Debating Vaccination

Debating Vaccination – Understanding the attack on the Australian Vaccination Network

Debating_Vaccination__92857.jpg

Dr Brian Martin, a Professor of Social Science at the University of Wollongong and Vice President of Whistleblowers Australia, was interested in studying the attacks against the AVN – what motivated them and who carried them out. What the aims and methods of the attackers were and how those who were attacked responded.

Out of this research, came a 20,000 word article called Debating Vaccination.

This article covered the history of attacks on both public groups and private individuals as well as information on why the attack on the AVN is different than most via the use of social media as the ‘weapon of choice’ for many of the antagonists.

This article is available as a free download by clicking here. If you would like to order reprints, you may do so here.

Clicking on the image to the left will open the full-size page so you can get an understanding of what the article is about.

More up-to-date information from Dr Martin

Since publishing Debating Vaccination, Dr Martin has written more about the attacks against the AVN and the perpetrators of those attacks. You can read more about this at the following links:

Online onslaught: Internet-based methods for attacking and defending citizens’ organisations

Public mobbing: a phenomenon and its features (written with Florencia Peña)

Suppression of protest

When public health debates become abusive

Background information from the AVN

The original complaints and the AVN’s responses to the HCCC as well as correspondence from the HCCC to both myself and the complainant, Ken McLeod, can be found on the AVN’s Scribd page.

51 comments on “Debating Vaccination
  1. Lee says:

    If Jenni McCarthy wants to pose nude, wash cars, or sing to raise $2 million for any chatiry, then GREAT! Everybody is feeling the penny pinch and I’m sure researchers are no different.I do resent the fact that she continues to push that vaccines cause autism. I also think that more people should read scientific fact instead of what gets pubished in magazines! Yes, my doctors are out to protect their bottom line so is every other human on this Earth! There is no proven cause to autism. There is no proven cure for autism. In fact, autism is still difficult to diagnose, and I believe we have a long way to go before we understand it. Two million bucks might help. How much are you donating?And can we please stop letting people refuse to vaccinate their children? Religion is one thing (although I’m not sure I’m on board with a religious objection to the health of the community). Allergies to vaccine ingredients clearly warrant not taking them. But since when is it *your* right to put *my* child at risk? We slowed down our vaccination schedule for our kids, too. It’s for a humane reason they don’t understand all those needles and pain. But they will be fully vaccinated before starting school. You don’t have the right to give my child a horrible and PREVENTABLE disease. I have one child with a compromised system almost anything serious will send him directly to the hospital. I’ll take your address and send you the bills. How’s that for fair? Pertussis, the flu(s), chicken pox . . . they are all REAL threats to all of our children! Let’s start making some EDUCATED decisions!

    • dec says:

      I fail to see or understand the reasoning, logic, and validity of Lee’s message.

      “… since when is your rightt to put my child at risk” Like, huh??? Vaccine avocates continue to promote this totally illogical argument. One, no-one is stopping her vaccinating her children if she really believes that is a health benefit, and not a health risk. And if vaccines are effective as claimed (and if not, why have them?), those vaccinated would be safe from the disease/s vaccinated against, regardless of who wasn’t vaccinated. Indeed, if that is her belief, she should instead be concerned, not about her ‘safe and protected’ children, but those children not vaccinated.

      And she repeats this utterly fallious argument even more plainly here: “You don’t have
      the right to give my child a horrible and preventable disease”. Like, duh!

      And with “one child with a compromised system”, and stated history of vaccinations, you would have to ask how that “compromised system” came about?

      And the clear medical fact is that many or most of the current plethora of vaccines given to children are for non-life threatening diseases that have the effecxt of building and increasing our immune function. Indeed, in time not spo long ago, for some of these mild diseases, children were actually encouraged to get them (from other children)for that very reason.

      Why have we gone from say one or two vaccines to over thirty?? As they say “Follow the money.” (They also say “Cherchez la femme!” but that is for another story 🙂

      The vaccine industry is just a huge grubby money grab of literally billions upon billions of dollars by the totally amoral vaccine and pharmaceutical industry (usually paid Governments, which are OUR taxes, thank you), activately added and abbetted by the medical industry and organisations, who also are on a nice ‘little’ earner.

