taint.org: Justin Mason’s Weblog

108 Comments

1. Enda said,

   April 10, 2007 @ 2:12 pm

   Pretty amazing stuff from the GP candidate alright. Speaking as a parent of a child with autism though, I’d have to admit a certain wariness around vaccinations, though not to the extent where I’d actually not do them at all. Though Wakefield has been utterly discredited, there is still not enough info out there for parents as to what does cause autism.

   The piling of multiple vaccines into one (we’re on 5-1 now, soon to be 6-1) has to make you wonder as to the side effects. Although the general benefits to society are undoubted, how do you ask parents of children (who may have a predisposition to autism, based on familty history or whatever) to potentially risk autism for the greater good? The days when people just did what the men and women in white coats said, are gone – the blood transfusion scandal saw to that. MRSA confirms it. It is the incompetent fools who run the HSE that are to blame for a lack of public confidence in the vaccination program. Patricia McKenna is a victim of this rather than a culprit.

   This, coupled with the coincidence of the emergence of symptoms of autism at around the time the MMR is usually given, leaves worried parents in a vacuum, and sadly many make the wrong choices.

2. Justin said,

   April 10, 2007 @ 3:07 pm

   Enda:

   ‘how do you ask parents of children (who may have a predisposition to autism, based on familty history or whatever) to potentially risk autism for the greater good?’

   The option of skipping the MMR jab in the hopes of avoiding an increased autism risk, brings with it an increased risk of measles for everyone, not just the one child concerned, and measles kills — and in fact has killed children right here in Dublin, recently. That, to me, means that there’s a higher burden of proof required by the “MMR/autism link” crowd, and it’s simply not there.

   In the meantime, the proof is rising on the other side of the argument: autism rose in Japan after the MMR was banned there, for example.

   Is there really a potential risk worth worrying about, if there’s no proof for such a risk?

   ‘It is the incompetent fools who run the HSE that are to blame for a lack of public confidence in the vaccination program.’

   well, one part of the problem is indeed that medicine and public health science is poorly explained — but that’s not just the HSE’s fault, it’s also the newspapers who love a juicy story, regardless of whether it’s true or not… and don’t bother following up if the more boring alternative proves to be the case instead.

3. dublinnorth said,

   April 10, 2007 @ 3:23 pm

   Oh no. This is not good. But I will vote Green. Luckily I have Sargent and Joe Corr in my constituency and they have never come out with stuff like this.

   I am actually voting for Sargent because he is the best candidate by a country mile in Dublin North but I have reservations about some Green policies. There is an anti-Science fringe in there. Don’t let it put you off voting Green – there are lots of great politicians in there too. Nothing is perfect in life and on balance the Greens have more great policies than any other party.

4. Conor O\'Neill said,

   April 10, 2007 @ 3:42 pm

   I’ll vote for the first party that promises to bring in a new health regulation banning non-vaccinated adults and children from all childcare facilities.

5. Enda said,

   April 10, 2007 @ 3:49 pm

   Justin,

   there’s a higher burden of proof required by the MMR/autism link crowd

   Absolutely – and that ship has long since sailed. No serious observer thinks there is a link between autism and MMR. But it is not yet proven that there is no link between the vaccination program in general and autism. (I know, how are you supposed to prove a negative anyway?) The fact is the incidence of autism is rising and people don’t know why. It might be vaccinations (unlikely) or it might be solar flare activitity (even more unlikely) – who knows? It will probably prove to be a combination of increased awareness and changing criteria, but that is not yet proven either.

   In this vacuum, it’s no good telling parents that the burden of proof is on them. Logically, that may be the case, but if the State is going to go around mass medicating our children, then I’m afraid the burden of proof is de facto on the State, since they can’t enforce vaccination. That burden is probably unattainable, so the HSE will just have to pour more resources into getting the take up rates into the 90’s again – you’ll never convince everyone.

   The problem as I see it, is that fear and ignorance are spread by the incompetence of the very people we should trust to set us straight – in Ireland this is the HSE and Dept of Health. Those idiots have let us down so often that people just don’t believe them anymore when they say “trust us, we know what we’re doing”. That’s why I’d say McKenna is as much a victim in all this. She’ll kick herself if her kids get polio.

6. ACE said,

   April 10, 2007 @ 3:50 pm

   I think it is interesting to ask why there is a growing scepticism about the advice dispensed by our health authorities. Having done so I have more sympathy for Ms McKenna’s position despite her potentially shaky rationalisation.

   There is good reason to be sceptical of the value of “scientific” conclusions that are made in the context of huge amounts of money to be made or lost.

   Our current processes for judging the effectiveness of pharmaceuticals relies heavily on commercial interests, and those who owe their comfortable living to the same.

   The link in the above paragraph is to a summary of a book by Marcia Angell

   Marcia Angell is a Senior Lecturer in Social Medicine at Harvard Medical School. A physician, she is a former Editor in Chief of The New England Journal of Medicine. Her latest book is The Truth About the Drug Companies: How They Deceive Us and What to Do About It. (June 2006)

   Not exactly the resume of a crazy hippie.

7. Enda said,

   April 10, 2007 @ 3:54 pm

   dublinnorth is probably right. The fact that they’ve pulled some of this stuff from their site suggests someone has thought this through and maybe will have a word in McKenna’s ear!

   Conor, I think they have something like this is the States, yesno?

8. John said,

   April 10, 2007 @ 5:25 pm

   I was tempted to vote Green prior to hearing that interview when it went out but, like you, I was horrified by that anti-science stance. I have the same problem with the Greens and incinerators (though they’re not the only ones campaigning on the issue). People I’ve spoken to with strong science backgrounds and others involved in the waste-disposal issue are incensed by the shite being presented as science in that debate as well.

   So long as there’s a spurious, flaky, New Age, anti-science image associated with the Greens, they’re going to struggle to be a credible political party. It’s all very well being anti-Big Pharma and playing on mistrust of “pro-business” politicians, but what do they plan on doing once they get in power? Take their advice from lobbyists for the Alternative/Complementary Medicine crowd?

9. Paddy said,

   April 10, 2007 @ 6:24 pm

   Patricia McKenna is a stone moron. End of story. But I wouldn’t let her crass stupidity stop me from voting for the greens. I had a long chat with my local green candidate a couple of years back and I confessed to him that the primary reason I was wary of voting green in the past was because of McKenna’s constant diatribes on the radio on all matter of subjects of which she was entirely ignorant. He wholeheartedly agreed that it was a major problem and one the party recognised.

10. monica said,

    April 10, 2007 @ 6:40 pm

    The lady is no moron.

    I wish I had been more informed. My daughter had seizures, fever and rash 2 wks after the mmr, and then severely regressed within 2 wks of the reaction. We have since learned that she has an immune deficiency, and the virus over replicated. She also has pituitary damage that can only have been caused by an infection of the csf. Now her docs say no more live virus vaccines- EVER.

    Look at the science, do your own research. It is true. The US switched from the OPV (live polio vaccine) to the IPV Inactivated polio vaccine- as it was causing polio in children with immune problems. The only cases of polio in the US in the last 15 yrs is from the vaccine.

    There is mounting evidence that children with autism have genetic abnormalities in regions of DNA which control immune function. Even the CDC states in their own vaccine information statement for the MMR and chickenpox vaccines; “Some people should check with their doctor about whether they should get MMR vaccine, including anyone who: - Has HIV/AIDS, or another disease that affects the immune system” http://www.cdc.gov/nip/publications/VIS/vis-mmr.pdf

    “Some people should check with their doctor about whether they should get chickenpox vaccine, including anyone who: - Has HIV/AIDS or another disease that affects the immune system” http://www.cdc.gov/nip/publications/VIS/vis-varicella.pdf

    With the mounting evidence of immune dysfunction in relation to autism, it is plain stupid that we are giving these vaccines without knowing the status of immune function in these children!

11. MaryAnn McCarra-Fitzpatrick said,

    April 10, 2007 @ 6:59 pm

    With our second child (our first son had a reaction to his 1-year old vaccines and was subsequently diagnosed as autistic…he is six and still cannot speak) we chose to have the MMR given in single (separated) doses and each six weeks apart, to watch for any adverse reactions.

    The vaccine schedule here (USA) required my first son to have 20+ vaccine jabs in his first twelve months. At some of his well visits he had two shots. We noticed a profound change in him after his 1-year shots (two shots at the one visit). High fever, then stopped looking at us, stopped babbling, night sweats started. Terrible. It’s been four years and it is still hellish sometimes, for him and for the whole family.

    By contrast (I was born in 1967) I had, in total, about 6 vaccinations. No adverse reactions. I did, however, have the mumps, measles, and chicken pox, all of which I survived without any lasting health problems.

    Unfortunately, in my son’s case, he suffers from gastrointestinal problems (also started at one year) and frustration/distress at not being able to speak. He was a completely healthy, normal child during his first year of life and the change we saw in him after his one-year shots was marked. So, in our case, I think there was a reaction, if not to one vaccine, or one additive, but perhaps to the cumulative effect of the 20+ shots he’d had. I just don’t think his system was up to it.

    If I knew then what I know now I would still have had him vaccinated but I would have proceeded much more slowly with it and I would have enquired about what the components of the vaccines were. Look at Simpsonwood…..there has been documentation that meetings were held here in the States where pharmaceutical / governmental representatives suppressed information regarding the safety of vaccines and adverse effects in order to protect the interests of the pharmaceutical industry. Of course, children should be vaccinated. It is terribly unfortunate, though, that my son has to be the collateral damage, sacrificed on the altar of herd immunity.

12. Daithi said,

    April 11, 2007 @ 3:34 pm

    The ‘altar of herd immunity’ is infinitely preferable to the altar of quack science.

    The child who is unimmunised acts as a danger to everyone else around them. If the anti-science fringe want to act this way, let them withdraw from society entirely.

    Although I am a member of another party, I am very sympathetic to the Green Party in Ireland (Euro-scaremongering aside), and transfer to them without fail, but it’s despite McKenna rather than because of her.

    This interview is very disappointing.

13. MaryAnn McCarra-Fitzpatrick said,

    April 11, 2007 @ 3:38 pm

    Yes, it’s preferable, except for the parents, siblings, and grandparents who must care for a neurologically damaged child who might otherwise have enjoyed a happy, healthy productive life. It is not right that my child’s life was sacrificed, destroyed.

14. Daithi said,

    April 11, 2007 @ 3:46 pm

    If there was clear, proven scientific evidence of what you are claiming, I would agree with you. However, there isn’t. While I appreciate that the issue of autism is emotional and personal, the reactionary nonsense that plays down measles and plays up spurious, discredited, unsound research does nothing for anyone’s health. It does pick up a few votes, though.

15. Ryano said,

    April 11, 2007 @ 4:40 pm

    Justin, Patricia was expressing a personal view, and one that is not part of Green Party policy – the Green Party has never opposed vaccination programmes. We did raise concerns about the MMR vaccine some years ago when there was genuine public concern about the issue (the quote Ruairi Hanley uses above dates from that time), but we’ve acknowledged that the science has moved on.

    If you don’t want to vote for candidates who oppose vaccination then fair enough, but you should be aware that the Greens in government would support vaccination.

    You mention incineration also, which we do oppose, and I’d be happy to debate this if it’s not too off-topic – and without lapsing into pseudo-science.

    I’ll probably post broadly similar comments on the other blogs you link to above, as a lot of people may be unaware of the party’s actual position.

16. Justin said,

    April 11, 2007 @ 5:04 pm

    Ryan — thanks for commenting!

    ‘If you don’t want to vote for candidates who oppose vaccination then fair enough, but you should be aware that the Greens in government would support vaccination.’

    Good to hear that. It’d be really great if the Green site was updated to note that though… right now it’s just not mentioned, hence the confusion.

    Also, who am I supposed to vote for if I live in Dublin North Central and want to vote Green, then? I don’t want to provide support for Patricia’s position, as I’ve noted. Are there other candidates?

    (btw it wasn’t actually I who mentioned incineration — I haven’t been following that issue.)

17. Ryano said,

    April 11, 2007 @ 5:11 pm

    Sorry, my mistake! I’ll save the incineration debate for another day. I take your point about the lack of any clarification on the web site – I’ll suggest that.

    Are you in Dublin Central or Dublin North Central? If the latter, then your candidate is Cllr Bronwen Maher.

18. Justin said,

    April 11, 2007 @ 5:37 pm

    well, look at that! So she is.

    It’s pretty hard to tell where I am, but I think I’m currently in Dublin Central (Stoneybatter) and about to move to Dublin North Central (Glasnevin). Know any good maps?

19. John said,

    April 11, 2007 @ 5:46 pm

    Hi Ryano–

    I was the one who mentioned incinerators, but I couldn’t claim to be an expert on the subject, so I doubt if I could meaningfully debate it. However, a close relation of mine is a county engineer and has travelled across Europe in the past couple of years looking at incinerators in Paris, Bremen, Belgium, and Italy (I think). His views on the subject were independently echoed by a work colleague of mine who has degrees in biology and ecology and who is a former biological and ecological young scientist of the year (so he tells me!!). As it happened, they were both commenting on an anti-incinerator campaign close to us in Drogheda rather than specifically on Green policies, so it was less a disagreement with the party’s views than anger at the absence of accurate science in the debate over incinerators (frustration, I think, at the naked NIMBYism being leveraged, as much as anything else).

20. dublinnorth said,

    April 11, 2007 @ 7:19 pm

    The real problem with incinerators is that they incentivise the production of waste. If we have big fires we’ll need to feed them.

