As governments and some media outlets look for ways to improve vaccination rates around the country, Channel 7's public campaign against vaccination received another boost this morning as an author with not one hint of any sort of medical qualification was treated as a vaccination expert in a so-called "debate" on the Sunrise program.
I'm not going to link to the video as it simply does not deserve the promotion.
The problem with these sorts of "debates" is that there is no hope of a genuine discussion when one participant is restricted by truth and reality and the other can make up any "fact" they want and state it as if it were a universal truth when, in fact, it exists as a truth only in their own bizarre fantasy world.
There is no public benefit in serving up crackpots as experts, especially when the stakes are so high. I'd also say it is extremely unfair, and even callous, to subject these fantasy-land-dwellers to this sort of public scrutiny.
Perhaps the most sickening part of this particular presentation was the very end where viewers were told "you be the judge" and then Mel and Kochie laughed at the prospect of the emails they were about to receive. Heartless.
I used to think these sorts of segments were just Channel 7's way of profiting from controversy but following the Sarah Wilson controversy, after which Ms Wilson claimed she was told to adopt an anti-vax position in a Sunrise discussion, it's looking more and more like Seven actually have an issue with vaccination as a legitimate medical intervention and intend on undermining it in any way they can.
Perhaps I'm mistaken and it is simply a matter of profit at any cost. Either way it's despicable.
RELATED:
An alternative to vaccination
Another alternative to vaccination
Marvellous Measles
Herd Immunity a myth
Measles? Pfft!
Friday, May 24, 2013
Wednesday, May 22, 2013
No-vax religion
An anti-vax story from the US raises a number of questions but one in particular needs answering.
"The judge noted that while religious exemptions can be made under the law to allow children to attend school without required shots, Check's opposition to vaccines seems to be grounded in concerns about her daughter's health - and not religious principle."
Ignoring the fact that the mother in the story is apparently a Catholic, and that the Catholic Church supports, and even encourages, vaccination – what the hell is wrong with a law that allows religious principle to be used as a reason to not adequately protect your child from disease?
Based on the above quote from the news article, if you have a concern, however unfounded, about vaccination damaging the health of your child, this is not a sound reason to be allowed to refuse vaccination. But if you think some imaginary overlord deems vaccination to be naughty, then you can be a refuser and enjoy full support of the law.
Seriously?
"The judge noted that while religious exemptions can be made under the law to allow children to attend school without required shots, Check's opposition to vaccines seems to be grounded in concerns about her daughter's health - and not religious principle."
Ignoring the fact that the mother in the story is apparently a Catholic, and that the Catholic Church supports, and even encourages, vaccination – what the hell is wrong with a law that allows religious principle to be used as a reason to not adequately protect your child from disease?
Based on the above quote from the news article, if you have a concern, however unfounded, about vaccination damaging the health of your child, this is not a sound reason to be allowed to refuse vaccination. But if you think some imaginary overlord deems vaccination to be naughty, then you can be a refuser and enjoy full support of the law.
Seriously?
GWN7 on vaccination - FAIL!
At a time when the nation's media and governments are finally getting to grips with the merits of vaccination and the lunacy of the anti-vaccine lobby, Western Australia's GWN7, owned by the Prime network and an affiliate of Channel 7, have decided to buck the trend and promote "the controversy" instead.
In a story about the WA Government's decision to increase vaccination rates, GWN7 News went to an anti-vaccination lobbyist for closing comments. Naturally she had nothing good to say about vaccination and viewers were left with the impression that vaccines are either useless or dangerous and that some bizarre quasi-Darwinian notion of survival of the fittest is the best way for humans to fight disease...
"...with any infectious disease, the more we're exposed to it, the less virulent it becomes because we adapt to it as well."
The fact that we could only adapt naturally by allowing the weakest members of the herd to succumb to disease is apparently unimportant to this person. The fact that we've shared the planet with disease for a couple of million years and still haven't naturally adapted to it, suggests that this researcher is happy to bury millions more kids as we seek this elusive natural harmony.
Video here.
