruction choice – it argues necessity instead of balance of benefits and drawbacks, and is accordingly frankly, weak.

                  “1080 facts” is a PR production for the 1080 manufacturers – and is thus less than credibly balanced – an RT quality source.

                  You’d have to do better than that – were rational argument your object.

                  • UncookedSelachimorpha

                    “1080 facts” does not appear to be funded by 1080 manufacturers, nor do any seem to be members of the trust behind it.

                    http://www.1080facts.co.nz/our-supporters.html

                    Having said that, I think the LinkedIn article from SM is fairly balanced too.

                    • Stuart Munro

                      I wouldn’t count on it – there’s been some very dirty pool from their PR folk. I’ll get back to you on this.

                  • JC

                    “unfortunately, like the anti-vaccination lobby, the vociferous and vigorous anti-1080 crowd will maintain their vehemence. They will continue to reinforce each other’s views and carry on bombarding the public. No number of independent reports nor any amount of unbiased information will sway them!”

                    Ad infinitum ….

                    “He tried to explain himself and the uses and benefits of 1080 poisons, before acknowledging it was unlikely he’d have any luck convincing them of anything today.”

                    https://www.radionz.co.nz/news/national/366297/environment-minister-david-parker-has-a-run-in-with-1080-protesters

                    • Stuart Munro

                      So I’m not allowed to go out and meet my friends – you expect me to stay in and educate the lying out of control civil servants who are wantonly poisoning our wildlife.

                      Fuck you you disingenuous piece of shit.

                      You didn’t read the link which I left for a more responsible commenter.

                      The short answer is the same as it’s always been for environmentalists in NZ – collect the evidence and publish it and rub it in the lying government authority’s faces until they are obliged to start acting in good faith.

                      That means collecting the dead birds after every drop and prosecuting DOC until they clean up their act. It’s not so different from what we had to do to deter 245T spraying – we’ve all been down this road before, and we won.

                      The only mistake was in expecting that a Green conservation minister would be more honest.

                    • JC

                      “Stuart Munro …
                      3 October 2018 at 10:55 pm
                      So I’m not allowed to go out and meet my friends – you expect me to stay in and educate the lying out of control civil servants who are wantonly poisoning our wildlife.

                      Fuck you you disingenuous piece of shit.

                      You didn’t read the link which I left for a more responsible commenter.

                      The short answer is the same as it’s always been for environmentalists in NZ – collect the evidence and publish it and rub it in the lying government authority’s faces until they are obliged to start acting in good faith.

                      That means collecting the dead birds after every drop and prosecuting DOC until they clean up their act. It’s not so different from what we had to do to deter 245T spraying – we’ve all been down this road before, and we won.

                      The only mistake was in expecting that a Green conservation minister would be more honest.”

                      ” So I’m not allowed to go out and meet my friends”

                      – Fuck you you disingenuous piece of shit.”

                      Hmmm…. OK then. With friends like that …. Stay off the Beer!

                    • Stuart Munro

                      “Stay off the beer”

                      How about, you patronizing piece of poo, you just stay away altogether?

                      Here you are, sticking your unattractive nose into other people’s business, repeating the polemics and appeals to authority that have lost you the 1080 argument, as if you had set out to prove Kuhn’s thesis singlehandedly.

                      It’s not as if you understand the links you posted.

                      Your passion would be admirable if only you were conscientious enough to go out and learn the facts of the matter.

                      But you’re not – You’re a lazy fool. Which would be fine, but we’re trying to discuss a serious issue here.

  2. mpledger 2

    Why are they targeting Pacific people? How is it to their advantage?
    I know it’s been a problem overseas (American Somalis) but I don’t understand what the end point is.
    https://www.statnews.com/2017/05/08/measles-vaccines-somali/

    • JohnSelway 2.1

      They are Targeting perceived ignorance

    • One Two 2.2

      The messaging is possibly related to the Samoan babies who died recently…

      But unless those who commissioned the billboard provide context, it is not obvious…

      Similar billboards have been appearing in other cities elsewhere…

      The language and use of n*zi symbols by the author is symptomatic of the low level of attack minded ‘discussion’ around the subject which has been had in Nz…

      • marty mars 2.2.1

        Yep I think they are using and exploiting the horrific baby deaths recently. Very sick to do that imo.

      • Hi, One Two. The swastika appears in a image from an anti-vaxxer who claims vaccination is akin to the holocaust. That’s how low the level of understanding goes with these folk.

        More here: https://medium.com/@kevinmadden/the-bigotry-of-anti-vaxx-rhetoric-1162127e4aad

        • One Two 2.2.2.1

          Thanks for the clarification, TRP…

          Mandatory and/or forced medication was practiced during the war…

          The discussion globally has moved on significantly from the scare tactics used at either extremes of the debate…

          Focussing on those groups/individuals who are interested in ensuring polarisation of any discussion…only serves to miss the mark…

          • McFlock 2.2.2.1.1

            If the discussion in NZ had moved on from scare tactics, this billboard wouldn’t exist.

          • Kate 2.2.2.1.2

            There is no mandatory vaccination in New Zealand, therefore the Nazi analogy is invalid. Plus the Nazis performed horrible experiments, rather than applying benign public health measures.

          • Garden 2.2.2.1.3

            The Nuremberg Code was a direct result of medical experimentation, and gave us the right to refuse any medical intervention, for any reason. The current vaccination schedule in its entirety has NOT been rigorously tested, which amounts to experimental medicine. Feel free to show me the solid body of safety evidence on the current schedule as delivered, and I’ll rethink that.

            The truth is that we do not know how widespread the “collateral damage” is, because those stats are not being reliably and universally gathered. Vaccine uptake alone does NOT automatically equate to good Public Health, only a full, thorough, long term investigation of all illness including chronic illness in the population would tell us that and reveal the possible trade-off between benign, self-limiting childhood illness and the chronic illnesses known to be caused by vaccines (see ASIA or Shoenfeld’s Syndrome for instance)
            https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24620624

            There is nothing about chicken pox that good old vitamin C can’t remedy, and yet this vaccine is now compulsory in Australia, in order to receive various benefits and kindy access in some states. Baffling to those of my generation who know how mild chicken pox is if treated correctly. Also proposed for NZ. We know the acellular pertussis vaccines are an abject failure at containing whooping cough, however well-intentioned- this according to the government’s own stats.

            Meanwhile, independent Science does manage to get published, raising serious concerns about vaccine safety, especially vaccines in the number and frequency currently given to babies and small children. This Italian paper is one among growing numbers of researchers able to explain the mechanisms behind the brain inflammation that some vaccine recipients experience.

            https://www.omicsonline.org/open-access/vaccines-and-neuroinflammation.pdf

            Or this letter from a long international list of concerned PhDs, doctors, lawyers and citizen advocacy groups.

            https://childrenshealthdefense.org/child-health-topics/policy-safeguards/open-letter-from-international-organisations-to-the-who-on-the-issue-of-vaccine-safety/

            Vaccine injury testimonials are mounting as the already-bloated childhood schedule grows with, mandatory and coercive vaccination laws are being pushed globally, including in Australia and NZ, driven by vested interests, and the entire news media has been hijacked by industry sponsorship…

            …and yet it’s being implied that the growing numbers of vaccine questioners or at least those questioning current vaccination policy, driven to put up these billboards because no one in government is listening, are the Nazis, and they get called “bigots” or “unscientific” and pilloried with other names? Pot, kettle and very very black! The billboard a neutral question about the untested ingredients of vaccine like aluminium and human and animal protein, which are listed nt he CDC website and are showing up in the emerging medical literature as problematic for some people.

            Yet anyone who so much as utters a critical peep about a vaccine product, including doctors, industry whistleblower scientists, PhDs, lawyers who have represented the vaccine injured in the USA, parents and celebrities who have lost kids to vaccines is labelled an “anti-vaxxer”? Give me a break, you’d have to be blind or naive to see that there isn’t a problem with that polarisation!

            • KJT 2.2.2.1.3.1

              How about some evidence. Instead of a long list of people who reckon…..

              We know vaccines can cause harm. So can peanuts and strawberries.

              The chances of harm are minuscule compared with the harm diseases like measles, polio, chickenpox etc can cause. Even smallpox and TB are on their way back, thanks to poverty and anti vaccers.

              • One Two

                Evidence…go get it…you were given the leads…

                So you don’t force feed people food products…but medications are ok to do just that…

                Poverty is an issue you are correct about that…vaccines do not come into why poverty leads to poor health…nor should they be part of a discussion about health at all…

                TB – The BCG vaccine was discontinued in NZ many years ago…why…because the vaccine was recalled…

                http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/health/7150980/Recall-stops-NZ-tuberculosis-vaccinations

                Simple reading material…go get it…

                • KJT

                  TB vaccine was not ineffective.

                  TB vaccination was discontinued because it wasn’t necessary. Because it worked.

                  Stop repeating total bullshit. We went from wards full of “consumptives” to almost eradicated when vaccination started.

                  • The TB vaccine saved lives. The early part of last century had a lot of TB tragedies. My grandfather’s first wife died of TB. My uncle was taken from her arms at birth so he wouldn’t catch it. My aunt died separated from her family in a TB sanitorium aged five. This is what vaccines prevent. The anti vaxxers live in a bubble lacking both scientific and historical knowledge.

                • joe90

                  TB – The BCG vaccine was discontinued in NZ many years ago…why…because the vaccine was ineffective

                  Arse. Routine use was discontinued because it lowered tuberculosis rates in the population, but high risk groups are still being vaccinated.

                  https://www.health.govt.nz/our-work/diseases-and-conditions/tuberculosis/resumption-bcg-vaccination-following-vaccine-shortage

                  • KJT

                    Don’t feed 1/2 a brain facts. His brain cells will get scrambled.

                  • One Two

                    In confirming my comment regarding effectiveness…because it was and still is, ineffective…

                    See link below about the lack of effectiveness for your reading…

                    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4950406/

                    • UncookedSelachimorpha

                      If you read that entire paper – TB vaccine is effective in children, but more variable in adults. Various reasons for this are discussed, as is future research to improve TB vaccines.

                      Take home story – vaccinate against TB. Research better TB vaccines for the future.

                      The reduction in TB in NZ was only partially due to vaccination – the discovery of antibiotics that can treat the disease played a major role, as did other public health measures. Good summary in this PhD thesis here:

                      Seeking the prize of eradication: a social history of tuberculosis in New Zealand from world War Two to the 1970s

                      Poverty is a significant risk for TB – something NZ should be worried about.

                    • One Two []

                      Why would you ‘think’ I’ve not read the full documents?

                      Why could you not interpret my response to J90, clearly stating that his cheap attempted gotcha serves only to affirm my statement regarding ineffectiveness….

                      That has gone right over you too…given your comments and the links you post on this subject…it is entirely unsurprising…

                      The only cogent statement you’ve made in all the comments is about poverty related disease…which is a serious issue…

                      But totally unrelated to vaccination if genuinely reduced in appropriate measures…

                      See if you can figure out why…

                    • joe90

                      cheap attempted gotcha

                      Your assertion that a tuberculosis vaccine was discontinued because the vaccine was ineffective is unsupported claptrap.

                      But hidden meaning meditates on precious miracles, eh.

                      /

                  • Richard McGrath

                    From memory the BCG vaccine has been shown to prevent miliary TB in the lung, and also TB meningitis, and is more useful and effective in neonates and young children. Thus it is no longer given in 13-14 year olds routinely, as it is less effective by that age.

              • Pauline

                Tell that to the parents who have lost a child due to vaccination. Oh that’s right, if your child has a reaction to peanuts the doctor will tell you not to give your child peanuts. If your child has a reaction to penicillin the doctor will say your child must not have penicillin. If your child has a reaction (or dies) due to a vaccination the doctor will probably tell you it’s just a coincidence!

                • KJT

                  People with underlying conditions that may make vaccination dangerous are warned by Doctors as a routine. Including conditions such as asthma and inherited immune deficiency.

                  I was asked about any underlying conditions by the nurse and doctor who vaccinated my children.

                  It, admittedly was an issue when the public health nurse used to immunize entire school classes in one hit.

            • UncookedSelachimorpha 2.2.2.1.3.2

              Without refuting all those ‘reckons’, take the statement on chickenpox for example:

              “There is nothing about chicken pox that good old vitamin C can’t remedy, and yet this vaccine is now compulsory in Australia, in order to receive various benefits and kindy access in some states. Baffling to those of my generation who know how mild chicken pox is if treated correctly.”

              Actual Facts:

              “Chickenpox is normally a mild disease. But it can be serious and can lead to complications or death, especially in high-risk people. Complications include:

              Bacterial infections of the skin, soft tissues, bones, joints or bloodstream (sepsis)
              Dehydration
              Pneumonia
              Inflammation of the brain (encephalitis)
              Toxic shock syndrome
              Reye’s syndrome for people who take aspirin during chickenpox
              ” (Mayo Clinic)

              “Since immunization the number of infections in the United States has decreased nearly 90%. In 2015 chickenpox resulted in 6,400 deaths globally …. Death occurs in about 1 per 60,000 cases”
              (wikipedia)

            • KJT 2.2.2.1.3.3

              BTW. I have had shingles which is a common complication of chicken pox. I wish the vaccine had been available when I was young. I was very close to going blind.

    • SHG 2.3

      Antivaxxers draw a lot of support from (and thus they target for recruitment) communities of evangelical religious faith. Such communities often believe strongly in the healing power of prayer (“if I vaccinate I’m saying I distrust God!”).