    But even incineration is better than landfill where Ireland is seriously lagging. Here the landfill levy is e15 a tonne in Britain it is e36 rising to e72 by 2010 (Sunday Business Post: http://www.sbpost.ie/post/pages/p/story.aspx-qqqt=NEWS+FEATURES-qqqs=news-qqqid=22351-qqqx=1.asp)

    I agree that the problem with NIMBYism is that it can wreck arguments on both sides. McDowell’s idea to lump a new super-prison with a psychiatric hospital in Thornton hall follows the logic: Lets deal with these two NIMBYs at one stroke. I find it offensive and insensitive to site these institutions together. Psychiatric patients are people who are unwell, not criminals.

21. Antoin O Lachtnain said,

    April 11, 2007 @ 10:50 pm

    The problem with incinerators at this point is there is little left to burn in them. Paper products are now mostly recycled. Brown waste (food, etc) won’t burn very well, and incinerating it won’t really reduce its volume very much. To get it to burn, you have to add something (like paper).

    You cannot burn significant quantities of plastic economically in an incinerator.

    Anyway, this is flying off-topic. Maybe the important point is that scientific evidence is hard to interpret. Emotions and commercial issues inevitably get involved, and politicians don’t always help the situation.

22. MaryAnn McCarra-Fitzpatrick said,

    April 12, 2007 @ 2:58 am

    The vaccine/autism debate has not had a clear answer, unfortunately, for the 1 in 150 children now affected. David Kirby’s book examined this controversial subject in detail and is worth reading.

23. Mark Waters said,

    April 12, 2007 @ 11:34 am

    Daithi said: The child who is unimmunised acts as a danger to everyone else around them.

    Is this true? Surely if everyone else is immunised then they should be ok. I understand that the unimmunised child gets a free ride in this case since they get the benefits of immunisation without having to be immunised but can they also be a risk to those who have been immunised?

    On the substantive issue I believe that we should advocate MMR immunisation but we shouldn’t make it compulsory. Of course I would have to change my mind on this if it’s true that unimmunised children can infect immunised children.

24. Daithi said,

    April 12, 2007 @ 12:26 pm

    There is a silly animation from the NHS that tries to simplify it here: http://www.immunisation.nhs.uk/article.php?id=78 and there are lots of nice mathematical explanations (Justin linked to some in his original post). Essentially, if there are substantial numbers of people who refuse vaccination, it lowers the effectiveness of the programme as a whole, and thus an unimmune person (perhaps due to failure of vaccine or whatever) is thus at greater risk than if vaccination had been comprehensive or close to comprehensive.

25. Justin said,

    April 12, 2007 @ 1:03 pm

    ‘Surely if everyone else is immunised then they should be ok. I understand that the unimmunised child gets a free ride in this case since they get the benefits of immunisation without having to be immunised but can they also be a risk to those who have been immunised?’

    As the Herd Immunity page at WP notes:

    ‘Vaccination acts as a sort of “firebreak” in the spread of the disease, slowing or preventing further transmission of the disease to others. Although no vaccine offers 100% protection, the spread of disease from person to person is much higher in those who remain unvaccinated. Virologists have found that when a certain percentage of a population is vaccinated, the spread of the disease is effectively stopped. This critical percentage depends on the disease and the vaccine, but 90% is not uncommon.’

    The important point is that even if you’re vaccinated, there’s no 100% guarantee that you’re going to be safe — there’s no such thing as 100% in the real world ;) The “firebreak” epidemiological model is crucial to the effectiveness of vaccination as an outbreak-prevention strategy, even for the protection of some of the vaccinated population.

26. Enda said,

    April 12, 2007 @ 5:22 pm

    Justin,

    Re: Herd Immunity – So Mark’s question is not unreasonable then? If we need 90% takeup to provide Herd Immunity, it is not unreasonable for people whose kids have a predisposition to autism to refuse vaccination and get the free ride, provided the number choosing this does not exceed 10% of the population. Given the incidence of autism is below 1% this decision should not be a threat to herd immunity. Granted, there is no proven link between the vaccination program and autism, but to my mind the onus is on the HSE and Dept of Health to:

    1) first prove to the 99% of families that have no known predisposition towards autism that the vaccination program is safe and cannot give your kids autsim.

    2) then to prove to the 1% that do have such concerns that the vaccination programme does not act as a trigger for the onset of autism in those so predisposed.

    1) Ought to be easy – just doing their jobs really. In this case obviously failing! 2) Is more difficult, but not as crucial to the maintenance of HI, given the relatively small numbers involved. To be fair though, 2) has been done with respect to MMR specifically but not wrt to the wider program.

27. Justin said,

    April 12, 2007 @ 7:29 pm

    ‘Granted, there is no proven link between the vaccination program and autism’

    That’s a very big “granted”, right there.

28. David Malone said,

    April 12, 2007 @ 9:38 pm

    In an exhibit in the London Science Museum about 18 months ago, Ireland had the dubious honour of being picked out as a country where the vaccination rates were low enough that we had had a number of ourbreaks of nasty diseases that had ended up killing measurable numbers of people.

    I think Patricia McKenna comes from an older, more hysterical school of green thought. The sort of school that produces “Nuclear Power, No Thanks” stickers showing a smiling sun, which is the largest source of nuclear power for some distance. To be honest, I feel this really shows whenever she is interviewed and has certainly made me think twice about voting green.

29. Ryano said,

    April 13, 2007 @ 12:51 pm

    “It’s pretty hard to tell where I am, but I think I’m currently in Dublin Central (Stoneybatter) and about to move to Dublin North Central (Glasnevin). Know any good maps?”

    There’s a good map here which should answer your question.

    By the way, did you really transcribe this yourself? That’s quite an effort to make – do you want a job transcribing all our media appearances? ;)

30. Justin said,

    April 13, 2007 @ 1:37 pm

    Thanks Ryan — that’s exactly the kind of map I was after. I’m still in Dublin Central it appears…

    Yeah, I did the transcription myself. I don’t plan to do that again in a hurry — it was longer than it sounded at first ;)

31. Enda said,

    April 13, 2007 @ 3:58 pm

    That’s a very big ‘granted’, right there.

    Yeah, I know ;-)

    But I hope I’ve explained why I feel the onus is on the HSE to prove safety here rather than worried parents. If David Malone’s last comment is true (and I’ve no reason to doubt it) then it is negligent for the HSE not to be making a massive effort in this sphere. It shouldn’t be up to you or me to persuade McKenna or anyone else, it should be up to Prof. Drumm and his merry band of morons. Lives are literally at stake!

32. joemomma said,

    April 14, 2007 @ 12:24 am

    “We have a woman there who knows, in her heart of hearts, that her argument is wrong but refuses to admit it because it relies on science.”

    I think Redmond is wrong there – it’s clear from the transcript that McKenna doesn’t know she’s wrong, she’s just completely mixed up, e.g.:

    “I think we have a tendency to over-indulge in vaccinating our children and vaccinating ourselves, because what we need – our immune systems are getting weaker and weaker by the day, it’s a – I think we need to be very careful about how we actually approach this so that when medicines are necessary, we will not be immune to them…”

    She’s obviously mixing up vaccines with antibiotics here – it’s a nonsense to suggest that vaccination will weaken our immune systems. She’s ascribing a genuine issue with overuse of antibiotics to all “medicines”, including vaccines.

    She just doesn’t know what she’s talking about, but she wouldn’t be the first candidate from any party to get tied up in knots trying to deal with an issue about which she’s ignorant. It needn’t be read as any sort of anti-vaccination tendency in the Greens: Matt Cooper recently had a Fianna Fáil councillor on expressing fears about cattle and deer interbreeding in County Clare, but we shouldn’t necessarily accuse Fianna Fáil of anti-scientific scaremongering over bovine-deer hybridisation.

    Or should we? ;)

33. Diarmuid said,

    April 14, 2007 @ 8:32 pm

    “Every policy they [the Green Party] define should be backed up with rock-solid science and a detailed long-term financial analysis proving why it is in our best interests to adopt them.”

    Why should this be expected of the Greens in particular? If we held certain other parties up to the same high standards the country wouldn’t be in the mess it’s in now.

34. Lugs said,

    April 14, 2007 @ 10:42 pm

    Want a terrifying vision of the future?

    “Minister for Health Patricia McKenna”

    No thanks.

    Kudos to Cooper and his team for knowing the facts and exposing her shocking ignorance. I’ll be checking what my local Green candidate thinks of this.

35. joemomma said,

    April 15, 2007 @ 1:03 am

    “Kudos to Cooper and his team for knowing the facts and exposing her shocking ignorance.”

    She’s a bit of an easy target though.

36. David Malone said,

    April 15, 2007 @ 7:49 am

    Why should this be expected of the Greens in particular? If we held certain other parties up to the same high standards the country wouldn’t be in the mess it’s in now.

    I guess it would be good if other parties also did this, but I guess it is particularly important for the Greens because their core claim is basically that they will use Ecology (which is an -ology) to set their policies.

37. Conor O\'Neill said,

    April 15, 2007 @ 9:14 am

    Diarmuid, the Greens continue to have a fundamental credibility issue in this country whether deserved or not. Getting elected is not about policies, it’s about marketing. My suggestion was a basic marketing proposal for them.

    Sure they can continue to tell us all we’re very bold for doing x, y and z, but that won’t get many of them elected. The Greens have to overcome the suspicion many people have that, with them in a strong position of power, Ireland would be a beacon of environmentalism worldwide, and bankrupt. Meanwhile China would continue to build coal-fired power stations and laugh all the way to the bank. Overcome that stereotype, dump donkeys like Patricia McKenna and they could probably do very well in 2011.

38. sarah said,

    April 15, 2007 @ 9:06 pm

    Herd immunity aside people should remember that newborn babies haven’t been vaccinated. I actually rang McKenna during the week to ask her about this stuff and asked her how she would feel if her children gave measles to a newborn. It simply hadn’t occured to her. She just thought about it from her own point of view and her children. This woman is a liability to the Green Party.

39. Philip said,

    April 15, 2007 @ 9:28 pm

    Joemomma, Are you sure it’s a nonsense to suggest that vaccination will weaken our immune systems? I’m just asking.

    I love science but blind faith in science has betrayed many a person and family. I have to say that some of the comments here appear to be pretty uncaring about victims of medicine. Scientific medicine is not all-knowing, as its history and its more thoughtful practitioners will tell you, and sometimes a parent’s (and an ecologist’s) instinct is correct.

    This is a fascinating and important discussion and I’m very glad I came across it (via Blog Posts about Irish TDs).

40. joemomma said,

    April 15, 2007 @ 10:23 pm

    Philip, I’m not a practising scientician, but a vaccine works by stimulating your immune system to combat a particular infection. I’m not aware of any sense in which “over-indulging in vaccination” can be said to actually weaken your immune system.

    Overuse of antibiotics, on the other hand, has been seen to cause antibiotic-resistant strains of infectious organisms to become more frequent. For example, if you’re taking an antibiotic to combat an infection against which it has no effect, e.g. a common cold, you may end up encouraging the development of antibiotic-resistant bacteria in your system – these bacteria prosper by natural selection because their non-resistant buddies are wiped out by the antibiotic.

    That’s my layman’s understanding of the situation, anyway. What McKenna was describing sounds much more like the issue of antibiotic overuse/misuse rather than anything to do with vaccination.

41. joemomma said,

    April 15, 2007 @ 10:28 pm

    Sarah, am I right in thinking that newborn babies share the same antibodies as their mother if they’re breastfed?

42. David Malone said,

    April 16, 2007 @ 7:08 am

    am I right in thinking that newborn babies share the same antibodies as their mother if they’re breastfed?

    I asked a microbiologist friend who works with blood about this recently. The immune system is pretty complex, and there are several classes of antibody that we use to fight infections. Some of the more robust antibodies can pass from a mother to their child through milk, but not all of them. (Providing I’ve understood their explaination correctly.)

43. Dave said,

    April 16, 2007 @ 11:53 am

    Justin, regardless of whether McKenna was acting alone or not, the statements linked by Winds&Breezes did exist on the GP website so it’s not like they can blame McKenna for that either.

    Matt Cooper had Dan Boyle on recently and he was being tackled on the subject of homeopathy by a doctor. More green support for pure rubbish.

44. joemomma said,

    April 16, 2007 @ 7:57 pm

    What did Dan say about homeopathy?

45. Treasa said,

    April 17, 2007 @ 8:41 am

    I’d like, if I may, to make a quick comment on this.

    I think the fact that you can have so much debate about whether vaccination is good or not is indicative of how successful it has been. When I was 8 years old, there is no way that it would have happened because the downside of vaccination was all too visible around you – the one which stands out to me in particular was the BCG for tuberculosis. Everyone who was a parent at the time realised how destructive it could be. Polio is another case in point.

    I think the problem here is people’s risk assessment. Patricia McKenna’s point that “I had the measles”, “everyone had the measles” is a key indicator this. Ultimately, if you take at value that vaccination may cause autism, what is happening here is that people are making a value call – risk of autism versus risk of death from measles and because few people die from measles, they reckon autism is a higher risk.

    But this is a questionable conclusion purely because the prevalence of measles has been so low thanks to vaccination. If the incidence of measles was far higher thanks to lower vaccination rates again, it might swing around. In some ways you can say it’s a generational thing: because we were so little affected by measles outbreaks, we don’t remember what it can do. We’ve never known what it can do.

    On the subject of the Green Party’s views on immunisation it would be beneficial if their primary care document strongly expressed support for vaccination particularly in light of their previous document, and particularly given the importance they attach to preventive measures in their current doument. I am told that the Green Party does support vaccination but it’s not all that clear. With respect to the other debate which I raised – regarding alternative cures – despite some discussion on that front on my own site, I still remain to be convinced of what the Green Party’s position actually is.

