The neoliberal plague

Written By: - Date published: 9:03 am, February 23rd, 2012 - 131 comments
Categories: class war, health, poverty - Tags:

Since New Zealand skulled the neoliberal cool-aid, hospital admissions for infectious diseases, the diseases of poverty, increased 51% while dropping in the countries we should consider our peers. The working class life has gotten worse; our wages are lower, our jobs gone, and our families living in unhealthy houses owned by slum landlords.

131 comments on “The neoliberal plague ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Colonial Viper 1
    23 February 2012 at 9:25 am

    But there’s still cause to pop the champagne corks, right? – we’re still not as bad as Somalia, Haiti or Sudan!

    • Jim Nald 1.1
      23 February 2012 at 11:07 am

      Well, most of us are not enjoying the neo-liberals’ neo-colonisation of Aotearoa.

    • Jackal 1.2
      23 February 2012 at 12:33 pm

      All Infectious Disease Outbreaks have been declining worldwide for some time now. They are effectively 23% of their peak in 1998. Haiti has had no new outbreaks since 2003 and Somalia has had no new outbreaks since 2005. Comparatively speaking the increases seen in New Zealand over recent years are worse.

      The Sudan had an outbreak of parasitic tropical disease that started in 2008, and has claimed more than 300 lives. Even so, this does not seem as bad as the increase in infectious diseases seen in New Zealand. It’s a disgrace!

  2. Anton Angelo 2
    23 February 2012 at 9:39 am

    We have a great discussion on exactly this topic on our radio show Sustainable Lens – http://www.sustainablelens.org, it will be broadcast tonight, streamed from http://www.oar.org.nz, and it will be aailable for download soon after. Holly Walker (the new Green MP) is the guest.

  3. higherstandard 3
    23 February 2012 at 10:08 am

    Our immunisation rates in NZ are a cause for concern. Not a season seems to go by without a measles or pertussis outbreak.

    Short of fining parents for not immunising their children or having public health nurses vaccinate kids at school and at home during early years I’m not sure what the solution is.

    • AnnetteH 3.1
      23 February 2012 at 11:19 am

      You might want to read Janine Roberts’ “Fear of the Invisible” (http://www.amazon.com/Fear-Invisible-Janine-Roberts/dp/0955917727/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1329946194&sr=8-1) and rethink that comment.

      • McFlock 3.1.1
        23 February 2012 at 12:29 pm

        Um – 
        does Amazon blurb seem to suggest that HIV/AIDS was a USAMRIID bioweapon that was added to vaccines? Or am I just reading this a bit too cynically:

        She reports US biowarfare researchers tried to create new agents to destroy our immune systems – and worked on a bacterium to make it a hospital superbug. Did they manage to create HIV? A senior professor told her that the vaccine program was so contaminated that HIV might well have spread though it without any need for military intervention. She set out to find the evidence to resolve this, and to learn how HIV apparently spread so far and fast.

        • Clashman 3.1.1.1
          23 February 2012 at 12:55 pm

          ” None other than the (now deceased) head of vaccines at Merck, Dr. Maurice Hillerman, who on camera admitted that Merck’s Hepatitis B vaccines, contaminated with a virus, caused the AIDS epidemic in the US. He went on to say that all of Merck’s vaccines are contaminated with viruses. (The US government has conceded the HEB B vaccine causes Lupus. That vaccine is mandated for every infant in the US on the day of birth, and is associated with MS as well.) ”

        • Deano 3.1.1.2
          23 February 2012 at 1:21 pm

          that’s just batshit crazy. If it had spread through immunisations, it would have been kids, not gay men and heroin users getting it. The first cases wouldn’t have been in the Congo either.

          Even with current tech we couldn’t ‘create’ something as complex as HIV, let alone with early 20th century tech.

    • McFlock 3.2
      23 February 2012 at 11:42 am

      …” having public health nurses vaccinate kids at school and at home during early years I’m not sure what the solution is.”
        

      Part of the solution right there, IMO.

      • higherstandard 3.2.1
        23 February 2012 at 1:13 pm

        Yes but unfortunately the lunatic fringe, as demonstrated by the surrounding comments, will never let it occur.

        • Clashman 3.2.1.1
          23 February 2012 at 1:42 pm

          Bill Gates’ views on global population levels are well known yet his charitable orginisation is planning a massive vaccination campaign in Africa and other impoverished countries.
          Hmmm….

          • Lanthanide 3.2.1.1.1
            23 February 2012 at 2:44 pm

            Yep, it’s a secret plot to kill them all.

            • Colonial Viper 3.2.1.1.1.1
              23 February 2012 at 5:49 pm

              Actually its a secret plot to pour funds into pharama research divisions and pharma corporates. Well, not that secret.

          • aerobubble 3.2.1.1.2
            24 February 2012 at 11:37 am

            The whole idea is to maximize the resources of the world, if a child is born only to spend its whole short life in hospital, holding back society, then its a waste of money. Of course this principle holds for third world countries, not for S.Auckland growing suburban poverty stats where we waste children in inter-generational poverty thanks to neo-liberalism unconcern.
            It has always been important to do something, to be seen doing something, for africa, or poverty globally, as long as we don’t ask any questions of out local poverty problems.
            There’s nothing wrong with capitalism, what’s wrong is some capitalist distort the system to avoid paying taxes and send a few pennies to help the poor to discharge themselves of their responsibilities. Health care should be free for all.

    • muzza 3.3
      23 February 2012 at 12:28 pm

      Compulsory poison into yourself or your child…NO THANKS!

      Not really a solution, so much as a revenue stream.

      We need to start looking into root cause, not for band-aids!

      • higherstandard 3.3.1
        23 February 2012 at 1:15 pm

        Immunisation is among the most cost effective health interventions known.

        It has saved countless lives and spared untold suffering.

        • muzza 3.3.1.1
          23 February 2012 at 1:29 pm

          So have condoms mate, but you can force people to wear them!

          Re cost effectiveness – Do we have the figures of costs relating to disease, illness or death from vaccinations. Without stats from either side of the debtate I suggest that your statement is lacking in detail!

          Re loonatic fringe – Who do you refer, and based on what information as opposed to personal prejudice would you classify “loonatic” – The ex head of vaccinations at Merck?

          • Kotahi Tane Huna 3.3.1.1.1
            23 February 2012 at 1:39 pm

            I hope we do not need to pass legislation to require people to be vaccinated, but it may come to that. The campaign of disinformation by the anti-science loons has been very effective. Even the revelations that Andrew Wakefield committed scientific fraud cannot shake their faith.

            So parents put their children, and other people’s children at risk, or as someone put it on the JREF forum, leeching off our herd immunity.

            Where’s the harm in vaccine denial?

            • muzza 3.3.1.1.1.1
              23 February 2012 at 1:47 pm

              If vaccines work then those who have them should have nothing to fear from those who do not!

              The day someone legislates that vaccinations, is the day that it is time to admit defeat as a society. Being able to force someone to inject foreign substances into their body…Tyranny!

              We need solutions to causes, not more forced medicine. We are talking about diseases caused by conditions of poverty – Solutions to those do not lie at that tip if a needle!

              • Kotahi Tane Huna …
                23 February 2012 at 1:54 pm

                A confused mantra to say the least.
                On matters of public health I think we should pay attention to what health professionals tell us, not cherry-pick the things we like and don’t like the way you just did. How do you know what causes disease and what doesn’t?

                • muzza …
                  23 February 2012 at 2:06 pm

                  I think you need to re-read my respone.

                  You said “So parents put their children, and other people’s children at risk”

                  I said “If vaccines work then those who have them should, have nothing to fear from those who do not” – Where is that confusing for you?

                  “On matters of public health I think we should pay attention to what health professionals tell us, not cherry-pick the things we like and don’t like the way you just did. How do you know what causes disease and what doesn’t?”

                  So we should listen to exactly what the “health professionals” tells us to do, and not be able to make decisions based on what substances (because that is the context) we might be forced to put in our bodies, or someone elses personal – YOU ARE OFF YOUR HEAD!

                  • Kotahi Tane Huna …
                    23 February 2012 at 2:19 pm

                    “If vaccines work then those who have them should, have nothing to fear from those who do not”

                    And what about people who for whatever reason could not get a vaccine? Are you happy to risk their lives? Are you happy that your kids will not be able to travel to countries where certain infectious diseases are endemic?

                    “Have you seen a case of herpetic encephalitis? Have you seen a child on a respirator because of a pneumonia secondary to a childhood disease? Have you seen a polio victim? How about someone suffering from Tetanus?”