      Evangelical churches also believe strongly in a god who is an active participant in the affairs of the world. That predisposes believers to a worldview in which there are unseen forces at work in the world. From there it’s a short conceptual step to “shadow conspiracy big pharma!!1”

      Our society’s concept of religious tolerance also means that antivaxxers from religious communities aren’t subject to the criticism that the secular antivax nutters are.

      “I won’t vaccinate my kids because I read it’s bad on Facebook” <– reaction: you're an idiot

      "I won't vaccinate my kids because my church says it's bad" <– reaction: oh well, we must respect people's religious beliefs

      Evangelical churchgoers are also conditioned to accept the notion of donations in the form of tithing. If the antivaxxers can piggyback on Pasifika communities' religious faith, that's a big new donor pool.

      • shadrach 2.3.1

        “Antivaxxers draw a lot of support from (and thus they target for recruitment) communities of evangelical religious faith.”
        The proportion of people I know in the evangelical community who oppose vaccination are about the same as that from outside of that community.

        “Such communities often believe strongly in the healing power of prayer (“if I vaccinate I’m saying I distrust God!”).”
        True. And that often God just let’s human beings get on and do good science.

        “Evangelical churches also believe strongly in a god who is an active participant in the affairs of the world. ”
        Indeed, but rather than that lead to conspiracy delusions about big pharma, most evangelicals I know understand that God being an active participant can mean He has given us an intelligence to develop life saving medical interventions.

        • McFlock 2.3.1.1

          You must be a laugh at parties, polling people about religion and vaccination wherever you go. What are your current sample sizes for respondents in each group?

          • shadrach 2.3.1.1.1

            Oh come on McFlock, I’m sure the circles you mix in engage in discussion about topical issues of the day?

            • McFlock 2.3.1.1.1.1

              yeah but I don’t tabulate the results and nor do I pretend that the sample size is large enough to make sweeping statements comparing two different populations.

              • shadrach

                Nor do I. It was an informed opinion. Note the words “I know” and “about”.

                However if you want something more scientific, try this http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/02/07/majorities-in-all-major-religious-groups-support-requiring-childhood-vaccination/.

                That (albeit from the US) seems to support my informed opinion over that of SHG.

                • McFlock

                  lol

                  First of all, that survey isn’t about opposing vaccination.
                  Secondly, white evangelicals are twice as likely to say parental choice than other religious groups, and “unaffiliated” is only about 20% of the US population.

                  So does that match your statement about proportion of what you weren’t even talking about initially?

                  • shadrach

                    “First of all, that survey isn’t about opposing vaccination.”
                    If you support vaccination, you are unlikely to also oppose it.

                    “Secondly, white evangelicals are twice as likely to say parental choice than other religious groups, and “unaffiliated” is only about 20% of the US population. So does that match your statement about proportion of what you weren’t even talking about initially?”
                    76% of white evangelicals say that parents should be required to vaccinate. 78% of unaffiliated claim the same opinion. As far as it goes, that supports my opinion “The proportion of people I know in the evangelical community who oppose vaccination are about the same as that from outside of that community”, and that is confirmed in the author combining these two groups in the paragraph that begins “White evangelical Protestants and religiously unaffiliated people are somewhat less likely…”

                    • McFlock

                      “requiring childhood vaccination to attend school” is also different from supporting vaccination in your personal case but leaving it up to parental choice.

                      76% of white evangelicals say that parents should be required to vaccinate. 78% of unaffiliated claim the same opinion. As far as it goes, that supports my opinion “The proportion of people I know in the evangelical community who oppose vaccination are about the same as that from outside of that community”, and that is confirmed in the author combining these two groups in the paragraph that begins “White evangelical Protestants and religiously unaffiliated people are somewhat less likely…”

                      less likely than whom? answer: other people not in the evangelical movement.

                      “Unaffiliated” counts as about 1/4 to 1/3 of the “not evangelical” group. Which was at about half the unaffiliated/evangelical rate.
                      So by your own survey, people outside of the evangelical community have a total proportion of at most 2/3 that of the evangelical community. 2/3 of something is not “about the same” as that something.

                    • shadrach

                      ““requiring childhood vaccination to attend school” is also different from supporting vaccination in your personal case but leaving it up to parental choice.”
                      1. SHG referred to “I” and “My”, but I have been careful to speak about support of vaccination more generally. In terms of my own comments, your point is irrelevant.
                      2. If you support a requirement for children to be vaccinated to attend school, it is not a stretch to suggest you support vacination.

                      “less likely than whom? answer: other people not in the evangelical movement.”
                      You seem not to understand the classifications. There will be many in the other religious groups who are also evangelicals, which is why I compared the ‘evangelicals’ group with ‘non-affiliated’ group.

                      “So by your own survey, people outside of the evangelical community have a total proportion of at most 2/3 that of the evangelical community. 2/3 of something is not “about the same” as that something.”
                      76% of white evangelicals support vaccination.
                      78% of non-affiliated’s support vaccination.
                      (The proportion of the other classifications who are evangelicals is unknown).

                    • McFlock

                      1: read the research question again.
                      2: If everybody who opposes school-required vaccination supports the principle of vaccination and just thinks that parents know enough to pick and choose from the schedule for whatever reason, your point is completely unrelated to the survey you linked to.

                      There will be many in the other religious groups who are also evangelicals,

                      Good luck with that :”Evangelicalism (/ˌiːvænˈdʒɛlɪkəlɪzəm, ˌɛvæn-, -ən/), evangelical Christianity, or evangelical Protestantism,[a] is a worldwide, transdenominational movement within Protestant Christianity “
                      So you conveniently, but inappropriately, excluded over half the survey respondents in order to support your claim.

                      Did you have fun picking cherries?

                    • shadrach

                      “1: read the research question again.”
                      I read it right the first time. You seem to have missed the comparison I made, and perhaps misunderstood the composition of the other groups.

                      “2: If everybody who opposes school-required vaccination supports the principle of vaccination and just thinks that parents know enough to pick and choose from the schedule for whatever reason, your point is completely unrelated to the survey you linked to.”
                      You are confused between support and opposition. The survey measures support for school required vaccination. Those who oppose vaccination are hardly likely to support school reuired vaccinations.

                      “Good luck with that”
                      Did you read the study? One group is called “Black Protestant”, and is distinguished from “White Evangelicals”. 1 in 3 US Evangelicals are estimated to to be people of colour. (https://www.christianitytoday.com/news/2017/september/1-in-3-american-evangelicals-person-of-color-prri-atlas.html). Do you think there are no evangelical Catholics?

                      “So you conveniently, but inappropriately, excluded over half the survey respondents in order to support your claim.”
                      No, I didn’t. I compared two groups whose constituents can be compared based on SHG’s post.

                      Your confusion comes from not understanding that the sum total of evangelicals in the US don’t fit into a category called “White Evangelicals”. Once you understand that, you will see that comparing the two categories I did makes perfect sense. And that calling the other Christian groups ‘non-evangelical’ makes no sense.

                    • McFlock

                      People who oppose school-required vaccinations do not necessarily oppose vaccination in principle.

                      People who are “unaffiliated” are a subset of people who are not evangelical. If your definition of evangelical is the same as the Pew research groupings, then “white evangelical” is a subset of “evangelical”.

                      If we ignore the other religious groupings as you did, then at best all your link says is that the proportion of of an unkown proportion of evangelicals who oppose school-required vaccinations is about the same as the proportion of an unknown proportion of non-evangelicals. Which might not even be related to your claims about supporting or opposing vaccination at all.

                      Thanks for the profound observation /sarc

                    • shadrach

                      “People who oppose school-required vaccinations do not necessarily oppose vaccination in principle.”
                      The survey was not about what people oppose, it was about whether or not people support school-required vaccination.

                      “People who are “unaffiliated” are a subset of people who are not evangelical. If your definition of evangelical is the same as the Pew research groupings, then “white evangelical” is a subset of “evangelical”.
                      Yes, a subset. Of the other Christian groups, some will be evangelical. As we don’t know the proportion that are evangelical, it is a nonsense to include them in either grouping. Which is why I compared “white evangelicals” with “non-affiliated” – two groups we know are distinct.

                      “If we ignore the other religious groupings as you did, then at best all your link says is that the proportion of of an unkown proportion of evangelicals who oppose school-required vaccinations is about the same as the proportion of an unknown proportion of non-evangelicals. Which might not even be related to your claims about supporting or opposing vaccination at all.”
                      No, if we ignore the other groups we know the relationship between “white evangelicals” and “non-affiliated”.

                      And to make my original point again:
                      “An overwhelming majority of Americans (82%) support requiring all healthy schoolchildren to be vaccinated for measles, mumps and rubella.”
                      http://www.pewinternet.org/2017/02/02/vast-majority-of-americans-say-benefits-of-childhood-vaccines-outweigh-risks/

                      The original Pew reference (http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/02/07/majorities-in-all-major-religious-groups-support-requiring-childhood-vaccination/) states 76% of evangelicals support school-required vaccinations. 82%. 76%. That’s close enough to support the point I was making in response to SHG.

                    • McFlock

                      The survey was not about what people oppose, it was about whether or not people support school-required vaccination.

                      cf:

                      The proportion of people I know in the evangelical community who oppose vaccination are about the same as that from outside of that community.

                      And yet you brought up the survey.
                      But let us continue:

                      As we don’t know the proportion that are evangelical, it is a nonsense to include them in either grouping. Which is why I compared “white evangelicals” with “non-affiliated” – two groups we know are distinct.

                      But according to you neither group is representative of either the entire evangelical community or everyone else. Which means it can’t support any claim about evenagelicals vs non-evangelicals.

                      No, if we ignore the other groups we know the relationship between “white evangelicals” and “non-affiliated”.

                      which is irrelevant to claims about “evangelicals” vs “nopn-evangelicals”. And yet you still brought it up.

                      And to make my original point again:
                      “An overwhelming majority of Americans (82%) support requiring all healthy schoolchildren to be vaccinated for measles, mumps and rubella.”

                      lol no. Your original point was

                      The proportion of people I know in the evangelical community who oppose vaccination are about the same as that from outside of that community.

                      So your original point was about what people oppose, not about whether or not people support school-required vaccination.

                      lols

                    • shadrach

                      “But according to you neither group is representative of either the entire evangelical community or everyone else.”
                      No, that isn’t what I said. The “white evangelicals” are a subset of all evangelicals. The “non-affiliated” are a subset of non-evangelicals. So both are to some degree representative of those wider populations.

                      “which is irrelevant to claims about “evangelicals” vs “nopn-evangelicals”.”
                      No it isn’t. We know “White Evangelicals” are a subset of Evangelicals. We know “Non-Affiliated” are a subset of non evangelicals.

                      “Your original point was ‘The proportion of people I know in the evangelical community who oppose vaccination are about the same as that from outside of that community.'”
                      Correct. Those who do not oppose support. The survey states “Respondents who did not give an answer are not shown”.

                      “So your original point was about what people oppose, not about whether or not people support school-required vaccination.”
                      The survey only consists of oppose/support. There are no ‘undecideds’. But you’d know that if you had read it.

                    • McFlock

                      lol you argued yourself in circles and you know it. To back up an assertion you pulled out of your arse you cherry-picked a comparison of possibly/probably (as they weren’t randomly selected) unrepresentative samples from a survey that was different to what you originally said, as you so helpfully outlined at the top of your previous comment.

                      You’re a joke.

                    • shadrach

                      “you argued yourself in circles and you know it.”
                      No, I argued consistently from the information in the survey results. I understand a little more than you about the wider Christian community, that’s all. It seems you were unaware that not all evangelicals identify as “White Evangelical Protestants”.

                      “To back up an assertion you pulled out of your arse you cherry-picked a comparison of possibly/probably (as they weren’t randomly selected) unrepresentative samples from a survey that was different to what you originally said, as you so helpfully outlined at the top of your previous comment.”
                      So you really didn’t read the survey?

                    • McFlock

                      The partial results from the survey that was irrelevant to your original point.

                      You know nothing.

                    • shadrach

                      “The partial results from the survey that was irrelevant to your original point.”
                      The support for vaccination among the population identifying as evangelicals was roughly the same as among those not identifying as evangelicals. It was also roughly the same as the general population illustrated by the second reference. You seem to be trying to deflect from not understanding that the other categories will include evangelicals.

                    • McFlock

                      The support for school-required vaccination among a non-randomly selected subset of the population identifying as evangelicals was roughly the same as among a similarly non-randomly selected subset of those not identifying as evangelicals.

                      Fixed it for you.

                      It’s actually possible that the survey you’re investing sooo much adamantium on is a crappier indicator of evangelical vs non-evangelical attitudes to vaccination than the anec-arse-data you initially came out with.

                    • shadrach

                      “It’s actually possible that the survey you’re investing sooo much adamantium on is a crappier indicator of evangelical vs non-evangelical attitudes to vaccination than the anec-arse-data you initially came out with.”
                      Only if you totally misunderstand it. Clearly you were unaware that not all evangelicals identify as “White Evangelical Protestants”. That probably didn’t help.

                    • McFlock

                      The survey was not about what people oppose, it was about whether or not people support school-required vaccination. Whereas your claim was about whether people opposed vaccination, not even a school requirement for it.

                    • shadrach

                      “The survey was not about what people oppose, it was about whether or not people support school-required vaccination. ”
                      I know.

                      “Whereas your claim was about whether people opposed vaccination, not even a school requirement for it.”
                      The survey records only two opinions, support, oppose. If the respondents don’t oppose, they support. If a respondent supports school-required vaccination, they are hardly likely to oppose vaccinations in general.

                    • McFlock

                      If a respondent supports school-required vaccination, they are hardly likely to oppose vaccinations in general.

                      But if they oppose school-required vaccination, they might still support vaccines as well as other people’s choices to not support vaccines.