      (Have you ever considered the fact that all corporations, by definition, can have no sense of morality? And too often it seems the people that run them have none either.)

      Some “educated” and informed decisions would be great. Even a little logic and rational thinking would be a start.

      • Patricia says:

        Couldn’t agree more!

      • Pri says:

        Hi Dec,
        Lee has an immunocompromised child.

        Her immunocompromised child cannot get certain vaccines, and is relying on herd immunity for protection against preventable illnesses.

        Please review or read up on the concept of “herd immunity.”

        Choosing to not vaccinate a child increases the odds of them contracting the disease and others contracting the disease from them.
        —————–
        Let’s imagine the following situation:

        Child A (unvaccinated) Child B (vaccinated) Child C (vaccinated) Child D (Unable to be vaccinated because they are immunocompromised) Child E (unvaccinated)

        Child A (unvaccinated) gets Disease XY (made up for the sake of this post). He attends school the next day and comes into contact with all of the other kids. Child A gets very sick from the disease and is hospitalised.

        Child B (vaccinated): Does not get Disease XY, he is fully immunised against disease XY

        Child C (vaccinated): Gets a mild form of disease XY, does not need to be hospitalised.

        Child D (unable to be vaccinated for medical reasons e.g. leukaemia- if he has the vaccine he may get extremely sick, please review the concept of ‘immunocompromised’ if you do not understand why a person who is immunocompromised is more likely to get sick than someone who is healthy): Gets extremely sick, and ends up in hospital fighting for their life.

        Child E (unvaccinated): Does not get sick. Child A did not sneeze on or near him.

        So, as you can see from this scenario, vaccination reduced the severity of disease OR protected the child from getting the disease

        There is a chance that an unvaccinated child will not get the disease, but there is also a chance that they will [Chid A (un-vaccinated) got sick and Child E (un-vaccinated) got sick]. There is no way of pre-determining whether your child will be the one to get sick or not. Vaccination reduces the chances of a person getting the most severe form of the disease being managed or the disease at all.

        Child D got sick from Child A. Imagine if Child A was vaccinated- then child A may not have gotten sick, and Child D would not have gotten sick either, this is the issue Lee raised.

        ———————————

        I believe that it is completely reasonable and justified for Lee to be concerned that un-vaccinated children will increase the prevalence of preventable diseases, and increase the risk of her child contracting a preventable disease.

    • Patricia says:

      You obviously don’t have much confidence in the effectiveness of the vaccines that you are giving your children Lee.

    • Richard D. says:

      A typical blinkered reply from Lee who has been caught up in the Giant Pharma spin. My child is at a private school and the only child not vaccinated on medical advice. I requested he not be taken out of school when there is an outbreak. Why is it then Lee that when pertussis, measles and mumps swept through my child’s class, he was the only child not affected. Do you call it luck. Do you call it chance. I call it the bullshit syndrome where the sheep actually think their children are protected. On another point, my child is considered an oddity as he is the only child in his form that has no allergies…not one Lee. Nobody in the school short of administration know my child is unvaccinated. If they did, my child would be blamed for the outbreaks of preventable diseases???? Go figure, one child causing vaccinated children to get diseases they are vaccinted against. Take your blinkers off Lee and read this post again. It may enlighten you. Somehow, I don’t think so.

      • Peter says:

        Richard, you’re saying your child’s school year cohort;

        – had an outbreak of pertussis, then an outbreak of measles, then an outbreak of mumps? Or was it a all three at the same time? And,

        – every child (except yours) his/her cohort has allergies? And

        – your child is the only unvaccinated one,

        If this is so, please contact the media with these remarkable facts – the odds of this occurring would be astronomical and provide very strong support to those who question the science around vaccination.

        Of course, extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence…..

        • Richard D. says:

          Peter, don’t be a clot and open your eyes. Of course the outbreaks happened at different intervals during the year.

          My wife had to laugh when she went to a class mother’s day and the parents were comparing allergies as if they were proud their child had more than the next (what has the world come to when the sheep are too dopey to connect the dots). When my wife was asked what her allergies our son suffered from, they were gobsmacked at the reply…NONE! And yes Peter, our child was the only unvaccinated child…DO I NEED TO REPEAT THIS FOR YOU PETER because my first comment was ridiculously easy to understand.
          My claims may be extra-ordinary to a pro-vaccinator fool such as yourself Peter. Organise a team of unbiased medical experts and I will supply my details for them to conduct tests on my son. Maybe then, and only then, clots like you will finally wake up to the BIG CON!