                    As McFlock says we’re way off topic. I suggest you read this thread at JREF for a full discussion of the evidence.

              • Populuxe1 …
                23 February 2012 at 6:06 pm

                We need solutions to causes, not more forced medicine. We are talking about diseases caused by conditions of poverty – Solutions to those do not lie at that tip if a needle!

                Um, yes they do and have so since the late 1700s – hence the elimination of the scourge of smallpox. Un-immunised children are incubators and carriers for diseases that give the chance to mutate, may become resistant to the current inoculations and treatments. So-called “crowd immunity” is only as good as the prevalence of immunisation.
                If I have to choose between legislated immunisation or pandemic, I’ll happily hold the rifle while the nurse gives you your shots.

                • muzza …
                  23 February 2012 at 6:18 pm

                  “’ll happily hold the rifle while the nurse gives you your shots.”

                  This is what we call evolved “scoiety” right here..a truly disturbing comment, which would you never make to my face!

                  Again your comment is based on treating symptoms, not the causes, which I refer..

                  You have already proved by your thug comments you are not capable of higer thought, so at least you are consistant..

                  Myself I prefer to allow people to make their own choices!

                  • Populuxe1 …
                    23 February 2012 at 6:28 pm

                    No, I’d quite happily say it to your face while holding the rifle. Your individual freedoms are less important than a pandemic – you may recall the plague? Killed a third of Europe? Nah, you’re not that important. And immunisation does treat the cause – THE DISEASE – silly billy. Poverty is the context that makes the disease less survivable and more easily spread. Remove the cause and then you have space to address the miseries that poverty really does cause.
                    I’m quite happy to let people make their own choices, unless they happen to be stupid choices that will have drastic and horrific consequences for humanity as a whole.

                    • muzza …
                      23 February 2012 at 9:01 pm

                      The use of emotionally violent language by you is a clear sign you are not in a postion to be asked for an opinon of any sort, and as for your attempt to override personal choice…do the world afavour please.

                      “I’m quite happy to let people make their own choices, unless they happen to be stupid choices that will have drastic and horrific consequences for humanity as a whole.”

                      Stupid choices as decided by you?

                      #Facepalm

                    • prism …
                      23 February 2012 at 9:36 pm

                      Reading muzza makes my mind wander – did the name make you think of muzzle on a gun Populuxe? I remember a little quip of my grandma’s about a wordy gasbag ” That person must have been vaccinated with a gramophone needle”.

            • muzza 3.3.1.1.1.2
              23 February 2012 at 9:36 pm

              Kotahi – it explains your views given the web site. You claim I have given disinformation when I have given no such details, and you then give this web site as an example of where you learn your views..

              Oh dear is all I have to say, Kotahi, oh dear!

              For the sake of children and your self respect, at least quote a site that gives scientific information.

              Viper have you had a look at this

              http://whatstheharm.net/scientificstudies.html

          • higherstandard 3.3.1.1.2
            23 February 2012 at 1:39 pm

            You are probably too young to remember TB and Polio wards in our hospitals not to mention such horrors as smallpox.

            Without effective immunisation programmes I’d suggest we’d still be suffering under such scourges. In relation to current immunisation it is disheartening when we have to close wards or cancel elective surgery and spend resources and staff time due to measles outbreaks that should not occur.

            In relation to your accusation of lack of balance frankly that’s laughable when you opening line is to suggest that immunisation is “poison”.

            • muzza 3.3.1.1.2.1
              23 February 2012 at 1:56 pm

              Age has nothing to do with it, your comment is pointless.

              You prove to me that every single ingedient inside any given vaccination is safe for the human structure, and I will then be more than happy to discuss this with you. Wonder why there are so many new cases of dementia, alzheimers and the like developing in our society. I’m not saying vaccinations are responsible, but you can’t prove they are not!

              I’ll assist my immune system with natural (best as can be) nutrional science thanks!

              • McFlock …
                23 February 2012 at 2:02 pm

                “You prove to me that every single ingedient inside any given vaccination is safe for the human structure, and I will then be more than happy to discuss this with you. ”
                  
                You prove that to me about the food you eat, the fluids you drink and the air you breathe. Then I might consider that you’re not obsessing disproportionately over one of the least significant threats we face.

                • muzza …
                  23 February 2012 at 2:26 pm

                  Some of us are capable of taking measure to ensure what we put into our bodies, is as best as possible, of nutritional value, there are limits of course, but there are also steps people can take which are beneficial to individual health. Need some diet advice?

                  No obsession here, just personal choice!

                  • McFlock …
                    23 February 2012 at 4:55 pm

                    Some of us are capable of taking measure to ensure what we put into our bodies, is as best as possible, of nutritional value, there are limits of course, but there are also steps people can take which are beneficial to individual health. Need some diet advice?

                    “Nutritional value” is all you demand of food, yet what you demand of vaccines id “You prove to me that every single ingedient inside any given vaccination is safe for the human structure”.
                      
                    Most foods you eat will contain some level of sodium.
                    They will have some amount of bacteria and virusses in or on them. Fats. Arsenic or other heavy metals. Some radioactivity. But this is fine for you? And apparently the trace-element risk from vaccination outweighs the real risks of e.g. polio, smallpox, malaria, influenza, or pertussis.
                     
                    But continue being smug.

              • Kotahi Tane Huna …
                23 February 2012 at 2:02 pm

                “I’ll assist my immune system with natural (best as can be) nutrional science thanks!”

                lol this would be your “natural immunity” would it? This is like talking to a climate denier – one vague false notion after another.

                How is it do you suppose vaccines work?

                You prove to me that your selfishness won’t lead to someone else’s children dying of a completely avoidable condition.

                • muzza …
                  23 February 2012 at 2:13 pm

                  You prove to me that forcing vaccinations wont kill, mame or create furture illness/disease, then we can talk like adults…Using slurs comparing this discussion to the climate change debate, simply makes you look silly, and is a transparent attempt to try cover the fact you have not answered the question I asked you!

                  You can’t prove the opposite of what you ask me to prove, and that is my point!

                  • Kotahi Tane Huna …
                    23 February 2012 at 2:25 pm

                    “Proof is not the province of science”, as my rhetorical challenge attempted to illustrate. Obviously I failed. So here it is in plain English.

                    Requiring me to prove a negative is an error in logic. Please lift your game.

                    Further, if you are going to cherry pick the medical evidence you like and don’t like, I am going to compare your argument to that of a climate denier. If you don’t like it stop cherry-picking.

                    • muzza …
                      23 February 2012 at 2:34 pm

                      You are using the term “cherry picking ” out of context here!

                      I have not read your link, Stop making assumptions!

                    • Kotahi Tane Huna …
                      23 February 2012 at 4:15 pm

                      No, I’m not.

                      You said: “We are talking about diseases caused by conditions of poverty ”

                      And I asked you how you know this. The answer is of course that you know this because it is an accepted part of medical science. Just like the efficacy and value of vaccination.

                      Cherry picker.

                    • muzza …
                      23 February 2012 at 4:37 pm

                      “No, I’m not.

                      You said: “We are talking about diseases caused by conditions of poverty ” LOL you are being a bit naughty here…maybe read the whole sentence so you can get some context, allow me….

                      Muzza said – “We need solutions to causes, not more forced medicine. We are talking about diseases caused by conditions of poverty – Solutions to those do not lie at that tip if a needle!” – I am talking about treating the causes, not symptoms Kotahi!

                      And I asked you how you know this. The answer is of course that you know this because it is an accepted part of medical science. Just like the efficacy and value of vaccination.

                      Cherry picker.”

                      ______________________________________________________________________

                      Again, you are assuming I have read your links – I have not, and as such your telling me I know the answer ” because it is an accepted part of medical science” is out of order, as well as taken out of context due to the error you made I pointed out above!

                      My comment was based on the need to address root causes of poverty, not treating them with a band-aid. There are issues much deeper to fixing poverty than vaccinations, which are treating a symptom only, that was my point…

                      You have read into something that I did not say – Stop putting words in my mouth, making assumptions about , not only what you think I have said, but what the sources of your links (which I have not read) , tell you…

                      With respect Kotahi, you need to not force your pejudice onto others, nor try to tell someone what you think they mean! I have explained to you what I meant, and you just have to accept that you have made some poor assumptions, and leave it at that!

                      All the best…

                    • Kotahi Tane Huna …
                      23 February 2012 at 4:45 pm

                      I’m not trying to “force my prejudice onto you” Muzza. I am merely pointing out that you cannot pick and choose which doctors to believe. Don’t shoot the messenger.