                      And you don’t know what proportion of the people who oppose school-required vaccination also oppose vaccination as a choice, nor do you know what proportion of non-white evangelical groups are evangelicals.

                      You know nothing, Jon Shadrach

                    • shadrach

                      “And you don’t know what proportion of the people who oppose school-required vaccination also oppose vaccination as a choice, nor do you know what proportion of non-white evangelical groups are evangelicals.”
                      Which is precisely why I used the two groups whose constituency we better understand. Well done McFlock. You get there in the end.

                    • McFlock

                      Which is precisely why I used the two groups whose constituency we better understand.

                      But neither group reflects the populations you made your original claims about.

                      If A, then B(1)
                      If A, then not C

                      If C, then B(2)
                      If C, then not A

                      If B, then A or C
                      (B(1) + B(2)) = B

                      evangelical = A+B(1)
                      non-evangelical = C+B(2)

                      Therefore:
                      comparisons between subsets of groups are not the same as comparisons between the groups you mentioned in your original claim you fucking moron.

                    • shadrach

                      “But neither group reflects the populations you made your original claims about.”
                      Wrong. “White Evangelicals” are a subset of evangelicals. “Non-Affiliated” are a subset of non-evangelicals.

                    • McFlock

                      The National Party Caucus is a subset of “current New Zealand Members of Parliament”.

                      Do there attitudes mirror the attitudes of the current parliament? No.

                    • shadrach

                      “The National Party Caucus is a subset of “current New Zealand Members of Parliament”.

                      Do there attitudes mirror the attitudes of the current parliament? No.”

                      Do their attitudes mirror the National Party? Well most likely, yes.

                      You see when you understand ow the subset works, you get there eventually.

                    • McFlock

                      Do their attitudes mirror the National Party? Well most likely, yes.

                      Because white evangelical protestants are the elected representatives of all evangelicals… /sarc

                      How do you orbit comprehension so closely without actually hitting it?

                    • shadrach

                      “Because white evangelical protestants are the elected representatives of all evangelicals… ”
                      White evangelicals are not ‘elected’. They are a subset (your word) of all evangelicals.

                    • McFlock

                      as opposed to the nat caucus, who are elected by the wider nat membership.

                      You really do love pretending that apples are lumps of coal.

                    • shadrach

                      “as opposed to the nat caucus, who are elected by the wider nat membership.”
                      Yes. They are, as it were, a subset of the wider national membership.

                      (I’m not sure about your obsession with the National caucus though!)

                      White evangelicals are not elected. They are a subset of all evangelicals.

                      Your circles are closing in on you!

                    • McFlock

                      The nat caucus is elected and paid to represent the wider group. So yes, it should reflect the wider group.

                      White evangelicals represent nobody but themselves. That group ws chosen with a systematic bias and no requirement to represent the wider group. Your assumptions are flawed. Your comprehension is incomplete. Your confidence is unwarranted.

                      Your persistence is impressive, though. You are the Franklin Expedition of demographic analysis.

                    • shadrach

                      “The nat caucus is elected and paid to represent the wider group. So yes, it should reflect the wider group.”
                      Agreed. Although ‘represent’ and ‘are representative of’ are different things. In the context of a survey, we would be more interested in whether or not they are ‘representative’.

                      “White evangelicals represent nobody but themselves.”
                      White evangelicals are a subset of all evangelicals, and therefore are representative of that group.

                      “That group ws chosen with a systematic bias and no requirement to represent the wider group.”
                      That group is a subset of all evangelicals. The group ‘white evangelicals’ appear to just be that, white evangelicals.

                      “Your persistence is impressive, though.”
                      It’s simply a matter of a passion to help you understand.

                    • McFlock

                      White evangelicals are a subset of all evangelicals, and therefore are representative of that group.

                      And nat caucus members are a subset of all MPs, but are not representative of that group.

                      Pedophiles are a subset of humanity, but they’re not representative of humanity.

                      Terrorists are a subset of pretty much every religion, but they’re not representative of any religion.

                      Arseholes are a subset of “organs in the human body”, but the only human body that is adequately represented by its arsehole is yours.

                    • shadrach

                      “And nat caucus members are a subset of all MPs, but are not representative of that group.”
                      Well they are on some things. But not as much as white evangelicals are representative of all evangelicals.

                      “Pedophiles are a subset of humanity, but they’re not representative of humanity.”
                      No, they are representative of pedophiles.

                      “Terrorists are a subset of pretty much every religion”
                      or not…https://www.army.gov.au/our-future/blog/strategy/non-religious-radicalisation-the-selfie-generation-of-terrorists.
                      “but they’re not representative of any religion.”
                      That depends on the religion.

                      “Arseholes are a subset of “organs in the human body”, but the only human body that is adequately represented by its arsehole is yours.”
                      I would think that is physically impossible. And likely an attempt to move the conversation into some fairly weird areas.

                    • McFlock

                      So some subsets are representative of the larger group solely because they are subsets of that group, but other subsets are only representatives of themselves and not the larger group even though they are subsets of that group.

                      You’re an idiot.

                    • shadrach

                      “So some subsets are representative of the larger group solely because they are subsets of that group, but other subsets are only representatives of themselves and not the larger group even though they are subsets of that group.”
                      You are confused.

                      White evangelicals are a subset of evangelicals, and can be considered representative of all evangelicals. Not ‘represent’ (although they may), be ‘representative of’.

                      By focusing on National MP’s, pedophiles and assorted body pats, you have become very confused.

                    • McFlock

                      Nah, they just illustrate the point that your idea that white evangelicals must be representative of all evangelicals because they’re a subset of that group doesn’t apply to subsets of other groups, therefore the mere fact of being a subset in no way means that a subset is representative of the larger group and your idea is fucking stupid.

                    • shadrach

                      “…they just illustrate the point that your idea that white evangelicals must be representative of all evangelicals because they’re a subset of that group doesn’t apply to subsets of other groups…”
                      But it can! That’s the point! Next time you take a call from a polling organization, ask yourself the question, why me?

                    • McFlock

                      But it can! That’s the point!

                      It can, but it might not.

                      Whereas you took the position that a subset must be representative of its wider group, for example (my italics):

                      White evangelicals are a subset of all evangelicals, and therefore are representative of that group.

                      Do you understand the difference between “can” and “must”?

                      They might be representative of other evangelicals, but you have no way of knowing that. It’s just an assumption you made to pretend that a cherry-picked example from an unrelated survey supports your position about evangelical (as a whole group) attitudes to vaccination (as a principle, not just as a requirement for school attendance).

                    • shadrach

                      “They might be representative of other evangelicals, but you have no way of knowing that. ”

                      Actually the sample size represented by ‘white evangelicals’ is large enough to well and truly be representative. 2 in 3 evangelicals in the US are not people of colour (https://www.christianitytoday.com/news/2017/september/1-in-3-american-evangelicals-person-of-color-prri-atlas.html). 2 in 3 McFlock. Would you consider that statistically significant enough to be considered representative?

                    • McFlock

                      Actually the sample size represented by ‘white evangelicals’ is large enough to well and truly be representative. 2 in 3 evangelicals in the US are not people of colour. Find a polling company that would turn down

                      Any reputable one.

                      Firstly, it’s a systematic bias rather than randomised selection.

                      Secondly, you’ve said that evangelicals aren’t restricted to protestants. So “white evangelical protestants” are still a subset of “white evangelicals”.

                      Thirdly, it’s not a survey of two thirds of the evangelical population, it’s a probably-representative sample (appropriately randomised and weighted) of a maybe-representative subset (white evangelical protestant) of a maybe-representative subset (white evangelical of all denominations) of a population (all evangelicals). Gotta love those compounding errors.

                    • shadrach

                      “Firstly, it’s a systematic bias rather than randomised selection.”
                      I asked you “Would you consider that statistically significant enough to be considered representative?” Clearly now you do (“…it’s a probably-representative sample” etc).

                      “Secondly, you’ve said that evangelicals aren’t restricted to protestants.”
                      Did I? I’ve had a quick look through the comments and could only find these :
                      “Clearly you were unaware that not all evangelicals identify as “White Evangelical Protestants”.”

                      Bigot’s Billboard


                      “There will be many in the other religious groups who are also evangelicals, which is why I compared the ‘evangelicals’ group with ‘non-affiliated’ group.”

                      Bigot’s Billboard


                      I’m not sure of the proportion of Catholics who are ‘evangelical’. Some say none, in the true sense of evangelicalism https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/acts-of-faith/wp/2016/07/15/what-it-means-that-mike-pence-called-himself-an-evangelical-catholic/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.0fdbfe5a4ea5. But again my view is you just understand the distinctions.

                      “Thirdly, it’s not a survey of two thirds of the evangelical population, it’s a probably-representative sample (appropriately randomised and weighted) of a maybe-representative subset (white evangelical protestant) of a maybe-representative subset (white evangelical of all denominations) of a population (all evangelicals).”
                      So, you concede ‘probably’? Good, because…
                      1. 76% of white evangelicals say that parents should be required to vaccinate.
                      2. White evangelicals represent 2/3’s of all protestant evangelicals, so as a subset they are representative of all protestant evangelicals.
                      So unless the proportion of Catholics who are evangelical is significant (and I suggest it can’t be as Pew doesn’t allocate this group a separate status), ‘white evangelicals’ is a representative sample of all evangelicals.

                    • McFlock

                      You really can’t fucking read, can you.

                      All I said was that the survey sample of white evangelical protestants was “probably representative” of all white evangelical protestants. And that WEPs were a “maybe-representative subset” of white evangelicals of all denominations.

                      “Maybe”. Not “probably”.

                      You are such a fucking moron I barely skimmed the rest of your comment. Re-read what I wrote more carefully, then try again. I might get back to you tomorrow. If your stupidity no longer hurts my brain.

                    • shadrach

                      “Maybe”. Not “probably”.
                      You said ‘probably’, ‘maybe’, ‘maybe’. Your getting there.

                      “You are such a fucking moron I barely skimmed the rest of your comment.”
                      Well you’ve been following me around this thread since this one /bigots-billboard/#comment-1531077, which was 2 days and 8 hours ago. During that time, you’ve posted 23 times, and all you’ve achieved is to show you don’t have a clue about the actual groups in the survey! Who is the moron?

                      Don’t bother trying to get your head around my response.

                    • McFlock

                      You’re the moron.

                      Pulling words from one clause and applying them to the subject of another clause as you did is stupid, dishonest, and the hallmark of a right royal piece of shit.

                      But you won’t read this comment as the insult it is. You’ll grab two words out of it and claim victory.

  3. xanthe 3

    So can i take it that these commenters above are well informed on the ingredents used in making up vaccines and have come to an informed opinion that they pose no risk?

    • SHG 3.1

      So can i take it that these commenters above are well informed on the ingredents used in making up vaccines and have come to an informed opinion that they pose no risk?

      Begging the question, trollfail. Nothing has “no risk”. Water has non-zero risk.

      • xanthe 3.1.1

        So your answer to my question would be “No I am ignorant of the ingredents used to make up vaccines”…Thats one! Anyone else?

        • SHG 3.1.1.1

          So your answer to my question would be “No I am ignorant of the ingredents used to make up vaccines”…Thats one! Anyone else?

          You’re not very good at this are you?

        • Tricledrown 3.1.1.2

          Xanthe I am not ignorant of what’s in vaccines or all the peer reviews.
          You need to go to a doctor and challenge their knowledge.
          After billions of doses very few people have had any reaction or damaging side effects.
          You would have more chance of winning lotto than suffering any harmful side effects.

    • William 3.2

      Life is full of risk. No ones’s claiming there’s zero risk in vaccines, but that risk is lower than the risk in the diseases they prevent.

      https://sciblogs.co.nz/code-for-life/2018/10/02/vaccines-and-risk-on-auckland-motorway-billboard/

      • xanthe 3.2.1

        And that makes Two !

        • William 3.2.1.1

          Whoopie, I get Two spelt with an upper case T, I’m special.
          To be pedantic, I can’t be two because you specifically stated

          “So can i take it that these commenters above … have come to an informed opinion that they pose no risk?”

          I hadn’t commented above so cannot be one of that group.

          I was commenting on your ridiculous claim that some people might come to an informed opinion that they pose NO risk (my emphasis).

          For the record, I’m quite happy to accept the advice of others who are familiar with the details, in my case my wife who is a medical doctor and whose competence I trust in preference to some anonymous raver on the internet.
          I have looked at the statistics and am satisfied the risks are less than unvaccinated people face.

    • Stunned Mullet 3.3

      Xanthe I am completely informed about the make up of all the vaccines on the NZ schedule and recommend everyone is vaccinated unless there is a medical reason whereby they are unable.

      • dV 3.3.1

        Agreed SM.

      • xanthe 3.3.2

        Very good !…… Now we are discussing the content of the billboard instead of just trashing its authors

        Can i take it that your knowlege of vaccines includes culture, transport, and preservatives used?

        What would be the medical conditions that would counterindicate vaccination?

        • McFlock 3.3.2.1

          All of those vary according to the specific vaccine. That’s why each one comes with its own information sheet, and often a contraindication checklist (been a while since my last tetanus shot, but the flu one my workplace does every year has a checklist).

          Do you not read the information provided? It’s all there. It’s called “informed consent”.

        • Visubversa 3.3.2.2

          That is what people go to medical school to learn. I would not for a minute think that I could replace that knowlege with a browse through Google.

      • Ron 3.3.3

        Stunned Mullet. Can you provide any links to a) what Amorphous Hydroxyphosphate Sulphate is and, b) any studies of its safety?