          • Moussa says:

            Peter only asked you a question and suggested that your story is extraordinary. I don’t see the need for you to call him a “clot”.

        • Richard D. says:

          Peter, as you are one of the sheep (pro-vaccinating) why not take the opportunity to agitate the CDC in the USA to conduct a double blind test on vaccinations. This would put any argument to rest. There are currently 1,000,000 conscientious objectors in the USA. It would be simple to conduct a double blind with this many objectors. So, Peter, why does the CDC refuse to conduct a double blind test. Anti-vaccinators have been calling for the double blind tests for years. Don’t you think that if the CDC were so confident their toxic vaccines are effective, they would accede to this request. It is plainly obvious the reasons why. Just start connecting the dots Peter. Maybe some better education and research may help you on your journey.

      • NeilC says:

        Anyone that uses their own personal experience as rationale for public policy on vaccination is clouding the debate. A complex issue such as this deserves complex scientific analysis. One child (or even 100 children) is not a representative statistical sample.

        Regarding the double blind experiment, I can’t see how one can be conducted considering the ethical implications. Parents on either side of the debate will not allow their child to be randomly assigned to a group in an experiment to check if they will contract a disease or subject to potentially horrible side-effects. Am I missing something?

      • Donna says:

        Love that Reply
        Richard 🙂
        Made my day!!!!

    • Richard D. says:

      Lee hasn’t connected the dots. A child with a compromised immunity system no doubt caused by massive doses of toxic vaccines. Lee, if your children are fully vaccinated, why the concern? Our non vaccinated children are more at risk of your children passing on an insidious form of the diseases. Obviously you haven’t done your research, otherwise you wouldn’t be in on the debate. When my child was six months of age, our Paediatrician asked us why we were not going to vaccinate our child (By the way Lee, doctors are mandated to ask and to try encourage vaccines). I told him before I answered his question, can he advise me whether he vaccinated his seven children. After a long pause, he said no…go figure Lee. If a wise and very experienced specialist wouldn’t vaccinate his children, then why would a pleb like yourself fall for the marketing hype.

    • Patricia says:

      You clearly have little faith in the effectiveness of the vaccines given to your children….

    • Zac says:

      Can I please ask you a serious question which might help in this ongoing debate?
      When did you find out your child had a compromised system?
      Thanks for taking the time to reply.

  2. Sarah says:

    People if you do not vaccinate you are playing Russian roulette with your child’s life. If one celebrity believes her son got autism due to vaccinations is not enough evidence to not vaccinate. I do understand that one warning of vaccinations is autism but that is only due to the wild allegations people make about vaccinations where is the scientific evidence to prove it causes autism ? Well there isn’t any ! You can only tell if your child has Autism at age one so every one thinks it’s due to vaccinations what a load of crap . it is not caused by vaccinations! I was not vaccinated as a child & I have been very ill my whole life , I would never put my child through it. I have had whooping cough , mumps etc.. People we are not living in the stone ages anymore these vaccinations have been developed for years to make sure they are safe. Why people have a longer life expectancy now is due to vaccinations & good hygiene. Vaccinations have wiped out epidemics of diseases that used to kill most children & people. Guys before thinking not to vaccinate please speak to your doctor you are putting your child’s life at risk which is unfair on your child.

    • Richard D. says:

      So Sarah, your unfortunate medical history is proof we need vaccinations??? I think the opposite applies. Yes, it is easy to detect autism or a reaction to vaccines. My eldest son was a very bubbly, bright and advanced, well ahead of milestones at 18 months. He was talking well and even counting. Instantly after his MMR, this all disappeared. Do you Sarah really think that Autism suddenly reared its ugly head in that instance within minutes of the toxic vaccinations without any other explanation. Based on your writings, I don’t think you have the intelligence to understand the debate or have the brains to research thousands of similar situations to mine. My two other children as a result have not been vaccinated and no Sarah, they don’t have your unfortunate medical history. Nor have they contracted measles, mumps, pertussis, etc. Go figure Sarah, but personally I think the debate is beyond your limited intellect.