                      Tetanus is not a disease of poverty. Neither are measles or mumps or chicken-pox. Once again, just the simple truth – no prejudice.

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      23 February 2012 at 4:56 pm

                      No no no no no

                      Measles is not a disease of poverty, but dying from measles is. Get the difference?

                    • muzza …
                      23 February 2012 at 5:00 pm

                      Kotahi – I will illustrate to you again where you have gone off on a tangent

                      “I’m not trying to “force my prejudice onto you” Muzza. I am merely pointing out that you cannot pick and choose which doctors to believe. Don’t shoot the messenger.

                      Muzza – Who did I pick and choose between? If you refer to my reference to the ex Head of Vaccines at Merck, I was only asking HS if this is the sort or person he meant as “loonatic fringe” I did not state I took anything said by ex Merck, as gospel did I! If you refer to something else, please feel free to explain it to me!

                      Tetanus is not a disease of poverty. Neither are measles or mumps or chicken-pox. Once again, just the simple truth – no prejudice.”

                      Muzza – Now you really are off track, I specifically made my responses to “diseases caused by conditions of poverty”, but you must know this because you cut and pasted those exact words of one of my responses, and now you are telling me about diseases such as Tetanus, measles, mumps and c-pox, while telling me they are not poverty related…

                      You really have got it mixed up Kotahi – I feel obliged to explain myself, when people take my words badly out of context, or put them into non related topics!

                      I cant help but wonder , if you have got this simple exchange mixed up, how are you to deal with the scientific/medical related information, that is the vaccination industry!

                    • Kotahi Tane Huna …
                      23 February 2012 at 5:18 pm

                      So, you’re prepared to listen to the doctors who tell you about “diseases of poverty”, but you think you can make your own mind up about vaccination.

                      And yes, please don’t explain any more – they call it losing for a reason.

                    • muzza …
                      23 February 2012 at 6:08 pm

                      Kotahi Tane Huna …
                      23 February 2012 at 5:18 pm
                      So, you’re prepared to listen to the doctors who tell you about “diseases of poverty”, but you think you can make your own mind up about vaccination.

                      And yes, please don’t explain any more – they call it losing for a reason.

                      ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

                      Kotahi, what everyone should search for is the best coverage of the information they can possibly get about the topic they require information, but nowadays people just want to be told what they should do, and accept it without asking any questions. While that might be acceptable to you, and that is your choice, it is not acceptable to me, and that is my choice!.

                      I would listen to doctors, and then I would want to know what their credentials/expertise are in the vaccination space, why would I accept anything less than full disclosure? I would then go and get as many opinions from as many different sources as possible, until I was satisfied, and I would then make my own decision. That is called due dilligence, and free personal choice!

                      It is unfortunate that you see this as a competition with me, because I dont see it that way. The pharma companies who supply the band-aids see it as competition though, because they want you to fatten up their bank account, more than their competitions?

                    • Kotahi Tane Huna …
                      23 February 2012 at 7:07 pm

                      Your “many different sources:” apparently include the non-expert and the non-medical.

                      And I don’t regard this as a competition between you and I, I regard it as a competition between you and medical science.

                      Further, since I regard your opinions as dangerous misinformation that will lead to dead children, I can’t see how your “personal choice” comes into it.

                    • muzza …
                      23 February 2012 at 7:56 pm

                      Your “many different sources:” apparently include the non-expert and the non-medical.

                      And I don’t regard this as a competition between you and I, I regard it as a competition between you and medical science.

                      Further, since I regard your opinions as dangerous misinformation that will lead to dead children, I can’t see how your “personal choice” comes into it.

                      ____________________________________________________________________________

                      Kotahi. why do you assume that western medicine has all the answers? No singular system has all the answers, thats why to have good health requires a holistic approach. Many more types of people have input into well being than simply the medical fraternity.

                      How can my desire to help by wanting to get the root causes of poverty, to help children and indeed adults, kill anyone?

                      Sadly those who have only a 1 or 2 dimensional view of the world, will cause much more death and suffereing than they can ever understand.

                      Please try harder to interperet what I have said, not just in this posting, but the others too. Perhaps if you stop and read them, then hear the words, and if you can feel them, then even better..

                      A love of all people does not blindly follow anything, but those incapable of seeing a bigger picture, will believe everything they are told…

                      Kia Kaha

                    • Kotahi Tane Huna …
                      23 February 2012 at 8:38 pm

                      Muzza, how on Earth does my referencing the state of medical science as it pertains to vaccines equate to “Western medicine has all the answers.” Strawman much?

                      Move the goal-posts as much as you like. It is not your “desire to help by wanting to get the root causes of poverty” that will kill children, it is the disinformation about vaccines and immunology you are repeating, and by the way: it has does and will kill them, not in some hypothetical scenario, but now, today, as evidenced by cases detailed in the “where’s the harm in vaccine denial” page I linked above.

                      Your heartfelt exhortation for me to keep an open mind reminds me of the immortal words of Carl Sagan: “It pays to keep an open mind, but not so open your brains fall out.”

                      Cheers.

                    • travellerev …
                      24 February 2012 at 7:32 am

                      I am merely pointing out that you cannot pick and choose which doctors to believe. Don’t shoot the messenger.

                      Well, actually you can and you should. There is too much conflicting information out there and the freedom to inform yourself and make educated choices is the only thing you have and can do.

                      And yes, I have had some vaccines but also had the measles and survived.

                    • Kotahi Tane Huna …
                      24 February 2012 at 11:54 am

                      Well, actually you can and you should. There is too much conflicting information out there and the freedom to inform yourself and make educated choices is the only thing you have and can do.

                      And yes, I have had some vaccines but also had the measles and survived.
                      ————————————————————————-
                      travellerev fair enough. What I should have said was “you cannot pick and choose which branches of science to believe”. So far as I am aware the best information about vaccines – including associated risks – comes from the medical profession.

                      The death rate from measles is 0.3% in developed countries, but increases up to 30% in immune-compromised and under-nourished or poor healthcare areas.

                      This from the Ministry of Health:
                      “There was a major measles epidemic in New Zealand in 1997, when 2000 people were infected – mostly babies and children. Over 300 of them needed hospital care.
                      In a 1991 epidemic, there were 600 hospitalisations and seven deaths.”

              • McFlock …
                23 February 2012 at 2:02 pm

                secon thoughts, don’t bother. This thread is about neolibs, not any other flavour of nutbar.

              • Lanthanide …
                23 February 2012 at 2:48 pm

                “Wonder why there are so many new cases of dementia, alzheimers and the like developing in our society. I’m not saying vaccinations are responsible, but you can’t prove they are not!”

                Actually you’re correct, vaccinations have caused so many new cases of dementia, alzheimers and the like developing in our society. Because more and more people are living long enough lives, with a large amount of thanks to vaccines, that they can now develop these ailments.

                But hey, don’t actually apply any analytical thought to the rubbish you’re spouting.

                • muzza …
                  23 February 2012 at 3:08 pm

                  Lanth, my point has not been to try and state that vaccinations have been of no benefit, (which your poor attempt at a smear seeks to say on my behalf), that was never the origin of my initial response. My response was to HS who made a reference to forced vaccinations, to which I personally would not be in favour of.

                  My posts following on from that, were only an attempt to illustrate the other side of a discussion which some posters indicated we should all blindly follow science/medicine, even if it was forced vaccination. Put what you want into your body, and I will do the same, or not put it in, as the case may be!

                  Clear enough!

                • Colonial Viper …
                  23 February 2012 at 4:38 pm

                  Vaccinations are a relatively small factor in determining whether or not population health improves. Income levels, quality of housing, mental health measures and quality of education all have far bigger impacts.

                  A simple example: the tens (hundreds?) of millions spent on the MeNZ B vaccine. What difference has it made on the life expectancy of NZers? Has it even increased that life expectancy by one month?

                  • higherstandard …
                    23 February 2012 at 4:56 pm

                    Vaccinations are critical to minimising harm to individuals and populations from a number of communicable and non-communicable bacterial and viral illnesses.

                    If one compares causes of morbidity and mortality in this day and age to a hundred years ago or even fifty years ago no-one could argue that vaccination has had anything less than a very significant impact on population health.

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      23 February 2012 at 5:43 pm

                      Oh there have been very significant impacts indeed – and the majority of the effect comes from just 3 or 4 different vaccines. Including small pox and polio. Most of the rest, especially the modern ones e.g. HPV, MeNZ B, etc? Not so much.