        • UncookedSelachimorpha 3.3.3.1

          You missed out the “aluminium”…

          jumping to (b), all vaccines are rigorously tested for safety, including vaccines that contain AAHS.

          http://www.immune.org.nz/vaccines/vaccine-safety/safety-monitoring

        • Drowsy M. Kram 3.3.3.2

          Personally I think vaccines are great for me and for >99.9% (the number extra 9’s subject to on-going collection of data on adverse reactions) of the population, both vaccinated and unvaccinated.

          Merck aren’t helping their cause by naming an aluminium-based adjuvant “Amorphous hydroxyphosphate sulfate” (AHPS).

          Here’s a link to a PDF of a 2013 review paper that includes an introduction to the development and use of mineral-based adjuvants. Information on AHPS begins on page 252. This paper contains very little information on the safety of mineral adjuvants in humans, although some of the references might be relevant. The small numbers of adverse reactions (over a period of decades) would suggest that the medical benefits far outweigh the costs.

          http://elfosscientiae.cigb.edu.cu/PDFs/Biotecnol%20Apl/2013/30/4/BA003004RV250-256.pdf

          Vaccination still represents one of the most effective and safe medical interventions. From the moment of its initial discovery, it became the golden standard for disease prevention, and is regarded as the most important public health achievement in the history of humankind. Vaccines are known to induce a longer and more potent immune response when an adjuvant is included in their chemical makeup.

          • KJT 3.3.3.2.1

            In about one in twenty car accidents it is more risky to have a seatbelt on, than not. The other 19 or so, out of twenty the seatbelt saves people from death or injury.

            I wear a seatbelt.

            In about one, in many hundreds of thousands of cases, it is more harmful to be vaccinated.
            In something like one in a thousand, it is more harmful NOT to be vaccinated.

            I’ll take the vaccine.

    • UncookedSelachimorpha 3.4

      Balance of risk is the principle here. Much safer to be vaccinated.

      https://ww2.health.wa.gov.au/Articles/A_E/Comparisons-of-the-effects-of-diseases-and-the-side-effects-of-vaccines

      Got my tetanus booster the other day – great! Mild swelling in my shoulder for a couple of days….compared to risk of severe illness and 10% mortality rate if I get tetanus.

    • JohnSelway 3.5

      “…have come to an informed opinion that they pose no risk?”

      Yeah they have no risk as proven over and over and over and over again.

      Next…

    • Tricledrown 3.6

      One of the Kennedy’s has made a cult following out of claiming heavy metals in vaccines were killing people without any peer reviewed scientific evidence
      So after 50 years of these vaccinations billions of doses no harmful side effects.
      Because of the bad publicity from the anti vax cult vaccine makers got rid of the minute and stable molecules that contained mercury which was locked up in a compound and did no damage and in fact kept the vaccines more stable during storage and dispensing was removed.
      So the antivaxxers can’t say their are heavy metals in vaccines they were removed in 2000 even though after about 20 billion doses+ and many 100’s of millions of lives saved.
      These cultists are being enabled by Trump.

  4. UncookedSelachimorpha 4

    Any chance someone could post a full picture of the billboard, suitable for including in an ASA complaint (for those of us who cannot take our own photo there)?

  5. Jay 5

    The science actually shows there are risks, so to call WAVES anti-science does yourself no favours. Many people have died throughout history due to vaccination and they have actually spread disease and many recalled. Don’t throw your toys out the cot due to a billboard.

    • SHG 5.1

      When my son was vaccinated he started preferring to play Mario Kart in mirror mode, why did science not warn me that this would happen, BIG PHARMA 1080 CHEMTRAILS CONSPIRACY!!1

      • Molly 5.1.1

        When my son was vaccinated, he went from verbal to non-verbal for over six months. The surgery, (at the time the only method of recording possible side effects) did not consider this worth noting.

        He – like his mother – would be considered to be on the spectrum, so no comment on whether that was bad timing or a side effect. But it is a comment on the reluctance of medical professionals to even record the possibility.

        • Molly 5.1.1.1

          … I should add, at that time.

        • KJT 5.1.1.2

          How is he now?

          I take it he hasn’t had TB, or german measles to affect his partners baby, polio, shingles, tetanus, gone deaf from measles……….?

          • Molly 5.1.1.2.1

            Your comment is off track, to what I posted. Which was a comment on the reluctance of our personal medical provider to note any change in behaviour that may or may not have been due to the vaccination.

            If I thought you had a personal interest in my son’s health – why would you? – I might have answered your somewhat facetious question.

            • Delia 5.1.1.2.1.1

              My son has severe autism and seemed to have a bad reaction to a vaccine at nine months, but I think he had autism anyway. However it has plagued his Dad’s mind for years. I know how sad it is Molly to wonder about these things. Best wishes to you and take care, Delia.

            • KJT 5.1.1.2.1.2

              Not facetious. All of these things he didn’t get because of vaccination. Not just his, but the vaccination of people around him.

              Rates of autism are the same, regardless of whether a child is vaccinated, or not.

        • Tricledrown 5.1.1.3

          Looking at Autism organizational around the world they strongly come out against the antivax brigade.
          All research has shown Autism is genetic and the fact his mother is.
          Autism starts being diagnosed at the same time as childhood vaccinations .
          That the only way Autism can transferred is through genetics.
          Autism just doesn’t happen.

          • One Two 5.1.1.3.1

            all research has shown autism is genetic ..

            No, ALL research has show no such outcome..

            Not thinking the comment through are you…

            If it is genetic, there is nothing that can be done to prevent it…no environmental factors could be a contributer…nothing can be done to improve the epidemic of autism…just a failure of human genone/dna creating massive brain damage in young human beings…

            Because ALL research has shown it is genetic…

            Come on…you can do better…surely?

    • McFlock 5.2

      Science also looks at the other side: the number of lives saved.

      Which, compared to your “many”, is “lots”.

    • KJT 5.3

      Tens of Millions died or were seriously debilitated, before vaccinations.

    • RedLogix 6.1

      Required reading. Jim Wright has ‘hit it out of the park’ with that one Joe.

      You don’t have to destroy America, when Americans are willing to do it for you.

      This and the overwhelming deluge of outrage culture, nasty zero-sum identity games, and post-modern ‘the truth is not the truth’ relativism … are all modes of undermining attack that will clearly end badly for us.

      The advent of nuclear weapons rendered large-scale conventional war obsolete; yet the West continues to arm itself to fight WW2. Our opponents shifted to alternative battle-fronts, the economic and moral, with quite remarkable success it would seem.

    • Ad 6.2

      Lovely.

  6. Chris T 7

    Would imagine they are targeting Maori as they have the lowest vaccination rate apart from “Other” in the stats and they want to keep it that way.

    Start with the controlling the most who don’t then work on the ones that do.

    (Probably didn’t explain that very well)

    • miravox 7.1

      The difference between Māori vaccination rates and all NZ children on their own is barely worth targeting in a campaign like this.

      Childhood immunisation coverage information from the National Immunisation Register (NIR) shows that in 2014, at the age of 8 months, 88.9% of Māori children had completed age-appropriate immunisations, compared with 91.9% of total New Zealand children. By 2 years of age, the coverage rates were 91.9% for Māori children and 92.8% for total New Zealand children…

      … The average HPV immunisation coverage rate (for completion of all 3 doses) for all girls born between 1997 and 2001 was 57.5%; the coverage rate was higher for Māori girls (63.4%).

      However, the billboards may be aimed at increasing distrust of health providers who encourage vaccination, which is worrying. There’s been a lot of work gone into improving preventative health services, like vaccination, for families that mainstream GP practices have trouble reaching.

  7. Bill 8

    Maybe it’s worth looking at what’s being immunised against, and go from there?

    Going through the “National Immunisation Schedule“, it strikes me that some of the stuff being immunised against isn’t exactly life threatening or seriously debilitating for most of those likely to be affected.

    That aside, improve the bloody information being given out!

    This is from the schedule under Haemophilis Infuenzae type b (hib)

    Hib was once the most common cause of life-threatening bacterial infection in children under 5 years old. Before the vaccine, 1 in every 350 children had the disease before they were 5 years old.

    How life threatening?

    Hib most often leads to: meningitis, an infection of the membranes that cover the brain and spinal cord
    epiglottitis, an infection and swelling in the throat that blocks the breathing passages.

    Yeah, but how often? And are we talking about “most often” in terms of most of the 1 in 350 will get those secondary infections, or is it the case that most who get some complication (secondary infection) will have those complications as opposed to other possible complications?

    About 1 in 20 patients with meningitis dies and 1 in 3 survivors has permanent brain or nerve damage. About 1 in 100 patients with epiglottitis dies.

    And those strike me as high percentages, but of the 1 in 350 children who caught the disease, how many developed meningitis or epiglottitis?

    Before anyone jumps on me one way or the other, I’m not throwing up Hibs as some example of something that should just be allowed to occur, but only as an example of the bullshit level of information that lays itself open to claims of being somewhat alarmist.

    1 in 350 was where meaningful information that could be weighed up began and ended with that Hibs literature. After that, prejudice and fear get played in a way that can easily suggest that if your child is one of the 350, then your child will get meningitis and/or epiglottitis, meaning that your child, if infected with Hibs, will have a 1 in 20 or 1 in 100 chance of dying.

    If informed consent is an idea behind patient treatment (and I believe it is) then how about information that’s actually informative?

    • Ross 8.1

      Bill

      I suspect there is a lot that parents don’t know. How many have heard the name Hannah Poling? She is the child whose vaccinations, according to various doctors, led to her autism-like condition. Her parents will be paid millions of dollars in compo over the course of her life time.

    • Molly 8.2

      Thanks Bill. I’ve been in this discussion more time than I care to count on TS.

      We have part-vaccinated our children, and did not go ahead with all the vaccinations on the schedule, in part because the information provided by the Ministry of the benefits of the vaccine did not seem to be well constructed, or justify the administering of a medication.

      As mentioned, the Gardasil programme was particularly worrisome, as the survival rate for cervical cancer improves radically with the practice of regular smears, and it is reasonable to predict that many would let the regularity drop with the assumption that they are now protected. The incidence of cervical cancer developing from other HPV’s that are were not mentioned in the campaign, was also not given.

      The use of ‘anti-vaxxers’ is one that usually precludes any open discussion on the schedule of vaccinations currently promoted by the Ministry. So, well done for taking it on.

      • SHG 8.2.1

        We have part-vaccinated our children, and did not go ahead with all the vaccinations on the schedule

        Trivia: you now have something in common with WhaleOil and his wife, who posted to his blog that they follow this course after “doing their research”

        • Molly 8.2.1.1

          Did you even read my comment? The level of discussion here on this topic is reduced to name calling and little else.

          Trivial, indeed.

        • Delia 8.2.1.2

          Aren’t you lucky you can write your sarky little comment. Yes us with disabled children do have fears about vaccinations. I am a registered nurse and am pretty conventional..I have a very conventional nurse friend whose son was damaged by a vaccine. So do spare us your sarcasm, which is you cleaving to a point of view without accepting that all of us are entitled to our own point of view to.

          • Crashcart 8.2.1.2.1

            You do understand that your own child being disabled gives you no greater authority or knowledge than anyone else?

            My own child is disabled but I don’t go around using it as some claim to superior positioning in a discussion. In fact it has no bearing on facts that can be presented.

    • McFlock 8.3

      Because 170 kids a year with influenza isn’t enough?

      • Bill 8.3.1

        What’s this crap you saying McFlock? You trying to have a go?

        Hib isn’t influenza. And my comment was about the quality of the information on offer – not whether any given jab should be taken up or not taken up.

        I notice that after 5 hours, only one comment out of about ten or so (Molly’s) was an actual response to my initial comment. Which is fucking ridiculous.

        • McFlock 8.3.1.1

          Hib isn’t influenza

          .
          Ok, fair enough.

          I will rephrase:”Because 170 kids a year with Hib isn’t enough?”

          Here is all the information any rational non-specialist needs: incidence in a non-vaccinated population (170/year), list of contraindications (provided to parents), possible side effects (as above), and a reasonable belief that the ministry of health wouldn’t put a vaccine on the schedule if it was going to cause a larger burden of disease than it prevents (stating the fucking obvious).

          Anything else is pure ego unless you’re a microbiologist or a chemist. And even then it’s a goddamned conceit.

          • Bill 8.3.1.1.1

            So, I don’t know where you’re getting the 170 per year number from (I’ll assume it’s a calculation from 1 in 350).

            The bad shit that has the potential to cause death hits some unstated proportion of that 170 (or 1 in 350), and I can’t understand why that number isn’t posted in the literature.

            Informed consent is a conceit? ffs.

            I’m not anti-vaccination, which I’m only stating because it seems like yet another case of an exchange being thrown into stupidly unhelpful terms of “black and white”.

            Nowhere have I even so much as hinted that vaccines are irresponsible.

            That said, tere have been “bad” medicines put to market often enough, and “bullshit” medicine sold to governments off the back of scare tactics (eg – from memory “everyone” scampered to H5N1 vaccine stocks a few years back (2005?), that would likely have been ineffective, but that McCain(?) made out like a bandit from due to having shares in the manufacturing company)

            • Bill 8.3.1.1.1.1

              Correction on the Avian Flu hysteria. It was Rumsfeld.

              Rumsfeld served as Gilead’s chairman from 1997 until he joined the Bush administration in 2001, and he still holds a Gilead stake valued at between $5 million and $25 million, according to Federal Financial Disclosures filed by Rumsfeld.
              The forms don’t reveal the exact number of shares Rumsfeld owns, but whipped up fears of an avian flu pandemic and the ensuing scramble for Tamiflu sent Gilead’s stock from $35 to $47 in 2005, making the Pentagon chief, already one of the wealthiest members of the Bush cabinet, at least $1 million richer.