    I’d add that the GP’s raison d’etre depends heavily on science. I’d like to be able to believe that I can depend on the GP’s understanding of science. The fact that this debate blew up at all casts some doubts for me.

46. Conor O\'Neill said,

    April 17, 2007 @ 9:26 am

    If the clueless among us ignore facts and decades of data then the tools of social stigma need to be used.

    It is no longer acceptable to smoke in many places. It should be equally unacceptable to allow potential disease-carriers access to anywhere like creches where there are unprotected younger children who have not had the MMR yet.

    If that doesn’t work, the Health Boards (I assume this in now HSE) should simply add a requirement that all children who attend approved-childcare facilities must have received the MMR. Approval is removed from those creches that do not comply.

    Schools send around notes telling us all about headlice. They tell us not to send our kids to school if they have a virus like the flu. It’s about time they started telling us whether non-MMR-vaccinated children are in our schools too.

    In Cork, we now have the mess of the last (how many?) years to clean up in the area of BCG. Once we do, the same rules should apply for that.

    This is a serious public health issue and should be addressed as such rather than as some middle-class “choice” thing.

47. chancer said,

    April 17, 2007 @ 9:54 am

    Hmmm…. just sent this mail to the greens, interesting to see if there’ll be a reply….

    Hi,

    I just read what Patricia McKenna said on Today FM about the MMR vaccine, and also that your website, until feb stated that there were “serious question marks about the benefit of mass vaccination programs”.

    If this is the Green belief system, then your policies are based on luddism rather than science. It is appallingly irresponsible to still hold that the jury is out on the MMR vaccine, when the doubters have been utterly scientifically discredited.

    Congratulations, you’ve lost a voter.

48. soubresauts said,

    April 18, 2007 @ 12:15 am

    This discussion is just amazing for its inaccuracies and wild assumptions, along with a dose of paranoia.

    If people have a grudge against Patricia McKenna, maybe they should set up a blog for that and get it out of their system. The discussion centres on what McKenna said in that radio interview about vaccination. But many of the comments are going off on crazy tangents.

    If you are appalled by somebody questioning the value of vaccination, by all means say so, but you really ought to try explaining why.

    There are many people who have never been vaccinated, and refuse to vaccinate their children. I know quite a few of them myself. There is nothing wrong with them, and they’re not threatening anyone. They get the usual childhood diseases — measles, mumps, whooping cough, etc. — just like I got them myself. The parents expect this and regard it as normal.

    Why refuse vaccination? Well, take just one of the vaccines commonly used in Ireland — BCG. This is probably the best established and best “accepted” vaccination of all. And yet… when you search Ireland’s most popular source of orthodox health info you find: http://www.irishhealth.com/index.html?level=4&id=9220 http://www.irishhealth.com/index.html?level=4&id=9258 http://www.irishhealth.com/index.html?level=4&id=7130 http://www.irishhealth.com/index.html?level=4&id=4104 http://www.irishhealth.com/index.html?level=4&id=4018 http://www.irishhealth.com/index.html?level=4&id=4141

    Then consider that every vaccination has unwanted side-effects. Consider also the ingredients in those vaccines (if you’re squeamish or easily nauseated, watch out!). Consider also the track records of the pharma companies producing those vaccines. Consider also the financial incentive for GPs to administer vaccinations. Consider also the total obsession with vaccination that characterizes our medical establishment, so that other approaches to dealing with disease get scant consideration.

    Consider also opinions on vaccination that combine common sense with science, such as: http://www.doctoryourself.com/vaccination.html http://www.doctoryourself.com/vaccin_2.html

    There’s nothing “appallingly irresponsible” about McKenna not allowing her children to be vaccinated. Quite the opposite in fact. The assumption that anti-vaccination is anti-science is misinformed.

    Do you people not believe that our immune systems have evolved? You do believe in evolution, don’t you?

    If you believe that we’re “winning the battle” against diseases and that “eventually” we won’t even “need” to vaccinate because the diseases will have died out, then you’re living in cloud-cuckoo-land. Maybe smallpox was eradicated (I have my doubts), but then along came AIDS, BSE-CJD, MRSA, bird flu, and so on.

    I believe that Bill Gates, among others, hasn’t given careful consideration to all these issues, and I wish that the 750 million dollars he donated to vaccinate kids in southern countries had gone instead towards providing clean drinking water for them.

    Justin, you were “shocked and appalled” at McKenna’s statements, and you insist that any link between MMR and autism is “thoroughly discredited”, but the only evidence you give is Dr Ben Goldacre’s website. Goldacre is certainly a popular man but it’s worrying when he gives a link to the likes of Quackwatch.com. (You should be aware that Quackwatch is run by Stephen “Combover” Barrett who also works for the American Council on Science & Health, funded by big industry.)

    And Dr Andrew Wakefield has not been “utterly discredited”, as Matt Cooper insisted. Wakefield is continuing his medical research career in the U.S.

    Actually, the statements and behaviour of both Cooper and the PD candidate Keith Redmond were appalling. I’m amazed that none of you seemed to notice.

    Justin, you said that “skipping the MMR jab… brings with it an increased risk of measles for everyone”. Really? Aren’t all the vaccinated people supposed to be immune? So who’s worried?

    And you said: “The ‘firebreak’ epidemiological model is crucial to the effectiveness of vaccination as an outbreak-prevention strategy, even for the protection of some of the vaccinated population.” Do you accept that unquestioningly? Have you seen rigorous science supporting that idea?

    dublinnorth said: “There is an anti-Science fringe in there [the Green Party].” Really? How about YOU coming up with some rigorous science?

    Conor O’Neill wants “a new health regulation banning non-vaccinated adults and children from all childcare facilities.” Uh oh, here we go. What do you want to do with all those foreigners coming into Ireland, Conor? For “foreigner” read “carrier of disease”. Conor’s April 17 post was particularly ludicrous. I can only hope the Irish population is immune to his ideas.

    Enda said (of McKenna): “She’ll kick herself if her kids get polio.” Enda doesn’t know much about polio, nor about McKenna.

    Daithi said: “The child who is unimmunised acts as a danger to everyone else around them.” Daithi, that’s an amazing statement coming from a lawyer. What is this “danger”? Are you telling me I should be scared of all the fine, healthy unvaccinated people I know?

    Sarah said that “people should remember that newborn babies haven’t been vaccinated.” Really? And Sarah “rang McKenna during the week to ask her about this stuff and asked her how she would feel if her children gave measles to a newborn.” I take it, Sarah, you’re busy alerting everyone you know to watch out for McKenna’s threatening children…

    Lugs said: “Kudos to Cooper and his team for knowing the facts and exposing her shocking ignorance.” What facts might those be, Lugs?

    Joemomma, you thought that McKenna got mixed up, but did you not notice the unreasonable behaviour by both Matt Cooper and Keith Redmond? Cooper got far too emotional (perhaps because he vaccinated his kids and bottle-fed them with fluoridated water), and Redmond made a huge number of outrageous statements. “We know the science, we know the facts,” he said, but HE doesn’t know the science. He was “rubbishing” America’s highest scientific authority, the NRC.

    Treasa said: “…because we were so little affected by measles outbreaks, we don’t remember what it can do. We’ve never known what it can do.” I’m a bit older than you, Treasa. When I was young everyone got measles (and the same goes for EVERY generation before the present one). There was no problem, we got a little bit sick and recovered, and there was no worry about it. I never heard of anyone being badly affected.

    The bottom line is that parents have a right to refuse vaccination, and they also have good reasons to do so. Parents make their choice about vaccination and live with the consequences; they ARE responsible. If Justin, Daithi, Conor O’Neill, Sarah and others want to deprive parents of that right, they should say so and engage in an honest discussion about it.

49. Treasa said,

    April 18, 2007 @ 8:14 am

    Measles has side effects too, include death from complications. Just because it never happened to anyone around you doesn’t mean it doesn’t happen.

    The issue with vaccination and choosing not to do it is that you force your choice on other people too. Our measles rate went up – and with it related deaths and complications because not enough people got vaccinated. It is not just a personal choice – it is a choice you are forcing on your children and on other people.

    Just because you were okay doesn’t mean they will be okay. Yes there can be side effects but in the main the complications arising from something like measles can be much, much worse than the side effects and include death. The Wakefield study has been discredited including by people who were involved in writing it so regardless of who is telling you, you cannot disregard that. Not only that, there are a bunch of larger studies contradicting its findings.

    Parents are forcing a health choice on their children and it may have serious consequences for their future health. Do you support those who refuse to allow their children have blood transfusions also?

50. Conor O\'Neill said,

    April 18, 2007 @ 8:41 am

    There is so much to laugh out loud about soubresauts comments but I think the attempt to turn my comments into a race issue really does hit rock bottom. “Foreigners” had never even entered my head, I was more focused on local nitwits who ignore centuries of science in favour of quack nonsense.

    Many foreign nationals, unlike wilfully misinformed people like soubresauts, have seen the utter destruction caused by measles, TB and other killer diseases and I’m sure they would leap at the chance to have their children vaccinated. Does anyone know if this service is offered to them and their families?

51. Dave said,

    April 18, 2007 @ 9:38 am

    If people have a grudge against Patricia McKenna, maybe they should set up a blog for that and get it out of their system.

    The thing that struck me reading the discussion was how many people had fancied the Greens as a party but this upset them. To paint the commenters as having a grudge against McKenna is absurd.

    Do you people not believe that our immune systems have evolved? You do believe in evolution, don’t you?

    And disease is subject to the same rules of evolution. What’s your point? Our immune systems are fantastic but the virii etc out there are just as incredible.

    (You should be aware that Quackwatch is run by Stephen “Combover” Barrett who also works for the American Council on Science & Health, funded by big industry.) What’s the point here again, how by it being funded by big industry is it wrong? All you’ve pointed out is that it may or may not have an interest in having a specific viewpoint, you haven’t outlined any proof of this.

52. Justin said,

    April 18, 2007 @ 11:24 am

    Justin, you said that ’skipping the MMR jab brings with it an increased risk of measles for everyone’. Really? Aren’t all the vaccinated people supposed to be immune? So who’s worried?

    No, vaccinated people are not all immune. Look, it’s getting boring going over this again and again! Once more with feeling: vaccination does not bring 100% guaranteed immunity. The real world is never black and white, it operates in shades of grey. See here for the background science, or here for a real-world study demonstrating it.

    And you said: ‘The ‘firebreak’ epidemiological model is crucial to the effectiveness of vaccination as an outbreak-prevention strategy, even for the protection of some of the vaccinated population.’ Do you accept that unquestioningly? Have you seen rigorous science supporting that idea?

    I love your use of oooh-scary words like “unquestioningly”. Of course I question it. ;)

    ‘Have you seen rigorous science supporting that idea?’ Enjoy: mathepi.com, pitt.edu, a good wikipedia article on mathematical modelling in epidemiology, a PubMed search.

53. sarah said,

    April 18, 2007 @ 12:12 pm

    Soubresaut’s arguments are just stunning in their ignorance. Let me tell you a bit more about my conversation with McKenna – I told her I was a journalist so everything was on record. After we discussed vaccination I was interested in finding out about her views on BCG and I asked what she thought about the situation in Cork. I’ll update foreign readers on that. The old Southern Health Board opted out of the national immunisation scheme for BCG back in the 70’s. People could still get it but they had to apply and there is a waiting list, so many don’t bother. I’ve contacted them and asked to speak to someone who can tell me why – no response yet. A creche worker who worked in two separate creches has now passed TB on to several children in each of the creches. These children have TB because they didn’t get BCG and the worker obviously didn’t get BCG.

    Firstly McKenna didn’t know about it, which considering the fact that its been in the newspapers – front pages – for a few weeks was alarming in itself. I asked her if her children had BCG. She had to think about it and thought that her eldest had but perhaps not her younger ones. When I asked why the difference, she thought that since the BCG is administered in hospitals when the babies are born, so she hadn’t really had time to think about it. So in other words, having thought about it, she would not get the BCG. She really was very unclear on what she had done with the younger ones. When I told her children in Cork now had TB and were being treated with antibiotics, do you know what she said? “Oh well, I am not really in favour of antibiotics”. I said, ” but THEY’VE GOT TB”. At that point I realised pursuing the conversation any further was fruitless. I don’t think she is malign – she just utterly utterly fails to understand the issue. All she has thought about is that her children got measles and they’re fine so no one should be vaccinated and if they do get sick they shouldn’t get antibiotics. Can you IMAGINE the millions and millions of lives that could be saved in Africa if they had immunisation or antibiotics? And MORONS like sobresauts shite on about developed immune systems? Immune systems don’t get to develop if the children are dead. Talk about the “altar of herd immunity”. What about the “altar of pointless deaths”? So one more time, vaccination is NOT about YOUR child. It is about ALL children. The ones with weak hearts, the ones too small to be immunised, the pregnant women who maybe missed their rubella immunisation for some reason, the malnourished ones. And quite frankly, when we are being offered something which tens of millions of people in the southern hemisphere would give anything for, it appalls me, beyond belief, that stupid fools like McKenna might be elected into public office. And quite frankly I think the Green Party shouldn’t be let off the hook on the “her personal opinion” excuse. In their press release against fluoridation they include a quote from her linking fluoridation with bone cancer. On John Gormley’s recommendation I read a summary of the York Review, a British study of all research on flouridation. That review expressly dismiss links between bone cancer and flouridation. So why include the quote? All parties have their renegades and that’s ok. But they’ll have to be stricter with her.