                      Don’t let the positve aura of the old small pox and polio vaccines stop you from assessing other newer vaccinations critically and individually.

                    • higherstandard …
                      23 February 2012 at 7:13 pm

                      Don’t be drip CV.

                      Accept that there are some things on which I am somewhat better informed than you despite my identification by posters here as some type of RWNJ.

                  • McFlock …
                    23 February 2012 at 5:04 pm

                    Great.
                     
                    Now add to it MMR, polio, Tb, influenza, pertussis, malaria, tetanus, HPV, etc etc etc

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      23 February 2012 at 5:39 pm

                      So you’re saying that any new vaccination no matter how small its own incremental benefit should now be funded because you can justify it simply by adding it to the pile to get a combined treatment positive effect?

                      Hey that’s one way to do it. Did you see the news article above which suggested that the winter flu jab has very limited benefit for the elderly, at least in some years it is given?

                    • McFlock …
                      23 February 2012 at 5:48 pm

                      Nope. Merely pointing out that while your statement:
                        
                      “Vaccinations are a relatively small factor in determining whether or not population health improves.”
                       
                      might or might not apply to any particular vaccine that had a smaller than expected benefit, all in all vaccines have almost certainly extended life expectancy in New Zealand and across the planet quite significantly. Which I will take over the paranoia of interwebz doofusses who like to imply that HIV is spread by the MMR vaccine. 
                          

                           

                    • McFlock …
                      23 February 2012 at 5:54 pm

                      Oh, and I saw that article on the flu jab. Standard retarded medecine reporting in the media. Flu jabs change every season based on the expected flu strains – which can be hard to predict (I believe NZ got the mix wrong a year or two back – had higher loading on the system as a result). Couple that with a narrow target group and frequent misdiagnoses, you’d expect less than explicit results. On the flipside (if we’re picking individual vaccines), how’s your measles doing? What, not got any?

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      23 February 2012 at 10:52 pm

                      Meh, feed your children all the vaccinations you want, I’m sure they’ll be better off for it.

                      Standard retarded medecine reporting in the media. Flu jabs change every season based on the expected flu strains – which can be hard to predict

                      another way of saying that in some years, the flu jab will have no chance of making a beneficial difference.

                      What gets me is that even when its later in Winter and clear that the prevalent strains that year have been quite different to what is in the jab people will still be encouraged to get it even though there is no potential benefit to them, only costs..

                      how’s your measles doing? What, not got any?

                      Never got the jab, never had the measles (as far as I know that is…but I might have had a silent infection as a child and would therefore be immune…probably more immune than people who took the vaccination and never got properly infected, ironically)

                    • McFlock …
                      23 February 2012 at 11:04 pm

                      another way of saying that in some years, the flu jab will have no chance of making a beneficial difference.

                         
                      No, not “no chance”. If the strain cocktail in the vaccine covers 40% of the prevalent flu types that season, rather than 80%, the system can expect triple the number of cases (assuming marginal efficacy issues for illustrative purposes). But you still have a reasonable chunk of protection.

                       What gets me is that even when its later in Winter and clear that the prevalent strains that year have been quite different to what is in the jab people will still be encouraged to get it even though there is no potential benefit to them, only costs..

                       
                      Less benefit, not no benefit. And the flu jabs are free for more vulnerable individuals, so minimal cost.

                      And don’t discount the possibility that you never got measles because you were protected (if in NZ) by te herd immunity caused by all your classmates being vaccinated. You can’t catch it if you’re not exposed to it.

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      23 February 2012 at 11:11 pm

                      Just one more thought, free to the patient =! free.

                • muzza …
                  23 February 2012 at 10:18 pm

                  Sorry, I don’t respect people that claim they aren’t hurting anyone by refusing vaccinations for their children, when they demonstrably are reducing herd immunity and therefore hurting society on average.

                  Yes, it is difficult to say “your child caused this other child to be infected because your child wasn’t immunized”, but we CAN say that statistically is what happens.

                  Just as we expect you to follow the road rules, for the good of everyone, we expect you to get your children immunised, for the good of everyone.

                  ___________________________________________________________________

                  Lanth read my posts, I do not have kids, I have been talking personal choice to which you come up with the below as reasoned comments to force immunize children….

                  Herd immunity – Excuse me, you expect people to be forcefully immunized based on this statement, and point of view, oh dear Lanth, I you seemed smarter than that, guess not!

                  Just as “we” expect you to follow road rules to rules “for the good of everyone toy get your children immunized for the good of everyone” WTF have you been drinking Lanth or perhaps you have been reading Kotahis web site links…

                  • Kotahi Tane Huna …
                    23 February 2012 at 10:41 pm

                    🙂 Please don’t cite me as any sort of authority, Muzza.

                    And please don’t pretend that Lanth’s opinion should be any sort of arbiter in this.

                    It’s just, y’know, smallpox, ooops I said it again. Oh, and scientific fraud.

                    • Kotahi Tane Huna …
                      23 February 2012 at 10:49 pm

                      “The Office of Research Integrity in the United States defines fraud as fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism. Deer unearthed clear evidence of falsification. He found that not one of the 12 cases reported in the 1998 Lancet paper was free of misrepresentation or undisclosed alteration, and that in no single case could the medical records be fully reconciled with the descriptions, diagnoses, or histories published in the journal.”

                      Oh dear.

                    • muzza …
                      23 February 2012 at 10:57 pm

                      Kotahi – Please stop assucing me of things I have not deabated. I have not mentioend one vaccine by name at this stage, yet yourself and McFlock are using polio and smallbox as if I have aid they had no benefit, this is simply making up shit that I never mentioned, and thats not really thinking logically is it!

                      I have not heard of the person you mention, nor the office of research integrity, work, so your oh dear comment is for what ?

                      Should I just believe you, or your source without reading for myself? NO chance of that given the link of yours I have read, which was a bad joke right, to which you make up some spurious excuse for…

                      Give me the links which you have confidence in, and I will take a look for myself ok?

                    • Kotahi Tane Huna …
                      23 February 2012 at 11:18 pm

                      The scientific fraud one is from the British Medical Journal. You have not heard of Andrew Wakefield, but click on that link and you will have.

                      Again, the debate at JREF is worth wading through – and JREF has credibility on many fronts not least because of Randi’s personal skills as a stage magician – and the fact of the $1m challenge. But that isn’t the only way to look at it. Use the “Baloney Detection Kit” (Google it) if you want to work it out on your own.

                      Nature’s meta-analysis of the extant literature. Again, linked above as the “efficacy and value” of vaccination.

              • prism …
                23 February 2012 at 9:38 pm

                muzza If you want to be safe from disease you will have to be like the bubble boy and wear a protective shield around you. Those pesky diseases get around invisibly and many are shape shifters so they can change and get past the body’s defences.

            • Shona 3.3.1.1.2.2
              23 February 2012 at 5:01 pm

              For once i agree with you HS, you forgot one major child killer; diptheria, and a classic destroyer of strong children whooping cough. Sets a child up for respiratory illnesses for their entire lives, which means with a permanently compromised immune syatem you are a sitting duck for other serious diseases.
              These are the horror stories of growing up in Depression era NZ I grew up with.
              Check out NZ social history some more muzza before you go off half-cock.

            • Vicky32 3.3.1.1.2.3
              23 February 2012 at 6:05 pm

              You are probably too young to remember TB and Polio wards in our hospitals not to mention such horrors as smallpox.

              I remember my mother crying with joy in about 1960 that my sisters and I could be vaccinated against polio. (I was envious, I had the injection, they got the ‘polio sip’. I agree with my mum, we’re all of us better of for it.

          • McFlock 3.3.1.1.3
            23 February 2012 at 1:59 pm

            Doctors just love demanding the expenditure of millions of dollars without any CBR analysis.
               
            On no, wait, here’s one. Here’s a report in today’s ODT on the issue. HPV q&a – check out the bottom question. A Lancet article on flu vaccine cost-effectiveness.
              
            Wow. It looks like doctors and health funding authorities actually do like to make sure vaccines are cost effective. And as for the youtube link, methinks some nutbars are overanalyzing off the cuff comments.

    • tc 3.4
      23 February 2012 at 4:13 pm

      kids can’t attend schools in certain states in Oz without proof of the basic immunisations being MMR and polio, they’re making a comeback because ‘poeple know better’….yeah right.

      • muzza 3.4.1
        23 February 2012 at 6:31 pm

        Gee, they must have confidence that the vaccines work well eh!