      • NeilC says:

        Richard, the moment you resort to nasty personal and emotional attacks as arguments, you lose pretty much all credibility as a logical and rational thinker. Doesn’t help the debate mate.

    • Samantha says:

      Good hygiene yes but vaccines? maybe not. It is lifestyle of people which affects the life expectancy, exercise but not too much of it at once, healthy and balanced foods, maybe even natural remedies are better than vaccinations, meaning even when vaccinated as a child,children would still get chickenpox, you say you don’t wont your children to go though it thus vaccination is better than none, but is there prove that it does what it does that you protected from that disease. maybe the disease evolves that the vaccination doesn’t work on it.

    • Ruth says:

      More and more scientific information is coming out about how absolutely unhelpful vaccines are. Manufactured and encouraged hysterical fear amongst parents about the ‘consequences’ of not vaccinating their children, may actually be the true Russian roulette going on. What truly beats any disease in the past, is an increase in the health of the population as well as hygiene. Vaccines have not cured any diseases, not are they likely to. However, injecting multiple neurotoxins into a developing infant can have devastating consequences.

    • Ty says:

      If the dieseses are wiped out like you say. Why keep immunising. I had Mumps as a kid and im fine now. You obviously are just a sickly person. Its got nothing to do with no immunisations that youve been sick all your life.

    • John says:

      Sarah, how many cases of whooping cough are there exactly ? In England and the US, the number of cases of whooping cough has dropped by over 90% between 1900 and the 1950s, from about 30 cases/100 000 to about 1/100 000. Mass vaccination was introduced in the 50s/60s. Now how do you explain that ?

      Could the tremendous improvement of hygiene in the 20th century have anything to do with this ? Yes, there are cases of unfortunate people who still catch this nasty thing. Like there are people who die from a plane crash.

      Now, given the odds, are you insured against the crash of a plane (or say meteorite) onto your house ? Odds are it won’t happen, but who knows, you are never too safe.

      Why vaccinate against this list of 20ish diseases ? It used to be a lot less than that. So when is enough vaccine enough ? There are 1000s of different disease on the planet. We could list them all down, and vaccinate against each and every one of them with a massive serynge, so every child would be born a superman and never be sick. You can see that this is nonsense.

      How about the adjuvants (aluminium, mercury) and preservatives they add in vaccines ? There are lots of testimonies and research that reveal their damage on health. Plus, a bit of common sense will tell you that injecting aluminium into the arm of your 2 months old baby must be doing his health some kind of harm. Aluminium has nothing to do in a body.

  3. dec says:

    Richard Richard. please a modicum of courtesy. let us not become as rabid and abusive as the pro-vac adherents. yes we know how wilfully blind they are and wilfully ignorant too, and usually very nasty with it. but we don’t have to be as well. how will that serve our case? how will that change anyone’s mind?

  4. Richard D. says:

    Yes Dec, this is an emotional debate. When your beautiful child is damaged by vaccinations like my own, it is very easy to take aim at the uninformed pro-vaccinators.

  5. Becs says:

    My prediction for the future. 20-30years from now.
    Law suits on the grounds of negligence, from a generation of children who had their right to be immunised taken away from them, by their parents,

  6. Richard D. says:

    Becs, you need to rewrite your comment. What you should have stated is the broken generation including autism sufferers will sue their parents for foolishly vaccinating them.

  7. Samantha says:

    My question is what about those who has a family history of reactions, to separate them is wrong because there is always going to be a small minority which has it. The people who don’t have medical problems like allergies won’t understand the problems. I am one of the minority, I have allergies to which some doctors didn’t take notice to family history. My mum was being forced by her doctor to get me vaccinated at 18 months , guess what I reacted had a fit and lost all speech at which before then I was ahead of my milestones.I have autism which is high functioning. This makes me scared for the future as my children is most likely would react also then what a separate schools for those who are vaccinated? The doctors and government need to change their ways what about smaller does though it would mean it would be more visits or to prove that autism isn’t caused by vaccination by increasing the age to which children can talk, and less vaccinations at once to see if it is proven by the reactions and the age and number of autism children to which vaccines they had. They say there is no prove and say then can they disprove it without tests? My mother had the lesser doses and more often visits with her vaccination to which the doctor from South Australia and a local doctor found was a much better way (they both dead or retried) but this was in 1960s. Why not that way? children without vaccination can still be safe from a disease if they do be around children who does have the vaccination, if the disease was bought back it is the fault of immigration for failing to get people to vaccinate or isolate them for a short while to prove they don’t carry the disease before coming into the country.