I'll stop short of labelling GWN7 producers "fuckwits" because I choose not to swear on the blog.
Once again we see a case of Channel 7, or in this case an affiliate, deciding that controversy is more important than practical information.
Comment at Anti-Vax GWN7 Facebook
In a story about the WA Government's decision to increase vaccination rates, GWN7 News went to an anti-vaccination lobbyist for closing comments. Naturally she had nothing good to say about vaccination and viewers were left with the impression that vaccines are either useless or dangerous and that some bizarre quasi-Darwinian notion of survival of the fittest is the best way for humans to fight disease...
"...with any infectious disease, the more we're exposed to it, the less virulent it becomes because we adapt to it as well."
The fact that we could only adapt naturally by allowing the weakest members of the herd to succumb to disease is apparently unimportant to this person. The fact that we've shared the planet with disease for a couple of million years and still haven't naturally adapted to it, suggests that this researcher is happy to bury millions more kids as we seek this elusive natural harmony.
Video here.
I'll stop short of labelling GWN7 producers "fuckwits" because I choose not to swear on the blog.
Once again we see a case of Channel 7, or in this case an affiliate, deciding that controversy is more important than practical information.
Comment at Anti-Vax GWN7 Facebook
Friday, May 10, 2013
Jabbed - a documentary about toxic vaccines?
While the NSW parliament is fast running out of pejoratives to use in its descriptions of the Australian Vaccination Network (AVN), a new documentary about the so-called "vaccination debate" is set to air on Australian television.
JABBED will feature on SBS One on Sunday, May 26 at 8:30pm.
JABBED reveals how vaccination is a key part of public health, yet also acknowledges that there are real and rare risks. Many people, understandably, have questions and concerns. In a world of information overload and conflicting stories, JABBED asks how do you reach a thoughtful, informed decision?
The documentary is enjoying cautious support on the StopAVN Facebook page. If members of that forum remain supportive after the documentary goes to air, then we can safely assume the AVN's Facebook site will be alight with rage, persecution complex, conspiracy theory and martyrdom. This of course, will not be news to anyone who's visited that site once or twice. Rage, persecution complex, conspiracy theory and martyrdom are all they have. Oh, and requests for donations that should, apparently, put an end to the need for rage, persecution complex, conspiracy theory and martyrdom.
If the documentary dismisses links between vaccines and autism, or if it casts doubt on the "evidence" pushed by the anti-vax lobby, or if it merely suggests, in conclusion, that vaccination makes sense, the producers of the documentary best prepare themselves for a nasty-gram or three - and maybe some graphs that show THE TRUTH!
For what it's worth, you can discuss the issue on the SBS Conversation page where some concerned citizens are already complaining that the documentary won't be "balanced". By "balanced" they of course mean giving equal weight to both sides even if the facts of the matter show one side to has little, if any, weight to it. By this definition, I hope the documentary is not "balanced" as I prefer documentaries that deal in reality.
UPDATE:
You can also join the conversation at the JABBED Facebook page.
JABBED will feature on SBS One on Sunday, May 26 at 8:30pm.
JABBED reveals how vaccination is a key part of public health, yet also acknowledges that there are real and rare risks. Many people, understandably, have questions and concerns. In a world of information overload and conflicting stories, JABBED asks how do you reach a thoughtful, informed decision?
The documentary is enjoying cautious support on the StopAVN Facebook page. If members of that forum remain supportive after the documentary goes to air, then we can safely assume the AVN's Facebook site will be alight with rage, persecution complex, conspiracy theory and martyrdom. This of course, will not be news to anyone who's visited that site once or twice. Rage, persecution complex, conspiracy theory and martyrdom are all they have. Oh, and requests for donations that should, apparently, put an end to the need for rage, persecution complex, conspiracy theory and martyrdom.
If the documentary dismisses links between vaccines and autism, or if it casts doubt on the "evidence" pushed by the anti-vax lobby, or if it merely suggests, in conclusion, that vaccination makes sense, the producers of the documentary best prepare themselves for a nasty-gram or three - and maybe some graphs that show THE TRUTH!