54. Justin said,

    April 18, 2007 @ 3:01 pm

    haha! “Oh well, I am not really in favour of antibiotics” — that takes the biscuit.

55. Conor O\'Neill said,

    April 18, 2007 @ 3:13 pm

    1.6 million people died of TB in 2005 worldwide. Let’s hear the proposals from these geniuses as to how to reduce that number to zero without vaccinations or antibiotics.

    I know let’s send those in danger of TB some diluted water, healing crystals, a book on reiki massage, some sugar pills and good vibes.

56. soubresauts said,

    April 18, 2007 @ 4:05 pm

    So, Sarah was able to catch out McKenna on some points about TB. Big deal. What do Sarah and Conor O’Neill know about BCG and TB? See http://www.whale.to/m/bcg7.html

    McKenna might have remembered more about TB if she had met the late Albert Schatz about eight years ago, when McKenna was an MEP. Schatz was going to come to Dublin from the U.S. to present expert evidence about fluoridation to the Oireachtas Health Committee (arranged by John Gormley). Unfortunately, at the last minute Schatz’s doctor advised him not to travel (he was about 80 years old).

    Who was Albert Schatz? As a 23-year-old graduate student in 1944 he discovered streptomycin, though his professor (Waksman) got the Nobel Prize for that (it should have been shared). See http://www.fluoridation.com/authors.htm#Albert%20Schatz and http://www.fluoridation.com/schatz.htm

    Streptomycin played quite a big role in Ireland’s 20th century history, and so did fluoridation.

    Anyway, McKenna was absolutely right on the core issue of the parents’ right to choose about vaccination.

    As for MMR, it’s not just that we know that no vaccination is 100% safe or effective. We have good reason to doubt the official line that MMR is “very safe”. See, for example, this recent paper:

    http://www.jpands.org/vol11no4/millerc.pdf “The conclusions of the Cochrane review on the safety and effectiveness of MMR vaccine violate the standards of evidence-based medicine and are not supported by the body of the review. There are material concerns that the conclusions were influenced by efforts of the British government to avoid liability in claims brought on behalf of allegedly vaccine-injured children.”

    Justin, I appreciate the links you posted. All good stuff, though we should be particularly careful with Wikipedia… But we also have to consider that epidemiological studies don’t prove safety. And there’s a lot more to it than that.

    For example, let’s accept the mathematical model, and suppose that for a given disease herd immunity requires 90% vaccination coverage. Now suppose that, despite every effort by the health authorities (propaganda, financial incentives, browbeating, and so on), no more than 89% of the people accept the vaccination. Basically we’re going to get “failure” — we’re going to get an outbreak of the disease, sooner or later. So public health officials start talking about the need for “extraordinary” or “political” measures, and they try to make vaccination mandatory. But that would deprive parents of their right to say No. Ergo, big legal and political problems, whatever about the science.

    Now Patricia McKenna had this vaccination issue sprung on her during a discussion about fluoridation, and she said nothing outrageous. In fact she was generally very level-headed about it, despite being understandably flustered at one point.

    I could go on at length about Keith Redmond’s outrageous statements in relation to fluoridation, and I might — on some other blogs.

    On fluoridation and bone cancer, Sarah should note that the York Review was seven years ago and was rather limited in scope, and there is significant new evidence. See “Fluoride/ Bone Cancer” on this page: http://www.fluoridealert.org

    Dave wondered what the point was about Quackwatch and Stephen Barrett. The point is that people who rely on Quackwatch are on shaky ground, and, unfortunately, Quackwatch is very influential. You can learn more about Barrett’s behaviour here: http://www.bolenreport.net/feature_articles/feature_article055.htm

57. dublinnorth said,

    April 18, 2007 @ 5:26 pm

    The American writer Kurt Vonnegut died last week. One of my favourite novels is Cats Cradle which explores the relationship between science, religion and man. Here is a quote:

    “Dr. Hoenikker used to say that any scientist who couldn’t explain to an eight-year old what he was doing was a charlatan.”

    “Then I’m dumber than an eight-year old,’ Miss Pefko mourned. I don’t even know what a charlatan is!”

    Kurt Vonnegut, Cat’s Cradle

    I am in favour of science and reasoned debate. I think the MMR vaccination is a good thing. However hounding Patricia McKenna about her own kids is not pleasant and does not help us.

    Although I love science but Im not a fan of militant scientism and secularism. Richard Dawkins for instance is a clever guy but he is not particularly insightful. I find it hard to read his books because he is so full of hatred and invective. He is more concerned with burning witches than science. At the end of the day science only proves itself and we cant depend on it entirely – thats where the eugenics comes from.

    Consider this: An advocate of science might say that the Story of Genesis is a meme that has evolved and spread and whose function was to explain where we came from. But now we have the theory of Evolution through Natural Selection which is vastly superior to our old story. But if we follow this logic there are people who will look back at us from the future and laugh to think that we believed in Science, as they will have new vastly superior theories. And so on.

    This is not a fatalistic argument. It just says lets be pragmatic (and work with the best theories we have) but also try to be tolerant too. My earlier post was not very tolerant and I regretted that so just wanted to comment again.

58. Enda said,

    April 19, 2007 @ 12:06 pm

    Enda said (of McKenna): She’ll kick herself if her kids get polio. Enda doesn’t know much about polio, nor about McKenna.

    I’m not sure what more I’d need to know about polio or McKenna, other than it is A Bad Thing, and therefore unlikely that she would be very happy that her kids caught it. Unless it is well known that she and all her kids already have polio that in no way inhibits their quality of life. If that is the case, I stand corrected!

59. Conor O\'Neill said,

    April 19, 2007 @ 12:10 pm

    For fun I followed soubresauts first link. Usual bunch of loons and idiots spouting nonsense. One of them claims that homeopathy cures autism. No further comment necessary.

60. keith bohanna said,

    April 21, 2007 @ 9:31 pm

    I am (and will continue to be!) friendly with Justin and Conor (amongst others) in this debate.

    However there is a interesting slant here – if you disagree with the prevailing scientific opinion you are clueless.

    There is science on both sides of this discussion – and parents making informed judgements (never easy to go against medical opinion) which are not taken to weaken society but for the good of their kids. We did a lot of research before deciding not to vaccinate our two children.

    We do not go around telling other parents what to do or forcing our opinion on them. And in the school our kids are in there are a good number of parents who have taken similar decisions so the social outcasting would not work :-)

    keith

61. sarah said,

    April 22, 2007 @ 11:29 am

    “We did a lot of research before deciding not to vaccinate our two children.”

    Right…and ignored most of it obviously

    “We do not go around telling other parents what to do or forcing our opinion on them.”

    By weakening herd immunity you do.

    “which are not taken to weaken society but for the good of their kids.”

    Ah yes, the old Thatcherite there is no society just indviduals routine. In other words you gave the two fingers to society and made a self-centred decision. Nice one. I am sure the parents of the babies who die in the next measles outbreak will be grateful for your decision.

62. Conor O\'Neill said,

    April 22, 2007 @ 11:30 am

    Keith, of course we can disagree and remain friends but I think your line “or forcing our opinion on them” really gets to the heart of the matter.

    By not vaccinating your children you ARE forcing your opinion on every single person you kids interact with.

    They may shrug off a bout of rubella but what about a pregnant teacher whose parents may have made the same choice years before? TB may just require some anti-biotics to clear up but can kill someone with HIV who is immuno-suppressed. And your kids may not even know they have Hib but they end up causing meningitis in a newborn baby.

    I’m sure no-one wants their actions to negatively impact society but decisions you make for your kids have consequences far beyond just your family. And I’m not talking about some amorphous mass of “society” I’m talking about individuals.

    The only silver lining on the current situation in Cork where 220 kids have had chest x-rays to see if they have TB due to exposure is that maybe it’ll cause more people to realise what happens when vaccination stops. I believe those is the Southern Health Board who made the decision to stop offering BCG are criminally culpable.

    Vaccination is a victim of its own success, we have become complacent about it. It may take a few more terrible outbreaks and possibly even deaths for the message to get across again.

    Back to the question I asked in an earlier earlier Keith. Please propose a proven alternative to vaccination (with equal effectiveness) to prevent:

    • Mumps (encephalitis, meningitis, sterility)
    • Measles (pneumonia, encephalitis)
    • Rubella (birth defects, miscarriages)
    • TB (lung damage, death)
    • Diphtheria (neck swelling, skin disease, death)
    • Tetanus (lockjaw, death)
    • Whooping cough (pneumonia, death)
    • Hib (previously the leading cause of bacterial meningitis)
    • Polio (we’ve all seen the effects of this on older people)

    Or do we have to go back to some sort of survival of the fittest society?

63. keith bohanna said,

    April 22, 2007 @ 11:41 am

    hiya Conor, Sarah

    Sarah you are making an interesting assumption. That someone who comes to the opposite decision to you is wrong. Or has ignored something. Being on the opposing side of a decision does not automatically infer either of those things.

    Conor, at the time we made our decision we absorbed the information, then made the decision and then (or at least I did) moved on. I do not retain the understanding that I reached then because it is no longer relevant to us. And so I do not now get involved in debates on the science. Be assured that the decision was not just one taken in our selfish best interests but also encompassed the wider issue of the “herd”. You could not consider one without the other. And it would be a shame to dismiss the considered decisions of those of us who do so as motivated by pure selfishness. That is simply not true.

    keith

64. soubresauts said,

    May 4, 2007 @ 1:36 am

    About TB and the BCG vaccine, there was an interesting article in the Irish Times on April 24th. It didn’t focus directly on the ineffectiveness of the vaccine, but it did give some prominence to the views of Dr Charles Bredin, respiratory consultant at Cork University Hospital. In particular, the IT stated:

    “The HSE has announced that all babies will be routinely offered the BCG vaccine against TB from October 2007 after a 35-year absence, but Bredin says routine vaccinations are not the answer.”

    It seems obvious that the HSE is doing the vaccination thing because it must be seen to do something quickly and it can’t think of anything else.

    About other diseases… “The combined death rate from scarlet fever, diphtheria, whooping cough, and measles among children up to fifteen shows that nearly 90 per cent of the total decline in mortality between 1860 and 1965 had occurred before the introduction of antibiotics and widespread immunization.” — Ivan Illich: Limits To Medicine, 1976

    Polio is simply not a threat, in Ireland anyway.

    Is routine vaccination ever the answer?

    Why is so much public money being spent on vaccination when it could be used to reduce the distress of long waiting lists, patients lying on trolleys for hours, inadequate nursing care, and so on?

65. monica said,

    May 4, 2007 @ 3:22 am

    It would be idiotic to say that since you agree that Merck’s pain reliever, Vioxx was bad, killed people, and was pulled from the market, then you MUST feel that ALL medicine is bad, because Vioxx was bad.

    Very stupid logic indeed.

    One can be against the use of certain vaccines, while agreeing with vaccination, and with the knowledge that vaccines are inherently beneficial.

    Certain vaccines have been found to be dangerous. Some have even been removed from the market, such as the live virus polio vaccine, aka OPV. Interestingly, this vaccine is the only cause of polio in the US over the last 20 yrs.

    Dave, you stated “And disease is subject to the same rules of evolution. What’s your point? Our immune systems are fantastic but the virii etc out there are just as incredible.”

    This statement is accurate, as many viruses mutate, but we have used the same viral strains since the beginning of vaccination, according to your theory, our current vaccines would have a much higher rate of failure.

    Conor, you have stated “It is no longer acceptable to smoke in many places. It should be equally unacceptable to allow potential disease-carriers access to anywhere like creches where there are unprotected younger children who have not had the MMR yet.

    If that doesn’t work, the Health Boards (I assume this in now HSE) should simply add a requirement that all children who attend approved-childcare facilities must have received the MMR. Approval is removed from those creches that do not comply.”

    Suppose a child has an immune deficiency, and medically cannot receive a live virus vaccination? What about the 10% who do not build immunity to the vaccine? Should we quarantine these children forever?

    Autistic children often have genetic abnormalities in their immune systems. There are many studies supporting this- the MET gene variant is a good example- http://www.google.com/search?num=100&hl=en&safe=off&as_qdr=all&q=+%22autism%22+MET+gene

    Children with immune deficiency should not receive live virus vaccinations, a statement that is supported by the NIH, WHO, and CDC, as the virus can over-replicate and cause the disease it was meant to prevent. http://www.google.com/search?as_q=over+replication+vaccination+live+virus&hl=en&num=100&btnG=Google+Search&as_epq=immune+deficiency+&as_oq=&as_eq=simian&lr=lang_en&as_ft=i&as_filetype=&as_qdr=all&as_nlo=&as_nhi=&as_occt=any&as_dt=i&as_sitesearch=&as_rights=&safe=off

    That is why the US made the switch from the OPV to the IPV in 2001.

    Many children are often vaccinated with live virus vaccines in close proximity to colds, ear infections, etc, at a time when their immune system will not create a typical immune response.

    In addition to immune deficiency, my daughter also has autism. She had a reaction to the MMR and Varicella vaccines. She had a high fever, seizures, and strange rash, erythema multiforme- http://images.google.com/images?&hl=en&num=100&btnG=Google+Search&lr=lang_en&as_ft=i&as_qdr=all&as_dt=i&as_rights=&safe=off&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&um=1&sa=N&tab=wi&q=%20%22erythema%20multiforme%22

    At the hospital, no testing was done, and I was assured it had NOTHING to do with the vaccines my daughter had 2 wks prior, just “some virus”, and febrile seizures. After that my daughter began losing weight, spinning in circles all day, grinding her teeth, had severe digestive problems and facial tics, stopped talking, stopped looking at me, and stopped growing.