        Home schooling will become much more popular as the schools systems
        become an even bigger joke..

        Ive got ex teachers, and academic friends who homeschool, as they know the system
        will not prepare their children for the world..

        Seems your education removed ability to think!

        • McFlock 3.4.1.1
          23 February 2012 at 6:43 pm

          “Gee, they must have confidence that the vaccines work well eh!”
              
          Yep. They don’t want the liability of one unvaccinated kid giving something to another unvaccinated kid, and the moron parents then decide to blame the school. And vaccines also have a (v) small failure rate, so they’d still have to shut down the school and do the full quarantine thing.
               
          But you’re afraid your kid will catch HIV and autism from the vaccine, so that makes everything alright.

          • muzza 3.4.1.1.1
            23 February 2012 at 8:54 pm

            What I find most disturbing is the desire to want to force peoples kids to have vaccinations, by those who
            believe in them. You do what you like to yourself or your own kids, but you have NO right to tell anyone, that
            they are not able to decide for themselves.

            I don’t have kids, but can see this particular issue when they eventually try to to make vaccination mandatory will be explosive..

            Imagine having the indecency to force another human being to to have to take intravenous drugs, against their will, if that is what it came down to!
            The sheer utter disregard for anothers body is , not really that surprising in reality, but makes me shake my head.

            • Kotahi Tane Huna 3.4.1.1.1.1
              23 February 2012 at 8:58 pm

              “Utter disregard for another”. Do you at least understand that we on the other side of the argument make exactly the same accusation? Oh, and we cite evidence, not advocacy and anecdotes?

              • muzza …
                23 February 2012 at 9:16 pm

                ” We cite evidence” – What makes you so arrogant to believe the “evidence” you have read is 100% truth Kotahi?

                I have not cited anything, because I am not arrogant enough to force it down anyone else throat!

                Your posts have become redilculous now, you advocate the removal of freedom of choice, and I have done no such thing. There is Mcflock comparing me some who “beats the demons out of their kids”, and believieng that he is making the “informed” decisions
                Someone claiming they would be happy to hold a gun to my face while the nurse administers the drugs…
                You are a terrible enditement of the sick society we have, and people with views such as yourselves, are a major reason why the world is in the state it is!

                Something is very wrong with you people…

                • Kotahi Tane Huna …
                  23 February 2012 at 9:28 pm

                  Muzza, please calm down. I am not the one making sweeping generalisations about “you people”.

                  I asked you whether you understand our point of view – I certainly understand yours, since I have been familiar with it for years. I understand it because I feel it personally – I am very cautious about these issues. That is how I can tell you that the evidence rests on this side of the fence – because I have gone looking for it from an entirely neutral perspective, and the evidence changed my neutrality into what you see before you.

                  When I first became aware of the “controversy” it was in the days when Andrew Wakefield still had a license to practice medicine. I was aware of his findings when I jumped off the fence, and perhaps you can imagine my relief when his fraud was exposed.

                  The funny thing (well it’s not that funny really) is that if immunisation rates get high enough without reaching 100%, there is a threshold approaching 100% where the risk of vaccination is greater than the risk of infection – since infections are so rare. Yes there is risk involved, but I don’t think you understand the risks at a visceral level the way HS does.

                • McFlock …
                  23 February 2012 at 9:32 pm

                  yeah. We have issues with children dying needlessly simply because some nutbar believes that people who spent their lives working on disease prevention were curing polio as a front for spreading Aids.
                   

                  • muzza …
                    23 February 2012 at 9:48 pm

                    McFlock, please for the last time I have not quoted against polio vaccinations, nor stated that I thought it was a front for spreading aids, that is you making shit up!

                    Make your own decisions, and I will make mine, that is all I have ever alluded to. I will never push my opinions onto anyone else (read the posts if you think I have), and I NEVER allow anyone to push theirs on me, but you are welcome to your POV and opinions, I respect that!

                    Read my posts, I have only questioned the logic which people use to justify forcing vaccinations on people who choose not to have them…

                    Maybe north korea is the place for you!

                    • Kotahi Tane Huna …
                      23 February 2012 at 9:54 pm

                      Muzza, the medical profession is not pushing an “opinion”. They are responding to robust findings derived from evidence. Furthermore, they have an impressive track record.

                      Smallpox. Enough said.

                    • muzza …
                      23 February 2012 at 10:03 pm

                      Kotahi, is the web site you linked to where you get your “medical opinions”

                      The web link takes anything that resembled credibility away fron any post you make on any subject here. Very hard to take anyone capable of that link seriously!

                    • Lanthanide …
                      23 February 2012 at 10:06 pm

                      Sorry, I don’t respect people that claim they aren’t hurting anyone by refusing vaccinations for their children, when they demonstrably are reducing herd immunity and therefore hurting society on average.

                      Yes, it is difficult to say “your child caused this other child to be infected because your child wasn’t immunized”, but we CAN say that statistically is what happens.

                      Just as we expect you to follow the road rules, for the good of everyone, we expect you to get your children immunised, for the good of everyone.

                    • Kotahi Tane Huna …
                      23 February 2012 at 10:23 pm

                      Muzza. No it isn’t – and if you are referring to the “what’s the harm” link I agree to an extent – I linked it as an illustration and I could and should have done better.

                      Another link I provided was to a meta-analysis of the extant literature from the academic journal, Nature.

                      But the best of all is probably to the debate at JREF, which covers much of this ground.

                      JREF also has very many other resources on the subject, and as everyone knows. James Randi has a magical beard that can cut to the truth in an instant. I made that last part up. James Randi’s beard has no magical properties. You heard it here first. 😉

            • McFlock 3.4.1.1.1.2
              23 February 2012 at 9:06 pm

              Imagine having the indecency to force another human being to to have to take intravenous drugs, against their will, if that is what it came down to!


              Oh, if you were making an informed decision, that would be fine. But your position is closer to a parent who beats their child near to death in order to force the demons out, then complains that their religious freedom is being denied when they’re arrested for it.
               

  4. mike 4
    23 February 2012 at 11:22 am

    Utterly concur regarding the damage Reagan/Thatcher/Rogernomics has done to our country in the past thirty years, and that our aim should be to slay this dragon. But why do we insist on calling the scourge ‘neo-liberalism’ in this country? In the States, where it all began, and in most other places I see, it’s described as neo-con – or neo-conservatism. To label it with any hint that it is liberal when our first progressive government from 1893-1912 was the Liberal Government, and many of us on the labour side describe our politics as liberal, seems to me to somehow mix us up in the ideological sludge that is neo-conservatism. I understand that the misnomer may have arisen from ‘libertarianism’ – that crack-pot ideology of anarchy for some and prison for the rest of us that is anything but liberal. But that lot have besmirched the grand old name for our kind of political belief, not claimed it. I also acknowledge the irony that it was a left/liberal government that unleashed this lunacy on us here in New Zealand, but surely that has not been the source of this mix-up. A read of Hollowmen will show that the politics of Friedman economics and the dictatorship of business has generally been referred to as Neo-Con. I can’t hope to change the use of neo-liberalism now I suppose, but it grates with me that we alone seem to have made this market bullshit somehow our fault. Liberal means liberal, not capture by neo-conservative bone-headed bullies.

    • Bill 4.1
      23 February 2012 at 12:40 pm

      My two cents worth?

      Conservative implies a desire to conserve. So a neo-conservative would (surely) advocate Keynsian policies/economics? Thatcher et al were very anti-conservative.

      As for liberal, well you could be liberal in relation to the market and illiberal in relation to social freedoms (or visa versa).

      So, neo-liberalism, although misleading, sort of fits with regards current economic doctine. (Better still would be ‘market libertarianism’)

      Meanwhile, libertarianism (that step beyond the safe middle ground of liberalism) now comes in two strands. Whereas it traditionally described a person of a far left persuasion – those who sought individual and collective freedoms within the contraint or context of genuinely democratic societies – it now also (and most commonly) denotes people of a far right persuasion…those who claim that they seek to liberate the market (and hence individuals) from social or state controls/regulations by having ‘the market’ replace society as an influence on, or guide to, the bahaviour of individuals.

      In the end, perhaps my only gripe is that ‘libertarianism’ as commonly used today, doesn’t indicate what is being referring to, ie ‘right wing’ or ‘market’ libertarianism, as opposed to the traditional ‘left’ libertarianism.

  5. Olwyn 5
    23 February 2012 at 11:52 am

    Here is a link in which a handful of people offer their take on the neo-liberal, neo-con difference. The first guy asked seems to have the clearest idea. The difference is probably more distinct in the US, where they have a noisier religious right.

