Measles in Samoa: Thank the anti-vaccination lobby

The manner in which members of the anti-vaccination lobby have leapt upon the measles tragedy in Samoa identifies their awful, predatory cult quite well.

To completely understand why anti-vaccine activists promote such intellectually vicious lies and indeed hatred regarding an epidemic that Samoa has labelled a state of emergency I’d argue we need to first look back. Back to July last year when headlines reported the deaths of two infants following the MMR vaccination. Or rather, what we now know was thought to be MMR vaccine. We need to look back dear reader because antivaccinationists reacted in an “I told ya so” manner that was almost glee.

Despite there never being a recorded death due to vaccination or a vaccine in Australia, anti-vax profiteers who have peddled lies for years contend that death and disability after vaccination not only happens but are widespread. A vaccinologist was quoted in evidence to the No Jab No Pay Bill hearing that in Australian injuries serious enough to require compensation range between zero and five per year. I do apologise for referring to that occasion yet again. I also recommend the government publication Questions About Vaccination.

We must look back because regrettably it was the bogus causation peddled by anti-vax identities that gave them the confidence to begin commenting on this measles outbreak that hit Samoa in October this year (2019). As for facts, genuine health professionals and epidemiologists would be familiar with adulterated, out of date and counterfeit medications and vaccines causing harm in nations with health systems and infrastructure less developed than in New Zealand or Australia. Yet these events occur far less today due to safety procedures instigated across the globe.

Following investigations into the infant deaths in Samoa evidence was collated concluding “a tragic outcome from error preparing MMR vaccine”. The Immunisation Advisory Centre of New Zealand reports;

On 4 June 2019, both nurses pleaded guilty to negligence causing manslaughter. On 2 August, both nurses were sentenced to five years in prison. During the sentencing hearing, it was confirmed that one of the nurses mixed the MMR vaccine powder with expired muscle relaxant anaesthetic instead of water for injection supplied in a vial with the vaccine. Eight Samoan speaking New Zealand nurses visited Samoa in June to provide training for vaccinating nurses at district hospitals.

The same reference informs us there has never been a death associated with this vaccine in N.Z. It also has a helpful timeline and includes under August 3rd;

Report on RNZ website: The two nurses, who pleaded guilty to negligence causing the manslaughter of two infants, have been sentenced to five years in prison.

The Samoa Observer published a detailed account of the sentencing hearing, where it was confirmed that one of the nurses mixed the MMR vaccine powder with expired muscle relaxant anaesthetic instead of water for injection supplied in a vial with the vaccine.

The entire event effected parent confidence in immunisation. These doubts were magnified by antivaccinationists resulting in a further realisation of their aim: a reduction in vaccination. The Guardian recently reported that the WHO blames the “anti-vaccine scare” for the rise in cases and of course deaths. Kate O’Brien, director of the WHO immunisation department stressed that the rapid spread of measles in Samoa was due to the “very low coverage” of immunisation.

This resulted in the temporary suspension of the country’s immunisation programme and dented parents’ trust in the vaccine, even though it later turned out the deaths were caused by other medicines that were incorrectly administered.

O’Brien said that an anti-vaccine group had been stoking these fears further with a social media campaign, lamenting that “this is now being measured in the lives of children who have died in the course of this outbreak”.

Misinformation about the safety of vaccines, she said, “has had a very remarkable impact on the immunisation programme” in Samoa.

At least 42 fatalities can be attributed to this measles epidemic at time of writing. In the video below anti-vaxxer identity Taylor Winterstein is mentioned as having visited Samoa in June with diehard anti-vaxxer Robert Kennedy Jnr. Winterstein described herself as “pro-science” the narrator tells us. Oh, my.

Please spend some time reading up on this woman who is presently making a living scamming Wellness devotees and the ill out of their money.

Given the harrowing situation in Samoa and the speed at which measles morbidity and mortality is increasing the government has made the measles vaccine compulsory and warned those preventing community members from being vaccinated to stop.

Such as Fritz Alaiasa Neufelt, the oh-so-savvy businessman selling filtered tap water as the measles fighting “Kangen Water”. Lying as he plays with the lives of ill Samoans he claims that after a spray of his magic water;

“They’re feeling good,” he said. “The measles are already … not cured, but it’s already back to normal”.

The ABC recently reported that the “pro-science” Winterstein was a tad concerned about the governments position. No, not the position of vile Fritz spraying measles sufferers like office plants but the government.