            • McFlock 8.3.1.1.1.2

              60k births a year, quick math divided that by 350. Yes, it’s “under 5”, but then you have the birth rate by five so same result.

              And death isn’t the only bad thing that happens. Even getting it means another 170 health service contacts per year. Those don’t magic into existence, health services are prioritised. People aren’t sitting around just in case a bubby gets sick. There’s almost always something to do, and applying care in one direction deprives it from another.

              Informed consent is necessary. That’s why everything they need is already handed to people on a plate. Pretending someone can make an informed choice on any medical treatment in greater detail than I outlined above is a conceit.

              I never said the process of research and medical advice was perfect. It isn’t. Just as no pilot of a plane is perfect. But pretending to know what ingredients in any medical treatment do based purely on google and facebook? That’s a conceit equivalent to pretending you know better than the pilot about what to do in any given situation. I take half a dozen pills a day. The doc says they’re for this or that, but do I fucking know what they specifically are or how they work? Bullshit. I just make sure the pharmacist gives me the right ones in the right measures, and take them as advised. It’s why I’m still alive (if the lack of spontaneous bleeding is anything to go by).

              Sometimes the smart move is to just sit the fuck down, buckle up, and read the magazine. Tell the cabin crew if the wing catches fire, but screaming “the plane might crash” helps nobody.

              • Bill

                You either didn’t read my initial comment before jumping in, or are commenting in spite of what I wrote.

                I haven’t said a thing about “ingredients” (so don’t know why you’re going down that track). I haven’t said anything about safety of vaccination (so don’t know why your going down that track). Neither have I laid claim to any whiz bang level of medical knowledge (so don’t know why you’re going down that track either).

                Oh. The M5N1 vaccine was probably going to be “less than effective” because of mutation. That’s the whole thing about flu. It changes. (Hardly whiz bang knowledge or anything “based on google and facebook” 🙄 )

                Anyway. My point was about the quality of the information on offer. As I commented, the linked literature does not give information on how many children who get infected with hib go on to develop more serious conditions, or break those more serious conditions down, or say how many have no discernible symptoms.

                And since vaccination is largely a numbers game, and since informed consent supposedly sits fairly near the centre of medical ethics in this country, I can see no reason as to why that further breakdown isn’t given.

                That you would be happy to be treated on the basis of a doctor’s say so and a sum total of infections is fine, but that doesn’t mean a thing in terms of the bigger picture of informed consent.

                • McFlock

                  Whereas fixating on more serious complications is a perfect example of why going beyond the criteria I initally outlined under the guise of “informed consent” is an excellent example of misunderstanding the concept entirely.

                  Why isn’t 170 kids a year with Hib enough of a reason to get kids vaccinated if there are no contraindications?

                  • Bill

                    Why isn’t 170 kids a year with Hib enough of a reason to get kids vaccinated if there are no contraindications?

                    I’m going to cut and paste from my initial comment, okay?

                    Before anyone jumps on me one way or the other, I’m not throwing up Hibs as some example of something that should just be allowed to occur, but only as an example of the bullshit level of information that lays itself open to claims of being somewhat alarmist.

                    • McFlock

                      I’m not familiar with “bullshit level of information” as a technical term. Does that mean “insufficient level of information from which to make an informed decision”, or does it mean something known only to yourself?

            • Tricledrown 8.3.1.1.1.3

              That h5n1 vaccine wasn’t available at such short notice as it takes time to develop and make them safe.
              Tamiflu is an immunity booster more along the lines of hiv medicines which at the time was the only thing available
              With more research it proved to only give a mild boost to the immunity system.
              Now if you have had a flu jab you are immunised from the h5n1 flu although it Could mutate and scientists are researching mutations so they can have vaccines ready for an epidemic.
              Ebola scientists developed a vaccine in short time to prevent more outbreaks but in war torn south Sudan Ebola has broken out again.
              But keeping it contained in a war zone could turn out very bad for everybody.

              • Incognito

                Now if you have had a flu jab you are immunised from the h5n1 flu …

                Are you suggesting that an ordinary flu jab does provide protection against the “bird-flu”?

                If so, I wouldn’t mind a link for that, thank you.

  8. chris73 9

    I’m all for free speech but damned if groups like WAVE make want to rethink that..

    Also you may or not be interested but DDT has been linked to autism

    https://www.iflscience.com/health-and-medicine/a-banned-pesticide-still-present-in-the-environment-has-been-further-linked-to-autism/

  9. I have a friend who is a anti 1080 anti vaxxer. I’ve taken a break from her on facebook and unfollowed her. It’s unfortunately the only way.

  10. Draco T Bastard 11

    The Advertising Standards Authority regulates billboards. You can lay a formal complaint here.

    The Advertising Standards Authority really shouldn’t need complaints in cases like this. The billboard is obviously lying by implication and causing fear and doubt in the population and thus the advertiser should automatically be fined about $10m.

  11. Ross 12

    Reminds me of the scaremongering that took place when the MeNZB vaccine was being rolled out. Disgraceful. Of course it wasn’t a lobby group but the Health Ministry which did the scaremongering.

    • Aaron 12.1

      That’s the whole problem with this debate Ross, it seems to be an all out war where everyone is fighting from an emotional base. I too have noted the surprising tactics of the Ministry who act like the don’t actually have the science on their side and have to frighten people into using vaccines. As a parent it’s incredibly hard to wade your way through this nonsense.

      I know people get pushed to extremes in this debate (just like the 1080 issue) but in my experience its the pro vaccine people who have the most trouble keeping their emotions out of it. This posting is no better with the comment that the people from Waves think Polynesian and Maori men and women have control over their women so they should direct advertising at them. This is clearly a prejudiced guess on Te Reo Putake’s behalf and tells us more about his hatred for anti-vaxxers than it does about anything else.

      How I wish I could find some people who could talk about this issue calmly.

      • Fran 12.1.1

        You are so right. I wish I had seen your comment before I posted.

      • One Two 12.1.2

        Aaron, it certainly appears there is no appetite to allow public discourse…not in a meaningful sense…

        I’m not referring to this site…which is a microcosm of the confused ‘left’…

        As a species, we are being deprived…looking at this article and most of the comments…willingly deprived, while actively depriving others of benefits which could develop from genuine and open public discourse…

        TRP has a chequered history on this subject, and if you go back far enough you can see a lack of time invested to understand some of the core issues he rallys openly against on other subjects…

        Don’t be disheartened by the level of commentary…it is irrelevant to the wider landscape…

        • Aaron 12.1.2.1

          I’m usually a part of the confused left but am surprised to find everyone else has suddenly lost their caution around issues where Big Pharma is making billions of dollars

          • UncookedSelachimorpha 12.1.2.1.1

            Big Pharma often behaves unethically and I personally am totally against the private profit model for medicine development. But that does not mean that vaccines do not work. Vaccine safety and efficacy has been demonstrated repeatedly by entities outside big pharma, and this can be seen in publicly available datasets.

            In fact vaccines are not a big part of pharmaceutical sales, e.g. vaccines made up only around 1.82% of Big Pharma revenues in 2013.

            • KJT 12.1.2.1.1.1

              Big pharma makes the most money where vaccination doesn’t work.

              So called “cough and cold medicines”, for one!

      • Molly 12.1.3

        Once the phrase “anti-vaxxers” was coined, it appeared the level of discussion dropped considerably. It implies that all parents who make the choice to not vaccinate are anti-medical and anti-science, and so deserve only lambasting and not attention, or addressing of concerns.

        I suspect many who use the phrase have done little in the way of research themselves, and rely on the assurances of others to take the supposedly moral high ground.

        • shadrach 12.1.3.1

          Unfortunately labelling people in the way you describe is all too often used to attempt to belittle and silence opposing opinion. (BTW I am pro-vaccination).

  12. xanthe 13

    I did wonder for a moment if “Bigot’s Billboard” was being proposed as a new name for TS

  13. R.P Mcmurphy 14

    every disease is a result of the environment and the ability of the biota to resist viral and bacteriological assaults from known and unknown sources.
    taking a stand for one cause or another is usually ignorance or boredom.

  14. Fran 15

    I am so weary of the bigots. Not the people who posted the billboard but the bigots who immediately jump in and label everyone. Anti-vax = anti-science bad/anti-vax = done the research and well informed good, pro-vax = scientific reasoning good/pro-vax = brainwashed and ignorant bad.

    Neither is true and neither is conducive to good information or good science. Given that vaccination is a choice and that choice requires informed consent maybe we should be looking at the dissenting voices as well as the Health Ministry stuff and asking what and why instead of being immediately dismissive. Who knows we might all learn something.

    • KJT 15.1

      “We should all stop wearing seatbelts, because in one out of thousands of car accidents, an occupant drowned because they couldn’t undo the seatbelt”.

      That is what almost all anti-vaccination arguments amount to!

      • Draco T Bastard 15.1.1

        Usually they’re not even that good.

      • UncookedSelachimorpha 15.1.2

        That argument, plus “dose insensitivity”. e.g. ‘1 molecule of mercury is as dangerous / does the same thing, as 10 grams of mercury’.

    • Tricledrown 15.2

      Read the BMJ/lancet
      Mayo clinic.
      Both say extensive research has been done on any relation to Autism no evidence so far.

  15. UncookedSelachimorpha 16

    Lance O’Sullivan’s take is excellent. Anti-science people love to say there should be “debate”, including “debate” about proven nonsense.

    To frame anti-vaccine rhetoric as ‘debate’ is dangerous and wrong

    • Ross 16.1

      Has Lance heard of Hannah Poling? I bet he has but I suspect he doesn’t believe in informed consent.

    • Molly 16.2

      His approach was idiotic, and dismissive of any concerns of those who ask questions.

      He would’ve had more influence if he had sat through the movie, and then got up to talk after the movie had finished, and said why he disagreed with certain parts. He is after all, dealing with adults.

      The link you have given to an article that refers to Andrew Wakefield, is worth looking at. The BMJ article itself does not refer to a link between vaccines and autism, it relates to a study that was done with children with developmental disorders – including those on the autism spectrum – and related gastro disorders.

      For anyone familiar with those on the spectrum, this would be a recognisable link. Coincidentally, when looking in FAS for a friend, the gastro issues are the same. Whether there is an impact on neurological disorders by an inability to successfully digest nutrition, is an interesting topic.

      AFAIK, he implemented a study on the possible link between vaccines and gastro disorders at the request of parents. But as that work was never to the point of publication, the BMJ removed the initial article. But I am relying on an ever aging memory and my research into this topic was well over fifteen years ago so I could be wrong. I do recall that Brian Deer was involved in the backlash, and though a journalist by trade, was instrumental in ensuring that any study into the link between vaccines and autism outside of the pharmaceutical industry would fail to be suggested, let alone get funding.

      • UncookedSelachimorpha 16.2.1

        To be clear.

        Andrew Wakefield is a fraudster who invented data, conducted unethical research and was correctly struck off the medical register. He did publish his findings – in the Lancet.

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Wakefield

        As is common in science, important findings are confirmed by other studies. But in the case of Wakefield – his results could not be replicated by other researchers. Since then, strong studies have debunked his supposed link between autism and vaccines convincingly. e.g.

        https://www.autismspeaks.org/science-news/no-mmr-autism-link-large-study-vaccinated-vs-unvaccinated-kids

        “In an accompanying editorial, Dr. Bryan King, director of the Seattle Children’s Autism Center, writes:

        “Taken together, some dozen studies have now shown that the age of onset of ASD does not differ between vaccinated and unvaccinated children, the severity or course of ASD does not differ between vaccinated and unvaccinated children, and now the risk of ASD recurrence in families does not differ between vaccinated and unvaccinated children.”

        • Molly 16.2.1.1

          To be clear. The link posted by the previous commentor, linked to the pulled BMJ article which was not a study on autism and vaccines, but was a study on the incidence of gastro disorders for children with developmental delays.

          If you can’t be bothered looking at the initial link provided by someone else, which I commented on. Then don’t bother.

          If I am mistaken about the only pulled BMJ study, post a link to the study that was completed and published that Wakefield undertook to link autism with vaccination. AFAIK it never went ahead. The article and the link do not match.

          I was simply pointing out the failure of the article to link what was written to their linked source. The censure of Wakefield does not negate the study, but resulted in the pull of it from the journal.

          • Molly 16.2.1.1.1

            Sorry, just read your answer about the initial Lancet article.

            Which is where it was originally published. But I still think that is a duplicate of the above linked study in the BMJ.

            I am concerned that both sides need to be accurate in this discussion because it is worth it. The stuff article, when reporting Wakefield’s controversy and censure over autism and vaccines, should not be linking to a study that does not mention vaccines. It is substandard reporting.

            • Molly 16.2.1.1.1.1

              Been a while, and I’m concerned I might be overegging the omelette, so I’ve gone and looked for the original retracted Lancet article. The reference to the vaccinations is there“Onset of behavioural symptoms was associated, by the parents, with measles, mumps, and rubella vaccination in eight of the 12 children, with measles infection in one child, and otitis media in another. “. So, the reporting and methodology due refer to vaccinations, as a matter of course, and as other commenters have mentioned.

              There are some indications that children with both FAS and on the spectrum, have better progress when they are able to absorb nutrients from their diet better. If medication – vaccinations or not – interfere with that absorption, then that interruption of the digestion of foods may present to parents as causation, when it is not.

              I’m well past the age where I have to consider this issue now, but it would be interesting to look into studies where this link – sans vaccinations – has been investigated.

              Personally, I found the link between developmental disorders interesting, because it reflected my own experience with diet preferences and being on the spectrum, which was repeated many years later with my son. Later on, it was also of interest, because as a respite carer for a child with FAS, there were similar gastro issues.