    She has since been diagnosed with autism, and has an empty sella, the structure holding the pituitary gland, causing her stunted growth. The only cause that can be explained, is brain infection.

    When no doctors could explain why she was having such digestive and growth problems, they had simply said “be positive”.

    We began using a homeopathic doctor who identified the immune disorder, and has her on a couple medicines, and dietary supplements to regulate her immune system. Since we began these, she has stopped having GI problems, has gained 2 pounds in 10 mos, stopped grinding her teeth, no longer has facial tics, is communicating, and has even grown a bit (3/4 inch).

    Since this discovery, all of my daughter’s doctors have admitted that she most likely had a reaction.

    While my daughter may never be “cured”, this homeopathic doctor has helped eliminate very real physical problems my daughter has faced. Her development has greatly improved as well, and she may be mainstreamed by kindergarten.

    If you would like to see more of my daughter, fully autistic, and her progress since, you can see videos at http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=aware4autism

    We have created inactivated versions of most live virus vaccines. We need to switch from live virus vaccines to inactivated vaccines as quickly as possible.

    And please remember, just because a person cannot take aspirin, does not mean they do not find benefit in modern medicine.

66. Conor O\'Neill said,

    May 4, 2007 @ 9:18 am

    Ah yes, Dr Bredin. We’ve just been finding out about him over on my blog. The parent of one of the children in one of the creches with the TB outbreak found an article from 2001 which highlighted that as a member of the Southern Health Board , he has always been one of the key figures opposing the re-introduction of BCG in Cork. I found a few more bits on him and like soubresauts his opposition does not appear to be balanced in any way by an alternative solution.

    I pointed out the irony of him presented at an event last year called “TB – A Global Disease, International Approaches for Control and Prevention & a Model Programme for Ireland”.

    His presentation was titled “TB – approaches for control and prevention – a Southern Irish perspective”.

    Presumably his presentation consisted of four slides:

    “Do nothing and hope for the best” “If something happens, screen potentially infected people including babies with XRays” “Give everyone exposed some preventative antibioitics” “Give those infected major doses of antibioitcs”

    The simple fact is that we now have 35 years of comparative data in Ireland between Cork and the rest of the country. Any medical statistician should be able to state with a strong degree of confidence whether BCG works here or not. Several major TB outbreaks in Cork would indicate that it does.

    If I get TB I’ll be sure to go to someone like Bredin. If I want to find out how to prevent TB, I’ll talk to an expert in Public Health. The same Public Health experts who have spent years trying to get BCG re-introduced in Cork.

    “Ivan Illich is an ex-professional itinerant teacher and philosopher” – Seriously, is that the best you can come up with?

67. soubresauts said,

    May 4, 2007 @ 11:36 am

    Conor, please try to put aside the ad hominem arguments. The statement from Illich is based on undisputed statistics. What’s your problem with it?

    In this 1998 paper in the Irish Medical Journal http://www.imj.ie//Issue_detail.aspx?pid=153&type=Papers, Dr Luke Clancy stated:

    “In the 1986 National Tuberculosis Survey we clearly established that policy with respect to BCG vaccination varied in the Republic of Ireland with some areas having a policy of neonatal BCG, others of BCG at age 12-14 years and some having a policy of not using BCG.”

    Cork wasn’t unique…

    Who is confident that BCG works?

68. Conor O\'Neill said,

    May 4, 2007 @ 12:04 pm

    That is a superb article soubresauts, thanks. And written by someone with deep expertise in the field. A few items jumped out at me:

    “Bredin, using routinely-collected and published data from both jurisdictions confirmed that the Republic had a higher reported incidence of tuberculosis. There was no information on case definition, age structure or BCG vaccination”.

    So one of the leading opponents of BCG did a study where he did not factor in BCG statistics. Wow!

    “The incidence of tuberculosis in people younger than 15 years is equally low in areas of the Republic which use neonatal BCG. This could be an effect of the vaccine in the prevention of tuberculosis, as we have shown elsewhere”

    The rate per 100,000 in the South for those under 15 years of age is 13.45 with no BCG and 3.4 with BCG. I think those stats probably match the numbers of kids infected in Cork in recent times. Real kids with real lives and parents who are worried sick.

    So whilst we do have a much higher incidence than the North, those areas that use BCG are less affected. It is very interesting that the “why” is still so difficult to pin down after all this time.

    From everything I have found to date, “some”=”Cork”. can anyone else confirm any other region which doesn’t have routine BCG?

    But BCG is just one of the vaccinations you oppose soubresauts. How do you propose we deal with Mumps,Measles, Rubella, Diphtheria, Tetanus, Whooping cough and Hib? I find your flippant dismissal of Polio interesting. That scourge was removed through vaccination. If it ever returns to Ireland it’ll be due to complacency like yours.

69. Treasa said,

    May 4, 2007 @ 12:14 pm

    Smallpox was eradicated from the world using vaccination. Read this on polio vaccination: report on increased incidence of polio in Pakistan for a salutary lesson in why vaccination is important. It is far better to prevent these things than try to fix them/cure them.

70. soubresauts said,

    May 4, 2007 @ 3:56 pm

    Conor, I’m pretty sure I read a report recently that Galway discontinued neonatal BCG years ago. There are probably other places too. Anyway, many parts of Europe gave up on BCG a long time ago. Bredin is no isolated figure. I’d give more credibility to Clancy if he had ever acknowledged that the main cause of mortality and morbidity from coal smoke is fluoride (as HF and particulates). But despite his experience, despite all the papers he has published, and despite the scientific evidence (for example, http://www.fluoridealert.org/f-pollution.htm), Clancy has failed to do so. You have to wonder about such failures…

    Treasa offers us a WHO-inspired report about polio in Pakistan. What chance do those people in north-west Pakistan have, with their lives dominated by religious lunatic warriors and American bombs? They need peace, clean water, and proper sewerage, but the WHO (backed by American money) just wants to give them polio vaccine.

    There are many strange things happening in Pakistan, and not just in relation to American interference or Saudi money. The Cork dental researchers, who are also the WHO’s “experts” on fluoride, have been collaborating with Pakistani researchers; see: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=15503849

    And what did they find?

    “RESULTS: The maximum reduction of caries in relation to fluoride levels in Pakistan was witnessed between the fluoride concentrations of 0.00-0.33ppm. CONCLUSIONS: There are no gold standards for setting up a universal optimal level of fluoride in drinking water…”

    Nevertheless, those UCC people are keeping mandatory fluoridation going in Ireland at an “optimal” concentration of 1 ppm (currently being reduced slightly, because of widespread dental fluorosis — fluoride poisoning). See: http://www.irishhealth.com/index.html?level=4&id=11399

    I don’t take statements from the WHO at face value. See my paper here: http://tinyurl.com/b4bez

    Nor do I take statements from public health doctors at face value, particularly when those doctors are highly placed. PHDs are trained to do very little except vaccination, fluoridation, chlorination and pasteurization.

    Vaccination is the biggie, and people rarely get the full story about it. Apart from the links I gave above, the following sites are enlightening: http://www.whale.to/vaccines.html http://www.vaccines.bizland.com/vaccinesafety.htm http://www.909shot.com/ http://www.vaccination.inoz.com/about.html http://www.avn.org.au/

    As for the other arrows in the PH doctors’ quiver…

    There is not one Irish medical doctor, let alone a PH doctor, who is willing to defend fluoridation in public debate. It is quite clear that fluoridation is contrary to fundamental medical principles. The PHDs are dodging responsibility and letting a few dentist academics run the fluoridation show — forcing unmeasured amounts of a highly toxic chemical down the throats of every Irish citizen.

    Chlorination doesn’t stop cryptosporidium, and it leaves toxic chlorine compounds in the water. Continental Europe shows how to deliver safe drinking water — without chlorine. But the PHDs don’t seem to know.

    There are serious downsides to pasteurization. I’m glad to note that the Greens are somewhat enlightened about this: http://www.greenparty.ie/en/policies/agriculture__1/appendix_1_raw_milk_cheeses

    Quite frankly, I think the PHDs do more for the pharmaceutical industry than for public health. And that industry operates by these laws: www4.dr-rath-foundation.org/PHARMACEUTICAL_BUSINESS/laws_of_the_pharmaceutical_industry.htm

71. Andrew said,

    May 5, 2007 @ 10:35 pm

    Just to bring it back to the first question, about how this would affect voting in Dublin Central. Lets be clear, Patricia admitted these were her personal views, and not party policy. It is NOT Green Party policy to get rid of the vaccine.

    At the end of the day, in Dublin Central, you have 3 real choices: Fianna Fail, Sinn Fein or the Greens. I may not like McKenna, but I vote for the government I want, not the personalities, and come the 24th I’ll be voting Green, cos its the most I can do to get rid of the crowd we have in power now.

72. The Tank said,

    May 6, 2007 @ 10:09 am

    It depends where in the constituency you live. Joe Costello Lab is probably going to get in if you want to vote for and alternative govenment, and Tony Gregory is obviously known for helping form government in return for massive investment in the constituency.

    Anyway it will be McKenna and Mary Lou fighting it out with one of the FFers for the final seat.

    The Greens are nuts and are in denial about alot of things. They’d be the last people I’d want in government. Their party ethos often stops them from being able to follow viable and reasonable solutions to problems.

73. Andrew said,

    May 6, 2007 @ 1:12 pm

    I’d really appreciate it if you could back up “The Greens are nuts” with some of their actual policies. Ive combed through their manifesto (www.greenparty.ie) and found nothing but sensible solutions. Especially on public transport (which is my hobby-horse) the Greens are way ahead of the competition.

74. Justin said,

    May 6, 2007 @ 1:28 pm

    ‘Just to bring it back to the first question, about how this would affect voting in Dublin Central. Lets be clear, Patricia admitted these were her personal views, and not party policy. It is NOT Green Party policy to get rid of the vaccine.’

    So what? Does that mean we should vote for her, then?

    I still don’t understand why it’s a good idea to vote for a candidate you disagree with, on the basis that their party also disagrees with them and that somehow balances it all out. That makes NO sense.

    If someone could explain that logic, I’d appreciate it…

75. Antoin O Lachtnain said,

    May 6, 2007 @ 3:08 pm

    Unfortunately, we live in what is known as a representative democracy. This means that we choose the representatives who best reflect our values and who we think can do the best job for us. In turn, these representatives are members of political parties which have a common ground. Unfortunately, it is difficult to get a perfect match between voter, candidate and party. That is the nature of the thing and you have to work with it as best you can.

    You might decide that having the Greens in government is a priority for you. The fact that it means you have to vote for someone you disagree with on some issues is really tough luck and you will just have to eat the cabbage.

76. soubresauts said,

    May 6, 2007 @ 3:52 pm

    Andrew said: “It is NOT Green Party policy to get rid of the vaccine.” But it does seem to be Green Party policy to get rid of Patricia McKenna.

    As Treasa rightly pointed out, the Greens changed their policy on vaccination. They changed from a sensible McKenna-type approach to one of bending over backwards towards the medical establishment, with nods to the Irish Times, the PDs, and bloggers like Justin (congratulations Justin!). The GP manifesto (www.greenparty.ie/en/election_07/manifesto_2007), published last Thursday, says:

    The Green Party will: * significantly increase the budget for health promotion and support public immunisation programmes.

    I wonder what “public immunisation programmes” they’re thinking of. Do they want to vaccinate me (a member of the public)? Have they arrived at Conor’s attitude of “vaccinate or leave society”?

    That is all pretty surprising, given that the Greens always seemed to stick to their principles (not to mention the fact that Patricia McKenna is an accomplished and impressive politician).

    But what REALLY floors me is that the Greens have now abandoned their commitment to stop fluoridation immediately. The manifesto says (page 22):

    “The Green Party will… * set up an independent study into the total fluoride intake of the Irish population, as called for by the Oireachtas Health Committee, and if the study shows excess levels we will stop the current fluoridation of drinking water.”

    What a turn-around!

    Ten years ago, Trevor Sargent told the Dail: “It is time to stop this crazy experiment with our health. It cannot be lawful for a state to poison its own people. We have ample evidence that fluoridation is damaging our health.” (http://historical-debates.oireachtas.ie/D/0474/D.0474.199702060021.html)

    With ten years more evidence accumulated, the Greens declared, on March 13th: “The Green Party today said that it would stop the fluoridation of Irish water supplies if elected to Government. … Recommendations: * Fluoridated water should not be used to bottle feed babies. * Given the impracticality of sourcing non-fluoridated water for the bottle feeding of babies, on the basis of the precautionary principle the practice of water fluoridation should cease immediately.” (www.greenparty.ie/en/news/latest_news/greens_in_govt_would_stop_water_fluoridation)

    Needless to say, the Greens’ new-found idea of “an independent study into the total fluoride intake of the Irish population” would keep fluoridation going for years at least. In fact it looks pretty unworkable, given the power of the people who would be out to thwart it.

    It looks like the Greens forgot that Fine Gael are already committed (since six years ago) to stopping fluoridation immediately: http://www.fluoridationcenter.org/papers/2001/irishindependent011501.htm

    Imagine… In negotiating the new government, the Greens will be trying to STOP Fine Gael stopping fluoridation!

    So, for very different reasons, I have to agree with The Tank that “the Greens are nuts.” Excepting the beleaguered Patricia McKenna.

77. The Tank said,

    May 7, 2007 @ 10:25 am

    OK so I was slightly over the top but there is one thing that gets me about the Greens, energy policy, and in fairness it pretty much the energy policy of every party in Ireland but if they changed it they would get my vote (but possibly lose thousands of others!).