  8. Vicki says:

    Hi, what can we do now about kinder for our children now that the government has a no vaccines no kinder?

  9. Bruce says:

    It is a very emotional issue, because we’re dealing here with the well being of our children, and every decent parent wants to seek out what they believe is best for them. And naturally we can become very protective about that.There is a difference between an imperfect safety network, and a scam. Lets consider air bags and seat belts in vehicles. It’s arguable that there are documented cases where, in the case of an automobile accident, physical damage or harm was inflicted by a restraint or by the deployment of an air bag, where the absence of these devices may have resulted in a lesser injury. It can also be argued that there are cases where these devices failed to deploy as expected, resulting in injury anyway. Do we then label the manufacturers of these devices as examples of corporate greed? Do we then lambaste our car manufacturers for including them as standard and compulsory equipment of vehicles, because it only adds to the overall cost of vehicles? Do we consider our government corrupt because they will issue you a ticket if you are found to be driving a car without seat belts? In biology, immunity is the balanced state of having adequate biological defenses to fight infection, disease, or other unwanted biological invasion, while having adequate tolerance to avoid allergy, and autoimmune diseases. Vaccination is not a guarantee of immunity (and I do feel the use of the term “immunisation” can be highly misunderstood), but a means of attempting to achieve that balance throughout the community. It’s not without its casualties, but it is researched by people who, by and large, have improved the overall prognosis of health for the developed world, and this can be substantiated. If by my saying this some decide to dismiss me as either some form of corporate puppet or unreasonable brainwashed imbecile, then that is, of course, their own responsibility to justify.

    • Peter Ray says:

      Hi Bruce, thanks for your comments.The seat belt analogy is an interesting one. The analogy would be more appropriate if it referred to putting the seat belt on rather than if an accident occurs. Thus if the act of putting the seat belt on was potentially dangerous as is the taking of all drugs including vaccines then you would find more resistance to seat belts.This is why the patient has the right to choose treatment because any treatment is potentially dangerous and where there is danger there is always a right of choice er except for vaccines! Regards

  10. Stef says:

    Quick question for Admin…

    Why isn’t this website labelled as anti-vaccine?

    This is the stance that you claim to have…

    “The AVN is NOT anti-vaccination;
    nor are we pro-vaccination.

    The Australian Vaccination-skeptics Network (AVN) exists to further
    a pro-choice position
    with regard to vaccination and your health decisions.”

    However, I legitimately came to this site to try and educate myself on BOTH sides of the arguement and to view other people’s opinions and experiences and unfortunately it seems to me that only anti vaxxers have freedom of speech and are praised for their comments. Pro- vaxxers seem to be shut down very quickly and told how they are sheep and ignorant.

    I am in the process of educating myself on the topic of vaccination so I can make an informed decision but on first visit to this site I have found it completely one sided.

    I understand that everyone has their own personal opinions including those owning the site but it does make it difficult when both sides aren’t discussed. That being said I have found the information very interesting and will continue to educate myself about the pros and cons of vaccination.

    • AVN admin says:

      Stef, if your assertion is correct, then every government and most medical websites in australia are anti-choice. You can’t have it both ways, can you? This website is here to fill a gap. You can find the mainstream viewpoint on vaccines everywhere, but this viewpoint is a bit harder to find. As we say, get both sides and make an informed choice. We don’t say we provide both sides. That is not our role.

      • Joash says:

        Hi admin,

        I think i can understand Stef’s point and i have a similar thought. Your website says you are neither anti nor pro vaccination. That by definition means you are neutral since this is essentially a binary issue (you either vaccinate or you don’t), which is what has lead to the misunderstanding by myself and Stef. Since the behavior of the forum and the admin has been clearly anti vaccination it is a but misleading to say you are neutral. Your reply to stef claims you support the contrary point of view to the mainstream which is by definition anti vaccine. I think to avoid future confusion it would be worthwhile to rethink your official stance.