              • Rosemary McDonald

                Molly.

                Thank you, and huge respect for at least trying to bring some… balance…into a topic that seems to assume extremism from both sides.

                Your comments about Lance O’Sullivan are spot on.

                He trashed the feelings of local mothers who are very real grounds to believe that their children’s severe disability was due to an adverse effect of routine vaccination.

                He treated these mothers like ignorant fools. These children were, prior to becoming very ill after a vaccination, for all intents and purposes ‘normal’ and meeting milestones.

                I have spoken with some of these mothers.

                He failed as doctor.

                Because he chose to break the paramount rule…listen to your patient.

                Kia kaha Molly.

                I am stuck on my phone and it’s difficult to comment, but you have my support.

      • KJT 16.2.2

        His approach is based on science and proven fact.

        Wakefield was exposed as a fraud.

  16. dV 17

    Billboard is being removed.

    • McFlock 18.1

      Not for the kid, sadly.

      But it is a reminder of what the issue is about: sick and dead children.

    • UncookedSelachimorpha 18.2

      What is really unfortunate – thanks to vaccination, polio could be permanently eradicated from the world, if these last few places can be cleared of it.

      Wasn’t that long ago we had polio epidemics – and closed schools as a result – here in NZ. My father was one who got it, and was fortunate to escape with only a shortened leg.

      A history of what polio did here in NZ, before vaccines eliminated it – hundreds were killed:

      https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=12034351

      • KJT 18.2.1

        My mother has suffered all her life from polio side effects. Several of her friends, died.

        I’ve seen the effects of german measles on children for one.

        Part of the problem is younger people have had no experience, of the diseases that vaccination prevents.

        Mumps, chicken pox, measles and the rest are pretty serious things to wish on a child. Even if they recover fully.

        It is child abuse not to vaccinate. The weird thing is that many who are against vaccines, would be horrified at parents who inflicted the same level of risk, or suffering on children by any other means.

        • One Two 18.2.1.1

          it is child abuse not to vaccinate

          You need to slow down… stop and think about what you’re saying….because it is one of the most serious logical fallacies a human being can believe …against other human beings

          That you have made the statement signals you’re damaged state….more than your comments already had…

          The ‘weird thing’…is you seem to be totally unaware of just how ignorant one must be to hold such a position…

        • joe90 18.2.1.2

          My mother survived post war tuberculosis but lost a lung and spent the rest of her life afflicted with all manner of respiratory problems.

          Between 1949 and 1956 polio epidemics claimed over 200 lives. Two of my extended family contracted the disease and both remain disabled, one seriously, the other not so bad.

          People were terrified and myself and my siblings were quarantined and almost completely isolated until my parents upped stakes and moved to an isolated rural community where we were quarantined, again, for several months.

          During those years my brother contracted pertussis and to this day he has respiratory problems.

          But hey, the prospect of a life long disability is a risk worth taking because ….

  17. One Two 19

    And Nz has the piss taken out if it again…while ‘progressives’ congratulate eachother for the ‘successful activism’…

    There is nothing to be pleased about with any aspect of the billboard saga…

    The levels are getting lower…while perversely people believe they’re ‘doing the right thing’…

    • McFlock 19.1

      “NZ” is merely a fanciful construct of the collective cosnciousness…

      Zeitgeist…

      is merely a shroud over the doors of perception…

      …Mockery is merely a combobulation of confusion and desire…

      Liberate yourself from your ignorance….

    • Tricledrown 19.2

      12 levels in NZ have gone up to one of the highest recent out brake of measles was amongst JW’s who don’t believe in modern medicine.

      • One Two 19.2.1

        The levels of what people are capable of operating at…was what I referred.

        An epidemic of low level, incoherent thinking….

        Ill not address the thousands of medical professionals globally who clearly do ‘believe’ in modern medicine…yet openly seek to share knowledge despite being up against a world leader in corrupted industry…

        Never stop seeking to learn and grow…most of all…never stop seeking to develop approaches to interpreting the world around you…

  18. CHCOff 20

    Vaccines are abit of russian roulette for the individual as they are an artificial immunity as opposed to a holistic immunity.

    In the absence of holistic immunity, they may be life saving but they can also take a toll on people’s general wellbeing after that i have seen. It is an artificial cocktail (with disease) being injected into the blood after all that has been in practise a very short time in the evolutionary pattern of human biology – not enough respect is given to that in hysteria against anti-vaxers. As often, the one size fits cookie cutter approach and model should be tempered in such issues. Holistic immunity is also a socio/economic area, so it is a very complicated overall issue.

    The middle ground is that they could be used in moderation perhaps within non judgemental individual choice to potential trade offs that people are willing to make, one way or another for their peace of mind.

    • Draco T Bastard 20.1

      Vaccines are abit of russian roulette for the individual as they are an artificial immunity as opposed to a holistic immunity.

      Yeah, that sentence proves that you’re talking out your arse.

      • CHCOff 20.1.1

        Perhaps, or perhaps not…

        Individual experiences are not a political democracy.

        • RedLogix 20.1.1.1

          Exactly. I really wish both sides would back off on the aggro. (Something I’m avoiding wherever possible these days.)

          Personally I had the usual childhood vaccinations and I’m exceedingly grateful that I was too young to have been around when polio was at it’s peak. In general I take KJT’s approach on this; vaccinations are not risk-free but are on average the best bet we have at present.

          Truly we’ve forgotten what it’s like to live in a world stalked by terrible mass plagues and diseases; we should be more grateful.

          At the same time my own immunity did not play out as it should have. In my 30’s I was working at a tough job that required me to be on call 12/14 days, 24 hrs. Over a number of years the erratic hours and stress (related to a toxic supervisor) meant that four years running I came down with a severe dose of measles, mumps, chickenpox and would you bloody believe rubella! The doctor really was surprised.

          Then there was the year I was off work 3 months with mono, and another awful period with giardia (carelessness on my part). Then came the migraines, every second Saturday for almost 20 years.

          As individuals we are complex and unique; our health and genetics are very difficult to understand. Our health sciences work well enough on an aggregate population level, but have a long way to go before we can target the individual in an optimum way.

    • Tricledrown 20.2

      Well said DTB the best vaccination for Stupidity is a good education system.
      Trump has roused anti vax supporters Trump can barely read.
      He has to have pictures drawn to explain what’s going on.
      Those with only high school or less will believe in these voodoo antivax scare tactics.
      My choice is peer reviewed science published in the BMJ.
      Now how many doses of Vaccine have been administered many billions given most of the world’s population has been vaccinated and many multiple times.
      Many hundreds of millions of lives saved.
      Lack of refrigeration or not strictly following the correct times of doses is the very rare bad side effects.
      Vaxxers jump on these rare occurrences and blow it up into a conspiracy theory.

    • Tricledrown 20.3

      Artificial immunity WTF does that mean
      You are bonkers if you think that’s how your immunity works.
      Our immune systems are triggered to recognize the incursion which sends a message to our immune system to grow the antibodies to fight the incursion.
      It’s our antibodies that do the work they aren’t artificial as your pathetic argument shows your level of education must have finished at primary school.

      • One Two 20.3.1

        No Tricledrown…it is you whose understanding is below an adequate level to participate in this discussion…

        Clearly you don’t understand what an adjuvent is..or it’s purpose/impact….or why life long immunity it not possible through vaccination…

        Whole cell immunity…look it up before projecting naked ignorance at others …

  19. Garden 21

    “Many health authorities complain about vaccine hesitancy, but fail to reassure the public by providing the safety data they request. All over the world, millions of people have signed petitions demanding more safety, transparency and independent research, but decision makers chose fast-tracking instead. To restore confidence lost, we insist that before any kind of recommendation or authorisation is issued, ALL vaccines pre-qualified or recommended by the WHO will be submitted to:
    • Extensive clinical trials conducted by bodies’ independent from the manufacturers
    • Middle- and long-term studies on efficiency and safety, not ‘days’.
    • Tests for carcinogenic properties
    • Tests around fertility issues
    • Tests on pregnancy, spontaneous abortion and the developing foetus
    • Mutagenic effects (changes induced in the DNA)
    • Tests for effects on the neurological system and development of the brain
    • Real inert placebo testing, which is almost never done on vaccines
    We also insist that the WHO should provide studies on:
    • Adjuvants and preservatives such as aluminium and mercury and their bioaccumulation
    • Other toxic material used, such as polysorbate, Tween 80, formaldehyde etc
    • Vaccine safety and the age of vaccine administration
    • The impact of full vaccine schedules on the global health of a population
    • The comparison of vaccinated versus unvaccinated populations in global health terms
    • Viral transmission of people recently vaccinated with live virus vaccine such as measles, mumps, rubella, varicella, influenza or oral polio vaccine for example.
    In particular, we ask that the use of combined vaccines and the same-day administration of multiple vaccines be thoroughly investigated. Figures from India show that the numbers of deaths within three days following vaccination doubled when using a Pentavalent (5-in-one) vaccine rather than a triple DTP vaccine. It is projected that this change will cause between 7020 and 8190 deaths each year in infants in India14. It furthers appears that in confidential periodic safety reports of the hexavalent Infanrix polio vaccine submitted to the EMA, the manufacturer GSK has deleted a number of death cases between reports. 15”

    https://childrenshealthdefense.org/child-health-topics/policy-safeguards/open-letter-from-international-organisations-to-the-who-on-the-issue-of-vaccine-safety/

  20. David Mac 23

    Many of us have varying degrees of fear of flying.

    We’re about 9 times more likely to die in a car crash.

    The odds of dying in an air crash are about the same as being stabbed to death by our Grandmothers.

    I see this vaccination thing in a similar light. Pack up our emotions, place our feelings aside and….

    …numbers don’t lie. Jab your kid.

    • Fran 23.1

      It is only an unreasonable fear until it happens and for the thousands of NZ families living with vaccine reactions, it is not unreasonable. In this instance, the numbers are unreliable. We simply don’t how many children are reacting as it is frequently dismissed and not reported.

      • KJT 23.1.1

        Thousands. Even the anti-vac sites have only managed to find tens.

      • David Mac 23.1.2

        Fran, you’re saying there are 1000’s of NZ families wrestling with it and that we don’t know how many NZ families are wrestling with it.

        Yes, some people die in air crashes. Rarotonga is well worth the risk.

        • Fran 23.1.2.1

          We know through the official reporting system that there are indeed thousands of NZ parents whose children have reacted adversely to vaccines but we don’t know the full extent of reactions as not every reaction is reported.

          It is easy to be flippant about the risk until it is your child, then not so much fun.

          • McFlock 23.1.2.1.1

            How do you know?

            We can pull suspected adverse reaction reports from the system (i.e. someone got a jab and then something bad happened that might have been due to the vaccine being administered properly with due regard to contraindications), but your claim was specific that thousands of families in NZ are dealing with reactions to vaccines. So all of those reactions would be serious and confirmed as caused by the vaccine.

            Take your time with links.

  21. One Two 24

    John Frazer- 35 years experience says…

    The ingredients of vaccines are just bits of the virus, bits of the bacteria. So it’s like getting the infection without actually getting sick. That’s all that’s in a vaccine.

    And people accept that level as being ‘good enough’ …

    It’s not..

    • David Mac 24.1

      It’s good enough for me, I don’t care what’s in it because accurate numbers don’t lie.

      The numbers say “Stop smoking Dave”. I don’t need to look at cigarette ingredients through a microscope, be a respiratory specialist nor seek 100 second opinions.

      • One Two 24.1.1

        What numbers are you referring to…repeatedly without a reference?

        Good enough for you…that’s fine, we have different levels of acceptable standards….jab your own kid…

        Don’t suggest others should follow your opinion…

        That’s exactly what you did…realised or not…

        “I don’t care what’s in it”…David Mac

        • David Mac 24.1.1.1

          The statistics that should be driving our decisions.

          I’m not going to point to a specific set of numbers, I’m talking about the poll of polls, the overwhelming statistical information from unrelated credible sources. The mean of all the data collected, the numbers.

          But hey, cool, smoke around your kid if you must.

          • One Two 24.1.1.1.1

            We’ve had this discussion before, David…

            You’re making all sorts of claims about the numbers driving ‘our’ decisions…and pushing that outwards….but you won’t or can’t back it up…. sweet as bro….that’s your level….

            Smoking around kids…nah…again that’s your low level transference…

            “Our decisions”…. nah…your decisions and other people’s decisions…

            Make your own…keep your low level ignorance away from other people…you’ve shown not to be up on basics previously…

            And you’re clearly not trying to onboard more information….

            Cool…that’s your decision…

      • Draco T Bastard 24.1.2

        +111

      • UncookedSelachimorpha 24.1.3

        Exactly. And the numerous trials that show vaccines are safe and effective – used vaccines that contain all ‘that stuff’ we are supposed to be concerned about. And the vaccines were still clearly safe and effective.

        What more to know?

        An expression toxicologists sometimes use, which has application here:

        “The dose makes the poison”

    • Draco T Bastard 24.2

      For the majority of people that’s all that’s needed. Knowing more than that is useless as most have no idea what to do with the knowledge. If you want more go and get a degree, a masters and then a doctorate in immunology and the production of vaccines.

  22. Molly 25

    Most parents take their role as caretaker and decision maker for their children very seriously. If the discussion regarding any aspect of childcare or health degenerates into name calling without preamble or open discussion, then the online discussion often degenerates into polar opposites, as we see here.

    I am surprised that there is apparently little thought given to the different vaccines in this discussion. Just a blanket approval of all vaccinations on the schedule, and any deviation is “anti-vax”. A couple of commenters have tried to make that distinction, but have been shot down.