For what it's worth, you can discuss the issue on the SBS Conversation page where some concerned citizens are already complaining that the documentary won't be "balanced". By "balanced" they of course mean giving equal weight to both sides even if the facts of the matter show one side to has little, if any, weight to it. By this definition, I hope the documentary is not "balanced" as I prefer documentaries that deal in reality.
UPDATE:
You can also join the conversation at the JABBED Facebook page.
Thursday, May 9, 2013
Another nail in Anti-Vax group's coffin?
In a recent reading of a bill to amend NSW Health legislation, the misleadingly-named, anti-vaccination lobby group Australian Vaccination Network (AVN) was reportedly described as "Wing-nuts, flat-earthers, weird, wacky and wrong."
The terms "willful manslaughter" and "potentially murderous" were also used in reference to the group.
The cross-party parliamentary attack on the group continued as the bill passed through the NSW Legislative Council yesterday.
Here's a few excepts from the Hansard transcript [highlighted by me for your entertainment]...
The Hon. Dr Peter Phelps: [in reference to the AVN's website] I think "insane" is the word you are looking for.
The Hon. TREVOR KHAN: Let us be plain about this: we know that they disseminated material into the community that discourages parents from vaccinating their children. Indeed, we know from what has occurred with the drop in levels of immunisation amongst children, particularly in areas such as the North Coast, that they were in a sense so profoundly disreputable that they were prepared to say that they did not affect an individual client.
Dr JOHN KAYE: Yes. I urge people like Meryl Dorey to stop this campaign that is leading to the death of or permanent impairment of children. Meryl Dorey's campaign is immoral and she ought to stop that happening. She should drop this campaign and understand the damage that she is inflicting on other children.
The Hon. HELEN WESTWOOD: They are the anti-vaccination network. They are anti-vaccination and that has serious public health consequences. In addition, it actually risks the lives of children—infants—and we must all do everything we can to prevent that from happening.
So, the NSW parliament believes the AVN to be not merely opposed to vaccination and not just disreputable but to be wing nuts, wacky, weird, insane and immoral. The parliament further believes that the group puts the lives of children, and others, at risk or death or permanent impairment – indeed to be potentially murderous.
While the parliament enjoys my wholehearted congratulations, all the way from Western Australia, for this change in legislation, I have to ask...
how the hell did this group get - and then "re-get" - a charitable fundraising licence?
If you would like to add your voice to those who stand opposed to the dangerous misinformation spread by the Australian anti-vaccination lobby, and if you're into Facebook, then you might like to join the rational people who post at StopAVN.
The terms "willful manslaughter" and "potentially murderous" were also used in reference to the group.
The cross-party parliamentary attack on the group continued as the bill passed through the NSW Legislative Council yesterday.
Here's a few excepts from the Hansard transcript [highlighted by me for your entertainment]...
The Hon. Dr Peter Phelps: [in reference to the AVN's website] I think "insane" is the word you are looking for.
The Hon. TREVOR KHAN: Let us be plain about this: we know that they disseminated material into the community that discourages parents from vaccinating their children. Indeed, we know from what has occurred with the drop in levels of immunisation amongst children, particularly in areas such as the North Coast, that they were in a sense so profoundly disreputable that they were prepared to say that they did not affect an individual client.
Dr JOHN KAYE: Yes. I urge people like Meryl Dorey to stop this campaign that is leading to the death of or permanent impairment of children. Meryl Dorey's campaign is immoral and she ought to stop that happening. She should drop this campaign and understand the damage that she is inflicting on other children.
The Hon. HELEN WESTWOOD: They are the anti-vaccination network. They are anti-vaccination and that has serious public health consequences. In addition, it actually risks the lives of children—infants—and we must all do everything we can to prevent that from happening.
So, the NSW parliament believes the AVN to be not merely opposed to vaccination and not just disreputable but to be wing nuts, wacky, weird, insane and immoral. The parliament further believes that the group puts the lives of children, and others, at risk or death or permanent impairment – indeed to be potentially murderous.