        • AVN admin says:

          Our official stance is very clear. Only those who cannot read or feel too challenged to have to think about things with an open mind would be in the least bit confused about this.

    • John says:

      Stef, I fully agree with you. As a soon-to-be parent, I would very much like to have access to objective non biased data too.

      The problem is it’s close to impossible to have such data. The chief of service of a hospital in Delhi in India showed how the WHO changes criteria to hide babies deaths which this doctor believes are due to the vaccines (http://jacob.puliyel.com/paper.php?id=311). This fact alone tells me this whole vaccine deal does not smell right.

      Now, you can ask yourself why such blackmailing policies as “no jab no pay”, and why such a scare campaign against skeptics ? If it’s a public health matter, why let the small part of the population who can afford not to get family assistance payments get away with not vaccinating their child ? Do the rich never get sick ?
      Someone above (Richard) said his GP didn’t vaccinate any of his children, but advises his patients to vaccinate. Go figure.

      Like most caring parents, I’m afraid you are on your own here. I’m afraid you have to solely rely on your common sense, your self-education reading documents/books, get both sides of the story, and decide yourself what you believe is right for your kid.

  11. NeilC says:

    Here’s my position on this issue. I’m pro vaccine because…

    – Scientific evidence overwhelmingly suggests benefits far outweigh risks.
    – Yes there’s risk of government and corporate corruption that is skewing the evidence. However, I’m relying on occam razor. The simplest explanation (one with least assumptions) is that there is no global conspiracy of greed and power.
    – I’m aware of big pharma and their misadventures in history. I’m also aware of big pharma making money off medicines that save lives.
    – I’ve reviewed plenty of evidence against vaccinations. Haven’t seen a smoking gun yet.
    – Should parents have a choice? I’m conflicted about this. It’s a bit like speeding laws. Why should the government dictate how fast I can drive? Well… it’s for the benefit of the community. The difference is people are not as passionate about speeding because it doesn’t directly affect their children’s health.

    • AVN admin says:

      Scientific evidence overwhelmingly suggests benefits far outweigh the risks – please cite the double-blind evidence demonstrating this statement, NeilC. Oh, and make sure that the citations you send were not sponsored by or funded by the drug companies that make vaccines or the researchers who are being paid by them. Then, we can talk.

      • Bruce says:

        Sorry, but are you implying that the only evidence you’ll consider for discussion is a double-blind study commissioned by some sector outside of the medical research community (as naturally medical researches are paid by companies and institutions invested in their representative field of medicine), and that all statistical analysis of the past half-century is of no validity?
        What then of the work over the past 15 years of Rachel Jordan, Amanda Burls, Martin Connock, Anne Fry-Smith, Jeremy Hawker, Steven Black, Stella Ling, John Hansen, David Spring, Albert Chang, Timothy Slope, Norman Waecker, Jill Hacknell, Paula Ray, Nancy Cox, Jack Noyes, etc., etc. In journals such as the JAMA (USA), PIDJ (Europe), JSVAC (Japan) and so on? What about the independent guidelines of the Australian TGA?
        I just don’t want to have misunderstood your position here.

      • Joash says:

        Can i ask what studies have been conducted to prove that vaccines are harmful? I see a great deal of anecdotal evidence but no one has cited any studies that show that these vaccines are harmful. If the response is big pharma are stopping the publication of these papers (i.e. conspiracy theory) then can i ask what evidence you have to prove that? It seems like when presented with studies they don’t meet anti vaccine standards but when asked to produce studies that meet the rigorous requirements of scientific journals the anti vaccine movement cannot. The credibility of your argument hinges on this point. If you want to convince people that your point of view is correct then you have to produce the papers that prove your point or provide evidence as to how and why you are being silenced.

        • AVN admin says:

          Joash – read the manufacturer’s package inserts for all currently-licensed vaccines and try to find ONE safety study that uses an inert placebo.

          Also, the precautionary principle states that lack of evidence of harm is not the same as evidence of safety. Vaccines need to be proved safe before assumptions are made. The basic science has simply not been done.