    • mike 5.1
      23 February 2012 at 12:12 pm

      Thankyou. From this I take it the Conservative Party from last election is neo-con and the National Party is neo-liberal. The use of the word liberal still bugs me, especially in relation to the present bunch. I mean what’s liberal about worker demonisation, bene-bashing, or increasing diseases of poverty? There is nothing liberal in neo-liberalism.

  6. Olwyn 6
    23 February 2012 at 12:22 pm

    I agree, but right wing propagandists have proved very deft at reversing the thrust of abstract nouns. “Freedom” in their hands ceases to mean “freedom from exploitation” but something more like “free to do what I want, any old time,” even if that entails ruin for others.

  7. johnm 7
    23 February 2012 at 12:38 pm

    Doesn’t hurt to remind ourselves of the garbage idiot ideology Shonkey and Dunny paper adhere to with the baubles and bangles party led by Pita and Turia.:

    A memorable definition of this process came from Subcomandante Marcos at the Zapatista-sponsored Encuentro Intercontinental por la Humanidad y contra el Neo-liberalismo (Inter-continental Encounter for Humanity and Against Neo-liberalism) of August 1996 in Chiapas when he said: “what the Right offers is to turn the world into one big mall.

    The main points of neo-liberalism include:

    THE RULE OF THE MARKET. Liberating “free” enterprise or private enterprise from any bonds imposed by the government (the state) no matter how much social damage this causes. Greater openness to international trade and investment, as in NAFTA. Reduce wages by de-unionizing workers and eliminating workers’ rights that had been won over many years of struggle. No more price controls. All in all, total freedom of movement for capital, goods and services. To convince us this is good for us, they say “an unregulated market is the best way to increase economic growth, which will ultimately benefit everyone.” It’s like Reagan’s “supply-side” and “trickle-down” economics — but somehow the wealth didn’t trickle down very much.

    CUTTING PUBLIC EXPENDITURE FOR SOCIAL SERVICES like education and health care. REDUCING THE SAFETY-NET FOR THE POOR, and even maintenance of roads, bridges, water supply — again in the name of reducing government’s role. Of course, they don’t oppose government subsidies and tax benefits for business.

    DEREGULATION. Reduce government regulation of everything that could diminsh profits, including protecting the environmentand safety on the job.

    PRIVATIZATION. Sell state-owned enterprises, goods and services to private investors. This includes banks, key industries, railroads, toll highways, electricity, schools, hospitals and even fresh water. Although usually done in the name of greater efficiency, which is often needed, privatization has mainly had the effect of concentrating wealth even more in a few hands and making the public pay even more for its needs.

    ELIMINATING THE CONCEPT OF “THE PUBLIC GOOD” or “COMMUNITY” and replacing it with “individual responsibility.” Pressuring the poorest people in a society to find solutions to their lack of health care, education and social security all by themselves — then blaming them, if they fail, as “lazy.”

    Around the world, neo-liberalism has been imposed by powerful financial institutions like the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the World Bank and the Inter-American Development Bank. It is raging all over Latin America. The first clear example of neo-liberalism at work came in Chile (with thanks to University of Chicago economist Milton Friedman), after the CIA-supported coup against the popularly elected Allende regime in 1973. Other countries followed, with some of the worst effects in Mexico where wages declined 40 to 50% in the first year of NAFTA while the cost of living rose by 80%. Over 20,000 small and medium businesses have failed and more than 1,000 state-owned enterprises have been privatized in Mexico. As one scholar said, “Neoliberalism means the neo-colonization of Latin America.”

    In the United States neo-liberalism is destroying welfare programs; attacking the rights of labor (including all immigrant workers); and cutbacking social programs. The Republican “Contract” on America is pure neo-liberalism. Its supporters are working hard to deny protection to children, youth, women, the planet itself — and trying to trick us into acceptance by saying this will “get government off my back.” The beneficiaries of neo-liberalism are a minority of the world’s people. For the vast majority it brings even more suffering than before: suffering without the small, hard-won gains of the last 60 years, suffering without end.

    In a Phrase THE COMMON GOOD DOESN’T EXIST; THEREFORE PROFIT BEFORE PEOPLE. Profit is the extraction of a surplus of wealth which then is not redistributed by progressive taxaion or fair wages or any social provision.basically a charter for the legalised exploitation of the environment and weaker members of society hence in reality is ANTISOCIAL. Just look at the social economic catastrophe of the U$$$$$$$ to view neoliberaism in all its disgusting forms. just one example: the market has freed up 47,000,000 Americans to exist on food handouts once they’ve waded thru all the bureaucratic BS paperwork!

    • Uturn 7.1
      23 February 2012 at 1:11 pm

      Very good.

    • johnm 7.2
      23 February 2012 at 1:14 pm

      As Thatcher said in her grocer’s daughter voice: “There’s no such thing as Society!” Or our Act Party would say: “We are merely Consumers and Taxpayers, nothing else”. Neoliberalism is the philosophy of Cain: “I am not my brother’s keeper!” Those who fall by the wayside ; it’s their own fault!
      With those attitudes its not surprising we have 250,000 kids living in poverty and third world diseases. And slum landlords cashing in on capital gain based on easy money from the banks who cash in too with the interest on top and repatriate profit back to Australia. Our own political class cashes in as well.
      Chasing profit and gain is exciting looking out for my brother and by extension my society to keep it healthy and happy is HARD WORK something neoliberal politicians operating on ideology autopilot and doing photostops know nothing about having signed off their responsibilities to the profit is everything business corporate sector.Also the power of wealth and money is directly against democracy and the people’s voice result corporate fascism.

  8. McFlock 8
    23 February 2012 at 2:26 pm

    The best way to defeat the neoliberal plague is to vaccinate the population with a decent education system that includes critical thinking and civics classes.

  9. MikeG 9
    23 February 2012 at 3:35 pm

    Related to neo-liberalism is the unsustainable over-compensation of the C-suite and the financial sector. Have a read at:

    Forbes.com Overcompensation

    This is looking at the US situation, but it has parallels in NZ. The link is in no way a leftie site, and the article uses the Harvard Business Review as a source.

  10. Reagan Cline 10
    23 February 2012 at 5:53 pm

    Why have those who have suffered for decades from neoliberalism in New Zealand not supported and voted for politicians to represent them in Parliament ? Why did they not vote in the last election ?

    • Uturn 10.1
      23 February 2012 at 6:20 pm

      Don’t worry about the poor and disaffected not voting, history shows us they’ll look after their own interests in any way they think necessary. It also shows us that once people stop voting, the cold war with the ruling elite begins.

      • Reagan Cline 10.1.1
        23 February 2012 at 8:05 pm

        Uturn, most people did vote. Reforming governments have been elected in New Zealand before, why not at the last election ?
        The “cold war with the ruling elite” has gone on for years. I remember waging it at school. It is a sideshow.

  11. phillip ure.. 11
    23 February 2012 at 5:59 pm

    the business rondtable have just published a paper claiming ‘there is no poverty in new zealand’..

    ..their thesis..(if you can dignify it with that title..).has two legs..

    ..one being that an oecd definition of poverty is living on less than two dollars a day..

    ..which we don’t have..therefor no poverty in new zealand..

    ..their other argument is that many poor people are obese/overweight..

    ..once again..ipso facto…if they are fat..they can’t be poor..

    this is the rejoinder/rebuttal i posted at the foot of their article..

    (..currently it is unpublished there…it sits in ‘moderation’..)

    1)..unhealthy food is much cheaper than healthy food..

    2)..poor areas are a form of food-deserts…where the only/main choice is unhealthy food..

    (if you doubt me take a walk thru the otara supermarket..see the food choices available for a largely pedestrian/poor customer-base…i was mildly horrified..

    ..this pattern is duplicated in other parts of the country…residents of kaikohe/kaitaia make periodic treks to the supermarket in upmarket kerikeri..for choice/healthy-food options…

    ..the saturation in poor areas of fast-food and alcohol-outlets..

    ..these all compound this ‘obesity-denies-poverty’ canard’ you are attempting to construct….

    ..but that the main factor in obesity is that salt/fat/sugar-laden rubbish is allowed to be falsely sold as food..

    (the entire food industry is a wild west….where the health of the consumers of these obesity-drivers is the very last consideration…and the obesity issue won’t be fixed up until that industry is brought to heel/regulated into producing healthy-food..)…

    ..your $2 a day strawman argument is equally canard-drenched..

    ..but to the level of farce..