    If you are someone who has absolute faith in the MoH, and those that make the decisions, then you are in a comfortable place. Perhaps asking yourself why others do not, may give you a better result in terms of discussing such emotive issues such as vaccinations.

    • One Two 25.1

      Hi Molly…

      Your comments on many subjects you author here are always well considered and articulate….IMO

      When the majority who associate as ‘left’, who vociferously defend womans rights, feminisim while deriding ‘rape culture’, ‘patriarchy’ and openly question corporate capitalism on every level….

      But then tacitly and openly support an industry outed as one of the most abusive, misogynistic, fraudulant and monied with lobbyists more numerous than the war machine and with a history equally as violent…while claiming ‘science’….

      There are only a few primary reasons why people choose to take such an incoherant approach to their personal capacity…

      And then throw that at others in such a way as to deprive all involved an opportunity to share, listen and develop..

      Why would such behaviour be deemed internally acceptable given the access to information sources in recent times….it comes over a a deliberate act of interference…

    • McFlock 25.2

      I don’t have “absolute faith” in the MoH.

      But I do know they pay people much better qualified than me to assess massive volumes of international medical data and research in order to identify the health costs and benefits of all sorts of stuff. Not just trial reports, but collated data from international organisations, predicting which strains are likely to be an issue, assessing NZ risk factors, and looking at the likely burden of disease and its effects on the rest of the health system.

      There’s no way in hell that I, personally, could replicate that to even a smidgen of reliability compared to them.

      I just trust them more than I trust online communities of people. Job interviews weed out so many unsuitable people.

      • Molly 25.2.1

        I have a friend who has been through hellish health for the last decade because of the cursory research given to the implantation of surgical mesh before it became a commonplace surgical method to treat uterine prolapse.

        The recent decision to stop use, IMO was only the result of many damaged people continuing to ask for answers from the MoH. Many surgeons refused to listen to their post-op patients, and gave many the impression that they were unbalanced for thinking something was wrong.

        As for vaccinations, the Gardasil programme at a cost of $165 million is one that I have issue with. Primarily because the main protection against the development of cervical cancer is regular smears, and the delivery of the vaccine is efficacious against only several of the HPV.

        My concern is: that after receiving the vaccine, many would choose to forego regular smears – because this is a normal human reaction. As there are HPV’s not eliminated by the vaccine that can result in cancer, those regular smears are still required. So – where is the financial benefit to MoH?

        The benefit of eliminating some HPV’s at a cost of $190/dose for three doses, could have been spent in investing into much better screening and access to regular smears. When able to, I pay the extra $25 my surgery charges for a better smear process. $600 would have done that for 24 years for each person vaccinated. Women’s health seems to be an aspect of healthcare that still requires public advocacy for improvement.

        I would appreciate your view on this particular vaccine, McFlock. As despite bringing up this particular vaccine campaign many times, it has never been calmly discussed.

        • McFlock 25.2.1.1

          Again, with respect to your friend, modern medicine (and its attached bureaucracy) isn’t perfect by any means (and quite shitty sometimes). And yes, some surgeons are still dickheads. Looking at any single treatment option might show a glorious success, a disturbing failure, or even just a poor response time to recall, implementation, or improvement.

          But it’s still better overall than I could reasonably be. There have even been some “could do better” situations in my own treatment regime, although nothing close to your friend’s level. Treatments for condition A that aggravated condition B, that sort of thing. But when I started doing my own pain management, I ended up doubling down on NSAIDs – not the smartest move. So my doc and associated referrals are still well ahead on points from my own stupid efforts, and I think that applies generally across the population.

          As for Gardasil, the NZ vaccine roughly covers 90% of the virus variants that cause 90% of the cancers with >90% efficacy. So that’s 50 deaths per year down to 15 if screening levels are maintained. Cervical screening has been associated with a 60% decline in mortality, so that means w/o screening or vaccination we’d face 125 deaths a year. So the worst case of your scenario (vaccination w/o screening) still lowers the 50 deaths a year from just screening down to 34 for just vaccination. It was a fair question, though, and I suspect that if I knew the right database or search engine syntax there’d be a business case online going through those considerations (and more). Unless they pressed the “commercially sensitive” button. Dunno.

          Financially, I’m not sure your copayment would cover the full cost of your “better” smear. And of course we’d also deduct the treatments costs of HPV-related conditions like genital warts as well as cancers (prevention is better than treatment/cure).

          • Molly 25.2.1.1.1

            I appreciate your reply McFlock, and understand your point about individual circumstance, but I was relating it more from a systematic refusal to make changes or insist on existing procedures due to a medical profession that insisted nothing was wrong despite patient feedback.

            I also appreciate you taking the time to talk specifically about Gardasil, but I still have a concern relating to the natural human tendency to avoid unpleasant requirements such as smears, and as you mention “So that’s 50 deaths per year down to 15 if screening levels are maintained.” Do we have any evidence to show that this is the case?

            The fatality rates refer to the current screening programme coverage, but I can’t find any references to those who developed untreatable cervical cancer, and information on whether they did so as one of those who underwent regular cervical smears or not. To me, that is an important distinction.

            Another less prioritised question would relate to the other 10% of HPV not eradicated by the vaccine. Are they more or less aggressive than what has been removed? Once again, I couldn’t find that information on your link, and but believe it is important to emphasise not just the efficacy of eradication, but the lack of it for other pre-cancer HPV indicators, if that would improve the continuation of regular smears (histological or HPV).

            I am supposed to be working on other tasks at the moment, but I did take some time to look for some Gardasil 9 safety research that was undertaken, and found a study that relates to the efficacy of that vaccine. The study cohort was young women aged 16-26, who were considered free of the noted HPVs, six years after the initial dose. Given that the average age of cervical cancer is 45 years, and the likelihood increases with an increased number of sexual partners, this limitation, while necessary for providing “clean” baselines for pre-existing conditions and minimal numbers of sexual partners, does not seem to have been compared to a similar cohort of non-vaccinated population. And I would think a long-term study would be necessary to follow these women up to the age when cervical cancer would be most likely to emerge, before assurance that eradication of those particular HPV’s at that age, would be effective. Furthermore, for what period are these vaccines effective, will they need booster shots over their adult lives?

            Again, McFlock. Thanks for taking the time. This is the type of information I look for when considering any medication or medical procedure for my family, and often the literature provided at public level does not do so.

            (The 2008 projected cost of 165 million for a possible reduction in fatalities of 35/year seems quite high, and assumes no other investment in HPV vaccines has taken place, which I would not think is the case given the continuation of the vaccination programme since that time and the extension of it to all persons under the age of 18 – including males).

            • Molly 25.2.1.1.1.1

              Just another comment about how studies are conducted. After having a Stage 2 DCIS surgically removed from my left breast, the surgeon somewhat mistakenly thought to reassure me that I will be pleased with my prognosis when attending breast cancer support groups, as it was very unlikely that particular growth would result in cancer. While happy about the outcome, rather than the imagined scenario, which implies a complete lack of empathy for other patients, I was glad to get the all clear, and go onto the yearly monitoring that was prescribed.

              A couple of months after surgery, I was given an appointment by the Auckland oncology department and when I attended they suggested that I had been chosen to participate in a clinical trial that would investigate the success of six weeks of daily radiotherapy. After asking whether this was a change to the result of my surgery, the oncologist answered no. Which means that my prognosis remained at about 95-99% of no cancer development. So, I was offered the opportunity to disrupt my life for six weeks, and undergo the effects of radiotherapy, and travel for up to two hours each way, in order to have the same outcome that I already possessed. As I regretfully declined, it occurred to me that I would have contributed to the positive benefits of the trial, without any receiving any individual positive benefit. I don’t know what size the trial cohort was going to be, but I would think that it would skew results. And I wasn’t asked if they could follow up my ongoing results in order to compare with a similar patient who would undergo the radiotherapy. Which I would have been happy to do.

              • McFlock

                Sorry, missed that comment earlier.

                Normally those sorts of trials are a “double-blind”, which means you don’t know whether you were treated and the researchers don’t know who was treated until all the data is in. This means you don’t get the placebo effect of actually being healthier because you think you’re receiving treatment, and the clinicians can’t skew your response by their behaviour or subconsciously skew the results as they record them.

                So if you were in the control (non-treated) group you would still have gone in for radiology appointments, everything would have been the same, except that when the machine goes “bing” there’s no radiation coming out. And nobody knows whether you were in the treatment group or not except the radiologist, and they wouldn’t know whether you were participant 12 or participant 57.

                On the flipside, your records will still be useful, but for population-based research rather than an experiment like the one you describe. They won’t be presented to researchers in such a way anyone can say “oh, that’s Molly”, but researchers with a specialty in some particular area routinely order collections of medical records to compare prevalence, treatment options, and relative outcomes.

                It’s sort of a research triad – population-based medicine provides correlation but not causal links, case studies and trials/experiments focus on possible causes and solutions with greater precision, while lab work and models (things that are similar to human cases in a very specific way) help people understand the bases for causes and solutions.

            • McFlock 25.2.1.1.1.2

              Any system has lags in feedback loops, but I suspect that the mesh problem was made worse by surgeons and sexism. The medical sector is trying to get out of the ultra-hierarchical mode it was in, because deference to authority kills people (pilot/copilot relationships are a similar situation). Attitude change is often a generational problem, though, and I suspect a certain personality type aids surgeons being able to cut people up and still remain vaguely sane. Sexism-wise, I’ve noticed anecdotally that some clinicians and specialists don’t take female organ issues very seriously – sometimes the system itself. A friend of mine has some uterine issues, always getting referred by her gyno but permanently on the waiting list. Discomfort during sex isn’t points-worthy unless it interferes with the relationship – i.e. until it interferes with her husband’s sex life. Sigh.

              Sorry about the 60%, I forgot to include the anchor in the link:

              Why are we changing the cervical screening test?

              Since the National Cervical Screening Programme was set up in 1990, the number of new cases of cervical cancer detected has decreased by around 50 per cent and the number of women who die from cervical cancer has declined by about 60 per cent.

              But the financial costs aren’t just cervical cancer deaths, but the full spectrum of HPV outcomes. The usual tool for bureaucrats is to looks at “Quality-Adjusted Life Years”, and compare the cost of vaccines+screening against the costs of doing nothing or something else.

              Your link was interesting, and there was a link on that page to a descriptive study that looked at several trials on HPV vaccines that wasn’t behind a paywall. While that study said it was too soon to look at cervical cancer itself, it could look at precancerous lesions etc.

              As you say, longer term monitoring is (always) required, but then we have a dilemma: if we can see that in the medium (decade) term it is highly effective against precursors to cancers and we know the risk of adverse reactions is slight (also in the studies), do we hold back for the results of life-course studies to come in 50 years later? How is that rational or ethical? If it was the other way around and large numbers of people who received a treatment started getting precancerous lesions, they’d stop the trials.

              And bear in mind, we’ve barely scratched the surface of available research on one specific intervention. At some point you just have to hope that someone did the math. And then you need a certain amount of faith in the supply chain so that what you get is what you ordered.

              I take half a dozen pills a day, all me jabs, occasionally go to physio or suchlike, and have regular blood tests that tick sooo many boxes on the forms. If I spent a day with each potential treatment on the research backburner, I’d never get anything else done. I prefer to do the things that make me need the pills, lol.

              • Molly

                ” I prefer to do the things that make me need the pills, lol.”
                … that is something I really can’t argue with…

                • McFlock

                  I just saw on facebook a restaurant that does deep-fried battered bacon bites.

                  My life expectancy just plummetted 🙂

    • UncookedSelachimorpha 25.3

      ” Just a blanket approval of all vaccinations on the schedule,”

      Each individual vaccine is separately tested for safety and efficacy, and monitored after introduction.

    • Draco T Bastard 25.4

      Perhaps asking yourself why others do not, may give you a better result in terms of discussing such emotive issues such as vaccinations.

      I know why they don’t – it’s because they’re ignorant schmucks who think their ignorance is better than the knowledge that the doctors have.

      • One Two 25.4.1

        I know why they don’t

        No Draco…they’re not All ignorant…including the countless number of medical professionals who have degress/masters/doctorates you hold in such high regard…

        Your KNOWING comment is an example of projecting ignorance….

    • KJT 25.5

      I am as skeptical about the morals of pharmaceutical companies as the next person.

      However, vaccination predates “Big Pharma”.

      I am comfortable about the motives of the New Zealand medical profession.

      • Incognito 25.5.1

        However, vaccination predates “Big Pharma”.

        Aspirin also predates “Big Pharma” but how is this an argument that they can be trusted to make good or the best decisions in the public interest? They wield enormous decision power and hold most of the cards.

      • Molly 25.5.2

        “I am comfortable about the motives of the New Zealand medical profession.”
        So if you are trying to persuade someone, speak to them on the assumption that that are not at your level of comfort, and ask them why instead of requiring them to address it from your perspective.

        • KJT 25.5.2.1

          I have difficulty with people who counter overwhelming evidence of the effectiveness and success of vaccination, with, “I know someone whose child got autism after their vaccinations” or “there are a couple of people who died or got ill after being vaccinated, somewhere”, of hundreds of millions of vaccinations over a century. Or “thousands” of children have been injured by vaccines in NZ”. There was a public outcry over a thalidomide babies, including from health professionals. You think the same people would cover things up if “thousands” of vaccination injuries were occurring.

          No one who reads the science will argue that vaccination is totally risk free.

          I have every sympathy for the few people whose children have been harmed by vaccines, just as I have for anyone whose child is harmed. There is nothing worse.

          However, for every disease that is eradicated by vaccination, there is another we can take off the schedule. So, even the, small, risk from that vaccine is removed, forever.