In fact her rational, objective, pro-science mind has applied Godwin’s Law. The ABC cite her calm demeanor;

… Australian-Samoan influencer Taylor Winterstein made recent posts on Facebook and Instagram comparing Samoa’s compulsory vaccination program as akin to “Nazi Germany”.

“Forcing a medical procedure on an entire country, especially one that is proving to be ineffective, dangerous and making the virus more deadly, is straight up barbaric,” she wrote on Facebook.

So um, check it out, right. A “pro-science”, so-called “influencer” who peddles herself as a health guru has a tantrum claiming that the only known safe and effective preventative for measles is “proving to be ineffective, dangerous and making the virus more deadly”. And yeah, Nazi Germany. Pfft. Oh I’m influenced Tay. Trust me.

I’d say you can’t make this stuff up but that’s exactly what they do. Consider the increase in cases below and the time frame it covers.

© Source: virologydownunder.com

Data: Samoan Government Facebook and Ministry of Health websites and media comments. Last update 27/11/19

Preparation: Ian M. Mackay, PhD

Immunisation rates were previously far higher in Samoa. Four years ago MMR coverage was 84%. By 2017 it had already dropped to 60%. Last year (2018) it had fallen to 31%.

There is no doubt. A drop in MMR vaccination has brought Samoa to a tragedy of shocking proportions. Two doses of MMR is the recommended, clearly life saving, dose.

But still, Meryl Dorey of The Australian Vaccination Risks Network tweeted this dishonest evidence free nonsense (left) just recently. Just as Winterstein pushes the piffle that the vaccine makes the virus more deadly, Dorey tries to convince her cult that malpractice is the cause.

I would urge Meryl Dorey to have another look above at the facts and follow some of the links. Revisit what is known about these deaths. Understand that it was not the expected MMR vaccine they received before dying.

Accept two nurses are now serving five years in prison for negligence. Know it was a negligent error in preparing the adulterated mixture that led to the deaths, then an eight month suspension of MMR. Admit the facts, admit the reality. Stop your lies.

Stop your negligence.

Busting Vaccine Myths

Over on Stories from the trauma bay DocBastard has collated and canned seventy three falsehoods used by the anti-vaccination movement to aid their spread of vaccine misinformation.

Whether it’s vaccinated vs unvaccinated, too many too soon, deceptive reliance on VAERS data, toxins, herd immunity, aborted fetal cells, package inserts, Bill Gates, the renaming of Polio, Mr. Wakefield, heavy metals and/or many, many other anti-vax lies you’re interested in it may well be there.

He has included a frightfully helpful table of topics anchor linked to the relative paragraph. You can also follow @DocBastard on twitter.

Ooooooh boy. I have no idea what kind of rabbit hole I’m entering here, and this may end up being the 1) longest, 2) least read, and 3) most unworthwhile (yes, it’s a word) post in the history of blogs. But fuck it, I’m doing it anyway.

If you’ve landed on this page, one of three things has happened:

  1. You’ve been a loyal reader, got an email notification about this post, and you clicked it. 
  2. You searched the internet for “docbastard vaccines” for some stupid reason, or 
  3. I or (hopefully) someone else referred you here from Twitter because you made some bullshit argument about vaccines. 

If it’s #3, there is at least a 99.21% chance (I calculated it) that you haven’t even read this far. But in case you have, please immediately refer to the number I listed so you can quickly find out why you’re wrong here wrong.

If that last sentence doesn’t make sense, just read on. Everyone else knows it will all come together by the end. 

———————————————————

Anti-vaccination campaigners: Misleading and Unsafe

When it comes to public advocacy this year, one of the most effective announcements came in December.

The NSW Health Care Complaints Commission issued a public warning under s94A of the Health Care Complaints Act 1993 with regard to the “misleading and unsafe practices by anti-vaccination campaigners”.

The HCCC had received numerous complaints about individuals and associations and is concerned about the risk they pose to public health and safety.

The anti-vaccination lobby pushes messages which;

have the potential to engender fear and alarm in the community, often targeting vulnerable members of the community through misinformation which may have a detrimental effect on the health care decisions of individuals.

 

PUBLIC WARNING UNDER S94A OF THE HEALTH CARE COMPLAINTS ACT 1993:  MISLEADING AND UNSAFE PRACTICES BY ANTI-VACCINATION CAMPAIGNERS

The NSW Health Care Complaints Commission (“the Commission”) has received multiple complaints regarding misleading and unsafe practices by anti-vaccination (“anti-vax”) campaigners and the potential risks that such persons and associations pose to the public health and safety.