        • Ty says:

          You no you are probably right about the anicdoetal evidence but this whole arguement is about choice. If you want to get your kids vaccinated then go for it. But if you dont then the government ate trying to take that choice away from you..

    • John says:

      Speeding laws.

      This (http://www.keepyoureyesontheroad.org.au/pages/Accident-statistics-Cont) shows that speed has little to do with accidents. (Fatigue, lack of attention, and poor driving skills have more to do with accidents)

      This shows that Germany has fewer fatal accidents than Australia (https://bitre.gov.au/publications/ongoing/international_road_safety_comparisons.aspx), although there are no speed limits on motorways in Germany and although Germany has 3x the population of Australia. BTW, they don’t plan to set speed limits anytime soon.

      You see, there is little evidence that it actually benefits the community. It does benefit the state that collects tons of money with speeding fines though.

      Often times, when you hear “it’s because it’s good for the community”, you should raise eyebrows.

  12. Luke f says:

    Very interesting conversation knowing that you are all highly educated on this subject. Im interested to know what your thoughts on the current breastfeeding statistics. Currently the WHo reports breastfeeding uptake as low as 14 percent globally. That is 86 percent of the population are not meeting minimal guidelines of exclusive breastfeeding which is only set at 6months with two years being optimal. Research has said the breast milk provides natural immunity to the developing child. Now with statistics like this and understanding the importance of nature. Do you think this is of concern. Or do you think mass produced formula which is self regulated is better for our growing children..for some reason i just get this picture in my head of battery fed children. Would love to here your thoughts on i believe an equally important topic since your all concerned with what goes into our children.

    • Till Lindemann says:

      Hi Luke
      Based on our family’s experience with breast fed kids, I do believe breast milk is by far the best for babies, at least until they are 6 months old (preferably older – depends on individual situation).
      It appears that breast milk gives babies the best possible start in life and seems to kickstart their natural defence mechanisms among other advantages.
      My wife and I call it “magic milk”, due to the many benefits it has over formula. Then there are the anecdotes passed down from generation to generation e.g. put a drop of BM in babies nose to unblock them through sneezing etc.
      Whenever an argument comes up about vaccination and other such issues I always think what we, as humans had thousands of years ago. No vaccinations, no fluoride in water (naturally occurring in some places but not like today), no pesticides in/on food…the list goes on. We didn’t need majority of this stuff back then and we sure as hell do not need it now.

    • John says:

      It is of utmost concern. To me it’s a no brainer : you breast feed your baby. No formula, however magic it is, can ever replace the milk from mom. Breast milk gives all the human baby needs to build his immune system and everything. Every specie’s milk is adapted to his young.

      The calf gains 360kg in his first year. To achieve that he needs to quickly build strong bones which he does thanks to the high amount of calcium and growth factors his mummy cow gives him. Cow’s milk contains 3 growth factors (epidermal growth factor, transforming growth factor, insulin growth factor). There are 7 growth factors in mommy’s breast milk. Our human baby does not need the kind of growth the calf needs, he needs to quickly develop his brain so he can start to speak, draw, recognize colors and shapes etc, he does not need to grow bones strong enough to support 360kg at 1yo. At 1 yo, a human baby is only about 9kg. That’s why human milk and cow’s milk are not interchangeable.

      Most infant formula is made with cow’s milk that’s been altered to resemble breast milk. This is better than nothing, but it just cannot replace the milk a mom will naturally produce. Plus, mommy does it free of charge!

      I have read recommendations of exclusive breast feeding for 6 months, then breastfeeding morning and evening until 18 months old.

  13. Zac says:

    I will give a few examples of why the vaccination course is so ridiculous. All I’m offering is logic, I encourage anyone to respond.

    Here in Australia the first shot a baby gets is hep b. Hep b is an STD and people also used to get it from sharing needles. Now why on Earth does a baby need a shot against an STD!? The most logical answer is that the baby can also get it from the mother since they share blood.
    But here lies the logical fallacy, before it comes to delivery day the mother gets tested, multiple times for hep b, if she comes up negative the baby is still expected to get the shot.