          When I was a child there were many people around showing the effects of polio, German measles, mumps, TB and the rest. No longer. And we no longer have to vaccinate against TB, Polio and small pox, because vaccination, worked.

        • KJT 25.5.2.2

          Part of the problem is that most research is hidden behind paywalls, in journals, and not easily available to the public.

          Which should not be the case for publicly funded research.

          Leaving the public having to rely on “journalists”, who often simply read New Scientist or the equivalent, and have no training in critical interpretation of science, and people who have often biased, “axes to grind”.

  23. I don’t have a prob with vacs,… saves a lot of lives, prob is when certain types get involved,… I’m thinking of the alleged WHO’s involvement with the spread of the AIDS virus,- plausible denial, ofc… medicine has become politicized over the last century, started with the paid for scientific reports and the emergence of the large drug company’s,…they are powerful lobby groups.

    Remember back when butter was the evil , and margarine was being pushed as the answer in the 1970’s?

    Now the worm has turned and butter is the angel and margarine is the devils advocate.

    And so it goes.

    These scientific ‘reports’,… are often tailored for a certain profitable result,… as for vaccines,… on the whole they have saved a lot of lives. Now malaria kills more per annum than AIDS. And a simple comfort of basic painkillers could even save lives for malaria,… along with simple political initiatives such as draining of swamp areas… providing employment…

    I believe in combining the wisdom of the old and the new.

    There aint no silver bullet.

    David Allan Coe- If that ain’t country – YouTube

    • RedLogix 26.1

      Precisely. A lot more humility all round and some honest listening from both sides would be way more use than this kind of brain-bashing post.

      The only truth I’m sure of is that in the wider scheme of things we’re all ignorant about pretty much everything. 🙂

  24. Ross 27

    TRP,

    I wouldn’t be citing Helen Pertousis-Harris. I commented on her blog last year when she was advocating censorship of a documentary proposed to be shown. I said:

    I thought it might be useful to provide some balance seeing as you seem to be unwilling to undertake that task. By the way, I haven’t seen the film but I’m not a believer in censorship either.

    The question that begs to be asked is why are some people opposed to or sceptical about vaccination? You don’t address that question. You’ll recall that when the vaccine for the B strain of meningococcal disease was rolled out in NZ in 2005, the vaccine wasn’t as successful as had been hoped.

    See http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/GE0608/S00031.htm

    Grandiose predictions were made about what the vaccine would achieve, predictions that failed to live up to the hype. Maybe (maybe!) one child’s death was prevented at a cost of well over $200 million. As you will know, children who were immunised against the B strain contracted the disease and some of these died. It is precisely that sort of information that parents should receive when deciding whether to vaccinate or not.

    I’d have more faith in Lance O’Sullivan if he told the full story, that vaccines can and do fail and they can and do cause damage, huge damage in some cases. Don’t parents deserve to be told the truth?

    You link to deaths in Romania (for some obscure reason) but there have been many cases of measles throughout Europe in recent times. That is despite the fact that many countries in Europe have relatively high rates of vaccination. It’s reasonable to assume that many recent cases will include those who have been vaccinated. Again, do you think parents should be given this information before deciding whether to vaccinate or not? Or would you rather parents be given a sanitised version of the truth because they can’t be trusted to make the “correct” decision?

    Helen has no training as a medical doctor, but the arrogance is apparent. She is one of the reasons, I suspect, that some parents choose not to vaccinate.

    https://sciblogs.co.nz/diplomaticimmunity/2017/05/24/in-defence-of-the-tamariki/

    • Ross 27.1

      After receiving an unhelpful and somewhat patronising respone from Pertousis Harris, I said:

      “Ross please keep the to the topic, otherwise your posts could appear like trolling.”

      That is a poor response when I was on topic. (Such a patronising response is possibly not going to make sceptical parents less sceptical.)

      I explained that vaccines can and do fail and can and do cause damage. I also asked whether parents should be given the full story. It’s quite possible that my idea of informed consent and your idea of it are different.

      “Multiplying the age-specific mortality rates by the number of prevented cases estimated in each age group yielded an estimated 1.7 fatalities that were prevented.”

      https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/d6e0/4aef1f4b396915468eb33693800199705134.pdf?_ga=2.174407330.1894299121.1495785389-1519334993.1493886988

      Hmmm an estimated 1.7 deaths prevented at a cost of approximately $220 million. The problem is that before the vaccine was rolled out, parents were told that the vaccine would prevent numerous deaths. “Cabinet was told that meningococcal disease would kill 20 New Zealanders per year for the next ten years, and that the MeNZB™ vaccine would avert 13.6 deaths per year.”

      http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0502/S00064.htm

      I think parents can handle the truth and should always be told the truth, messy as that might sometimes be. And when health authorities get it wrong, as they sometimes do, they should be able to say sorry. I suspect that not saying sorry and not giving parents the full story is behind the decision of many parents to say no to vaccination.

      You do, however, acknolwedge that “Scientists do not claim vaccines are perfect.” What imperfect things does Dr O’Sullivan and other doctors say about them and is this information routinely shared with parents?

      That last question has never been answered.

    • “TRP, I wouldn’t be citing Helen Pertousis-Harris.”

      I didn’t, as far as I can tell. But I probably should have given her obvious credibility.

      From her bio:

      Dr Helen Petousis-Harris blogs about vaccines and vaccination. Her background is predominantly biological sciences, and she did her PhD in Vaccinology, specifically around vaccine reactions.

      She worked at the Immunisation Advisory Centre at the University of Auckland between 1998 and 2018 where she has developed a passion for all things vaccine. Currently Helen has an appointment as a Senior Lecturer in the Department of General Practice and Primary Health Care and her teaching is largely around vaccination.

      Her research focuses on a number of aspects of vaccines and vaccination but in particular vaccine effectiveness and vaccines safety. She is a member of the World Health Organisation Global Advisory Committee on Vaccine Safety (GACVS) and the Brighton Collaboration Science Board.

      • Ross 27.2.1

        Thanks TRP. She has said there are serious risks with the MMR vaccine. I didn’t see that comment in the Stuff article or your comments.

        • te reo putake 27.2.1.1

          You’re over egging it and putting your own reading on her words, Ross. She has calmly outlined in a blog post the few already identified risks there are with the MMR vaccine. She does not say that there are “serious risks” at all. Most medicines have potential side effects or are contra-indicated for a minority of patients. That doen’t mean the medicines are fundamentally bad.

          https://healthcentral.nz/how-safe-is-the-mmr-vaccine/

          • Morrissey 27.2.1.1.1

            You’re attempting to reason with a fanatic, Te Reo. Good luck to you.

            • te reo putake 27.2.1.1.1.1

              Thanks, Morrissey. Ross has put his point of view in several comments on this post and he’s done so without going completely OTT. Likewise, the responses to his comments have been reasoned and reasonable. So all good, as far as I can see.

          • Ross 27.2.1.1.2

            She does indeed say there are serious risks and I provided you with a link at 28. She details what those risks are. However in the Stuff article she says:

            “The chemicals in vaccines – just like in our mother’s breast milk – are in minuscule amounts and pose no safety risk whatsoever to humans and animals in those quantities, with the exception of course of an allergic reaction.”

            No mention of the risks. She appears untrustworthy.

            • Te Reo Putake 27.2.1.1.2.1

              No she doesn’t, Ross. Those are your words, not hers.

              • Ross

                TRP

                She does say there are “serious risks” with the MMR vaccine. I can’t help it if you are not prepared to read what she’s written. From the link at 28:

                “Rare adverse events associated with MMR vaccine: Temporary low platelet count about 1/30,000; convulsion associated with a fever about 1-2 per million doses, Encephalitis less than 1 per million, infection free meningitis about 1 per 800,000 to 1 per million, and anaphylaxis 1 per million.

                Yes there are some rare but serious risks.“

                But in the Stuff article HPH is comparing vaccines to mother’s milk. 🙂

                • Thank you for quoting the full sentence instead of plucking out the two words that support your otherwise thin argument. As I said earlier, you are over egging it.

                  The key point is that the risks are rare. The MMR vaccine is safe, except for a small and easily identified minority of patients. Just like every other medicine, and, yes, mother’s milk.

                  • Ross

                    Mother’s milk has resulted in brain damage and autism like conditions? Well I never.

                    If WAVEnz or whatever they are called had gone with “Vaccine expert says there are serious risks attached to MMR vaccine and that some people should not be vaccinated”, they would have been on safe ground.

    • One Two 27.3

      Reading articles on blogs by HPH provide an insight to the mind of an abusive bully…similar in tone to this article by TRP…not quite as aggressive as TRP, but then HPH is a ‘medical professional…

      Her belittling and abusive writing style should be the first red flag by anyone who cites her as ‘expert reference’…

      • te reo putake 27.3.1

        You know you don’t have to read my work, right? Nor do you have to comment on it.

        And if you are going to comment, which is welcome, try to avoid accusing the author and an actual subject matter specialist of bullying simply because they’re capable of putting up a rational argument that you cannot refute.

        Generally, accusing authors of bullying does not end well. I suggest you refresh yourself on the site policy regarding abusing authors and restrain yourself before I, or another mod, go down the educational ban route.

        • One Two 27.3.1.1

          Rational arguments which I can’t refute…yes I absolutely can…and moreso people far better placed than you or I have refuted…and are refuting…every day…around the world….like it or not…it’s happening…and against one the most corrupted industrys in history…

          I was not accusing you of anything…It is my interpretation of the tone you write in (articles and comments style )on….

          I’m in a very good position to provide opinion of my own interpretation of yours, and HpH articles….it may not be how you intend to be interprered when you write…but that is how it comes across to me…

          Using highly emotive language and words, even when mirroring or quoting back….begs interpretation of various ranges….

          You’re an experienced author…you write in various tones on different subjects around some blogs….you know what you’re doing…

          In my opinion, of course…

  25. Ross 28

    However, according to HPH, there are “serious risks” attached to the MMR vaccine and some people should not be vaccinated.

    Because the MMR vaccine has live (albeit weak) viruses in it should not be given to some people. These people should not get the MMR vaccine:

    Anyone who has experienced a severe allergic reaction (anaphylaxis) to a previous dose of any measles, mumps or rubella containing vaccine or any of the vaccine components.

    Anyone who is acutely unwell. The presence of a minor infection is not a reason to delay immunisation.

    Anyone with a diagnosed weakness of their immune system.

    Anyone who has received another live injected vaccine, including varicella (chickenpox) or BCG vaccines, within the previous month.

    Women who are currently pregnant (women should delay pregnancy for one month after having the vaccine). However there is no evidence of harm if this happens

    https://sciblogs.co.nz/diplomaticimmunity/2018/07/13/how-safe-is-the-mmr-vaccine/

    Are parents routinely given such information?

  26. joe90 29

    Fun fact; during the 1956 polio epidemic, Elvis had himself vaccinated on The Ed Sullivan Show.

    Within 6 months, the US immunisation level for polio went from 0.6% to over 80%.

  27. Drowsy M. Kram 30

    Dr Ben Goldacre, author of ‘Bad Science’ (2009), and ‘Bad Pharma: How Medicine is Broken, and How We Can Fix It’ (2013), is not shy when it comes to naming and shaming bad medical and corporate behaviours.

    IMO he talks a lot of sense here (had forgotten that vaccination is a centuries-old treatment, and has faced opposition since its inception):

    https://www.badscience.net/2013/04/how-vaccine-scares-respect-local-cultural-boundaries/#more-2871

    “The success of the anti-vaccinationists has been aptly shown by the results in Zurich, Switzerland, where for a number of years, until 1883, a compulsory vaccination law obtained, and small- pox was wholly prevented – not a single case occurred in 1882. This result was seized upon the following year by the anti-vacci- nationists and used against the necessity for any such law, and it seems they had sufficient influence to cause its repeal. The death returns for that year (1883) showed that for every 1,000 deaths two were caused by smallpox; In 1884 there were three; in 1885, 17, and in the first quarter of 1886, 85.”

    “The diversity and isolation of these anti-vaccination panics helps to illustrate the way in which they reflect local political and social concerns more than a genuine appraisal of the risk data: because if the vaccine for hepatitis B, or MMR, or polio, is dangerous in one country, it should be equally dangerous everywhere on the planet; and if those concerns were genuinely grounded in the evidence, especially in an age of the rapid propagation of information, you would expect the concerns to be expressed by journalists everywhere. They’re not.”

Recent Comments

Recent Posts

  • Strong first week of firearms buy-back events
    The first full week of the firearms buy-back and amnesty has produced a strong turnout as events roll out nationwide for the first time. “Momentum is slowly starting to build as community collection events are held across the entire country, ...
    22 hours ago
  • New digital service to make business easy
    A new digital platform aims to make it easier for small businesses to access services from multiple government agencies, leaving them more time to focus on their own priorities. Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern and Minister for Small Business Stuart Nash ...
    7 days ago
  • Million-dollar start to gun collection events
    Million-dollar start to gun collection events  Police Minister Stuart Nash says a solid start has been made to the gun buyback and amnesty after the first weekend of community collection events. “Gun owners will walk away with more than ...
    1 week ago
  • Praise after first firearms collection event
    Police Minister Stuart Nash has praised Police and gun owners after the first firearms collection event saw a busy turnout at Riccarton Racecourse in Christchurch. “Police officers and staff have put a tremendous effort into planning and logistics for the ...
    1 week ago
  • New Police constables deployed to regions
    Seventy-eight new Police constables are heading out to the regions following today’s graduation of a new recruit wing from the Royal New Zealand Police College. Police Minister Stuart Nash says the record high number of new Police officers being recruited, ...
    2 weeks ago