    Our CO2 emissions are quite large, so large in fact I think we’re spending something like €250 or €300 million a year on ficitious “Carbon Credits”.

    The manifesto talks about Cutting Emissions and reducing Oil Dependency So we’re investing in energy rated homes, advertising campaigns telling us to unplug our phone chargers when we’re not using them and wind power and well not much else.

    Well there is one massive source of reletively safe non-CO2 energy production, which the founder of Friends of the Earth – John Lovelock – believes can play a major part in slowing down and possibily reversing climate change, Nuclear energy, but I guess that’s a dirrty word around here and I’m going to be laughed at, as usual, for being the nutter!

    Another one is their policy to ban TV alcohol advertising, hundreds of people in Dublin are dependant directly on TV alcohol advertising in ad agencies, media agencies, research agencies, production companies etc, and I’ll admit I’m biased on this one as I’m one of them!! Cocaine isn’t advertised on TV and that’s still pretty popular. Banning TV alcohol advertising won’t reduce consumption it will just make people less brand conscious.

78. Conor O\'Neill said,

    May 7, 2007 @ 11:06 am

    Nuclear Energy – the one thing that is never mentioned by the fans of those much adored Scandinavians.

    Unfortunately it is still impossible to have a reasoned logical fact-based argument about nuclear energy in this country. I would genuinely love to see a conference on it here comparing the (utterly incompetent) US experience with that of France/Germany/Scandinavia.

    Actually whilst we are on the subject of Greens, one of the core planks of the previous German Green campaign was to shut down all nuclear reactors. Two questions [a] did they succeed? [b] what did they replace them with?

    I have no issue with nuclear in principle, but given that they’d probably put someone with all the abilities of Martin Cullen in charge of it and try to build a reactor in Christchurch, I do have my doubts whether we could ever do it right here.

79. Antoin O Lachtnain said,

    May 7, 2007 @ 11:12 am

    Cocaine isn’t all that popular. It’s popular within a few particular ’sets’. It isn’t mainstream. There are a few hundred thousand occasional cocaine users in the country at most (in my opinion, from speaking to a range of people, none of whom work in advertising).

    Do you think the Green Party could realistically get elected on a nuclear platform? The way our political system works is that you only get into parliament (or government) if you get enough votes. It’s just not realistic to expect to get votes on the foot of that sort of manifesto.

80. seanuisce said,

    May 7, 2007 @ 1:00 pm

    Disappointing to learn of the Green’s choice to weaken their stance on fluoridation. Had hoped that finally a party (which makes a song and ance about respecting nature) would stop the dumping of that stuff into our water supplies. The substance being used is nowhere near pharmaceutical grade, has not been approved for human consumption and is recognised as an environmental hazard. If fluoridation issue is new to you then this 22min video is a good intro to the difficulties with it: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8651924132181016035

    Re the vaccination issue… I feel similarly as I do about fluoridation. It’s not for me or my children. I will explain why if someone wants to know and then let them make their own choice for themselves and their children. I won’t get in their way if they want to do it – as long as their doing it doesn’t mean I have to!

    I find it interesting that some bloggers here feel that it’s okay for them to force their belief in vaccination on me while it’s not okay for me to force my view (that it’s a matter of personal choice for parents) on them and our society in general. Wonder if they can see the inconsistency in that stance? Wonder also if they’ve thought through the full implications of holding a “everyone ought to be required to do it for the common good” position?

    Because doing so means that they cannot pick and choose if a future Government decides to introduce some other health (or indeed any other) measure and insists we all have to do it for the sake of some in our society.

    Those who believe that science supports vaccination could be in for a bit of a shock if they watch http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8610554679207090010

    As well as referring to the drop in specific diseases that was occurring before vaccine programmes were introduced for them, there is a VERY interesting angle on the impact of HIV and AIDS on vaccination (about 22 mins in). Good luck to people with medical or PR or pro-vaccination people explaining this dilemma… no matter what way they spin it, there is no logic to someone holding that antibodies (whether vaccine or naturally triggered) means protection while HIV antibodies means disaster. The two are mutually contradictory. Which suggests that one point of view is innaccurate. Or perhaps both are.

81. soubresauts said,

    May 7, 2007 @ 3:01 pm

    The report in yesterday’s Observer about folic acid in bread is relevant: http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,2073531,00.html

    Medical specialist Professor Nicholas Wald declared: “Public health is a greater priority than freedom of choice.”

    And as we get sicker and sicker, they’ll drop the words “of choice”.

    We need politicians who’ll tell the white coats where to get off. I used to think the Greens were the ones to do it. Now it’s hard to see anyone, apart from Patricia McKenna, if she hasn’t been completely silenced by her party.

82. Simon said,

    May 8, 2007 @ 5:51 pm

    There comes a point where all the evidence suggests that it’s not simply a matter of forcing ‘beliefs’ on each other.

    If I believe that my child is bulletproof, and pointed a loaded gun at them, would you let me pull the trigger?

83. Lugs said,

    May 8, 2007 @ 6:52 pm

    Hi soubresauts:

    Lugs said: “Kudos to Cooper and his team for knowing the facts and exposing her shocking ignorance.” What facts might those be, Lugs?

    Let’s take just one.

    McKenna stated that there is a link between MMR and Autism. In the U.S., the FDA, IOM, CDC and NIH reports find there is no link. In the U.K., the Medical Research Council report finds no link. The Similar for the Canadian, Australian and New Zealand public health bodies. Similar for the health organizations in every Western European country. The Lancet paper interpretation was retracted. Wakefield himself may face GMC charges.

    So, either you believe that:

    1. There’s a vast conspiracy involving the repeated faking of scientific results, requiring the collaboration and criminal activity of tens of thousands of doctors, scientists and public health professionals in dozens of countries around the world – and this murderous conspiracy has been secretly co-ordinated, and has remained undiscovered for almost a decade.

    2. or Patricia McKenna is dangerously ignorant, and apparently proud of it.

    If you think the former is more likely, then fine, soubresauts, vote away for McKenna. By the way, I’ve got a bridge for sale in Brooklyn – interested?

84. seanuisce said,

    May 8, 2007 @ 7:01 pm

    Simon… can you clarify what you mean please?

    I’m not sure what you’re getting at but figure you’re responding to – or following on from – my comment about bloggers here insisting that their belief in vaccination take precedent over my belief that it’s a matter of personal choice for me and parents.

    You’re raising an interesting issue regarding when it is appropriate for someone who is not a legal guardian of a child to intervene in the interaction between parent and child.

85. soubresauts said,

    May 8, 2007 @ 10:53 pm

    Lugs, you forgot to mention the WHO…

    “So, either you believe that: There’s a vast conspiracy…”

    It doesn’t need a “vast conspiracy”. Just a few people in key positions. The pharmaceutical companies do most of the driving. They convinced nearly everyone years ago that vaccination is wonderful, period. Everything follows from that. Oh, there are a few little difficulties. Like unwanted side effects. Mercury. Lawsuits from vaccine-damaged people. This vaccine is very dangerous; that vaccine isn’t effective… but it’ll be replaced. Don’t worry.

    It’s very like the way fluoridation is promoted, by many of the same people. The fact that fluoridation is clearly unscientific, unhealthy, unjust and immoral SHOULD make you wonder about vaccination.

    It’s revealing to look at the people in key positions for worldwide fluoridation: Prof Denis O’Mullane and Dr Helen Whelton of UCC, and Dr Michael Lennon OBE from Sheffield (three of the four dentists who wrote the Fluoride section of the WHO’s Drinking Water Guidelines, and none of them are experts on fluoride). Throw in scientist John Fawell MBE (for “services to water”) who coordinated that WHO document, while at the same time working for pharma-chem giant Solvay to put together the Fluoride section of its pseudo-Green website GreenFacts.org. Solvay have an enormous vested interest in giving fluoride a benign image. Fawell, an “independent” environmental consultant (www.johnfawell.co.uk) also works as European principal of The Sapphire Group (http://thesapphiregroup.com/home/showpage.asp?id=13&name=background&ref=1.2&section=1). Sapphire (risk management consultants) work for big industrial corporations — chemical, pharmaceutical, even arms manufacturers — helping them to overcome the obstacles of regulatory bodies.

    These are the people who pretty-much control what goes into your drinking water. Can you trust them? Well, Dr Whelton told the Irish Times: “There is no cause for concern at the levels of fluoride people are getting. There is no reason to remove fluoride from the water.” — IT, 17 May 1999. No reason??

    And Prof Denis O’Mullane stated: “It harms nobody and it does a lot of good.” — IT, 16 Aug 1999. O’Mullane stated in 2001: “It is now well-established that fluoride’s primary method of action is a topical one.” (www.lib.umich.edu/dentlib/nihcdc/abstracts/omullane.html) So why are we forced to drink it? Well, you see, Mary Harney believes those people.

    Mind you, the 2006 report on Fluoride in Drinking Water by America’s highest scientific authority, the National Research Council (http://books.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=11571), may make some of the big government agencies distance themselves from fluoridation.

    The conspiracy behind fluoridation is detailed in “The Fluoride Deception” by Christopher Bryson, a masterpiece of investigative reporting. And it IS a conspiracy; it’s all there in black and white, in US government documents.

    Are the people behind vaccination any more trustworthy than the people behind fluoridation? Vaccination is a bigger business for Big Pharma than fluoridation.

    Of course those government agencies deny a link between MMR and autism. That’s not the end of the story, nor the end of the science. The other side of the story, and the science, is in the links I gave above.

86. soubresauts said,

    May 9, 2007 @ 9:08 am

    Justin, Lugs, consider this video, of Dr Andrew Wakefield and others, eighteen months ago: http://www.chem.cmu.edu/wakefield/

    Difficult to watch, I know, but it provides a sharp contrast to Matt Cooper’s statements about Wakefield — “totally discredited” and all that.

    Why do you people believe Matt Cooper rather than Patricia McKenna?

87. Lugs said,

    May 9, 2007 @ 10:09 am

    Hi Soubresauts!

    That’s funny, I didn’t know there was a link between MMR and Fluoridation.

    But you didn’t answer my most important question – do you want the bridge?

    Here – don’t listen to those so-called experts who tell you I don’t really own the Brooklyn Bridge. Never mind those qualified estate agents, and fancy-schmancy legal people who tell you there’s no link between me and the Bridge, with their so called “contract law”, “deeds”, and “title research”. (Shhushhh – they’re all part of that conspiracy we talked about before!).

    I really, really believe that I own the bridge. I believe it in my gut. The fact that there’s no “evidence” that there’s a link between me and the bridge doesn’t matter to me, so it certainly shouldn’t matter to you. You just feel it in your heart – there’s only truthiness here.

    So, what about it then? I’m willing to let the Bridge go for just under the 900k, or the price of a one-bedroom apartment on Sheriff Street (your call). We can sort out the Stamp Duty later (or we can do a Bertie on it – wink, wink!). If you’ve any trouble with the financing, we may have to get that nice lady who keeps emailing me from Nigeria to help out – you now, the widow of General Sani Abacha (yes, she of the “temporary liquidity issue”).

    So, are you on? Let me know via ESP – I’ll be taking my tin-foil hat off at about 10pm tonight, so you should be able to get through then.

    Take care, Soubresauts.

    p.s. do you know, is there any fluoride in Kool-Aid? Never mind the evidence – what do you feel?

88. soubresauts said,

    May 9, 2007 @ 6:27 pm

    About the “totally discredited” Andrew Wakefield, and his collaborators…

    If you can’t view the video, there are transcripts (of equivalent presentations), in html and pdf formats, here: http://www.thoughtfulhouse.com/0405-conf-awakefield.htm

89. soubresauts said,

    May 11, 2007 @ 6:41 pm

    Patricia McKenna (if she hasn’t been silenced) is sounding more and more like the voice of wisdom. There has been a sensational development in Britain: http://www.jabs.org.uk/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=668

    Any chance of Matt Cooper taking an interest in that?

    Here’s more support for McKenna’s position — from the scientists: http://autismmedia.org/media2.html

    And in the latest Irish Medical News, news of the long, drawn-out efforts by parents of “allegedly” vaccine-damaged children: http://www.irishmedicalnews.ie/articles.asp?Category=news&ArticleID=18772

    Not that those families will get much sympathy from the Department of Health & Children… It is clear that the DoHC’s number one priority is to “ensure that there is no resultant damage to public confidence in the national immunisation programme.”

    And it seems that the DoHC can rely on the support of the media, the Green Party, bloggers, and so on…

90. seanuisce said,

    May 11, 2007 @ 10:08 pm

    Thanks for those links soubresauts – interesting reading and viewing… that judge-conflict-of-interest one is extraordinary. Even more stunning to me though was how I let the media shysters mislead me about Wakefield!

    I HAD ALWAYS THOUGHT THE WAKEFIELD, AS A RESULT OF HIS RESEARCH, WAS AGAINST VACCINES! So I got quite a jolt watching the short video of him on http://autismmedia.org/media2.html – he said: “children should be vaccinated… for a number of reasons… because there are some very serious diseases out there”

    Perhaps I missed it at the time, but the media never made a song and dance about a pro-vaccination researcher waving a flag about vaccine ingredients. I got the impression from them that Wakefield was an eejit who did bad research, couldn’t be trusted, wasn’t worth listening to and so vaccination was still a great and safe thing for us all!

    Turns out the media did not bring out Wakefield’s central point: just because a vaccine is out there doesn’t mean it’s safe.