Immunisation is a simple, safe and effective way of protecting people against harmful diseases before they come into contact with them. Immunisation protects individuals and the community by reducing the spread of preventable diseases.

Complaints have been received in relation to individuals (including registered and unregistered health practitioners as well as academics) and organisations engaged in the widespread promotion of dangerous anti-vax messages.

Why is this warning being issued?
Misleading and inaccurate information communicated by anti-vax campaigners has the potential to engender fear and alarm in the community and result in fewer people being vaccinated. This information commonly quotes scientific research and studies in support of anti-vax claims, but is often selective, including exaggerating the risks and minimising or discrediting the benefits of vaccines. The research presented does not align with the true evidence-base on which independent and government bodies worldwide make vaccination recommendations.

This is likely to have a detrimental effect on the health care decisions of individuals and may lead them to make decisions not to vaccinate which pose an avoidable risk to their own health and to the safety of the wider community.

It is unfortunate that anti-vax campaigners are also known to target particularly vulnerable members of the community, including impressionable young parents who are concerned about making the right health decisions for their infants.

The spread of misleading and false information by anti-vax campaigners presents an ongoing challenge for government agencies, particularly due to the rise in use of social media and the proliferation of information concerning vaccinations available via the internet.

Given the continuing efforts of anti-vax campaigners to mislead and misinform members of the public, the Commission considers it necessary to warn all health consumers of the danger of relying on information that is not from a reliable and trusted source. This can include websites that appear to be “professional” and groups that are well-organised in their approach. Some persons and associations will go as far as to distance themselves from “anti-vax” campaigners, while essentially promoting the same message.

What should consumers do to protect themselves?
The Commission strongly urges consumers to exercise caution in relying on information concerning the safety and efficacy of vaccinations which is promoted via social media and websites that are not government affiliated or endorsed. Further, consumers should be cautious of persons or groups spreading anti-vax messages via other means, including face-to-face information sessions and other public events.

In all cases the following factors should be considered by consumers when presented with any information or advice concerning the safety and efficacy of vaccines and immunisation programs in Australia.To ensure that you are receiving reliable information concerning the safety and efficacy of vaccinations and to assist you in making an informed decision concerning the benefits and risks of particular vaccines, it is recommended that you consult a registered medical practitioner (e.g. your family GP or paediatrician).

Health consumers should be particularly wary of persons claiming to be “experts” or to have conducted “research” into the safety and efficacy of vaccines or immunisation programs in circumstances where they do not hold relevant medical qualifications and are not a registered health practitioner.
Consumers should be wary of persons holding themselves out to hold qualifications that cannot be verified. If you wish to ensure that the person providing advice is a registered health practitioner you should check on the National Register of health practitioners – https://www.ahpra.gov.au/Registration/Registers-of-Practitioners.aspx

Health professionals play a role in health education and administration of vaccines, however it is not appropriate for health professionals to promote anti-vax messages via their personal social media pages or other online forums.  Consumers should avoid placing any reliance on “comments” made via social media that are not from a reliable and trusted source.

When researching online, it is recommended that you visit trusted government websites including the NSW Health and Commonwealth Department of Health websites and also the National Centre for Immunisation Surveillance and Research (NCIRS) website, which provide reliable information concerning immunisation and Immunisation Programs:

https://www.health.nsw.gov.au/immunisation/Pages/default.aspx

https://beta.health.gov.au/health-topics/immunisation

http://www.ncirs.edu.au/

 

The Health Care Complaints Commission (“the Commission”) has issued a public warning under s94A of the Health Care Complaints Act 1993 regarding Misleading and Unsafe Practices by Anti-Vaccination Campaigners.

The Commission is concerned about a number of complaints it continues to receive regarding misleading and unsafe practices by anti-vaccination (“anti-vax”) campaigners and the potential risks that such persons and associations pose to the public health and safety.

Anti-vax messages have the potential to engender fear and alarm in the community, often targeting vulnerable members of the community through misinformation which may have a detrimental effect on the health care decisions of individuals. Anti-vax campaigners will often selectively quote scientific research and studies in support of anti-vax claims, including exaggerating the risks and minimising or discrediting the benefits of vaccines. The research presented does not align with the evidence-base on which independent and government bodies worldwide make recommendations.