    ..any definition of poverty must include/factor in the differing living costs in different countries..

    (..to claim otherwise is what tips that reason/claim into farce..and totally devoid of any intellectual rigor..)

    ..when you have a low-wage economy so low that politicians admit that they could not live on the minimum wage..

    ..those forced to live on that wage must be in a form of poverty..

    ..how can they not..?

    ..and that brings us to the really poor..

    ..the sole-parents/unemployed/unwell..

    (..all groups who have had their levels of support hacked back/away by both national and labour…driving them into..you guessed it..’poverty’..)

    ..forced into an existance where many of them are forced to go and beg for food-parcels just to feed their families…

    ..that you deny all this..is intellectually bereft..and frankly..morally repugnant..

    ..and you pontificate from a position of an elite that pays the lowest taxes in the oecd..

    ..that pays zero tax on their profits/capital-gains..

    ..(that figure again..?..’zero’..and this in a world where most countries have a c.g.t..and where in america the debate is around moving theirs from 15%..to the mid-thirties..)

    ..a greedy/parasitic-elite whose most recent action of note was their indecent piling into the sth canterbury finance govt-guarantee..

    ..and in that example of uncaring/parasitic-greed….sucking out of our economy more monies than have been paid out in all waitangi treaty settlements to date..

    ..but.hey..!..i guess you deserve points for nerve/trying..eh..?

    ..but that is all..

    ..this ‘there-is-no-poverty-in-new-zealand’ exposition you are trying on…

    ..must be a nadir for bouth your organisation…

    ..and a personal nadir for the/any ‘academics/researchers’ in your employ..

    ..who had any part in its’ creation..

    ..how can it not be..?

    phil-at-whoar.

    • Uturn 11.1
      23 February 2012 at 6:40 pm

      Blind rich white men naval gazing; using a slogan as a conclusion and then writing an article to support it.

      I agree with them on one point: educational standards should be lifted, to help the conceited ignorant rich gain some self awareness and empathy or at least basic intellectual skills. I pity the fools. Set them on a diet of nothing but fry-bread and see how thin they get.

      In an article on the NZBR.org.nz site, 4 June 2010, Robert Samuelson says poverty is also a mindset that leads to destructive behaviours, bad diets, out of wedlock children and addictions. That describes the average pot-bellied cigarette smoking half-drunk leacherous executive quite well. Poverty of the soul perhaps. Oh my gosh, could it all be a massive projection? The BRT is really a group of projectionists? Who would’ve thought.

      Still, at least they work hard, driving down other people’s wages. Is them asking how low they should go the final squeak of a conscience or a trumpet call to charge headlong into the mire of their own shadows?

      • phillip ure.. 11.1.1
        23 February 2012 at 7:24 pm

        a jenny gibbs has affirmed the roundtable stance thus:…

        “..I don’t know how poverty in NZ is now defined but at one stage CORSO defined it as 20% below the median income.

        This ensures that even if we became the richest nation on earth, there would always be people 20% below the median income–so the poor will always be with us !..”

        ..i have also responded to that…that has also gone into ‘moderation’…

        phil-at-whoar.

    • phillip ure.. 11.2
      24 February 2012 at 1:05 pm

      the above still hasn’t been published on the business roundtable website..

      ..i guess they don’t encourage any debate..

      ..(not to say they could have much to say about this most recent stinker..)

      phil-at-whoar.

  12. McFlock 12
    23 February 2012 at 10:06 pm

    Well, here you seemed to imply that schools felt “vaccines” didn’t work.
      
    Here you seemed to imply that “vaccines” cause alzheimers.
     
    Here you seemed to suggest that there was no evidence that “vaccines” had a net benefit to health.
      
    Here you said that vaccines weren’t a “solution, so much as a revenue stream”. That would seem toimply no health benefit, just marketing by drug companies.
      
    So now all the time you’ve been talking about “vaccines”, you meant “vaccines except the polio vaccine”? How about smallpox? Tetanus? MMR?
    Which vaccines do you believe cause dementia, and which are the good ones?
    Which diseases do you think it’s okay for parents to increase the risk of their (or other) kids getting it? Tuberculosis? Cervical cancer?
     

    Edit: Ah crap – meant to be a reply to
    Muzza. Must be the vaccine-related dementia coming in early…

    • muzza 12.1
      23 February 2012 at 10:41 pm

      McFlock, Gosman is right, you are a tool…

      Well, here you seemed to imply that schools felt “vaccines” didn’t work. – No just that if they did 100% then it would not be a problem, thats just logic – your response about the legal side actually has sense…but does not answer the question about the protection level of vaccines, that is , if they are so good, then surely its not a problem for people to CHOOSE not to have them!

      Here you seemed to imply that “vaccines” cause alzheimers. – Somethin is contributing to it , all I said was you cant prove it is or is not related to vaccines, again common sense! But you seem to be lacking that in your posts, and making shit up that I have not said, come on dude!

      Here you seemed to suggest that there was no evidence that “vaccines” had a net benefit to health. – McFlock where the hell did you read that from my words – I said there was no evidence or details about cost to society given in the post I replied to , as as such it was hard to have a serious debate. You really are taking the piss!

      Here you said that vaccines weren’t a “solution, so much as a revenue stream”. That would seem to imply no health benefit, just marketing by drug companies. – They are a revenue stream, and I said solution to the root cause, I have said root cause many times, of which vaccines are not the solution to the core problems of poverty, they might be a solution to a symtom in some cases, but I never debated that either way…stop making shit up again!

      So now all the time you’ve been talking about “vaccines”, you meant “vaccines except the polio vaccine”? How about smallpox? Tetanus? MMR? – No, you kept crapping on about polio, and I said I had not referenced it, which I had not. I was not running down all vaccinations McFlock, just the forced use of them. Again dont assume , like kotaki what you think I mean , it makes you look foolish!

      Which vaccines do you believe cause dementia, and which are the good ones? – There is alot of information/misinformation out there as you will appreciate, and in some of the newer vaccines, it will be decades before anyone have a clue the real impacts, but you are smart enough to know that, right?

      Which diseases do you think it’s okay for parents to increase the risk of their (or other) kids getting it? Tuberculosis? Cervical cancer? – None, which is why when there is evidence the vaccines in some cases are too new to know if they even work, that forcing them onto pople would seen unreasonable to me, and that is my position, or would you like to hold a gun to me, and inject too until I have you lack of emotional intelligence?

      Gosman got one right bro !

      • McFlock 12.1.1
        23 February 2012 at 11:36 pm

        Oh goody – it’s been ages since I’ve had a good fisking!

         
        No just that if they did 100% then it would not be a problem, thats just logic – your response about the legal side actually has sense…but does not answer the question about the protection level of vaccines, that is , if they are so good, then surely its not a problem for people to CHOOSE not to have them!

         
        Show me where anyone has claimed that vaccines are 100%.  They are, however, much better than not having vaccines.
         

        Here you seemed to imply that “vaccines” cause alzheimers. – Somethin is contributing to it , all I said was you cant prove it is or is not related to vaccines, again common sense! But you seem to be lacking that in your posts, and making shit up that I have not said, come on dude!

         
        Now that’s just bullshit. Either they are related or they’re not. If you aren’t claiming that they are related, why even bring it up? I’m not familiar with any peer-reviewed articles suggesting a link. So put up or shut up.
         

        Here you seemed to suggest that there was no evidence that “vaccines” had a net benefit to health. – McFlock where the hell did you read that from my words – I said there was no evidence or details about cost to society given in the post I replied to , as as such it was hard to have a serious debate. You really are taking the piss!

         
         
        You said “Re cost effectiveness – Do we have the figures of costs relating to disease, illness or death from vaccinations. Without stats from either side of the debtate I suggest that your statement is lacking in detail!”
        Actually – fair enough. I’ll read that as a request for evidence. You since seem to have missed my 30sec google search (that you should have done) here.
         

        Here you said that vaccines weren’t a “solution, so much as a revenue stream”. That would seem to imply no health benefit, just marketing by drug companies. – They are a revenue stream, and I said solution to the root cause, I have said root cause many times, of which vaccines are not the solution to the core problems of poverty, they might be a solution to a symtom in some cases, but I never debated that either way…stop making shit up again!

        Biol101 – vaccine-preventable diseases are  “caused” by things we like to call “germs”. Clue: treatment does not involve placing $100 notes in the patient’s wallet. Poverty can help spread infectious diseases by immunosuppression and overcrowding, but the cause is a bug, not a lack of coin.
         