    THAT is what his work seems to be about… he’s not against vaccines – he’s just researching their effects on people and saying he’s found evidence suggesting they cause x,y,z problems – and it appears thimerosol might be the big problem – not necessarily vaccination itself.

    And all I can do is laugh at the irony of it all… the pro-vaccine folk were condemning one of their own… and I’m now at odds with Wakefield on the vaccination issue – but still completely with him on his research approach!

91. soubresauts said,

    May 12, 2007 @ 5:17 pm

    What are the chances that Justin, Enda, Dublinnorth, Conor, John, Paddy, Daithi, Ryano, David Malone, Joemomma, Lugs, Sarah, Dave, Treasa, & Chancer will own up and admit they were wrong about Patricia McKenna?

    Or do they still believe that “Matt Cooper is spot on the money”?

92. David Malone said,

    May 12, 2007 @ 6:02 pm

    Having read most of this discussion, followed quite a few of the links, skimmed some of the papers linked to from Wakefield’s site and spoken to an immunologist (who isn’t funded by the pharma industry), I believe I can stand over my comments. I’m fairly sure that I’ve now done more reading than Patricia McKenna on the matter.

    Like computer security, it seems population health will always involve some trade offs. Based on what I’ve learned from this thread, I’d probably strengthen my previous position to say the damage done by low immunisation uptake in Ireland is likely to be considered by most people to be larger than any possible damage done by the the standard vaccination program.

93. Lugs said,

    May 13, 2007 @ 10:04 pm

    You are hilarious, Soubresauts! :-)

    All the conspiracy theories you link to, do nothing to contradict the fact that …

    every reputable public health body in the world agrees that …

    there is no evidence of a link between the MMR vaccine and Autism.

    (unless you live on planet Soubresauts, where evidence and reason don’t count, and the government is poisoning the water with Fluoride!)

94. soubresauts said,

    May 14, 2007 @ 6:43 pm

    Lugs, how do you KNOW that all the reports about the vaccine-autism connection are rubbish? There are hundreds, like this: http://www.bolenreport.net/feature_articles/feature_article061.htm

    Would you not agree that the campaign against Dr Andrew Wakefield is discredited, the English courts are discredited, and The Lancet is discredited? See: http://www.jabs.org.uk/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=676

    Do you not resent all the taxpayers’ money being spent on promoting MMR?

95. Monica Bice said,

    May 15, 2007 @ 4:59 pm

    Lugs said- “there is no evidence of a link between the MMR vaccine and Autism.”

    http://www.jpands.org/vol9no2/bradstreet.pdf

    http://www.icdrc.org/status.html

    Lugs- can you explain to me how the vaccine strain measles virus ended up in the cerebral spinal fluid of these autistic children, yet was not found in any typically developing controls?

    Also Lugs, can you find a similar study on the csf of autistic children that does NOT replicate these findings?

    The measles virus is an extremely nasty bug- and can cause severe damage. Take a look at SSPE (subacute sclerosing panencephalitis), or MIBE (measles inclusion body encephalitis).

    http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=104418

    http://www.ninds.nih.gov/disorders/subacute_panencephalitis/subacute_panencephalitis.htm

    I find it interesting that the Mayo clinic associates Childhood Disintegrative Disorder (one of the many conditions under the umbrella of autistic spectrum disorders) with SSPE. http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/childhood-disintegrative-disorder/DS00801/DSECTION=3

    Why don’t all children who receive the MMR develop regressive autism? Because they don’t all have the same immune response. Vaccines were created largely in anticipation of one typical immune response. With amazing HIV research in the past 2 decades, we now know that there are over 100 immune responses.

    Do some research on Primary Immune Deficiency, or Primary Immunodeficiency, and learn how horribly underdiagnosed this condition truly is.

    Sadly, the children that have adverse reactions to live virus vaccines, are also likely to have serious sequela to vaccine preventable diseases, such as SSPE or MIBE, and even death, so herd immunity is still very critical. It is quite a double edge sword. That is why I am lobbying the US governement to start using an inactivated measles vaccine- we still need the vaccine, but we need a safer alternative. Such is the case with the US’s recent switch to the IPV- inactivated polio virus vaccine, as the only cases of polio on the US over the last 20 yrs were caused by the OPV- which is a live virus vaccine.

    Regressive autism shares the same symptoms as encephalopathy. http://www.ninds.nih.gov/disorders/encephalopathy/encephalopathy.htm http://www.ninds.nih.gov/disorders/autism/detail_autism.htm

    In the US, the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program does pay out to autistic children injured by the MMR, if the virus is found in the CSF, although- parents and doctors are instructed to use the diagnosis of “encephalopathy”, as the NVICP refuses to pay out for a diagnosis of autism. I have spoke with 2 parents who have gained compensation in this manner.

    Check out what the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program in the US will cover- http://www.hrsa.gov/vaccinecompensation/table.htm#7

    The only studies discrediting Wakefield’s theory I have read have been epidemiologic, and I hope you are intelligent enough to know that we can manipulate numbers in these studies. Also know that epidemiologic studies once disputed the link between tobacco smoking and lung cancer.

    There were many epidemiologists, including prominent statisticians Joseph Berkson and Sir Ronald Fisher (often considered the “father of modern epidemiology”) who stood firm in their view that the link between cigarette smoking and lung cancer was simply a coincidence. Many scientists had blamed the increase in lung cancer on air pollution. For many years, the medical community relied on Sir Ronald Fisher’s epidemiologic studies (such as Frombonne’s studies of autism), and not clinical research (such as Wakefield’s, or Bradstreet’s studies on autism) in stating that smoking did not cause lung cancer.

    http://tobacco.neu.edu/box/BOEKENBox/Boeken%20Trial%20Transcript/5239-5292_051001AM_LudmererDirectCross.PDF

    http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&as_qdr=all&q=%22Joseph+Berkson%22+OR+%22Ronald+Fisher%22+tobacco

    A few scientific studies, looking for a relationship between smoking and lung cancer, had been carried out before the Second World War, and indeed had found some evidence of such a relationship, but generally their results were not particularly persuasive and had very little impact on the medical establishment or on public opinion.

    It seems as though history is repeating itself.

    So if you believe the epidemiologic studies that smoking does not cause cancer, I suppose my argument is lost on you.

    Lugs, as a parent of a child who had undiagnosed immune deficiency before vaccination with the MMR/Varivax, a child who now has regressive autism, empty sella syndrome, and GI dysfunction that did not appear before a reaction to the MMR/ Varivax combination- I can assure this is a topic I have spent thousands of hours researching, much more than you have, I am certain.

    I can also assure you that you are very wrong in stating “there is no evidence of a link between the MMR vaccine and Autism.”

96. Monica Bice said,

    May 15, 2007 @ 5:06 pm

    For some reason, the entire link to the symptoms of encephalopathy will not post correctly, so I have seperated the address- you will have to copy and paste both lines into your browser to get to the page

    http://www.ninds.nih.gov/disorders/encephalopathy/ encephalopathy.htm

97. Monica Bice said,

    May 15, 2007 @ 7:09 pm

    By the way, Lugs,

    There WAS a vast conspiracy involving the repeated faking of scientific results, requiring the collaboration and criminal activity of tens of thousands of doctors, scientists and public health professionals in dozens of countries around the world – and this murderous conspiracy had been secretly co-ordinated, and had remained undiscovered for almost a decade.

    The tobacco companies led this conspiracy, thousands of people died of lung cancer, while being told their cigarettes were safe.

    And, contrary to your belief, the GMC has NO plans of filing charges against Wakefield

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=395903&in_page_id=1770

    Here is an email I received from the GMC responding to my questioning what, if any, charges Wakefield faces

    Dear Ms Bice

    Thank you for your email of the 7 July 2006. The GMC is currently investigation Dr Wakefield’s fitness to practise as a doctor, and he has previously expressed his desire to co-operate with the investigation. No formal charges have been laid against the doctor, and no hearing date has been confirmed.

    Yours sincerely Miss Claire Henesy Fitness to Practise Directorate

    One would think that 2 yrs after the Lancet retracted his statement, they would have SOME sort of charges in mind.

    Why don’t you email Claire herself, and ask what charges Wakefield faces today- CHenesy@gmc-uk.org

    here is some more hard science, not numbers, for you to chew on

    Abnormal Measles-Mumps-Rubella Antibodies and CNS Autoimmunity in Children with Autism

    http://content.karger.com/ProdukteDB/produkte.asp?Aktion=ShowPDF&ProduktNr=224178&Ausgabe=228593&ArtikelNr=65007&filename=65007.pdf

    The AUTISM RESEARCH MONOGRAPHS of Teresa Binstock goes into great detail explaining the effects of live virus vaccines on a dysfunctional immune system , and how it contributes to autism.

    http://members.jorsm.com/~binstock/index.htm

    Here you will find 38 references to SCIENTIFIC STUDIES that support Wakefield’s theory

    http://www.whale.to/vaccines/thrower45.html

    And this, this is just the tip of the iceburg of information implicating live virus vaccination in the etiology of autism.

    I don’t even need all that science. There is a term we use here in the US- seeing is believing, and I saw what live virus vaccines did to my daughter.

98. dublinnorth said,

    May 17, 2007 @ 12:13 pm

    Or do they still believe that “Matt Cooper is spot on the money” I don’t like Cooper much. I prefer Hook at drive-time. He let his guests have their say without badgering them.

99. dublinnorth said,

    May 17, 2007 @ 12:35 pm

    Also, Conor O’Neill has a great idea over here: I was thinking further on this yesterday and I realised what the Greens need to do in order to be taken seriously… They need to become the “Party of Science”.

    Party of Science! WTF? This sounds like 1984 and Brave New World all rolled into one. Lets see what Science has given us:

    Haber-Bosch process for the synthesis of nitrogen fertilizer without which much of the worlds population would not exist. Saved billions of people from starvation.

    Gunpowder Responsible for the death and maiming of countless human beings, the extinction of entire species of birds and animals and some human civilizations

    You can’t base a party on Science. A lot of people here probably make their livings through technology (though very few are scientists I’d say) i.e. Bloggers are a self-selecting sample. But few would claim that science or technology solves everything. A political party also has to consider ethics, liberty, economics and many more things.

100. Antoin O Lachtnain said,

     May 17, 2007 @ 12:58 pm

     You might be on to something there. ‘Party of Science’ has a real ring, I think it could resonate with the electorate in 2012.

101. monica said,

     May 18, 2007 @ 6:04 pm

     wow, interesting that my entire post was removed, maybe because it had some truth to it?

     I think everyone would have found the links interesting…

102. monica said,

     May 18, 2007 @ 6:07 pm

     Would you think I don’t have it saved and cannot repost?

     The only studies discrediting Wakefield’s theory I have read have been epidemiologic, and I hope you are intelligent enough to know that we can manipulate numbers in these studies. There have been NO clinical scientific based studies that prove live virus vaccines do not cause autism.

     I would like to share a story about a similar conflict in our recent history. Another time when the medical community relied on epidemiologic studies.

     There were many epidemiologists, including prominent statisticians Joseph Berkson and Sir Ronald Fisher (often considered the “father of modern epidemiology”) who stood firm in their view that the link between cigarette smoking and lung cancer was simply a coincidence. Many scientists had blamed the increase in lung cancer on air pollution. For many years, the medical community relied on Sir Ronald Fisher’s epidemiologic studies (such as current studies dismissing the link between vaccines and autism), and not clinical research (such as Wakefield’s, or Bradstreet’s studies on autism) in stating that smoking did not cause lung cancer.

     http://tobacco.neu.edu/box/BOEKENBox/Boeken%20Trial%20T…mererDirectCross.PDF

     http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&as_qdr=all&q=%22…ld+Fisher%22+tobacco

     A few scientific studies, looking for a relationship between smoking and lung cancer, had been carried out before the Second World War, and indeed had found some evidence of such a relationship, but generally their results were not particularly persuasive and had very little impact on the medical establishment or on public opinion.

     It seems as though history is repeating itself.

     So if you believe the epidemiologic studies that smoking does not cause cancer, I suppose my argument is lost on you.

     Here is a clinical scientific study that proves there is a link between the measles and autism-

     http://www.jpands.org/vol9no2/bradstreet.pdf

     Can you explain to me how the vaccine strain measles virus ended up in the cerebral spinal fluid of these autistic children, yet was not found in any typically developing controls? Can you find a similar study on the csf of autistic children that does NOT replicate these findings?

     The measles virus is an extremely nasty bug- and can cause severe neurologic damage. Take a look at SSPE (subacute sclerosing panencephalitis), or MIBE (measles inclusion body encephalitis). Here you will find studies that show what the mealses virus can do to a compromised immune system.

     http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=104418 http://www.google.com/search?num=100&hl=en&safe=off&as_…22autism%22+MET+gene http://www.ninds.nih.gov/disorders/subacute_panencephal…_panencephalitis.htm

     I find it interesting that the Mayo clinic associates Childhood Disintegrative Disorder (one of the many conditions under the umbrella of autistic spectrum disorders) with SSPE. http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/childhood-disintegrati…r/DS00801/DSECTION=3

     Why don’t all children who receive the MMR develop regressive autism? Because they don’t all have the same immune response. Vaccines were created largely in anticipation of one typical immune response. With amazing HIV research in the past 2 decades, we now know that there are over 100 immune responses.

     Do some research on Primary Immune Deficiency, or Primary Immunodeficiency, and learn how horribly underdiagnosed this condition truly is. It is also fact that individuals with immune deficiency are contraindicated for live virus vaccine administration.