Given the continuing efforts of anti-vax campaigners to mislead and misinform members of the public, the Commission considers it necessary to warn all health consumers of the danger of relying
on information that is not from a reliable and trusted source. This can include websites that appear to be “professional” and groups that are well-organised in their approach that often use popular mechanisms like social media to promote their messages.

What should consumers do to protect themselves?

The Commission strongly urges consumers to:

  • Exercise caution when relying on vaccination efficacy information which is promoted via social media and websites that are not government affiliated or endorsed;
  • Be cautious of persons or groups spreading anti-vax messages via other means, including face-to-face information sessions and other public events;
  • Be wary of persons claiming to be “experts” or to have conducted “research” into the safety and efficacy of vaccination programs;
  • Be wary of persons holding themselves out to hold qualifications that cannot be verified. If you wish to ensure that the person providing advice is a registered health practitioner you should check on the National Register of health practitioners – https://www.ahpra.gov.au/Registration/Registers-of-Practitioners.aspx;
  • Consult a registered medical practitioner concerning the benefits and risks of vaccines;
  • Visit trusted government websites when researching online, including the NSW Health and Commonwealth Department of Health websites and the National Centre for Immunisation Surveillance and Research (NCIRS) website.

 

Further Information

For further information, contact the Executive Officer of the Health Care Complaints Commission, on 9219 7444 or send an email to media@hccc.nsw.gov.au.

 

Vatican position on vaccines derived from the descendent cells of fetal material

Despite very clear facts on the issue of fetal material used in the production of some vaccines, there is ample misinformation in circulation.

The anti-vaccine lobby aim to benefit from any confusion that can be created by misrepresenting the fact that human diploid cells derived from fetal cells are used in the production of some vaccines. During production the vaccines themselves are purified so that no cells remain in the final product.

In January 2014 I published Vaccines contain no aborted fetal cells and the piece is still relevant today. It’s important to remember that the diploid cellular material used to grow viral material in vaccine production are descendent cells.

Descendent cells are the medium in which these vaccines are prepared. The cell lines under consideration were begun using cells taken from one or more fetuses aborted almost 40 years ago. Since that time the cell lines have grown independently. It is important to note that descendent cells are not the cells of the aborted child. They never, themselves, formed a part of the victim’s body.

Source – National Catholic Bioetics Center

I see. One must be sure to observe “that descendent cells are not the cells of the aborted child. They never, themselves, formed a part of the victim’s body.”

A very clear source of information specific to the morality of this issue is the Vatican Statement on Vaccines Derived From Aborted Human Fetuses.

The article includes;

The matter in question regards the lawfulness of production, distribution and use of certain vaccines whose production is connected with acts of procured abortion. It concerns vaccines containing live viruses which have been prepared from human cell lines of foetal origin, using tissues from aborted human foetuses as a source of such cells. The best known, and perhaps the most important due to its vast distribution and its use on an almost universal level, is the vaccine against Rubella (German measles).

[…]

To summarize, it must be confirmed that:

  • there is a grave responsibility to use alternative vaccines and to make a conscientious objection with regard to those which have moral problems;
  • as regards the vaccines without an alternative, the need to contest so that others may be prepared must be reaffirmed, as should be the lawfulness of using the former in the meantime insomuch as is necessary in order to avoid a serious risk not only for one’s own children but also, and perhaps more specifically, for the health conditions of the population as a whole – especially for pregnant women;
  • the lawfulness of the use of these vaccines should not be misinterpreted as a declaration of the lawfulness of their production, marketing and use, but is to be understood as being a passive material cooperation and, in its mildest and remotest sense, also active, morally justified as an extrema ratio due to the necessity to provide for the good of one’s children and of the people who come in contact with the children (pregnant women);
  • such cooperation occurs in a context of moral coercion of the conscience of parents, who are forced to choose to act against their conscience or otherwise, to put the health of their children and of the population as a whole at risk. This is an unjust alternative choice, which must be eliminated as soon as possible.

 

  • Further reading;

Do vaccines contain aborted fetal tissue?

The Catholic Church and vaccines – Vaxopedia

The Australian Immunisation Handbook

Australian government to provide meningococcal vaccine to teens

Recently the Australian government announced that from April 2019 the meningococcal vaccine Nimenrix will be available free to teenagers aged 14-19. This will prove to be a significant public health measure against Invasive Meningococcal Disease (IMD).