         
         

        So now all the time you’ve been talking about “vaccines”, you meant “vaccines except the polio vaccine”? How about smallpox? Tetanus? MMR? – No, you kept crapping on about polio, and I said I had not referenced it, which I had not. I was not running down all vaccinations McFlock, just the forced use of them. Again dont assume , like kotaki what you think I mean , it makes you look foolish!

         
        You talk about “vaccines”, I think of a vaccine, you’re not talking about that vaccine. Because if the disease is bad enough, they will be force administered (not rifles, but quarintine for the duration, so imprisonment). Immediate mass vaccination and quarintine are the main defenses we have against serious outbreaks – look at that flight a few days ago that landed to biohazard crews? If it had been something serious, you think those passengers would have been given the option of just turning down all treatment and continuing the holiday? Bullshit. Bloods would be taken and drugs given at worst, at best they would have been restricted to a hospital wing. Because shit can get that bad.
         
         

        Which vaccines do you believe cause dementia, and which are the good ones? – There is alot of information/misinformation out there as you will appreciate, and in some of the newer vaccines, it will be decades before anyone have a clue the real impacts, but you are smart enough to know that, right?

         
        Like I said – if someone pulls a twelve monkeys, everyone will get the jab.
         
         

        Which diseases do you think it’s okay for parents to increase the risk of their (or other) kids getting it? Tuberculosis? Cervical cancer? – None, which is why when there is evidence the vaccines in some cases are too new to know if they even work, that forcing them onto pople would seen unreasonable to me, and that is my position, or would you like to hold a gun to me, and inject too until I have you lack of emotional intelligence?

         
        Oh, okay – which vaccines are you talking about that nobody knows will work?
         
         

        Gosman got one right bro !

        Gos called me a tool? I missed that – pity, pprobably one of the few things he’s an actual authority on. Where?
         

        • Kotahi Tane Huna 12.1.1.1
          23 February 2012 at 11:54 pm

          Gosman is Professor Emeritus at Tool U. Damn straight he’s an authority.

          • muzza 12.1.1.1.1
            24 February 2012 at 7:49 am

            Kotahi, I have just looked at the JREF site – You have been provided a link to a magician and hoax exposer.

            http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/component/content/article/58.html

            That is where you get your information from?

            Speaks volumes eally, thats two links of some of the most UTTER crap I have ever seen on the web, and there is plenty of it…

            Dont ever pass your nonsense onto anyone – I would be ashamed to give links such as you have!

            • Kotahi Tane Huna 12.1.1.1.1.1
              24 February 2012 at 8:12 am

              lol shoot the messenger. That’ll work. Do you honestly believe that Mr. Randi’s skepticism is somehow undermined by his background. Puleeeze!

              A “hoax exposer” yes, funny that. Oh, and my link was to the discussion forum, and the arguments raised within it. You have failed miserably to counter them, but instead have gone off on an ad hominem tangent.

              Your logic fail renders you incapable of offering me advice about a damn thing. I suggest you pull your head in.

              • muzza …
                24 February 2012 at 9:00 am

                Kotahi – the site is a nonsense, and yes it means that his background is contentious, but I agree with you, does not remove him from being in some way credible. However I will not use the energy to read the site further than I have, becasuse, I repeat, the site is a nonsene, and his BIO should tell you that!

                What I have stated as my position – I will not allow anyone to force vaccinate me, that is my position, and it will NEVER change. The right to choose is MINE!

                Your position, is you tried to tell me that medicial science validates, and therefore mandates vaccination, and you give me two 100% bumpkiss nonsense websites, which have the credibility of John Key!

                You are welcome to your choice to vaccinate yourself, or your kids etc, but given your information sources, I say you need to read more, research more, because those sites you used as the basis for your position, are dangerous!

                So instead of telling me to pull my head in, because I want the right to choose, and I will always continue to search for further information, research, reading etc, I want to make the best informed choice I can, I would suggest you do the same. But its MY choice Kotahi!

                Evidence you have used as information, have shown that my position on this is correct!

                So in summary, I have forced nothing upon anyone, only defended my position, and my rights! You have tried to counter my rights with UTTER drivel!

                Go back to the Mc (flock)…baaa baa baa

          • muzza 12.1.1.1.2
            24 February 2012 at 7:55 am

            Double Post

        • muzza 12.1.1.2
          24 February 2012 at 7:29 am

          “Show me where anyone has claimed that vaccines are 100%. They are, however, much better than not having vaccines”

          LOl – “much better than not”, what a great argument for force medicating people. That one sentence from you, has shown what a small mind and lack of understanding you have! Note to you, my immune system is amazing , and not you nor anyone else will ever decide what goes in my body! You weak unhealthy types who need drugs to help you out , have my sympathy, but you wont be taking my health away because of your weakness of body, and mind – “Much better than not” – AWESOME reasoning McFlock!

          If they are not 100%, why would you take them, let alone force them on others….”oh thats ok because they are much better than not having them….fuck off monkey boy, thats enough idiocy out of your mouth on this topic!

          The rest of your nonsense is not even worth reading…..you have no idea what you are playing with, and the forceable vaccination of people against their will, is apart of that mindset, that is the only issue I have a problem with , so far as this topic goes.

          McFlock, go take a shit bro, sounds like you need to unwind!

          Kotahi, I will read your links, it will be immediately obvious if your source is truth or not, or if you have been sucked in. I hope that the link I have read of yours is not the standard!

          Kia Kaha

          • Kotahi Tane Huna 12.1.1.2.1
            24 February 2012 at 9:09 am

            “You weak unhealthy types who need drugs to help you out , have my sympathy, but you wont be taking my health away because of your weakness of body, and mind…”

            I’m going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that the eugenic aspect of that remark is unintentional.

            Polio, for example, usually produces no immediate symptoms in those with a normal immune response, so a “healthy” person (like you) will carry it with them, spreading it among people you come into contact with. The person who serves you coffee. The kid at the supermarket. Your partner. In 3% of cases the virus will enter the central nervous system.

            The Human papillomavirus persists in 5-10% of women affected by it (it can also cause cancer of the penis), and they have a high risk of developing cervical cancer as a result. Again, it often produces no symptoms in those infected.

            • muzza 12.1.1.2.1.1
              24 February 2012 at 9:29 am

              “I’m going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that the eugenic aspect of that remark is unintentional” – Do you know where the eugenics movement began, or where its hiding these days?

              “Polio, for example, usually produces no immediate symptoms in those with a normal immune response, so a “healthy” person (like you) will carry it with them, spreading it among people you come into contact with. The person who serves you coffee. The kid at the supermarket. Your partner. In 3% of cases the virus will enter the central nervous system.” – Everone who does not have the vaccination is carrier – MORON – And stop telling me about polio, or s-pox for that matter, I did not bring them into the debate, that was you and McFlock!

              HPV – Gardasil, oh you really are dangerous, how about some education about being safe, nah too hard basket eh. Just keep drinking the cool-aid Kotahi, and for the love of the children do not offer any advise…take my position, get educated and let people decide for themselves? That is what its all about, not ramming your dangerous ill-informed by crack pot web sites, down other peoples throats!

              Thats my final reply, if you want the last word, go ahead, you have shown yourself to be an idiot by now, so just keep digging!

              • Kotahi Tane Huna …
                24 February 2012 at 9:41 am

                The unsupported assertions just keep coming one after the other. And complete gibberish – “Everone who does not have the vaccination is carrier – MORON” Do you want to try that again in English?

                And now I’m “dangerous” because you mentioned Gardasil? Again, please make some sense. I’m all for safe sex but y’know, people eventually settle down and want kids and guess what.

                As for ramming anything down anyone’s throat you are the one getting angry bud, and if you honestly think that losing your temper and hurling abuse says anything about me, you’re being silly.

                You have not advanced a single argument beyond your Objectivist demand for “choice”. I would happily read some information if you have any you think is worth bringing to the discussion, but all you have done is repeat denier talking points. Deja vue.

            • Kotahi Tane Huna 12.1.1.2.1.2
              24 February 2012 at 9:32 am

              That should read “…women exposed to it…”

            • McFlock 12.1.1.2.1.3
              24 February 2012 at 12:29 pm

              I wasn’t thinking eugenics so much as a cross between a Tony Robbins infomercial and the Herbalist Happy Hour. 

  13. NickS 13
    23 February 2012 at 10:52 pm

    Oh Lordy, I see I get to pull out the vaccine-science cluebat for a change on a rich vein of ignorance.

    That’s after studying of course. /insomnia+uni=fun