     The latest scientific genetic studies show that children with autism have ATYPICAL IMMUNE FUNCTION.

     http://www.google.com/search?num=100&hl=en&safe=off&as_…22autism%22+MET+gene

     Sadly, the children that have adverse reactions to live virus vaccines, are also likely to have serious sequela to vaccine preventable diseases, such as SSPE or MIBE, and even death, so herd immunity is still very critical to protect these individuals. It is quite a double edge sword.

     Regressive autism shares the same symptoms as encephalopathy. http://www.ninds.nih.gov/disorders/encephalopathy/encephalopathy.htm http://www.ninds.nih.gov/disorders/autism/detail_autism.htm

     In the US, the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program does pay out to autistic children injured by the MMR, if the virus is found in the CSF, although- parents and doctors are instructed to use the diagnosis of “encephalopathy”, as the NVICP refuses to pay out for a diagnosis of autism. I have spoke with 2 parents who have gained compensation in this manner.

     Check out what the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program in the US will cover- http://www.hrsa.gov/vaccinecompensation/table.htm#7

     As a parent of a child who had undiagnosed immune deficiency before vaccination with the MMR/Varivax, a child who now has regressive autism, empty sella syndrome, and GI dysfunction that did not appear before a reaction to the MMR/ Varivax combination- I can assure this is a topic I have spent thousands of hours researching.

     My daughter had seizures, fever and rash 2 wks after the mmr, and then severely regressed within 2 wks of the reaction. We have since learned that she has an immune deficiency, and the virus over replicated. She also has pituitary damage that can only have been caused by an infection of the csf. Now her docs say no more live virus vaccines- EVER.

     Even the CDC states in their own vaccine information statement for the MMR and chickenpox vaccines; “Some people should check with their doctor about whether they should get MMR / chickenpoxvaccine, including anyone who: - Has HIV/AIDS, or another disease that affects the immune system” http://www.cdc.gov/nip/publications/VIS/vis-mmr.pdf http://www.cdc.gov/nip/publications/VIS/vis-varicella.pdf

     here is some more scientific evidence, not numbers, for you to chew on

     Abnormal Measles-Mumps-Rubella Antibodies and CNS Autoimmunity in Children with Autism

     http://content.karger.com/ProdukteDB/produkte.asp?Aktio…7&filename=65007.pdf

     The AUTISM RESEARCH MONOGRAPHS of Teresa Binstock goes into great detail explaining the effects of live virus vaccines on a dysfunctional immune system , and how it contributes to autism.

     http://members.jorsm.com/~binstock/index.htm

     Here you will find 38 references to SCIENTIFIC STUDIES that support Wakefield’s theory

     http://www.whale.to/vaccines/thrower45.html

     Status of Serological and Molecular Virological Findings Implicating Measles Virus in the Etiology of Autism

     http://www.icdrc.org/status.html

     And this, this is just the tip of the iceburg of information implicating live virus vaccination in the etiology of autism.

     Medicine, as all science, is continually evolving. To think we have all the answers now is incredulous. Should we eliminate the vaccine- by all means, NO. We should follow suit with recent changes in the administration of the polio vaccine. Many are surprised to learn that the only cases of polio on the US over the last 20 yrs were caused by the OPV- oral polio vaccine, which is a live virus vaccine. That is why the US government began using IPV, an inactivated polio virus vaccine in 2001. Children with immune deficiencies contracted VDPV, or vaccine derived polio virus from virus replication of the OPV, and are now crippled for life.

     An inactivated measles vaccine HAS been created. It is time we start using it.

103. Justin said,

     May 24, 2007 @ 2:59 pm

     ‘wow, interesting that my entire post was removed, maybe because it had some truth to it?’

     Monica — the blog software put it into “moderation required” status, I don’t know why. it does that occasionally, probably as some kind of mistaken anti-spam measure. I was on holidays so missed it. I’ve just approved all pending comments now…

104. monica said,

     May 25, 2007 @ 3:18 am

     thank you for the response =O)

     my comments are often deleted from blogs, many people do not like the truth

105. Shamrock said,

     June 15, 2007 @ 2:52 pm

     As someone with a geology degree, and therfore someone who is very aware of the environment, and the cycles of this planet we live in, I have to say I am appalled at the amount of brain washing that goes on by the green party. Example, climate change is not a new phenomenon. It has been happening since the genesis of this planet 4.6billion years ago. Sea level rises, poles contract, sea currents change, it has always happened and it will always happen. There were no cars/planes/ 10,000 years ago at the end of hte last ice age, sea levels rose then, when the glaciers retreated, the land bridge linking ireland to the UK landmass disappeared, (this is why we have no snakes or moles in Ireland)

     SO, this mumbo-jumbo claptrap about carbon footprints is a load of my ar$e and makes my blood boil.

     Why is the combustion of oil products the only bad guy in the so called ‘carbon footprint’ arguement, why is it never mentioned about the carbon needed to make steel to make the cars and planes, the carbon in paper products etc, etc

     I too believe that we should live in a green environment, we should not have dead sheep in ditches, we should not have kids going to school in reconstituted portacabins, we should not have to wait 1.5 hours for a bus….environmental and social problems will NEVER be solved by Green Party tactics, as the appeal to the lowest common denominator, people who have green tendencies but no science to back it up. These people would not need science degrees if the green politicians actually spoke the truth in the first place.

     If we all voted green, industry would dry up, emigration would increase and women would be back tied to the kitchen sink…..so, keep doing your composting and organic gardening, but for gods sake, don’t support green politics until it wakes up and gets a scientific backbone.

106. joemomma said,

     June 16, 2007 @ 12:18 am

     Shamrock, as somebody with a geology degree and a “scientific backbone”, you are no doubt basing your “climate change is 100% natural” position on some peer-reviewed scientific research. Can you direct us to the papers in question?

107. Stephen said,

     July 29, 2007 @ 7:24 pm

     Justin – many bits of blog software automatically tag any post (such as Monica’s) with a relatively high number of links as potential ad spam.

     Monica – with regard to the specific paper you cited:

     http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/abstract/112535802/ABSTRACT?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0

     While this does not directly address CSF (it’s considered generally unethical to subject young children to such biopsies without extremely good reason), but rather dealt with blood samples (which are expected to provide good correlation), it found no agreement with such results. Similar trials have been done on the measles-in-gut claim, with comparable results. The obvious response is, of course, that this is the wrong sample of the population, and these were ‘natural’ autism cases, due to the small sample size. The difficulty arises in actually getting a sufficient sample size to both pick up this “at risk” group, and study them – If there is indeed a link between MMR and Autism, it would likely have a risk factor on the order of tenths of a percent. To obtain meaningful statistics on such a thing (sample sizes of thousands would be required to even begin to get reasonable results) simply requires epidemiological studies, as there is no way to get that quantity of data otherwise, and despite your mistrust, epidemiological studies are not inherently flawed. This leads into the claims of conspiracy or deception on the part of the study writers – but this is quite a grave accusation, really. Are you suggesting that people who write epidemiological studies are somehow less reputable than those who perform clinical trials, or that it is somehow easier to lie in one than the other? I would in fact argue the opposite – deception in a clinical trial is vastly easier, as most epidemiological studies are performed on data which is generally available, and any serious study will publish its methods, so they are relatively trivial to double-check. This is in contrast to clinical trials which typically involve data gathered by the authors, making it vastly easier to hide. This is especially telling given the storm of accusations which are welling up around Wakefield’s work on the MMR. A quote from the transcripts of one of the many recent hearings on the MMR/Autism link, from a collaborator who was involved in some of the preliminary work to the Lancet paper:

     “Q So you personally tested while you were in Dr. Wakefield’s lab gut biopsy material, CSF and PBMCs? A Yes, that;s right.

     Q And all the results were either negative, or if they were positive it always turned out that they were false positives? A Yes, that’s correct.

     Q Did you inform Dr. Wakefield of the negative results? A Yes. Yes.”

     ftp://autism.uscfc.uscourts.gov/autism/transcripts/day10.pdf

     One of many such pieces of testimony. People from Wakefield’s -own research group- contradict his findings on the presence of the measles viruses in these assorted places, in the very trials he is putting forward as evidence. Moreover, world experts in the field of the analytic methods he and Krigsman eventually used also come forward with explicit details of why the approach was flawed, and why many samples were likely tainted.

     Plenty of extremely serious accusations here – the key point is, to simply dismiss epidemiology out of hand because you feel it is inherently untrustworthy, while simultaneously holding out repeatedly discredited clinical trials as the gold standard of research does a grave, grave disservice to the many people dedicated to public health who produced these studies.

     The typical response to such stories is to lay the accusations of bias and deception on the part of the “establishment”, trying to keep the maverick who wants to spread the truth down, but such things really should be evaluated on their merits, as such accusations run both ways.

108. soubresauts said,

     October 18, 2007 @ 8:57 am

     Those who think the eradication of polio is one great vaccination success story aren’t reading the news. See, for example, http://www.abcnews.go.com/Health/GlobalHealth/wireStory?id=3694372

     Note that the WHO kept the news under wraps for a whole year. Vaccination programmes depend on ignorance.

     Ask yourself: If you were the parent of a child in Nigeria and you knew what was happening, would you go for the vaccination?

     Can it really be more expensive to provide clean water for these people than to pursue such bone-headed vaccination programmes, funded by Bill Gates and other ignorant people? And even if it is more expensive to provide clean water, shouldn’t we do it anyway?

     I bet the cost of providing clean water for everybody in Nigeria would be a tiny fraction of what the U.S. has spent on its military build-up around Iran, not to mention the cost of the Iraq war.

RSS feed for comments on this post

View blog reactions using Technorati

The weblog of Justin Mason; incoherent ramblings about Apache SpamAssassin, anti-spam, perl, software development, and the web, from an Irish software developer.

The opinions expressed on this web site are my personal opinions, and do not in any way represent those of my employer.

This Blog

• Front
• RSS (Linkblog only)
• RSS (Main weblog + linkblog)
• Contact me
• RSS (Main weblog only)
• Search Everything
• RSS (Main weblog comments)

Links

• Irish Blogs Top 100
• IrishBlogs.ie
• My MP3 Blog
• Nearly-live Planetary Desktops
• Planet Antispam
• Planet Apache
• Planet Perl
• Planet.journals.ie
• Threadless
• Twit.ie
• Wishlist

• Random Selection Of The Blogroll

  • evan_tech
  • joe drumgoole
  • weareie
  • mrneutron
  • Havoc Pennington
  • joshua’s blog
  • Light Blue Touchpaper
  • Digital Rights Ireland
  • Old Rottenhat
  • DoxPara Research -
  • dervala.net
  • Schneier on Security
  • Threadless New Tees
  • Technology with a Face
  • First Choice
  • Fury.com
  • Aehso’s Output
  • bunnie’s blog
  • Peter Flynn’s WebLog
  • ongoing
  • Jeremy Zawodny’s blog
  • Spychips RFID Blog
  • feather
  • ppower’s blog
  • mako.cc
  • antoin@eire.com
  • John Handelaar -
  • RISKS Digest
  • Luis Villa (a man of sarcasm, not words)
  • Planet Antispam
  • Adrian Cockcroft’s Blog
  • Letters Home
  • sourcefrog
  • Holy Shmoly!
  • Chris Blizzard
  • Daryl C. W. O’Shea: Lazy Network Engineer
  • This American Life
  • TechWire
  • madduck’s droppings
  • Stevey’s Blog Rants
  • Chris DiBona
  • Lance James’ Blog
  • Leonard’s blog
  • CircleID
  • Nelson’s Linkblog
  • EirePreneur
  • Kevin Marks
  • jwz
  • Paul Querna
  • airlied

• Search

• Administrivia

  • Log in
  • Entries RSS
  • Comments RSS
  • Wordpress

• Xbox360 Gamercard

  
  

• Archives

  • February 2010
  • January 2010
  • December 2009
  • November 2009
  • October 2009
  • September 2009
  • August 2009
  • July 2009
  • June 2009
  • May 2009
  • April 2009
  • March 2009
  • February 2009
  • January 2009
  • December 2008
  • November 2008
  • October 2008
  • September 2008
  • August 2008
  • July 2008
  • June 2008
  • May 2008
  • April 2008
  • March 2008
  • February 2008
  • January 2008
  • December 2007
  • November 2007
  • October 2007
  • September 2007
  • August 2007
  • July 2007
  • June 2007
  • May 2007
  • April 2007
  • March 2007
  • February 2007
  • January 2007
  • December 2006
  • November 2006
  • October 2006
  • September 2006
  • August 2006
  • July 2006
  • June 2006
  • May 2006
  • April 2006
  • March 2006
  • February 2006
  • January 2006
  • December 2005
  • November 2005
  • October 2005
  • September 2005
  • August 2005
  • July 2005
  • June 2005
  • May 2005
  • April 2005
  • March 2005
  • February 2005
  • January 2005
  • December 2004
  • November 2004
  • October 2004
  • September 2004
  • August 2004
  • July 2004
  • June 2004
  • May 2004
  • April 2004
  • March 2004
  • February 2004
  • January 2004
  • December 2003
  • November 2003
  • October 2003
  • September 2003
  • August 2003
  • July 2003
  • June 2003
  • May 2003
  • April 2003
  • March 2003
  • February 2003
  • January 2003
  • December 2002
  • November 2002
  • October 2002
  • September 2002
  • August 2002
  • July 2002
  • May 2002
  • April 2002
  • March 2002
  • February 2002
  • January 2002
  • December 2001
  • November 2001
  • October 2001
  • September 2001
  • August 2001
  • July 2001
  • June 2001
  • May 2001

Design by Beccary · Sponsored by Weblogs.us · XHTML · CSS