    Polio is on there at 2 months, polio only now exists in third world countries amongst poor minorities with low hygiene and low overall health. In 2016/15 according to polio eradication org it is only showing up in Pakistan and Afghanistan.
    If this is the case then why do we still need to vaxx our kids in our developed countries? Could we not exercise some common sense and perhaps get the vaxx if you plan on visiting Pakistan.

    Whooping cough. In 2015 (Aus) there were 12,240 whooping cough reports in the state of NSW alone. That’s more than the whole of Australia since 1991 despite the prevalence of a reliable immunisation register. Kids get a whooping cough shot ever 2 months from 2 months on and again at 4yo then between 10-15yo. According to the NSW government there is a 93.3% immunisation rate.
    From 1986-2002 there have been a total of 18 deaths from whooping cough + 1 recently.
    Yet our whooping cough level is as high as it has ever been since before mass vaccinations in 1953 while we currently have the highest immunisation rate. In fact the vast bulk of whooping cough death decline was well before the vaccine was even introduced.
    Anyone can see that the immunisations aren’t working.
    Maybe there is something else at play that is preventing the infant deaths… increased care, well being and overall quality of life. Immunisations are supposed to make you IMMUNE, that’s the point, but they don’t.
    In fact, it would appear that pharmaceutical companies are taking credit for the work of the agricultural, refrigeration, transport industries, a better education about eating healthy and hygiene etc.

    In summery;
    Whooping cough deaths have progressively decreased since the 19th century and show no real correlation to vaccinations being responsible.
    Whooping cough report rate is at an all time high.
    Immunisation rate is at its highest.

    Meanwhile, the reporting system for vaccine side effects in Australia is completely flawed it uses a passive surveillance system which relies on the hospital admitting the adverse reaction was due to a vaccine… the same hospitals who religiously push the vaccine aren’t going to admit fault, especially about vaccines, WE MUST ALL BELIEVE how safe vaccines are.
    But of the reports that do get through about 50 per year are termed ‘serious’ which means sequela (a condition which is the consequence of a previous disease or injury), severe ‘adverse reaction’ or death. A passive surveillance system admits to reporting only 1-10% of actual cases so we need to increase that number to somewhere between 500-5000 to get real numbers.

    Autism. Autism rates have increased from 1 in 5,000 in 1975 to 1 in 68 presently (according to the CDC). They state that “About 1 in 6 children in the United States had a developmental disability in 2006-2008, ranging from mild disabilities such as speech and language impairments to serious developmental disabilities, such as intellectual disabilities, cerebral palsy, and autism”.
    In 2009 the autism rate was 1 in 110 compared to the 1 in 68 presently. So we can actually increase that 1 in 6 to reflect the aforementioned statistics.

    Just stop for a moment and let that all sink in.

    I might suggest that in all cases in history where human beings have suffered and died from “preventable” diseases the biggest underlying problem is hygiene, health and well-being not because they don’t have vaccinations. We can see the evidence today, like in the examples I have given you, we have very high rates of whooping cough regardless of the vaccinations but a very low death rate from the disease… yet in our past during times like the depression that’s when death rates were much higher.

    Now let’s look at the reality of the world we live in today, seriously it’s time for people to wake up and stop taking your blue pill every morning.
    Big pharma makes BIG MONEY from vaccinations. It is FOR PROFIT, that is the ONLY reason they do it, do you really believe the big wigs CARE about your health and well-being? No, we are just a source of money, THAT IS IT. If they weren’t making money they wouldn’t make vaccinations.

    The attitudinal shift I see in society today is that people like us who chose not to vaccinate our children are being treated like enemies of that state.
    The fact is we chose not to vaccinate our kids because we don’t wish to risk a 15-20% chance of our child generating a mental illness and making them sick for the most important developmental stages of their life so that the herd of sheep can sleep better at night.

    And remember, it was always the minority who changed the human attitude for good. We used to think the Earth was flat, we used to burn witches at the stake. The masses of people thought that was ok or normal and the few that rejected the madness were ridiculed like anti-vaxxers are ridiculed today.
    The multitude is always wrong.
    History remembers the few, not the masses.

  14. Lee says:

    Excellent reply Zac,
    Plain common sense will reveal the absurdity in all this to those who look deep enough, with or without the suppressed scientific data.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*