While the parliament enjoys my wholehearted congratulations, all the way from Western Australia, for this change in legislation, I have to ask...
how the hell did this group get - and then "re-get" - a charitable fundraising licence?
If you would like to add your voice to those who stand opposed to the dangerous misinformation spread by the Australian anti-vaccination lobby, and if you're into Facebook, then you might like to join the rational people who post at StopAVN.
Saturday, April 27, 2013
Christian Lobby opposed to chaplaincy subsidies?
I caught a tiny bit of the TV news this morning and saw a representative of the Australian Christian Lobby (ACL) say something like...
“Taxpayer funding of this means everyone who does not support it has their freedom of conscience trampled upon by making them complicit in it.
“The government should not force those who do not agree with such things to help pay for them"
I was certain he must have been referring to chaplains in public schools, or to the multi-million-dollar subsidies handed out to church-run private schools, or to the billions of dollars in taxes that church-based enterprises don't have to pay.
But no. Apparently he only meant people shouldn't have to fund things Christian fundamentalists are opposed to, not things that the churches benefit from.
I was shocked, shocked I tell you, at the hypocrisy!
I was going to comment on the ACL page but I got an unencrypted link warning:
Although this page is encrypted, the information you have entered is to be sent over an unencrypted connection and could easily be read by a third party.
One would have thought people with a direct line to God could at least put a secure comment form together.
“Taxpayer funding of this means everyone who does not support it has their freedom of conscience trampled upon by making them complicit in it.
“The government should not force those who do not agree with such things to help pay for them"
I was certain he must have been referring to chaplains in public schools, or to the multi-million-dollar subsidies handed out to church-run private schools, or to the billions of dollars in taxes that church-based enterprises don't have to pay.
But no. Apparently he only meant people shouldn't have to fund things Christian fundamentalists are opposed to, not things that the churches benefit from.
I was shocked, shocked I tell you, at the hypocrisy!
I was going to comment on the ACL page but I got an unencrypted link warning:
Although this page is encrypted, the information you have entered is to be sent over an unencrypted connection and could easily be read by a third party.
One would have thought people with a direct line to God could at least put a secure comment form together.
Friday, April 12, 2013
Dumb anti-vax quote of the day
Yes, I realise "dumb anti-vax quote" is redundant but you'll manage.
Quote of the day goes to Meryl Dorey, of the Anti-Vaccination Network, who commented on an article about chicken pox death and vaccination here:
Meryl opens with a cracker:
"Nowhere in this article does it say what the vaccination status of this girl was."
In fact, the fourth paragraph of that article is a quote from a doctor:
"It is likely that death would have been prevented with prior vaccination"
That seems pretty clear to me - but it was apparently invisible to someone who claims to be better at reading scientific research than the scientists who carry out that research.
Meryl then launches into a bit of conspiracy theory before delivering today's dumb quote about the vaccine:
"The rationale for its introduction was to keep women in the workforce rather than home taking care of sick children."
As usual, Meryl provides no reference for this claim but that's not why it's dumb. It seems to me that in order for the vaccine to deliver on that "rationale", it would have to prevent the kids from getting sick.
And Meryl thinks that's a bad thing?
Quote of the day goes to Meryl Dorey, of the Anti-Vaccination Network, who commented on an article about chicken pox death and vaccination here:
Meryl opens with a cracker:
"Nowhere in this article does it say what the vaccination status of this girl was."
In fact, the fourth paragraph of that article is a quote from a doctor:
"It is likely that death would have been prevented with prior vaccination"
That seems pretty clear to me - but it was apparently invisible to someone who claims to be better at reading scientific research than the scientists who carry out that research.
Meryl then launches into a bit of conspiracy theory before delivering today's dumb quote about the vaccine:
"The rationale for its introduction was to keep women in the workforce rather than home taking care of sick children."
As usual, Meryl provides no reference for this claim but that's not why it's dumb. It seems to me that in order for the vaccine to deliver on that "rationale", it would have to prevent the kids from getting sick.
And Meryl thinks that's a bad thing?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