Nimenrix is a quadrivalent vaccine protecting against 4 of the 13 serogroups of the bacterium Neisseria meningitidis. The four serogroups are A, C, W and Y. The vaccine Bexsero protects against serogroup B and is presently the subject of a South Australian study. The manufacturers of the vaccine, GlaxoSmithKline have confirmed they will seek to have Bexsero listed on the National Immunisation Program once they have the study results. The ACWY vaccine has been freely available to 12 month olds since July 1st, 2018. Of these five primary strains of meningococcal disease, B and W serogroups are the most common.

The incidence of meningococcal disease and the serogroup responsible fluctuates over time. According to the National Centre for Immunisation Research and Surveillance (NCIRS), serogroup B (MenB) was the most common cause of IMD from 2006 to 2015. Over this period MenB accounted for 63% to 88% of annual notified cases where a serogroup was identified. An NCIRS fact sheet notes that since 2013 serogroup W (MenW) has increasingly caused IMD.

In that year 17.4% or 17 cases with an identified serogroup were responsible for the disease. By 2017 MenW was identified as responsible for 38.1% or 139 cases. It is also clinically interesting that the NCIRS have reported, “many of the MenW cases have been due to a single clone of meningococcus, the ST-11 strain type”. This suggests sustained person to person transmission. MenW appears to have a higher fatality rate (9.3%) than MenB (5%).

With serogroup Y there has been a “smaller but notable” increase. In 2014 there were 7.4% or 12 cases of those with an identified serogroup, increasing to 20.5% or 75 cases in 2017. IMD due to serogroup Y is more common in older Australians. 61% of the 75 notified cases in 2017 were in adults ≥ 45 years or older. The decrease in cases due to serogroup C (MenC) is an indication of the efficacy of immunisation programmes.

The MenC conjugate vaccination programme began in 2003. The number of MenC cases with an identified serogroup was 225 in 2002, falling to 14 (3.8%) in 2017. The NCIRS observe that, “serogroup A disease remains rare in Australia”. Nonetheless overall meningococcal disease and death from different serogroups has increased in recent years.

Reporting recently on the government intention to soon provide the quadrivalent Nimenrix vaccine to teens, both SBS and Fairfax published the following figures on IMD for 2015 – 2017.

  • 2015: 182 cases, 12 fatalities
  • 2016: 252 cases, 11 fatalities
  • 2017: 382 cases, 28 fatalities

The Fairfax article was published at 12.00am on September 25th and noted that there had been ten fatalities from meningococcal “so far this year”. A little over 44 hours later at 8.07pm on September 26th the Moree Champion reported;

Laboratory tests have confirmed meningococcal disease as the cause of death in a 25 year old woman in the New England region. The young woman collapsed at home on Saturday, September 22 and was taken to hospital by ambulance, but was unable to be revived.

Meningococcal disease can kill within 24 hours if not treated in time. The audio below is from Meningococcal Australia and addresses important points regarding infection, symptoms, prevention and treatment.

The Meningococcal Australia website notes;

10% of those infected will die, and around 20% will have permanent disabilities — ranging from learning difficulties, sight and hearing problems, to liver and kidney failure, loss of fingers, toes and limbs and scarring caused by skin grafts.

It is important to access reputable information with respect to diseases such as Invasive Meningococcal Disease. IMD from the five primary serogroups A, C, W, Y and B can be prevented by vaccination. This makes it a target for misinformation from the anti-vaccination lobby. In Australia the most vocal group is the Australian Vaccination-risks Network, or AVN.

Meningococcal bacteria can live harmlessly in the throat and nose in 20% of people and IMD is one of the less common bacterial diseases. Antivaccinationists use this information to wrongly assert there is no need to be vaccinated. Yet the reality is that in cases of meningococcal disease the bacteria enter the bloodstream and multiply rapidly, causing septicaemia and damage to blood vessel walls. This leads to bleeding into skin tissue producing the dark purple rash associated with meningococcal disease.

Bacterial meningitis caused by meningococcal disease is the most dangerous type of meningitis. Meningitis is a serious inflammation of the meninges – the lining of the spinal cord and brain. Thus the argument that humans “naturally” carry meningococcal bacteria and should avoid vaccination is based on deceptive reasoning and is dangerously misleading.

Vaccines are demonstrably very safe. The testing of vaccines before approval for use in Australia can take over a decade. Their ingredients are well understood and are themselves tested for safety.

The introduction of the quadrivalent meningococcal vaccine Nimenrix is a positive for Australian public health.