Tag Archives: evidence denial

Berkeley Earth Project supports global warming trend

Posted in climate change, Science by

In the wake of the much touted UEA “climategate” emails, climate change denial took on a new confidence. Although shown to be a storm in a teacup, denialists still claim that data was manipulated to show exaggerated anthropogenic global warming – AGW.

Other concerns thus spread to the IPCC, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) and other climate scientists about secretly reviewing each others data. These claims have and do attract genuine concern. In effect this arguably limited opportunity for criticism prior to publication, watering down the veracity of peer review. It also gave a ready weapon for politically motivated denialists and conspiracy theorists alike to dismiss on an ad hoc basis conclusions of global warming, regardless of data origin.

Aiming to deal directly with both the stain of climategate and a number of misconceptions seized on by denialists is the Berkeley Earth Project. Established by University of California physics professor Richard Muller the project was funded by a number of groups including those lobbying against action on climate change such as the Koch brothers. Muller was “deeply concerned” that discordant data had been concealed. According to the BBC;

Funding came from a number of sources, including charitable foundations maintained by the Koch brothers, the billionaire US industrialists, who have also donated large sums to organisations lobbying against acceptance of man-made global warming.

Physicist Saul Perlmutter, who won the Nobel Physics Prize this year for research on the accelerating expansion of the universe was one of a team of ten. Broadly speaking the Berkeley team has validated the warming trends documented before, reinforcing a global temperature rise of at least 1 ℃ since the mid 1950’s. This followed a review of 40,000 weather recording stations, looking at the global temperature trend over land since 1800.

Global warming is real according to a major study released today (October 20th, 2011). Despite issues raised by climate change skeptics, the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature study finds reliable evidence of a rise in average world land temperature of approximately 1 ℃ since the mid-1950s.

Comparison of NASA GISS, NOAA and Berkeley temperature anomaly data

More so, they have addressed some standards amongst the cynics camp, such as islands of warmth distorting a global view. This rather logical criticism of an urban heat island effect, notes that weather stations are located close to or within cities thus cannot be a reliable reference point for global temperatures. Only 1% of the globe’s surface is industrialised.

It’s arguably a slightly selective criticism because another flawed criticism of a warming globe is that over the last 50 – 70 years many weather stations have shown a decrease in temperature trends. However, the ratio of warming sites to cooling sites is roughly 2:1. This global trend was mimicked in the USA. Clumping is evident yet it’s possible to find “long time series with both positive and negative trends from all portions of the USA”. The authors stress that detection of long term trends should never rely on individual records.


USA and surrounding weather stations: Red – Net warming. Blue – Net cooling.

A comparison of all weather sites (blue line) and very rural (red line) that would be immune from the heat island effect yields a striking challenge for proponents of this criticism of AGW data. It was also noted that weather stations ranked as “poor” showed the same overall trends as stations ranked as “OK”.

Recorded Temperature: All sites and rural sites from 1800 – present

In general their findings have been summarised as:

 ¤ The urban heat island effect is locally large and real but does not contribute significantly to the average land temperature rise. That’s because the urban regions of the earth amount to < 1% of land area.

 ¤ About 1/3 of temperature sites around the world reported global cooling over the past 70 years. Bur 2/3 of the sites show warming. Individual temperature histories reported from a single location are requently noisy and/or unreliable and it is always necessary to compare and combine many records to understand the true pattern of global warming.

The large number of sites reporting cooling might help explain cynicism toward global warming. Humans can’t feel global warming and information suggesting your local temperatures are the same or cooler than a century ago can be mistaken for representative of the entire globe. It is difficult to measure weather consistently over decades or centuries. Sites reporting cooling is a symptom of the noise and variation that occurs. A good determination of global land temperature takes hundreds or thousands of stations to detect and measure the average warming. Only when many nearby thermometers reproduce the same patterns can we know that measurements were reliably made.

 ¤ Stations ranked as “poor” in a survey by Anthony Watts and his team of the most important temperature recording stations in the USA, (known as USHCN – the US Historical Climatology Network), showed the same pattern as global warming as stations ranked “OK”. Absolute temperatures of poor stations may be higher and less accurate, but the overall global warming trend is the same, and the Berkeley Earth analysis concludes there is not any undue bias from including poor stations in the survey.

The Berkeley Earth Study authors are anxious for open and honest discourse, peer review and criticism of their work. To this end it will be available on their website for review:

The Berkeley Earth team has now submitted four papers for peer review. We are making these preliminary results public, together with our programs and data set, in order to invite additional scrutiny. The four papers are:

The aim of the Berkeley Group was to confirm AGW and the extent to which this is occurring. This appears to have been done. Some conclusions differ from earlier views of annual climate changes in that global temperature correlates more strongly with the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO) index. This is a measure of north Atlantic sea surface temperature. Whilst El Nino Southern changes have traditionally been attributed to annual changes, the team now want to examine long term AMO cycles for impact on the rise-fall-rise seen over the 20th century.

As the final touches were being put to this report popular “theatrical” shock jock Alan Jones (left) was dodging questions and pushing ye olde climategate email conspiracy line on the ABC.

Under a heading Time for Apology the BBC write:

Prof Phil Jones, the CRU scientist who came in for the most personal criticism during “Climategate”, was cautious about interpreting the Berkeley results because they have not been published in a peer-reviewed journal.

“I look forward to reading the finalised paper once it has been reviewed and published,” he said. […]

In part, this counters the accusation made during “Climategate” that climate scientists formed a tight clique who peer-reviewed each other’s papers and made sure their own global warming narrative was the only one making it into print. […]

Bob Ward, policy and communications director for the Grantham Research Institute for Climate Change and the Environment in London, said the warming of the Earth’s surface was unequivocal.

“So-called ‘sceptics’ should now drop their thoroughly discredited claims that the increase in global average temperature could be attributed to the impact of growing cities,” he said. “More broadly, this study also proves once again how false it was for ‘sceptics’ to allege that the e-mails hacked from UEA proved that the CRU land temperature record had been doctored.

“It is now time for an apology from all those, including US presidential hopeful Rick Perry, who have made false claims that the evidence for global warming has been faked by climate scientists.”

Given the nature of denialism and creatures like Jones, I would suggest reasoning with the rusted on cynics is futile. Any apology will only be forthcoming from those with an appreciation for science, not faith based movements.

I predict regular stormy seas ahead for this manufactured “debate”, for some time to come.

 

Alan Jones on Alan Jones

Posted in climate change, Denialism, General, Science by

I think it would be good for Australia if Tony Abbott was the Prime Minister of Australia

– Alan Jones, influential conservative “shock jock” media identity, climate science denialist and Abbott supporter –

Leigh Sales of ABC’s 7:30 Report hosts an extended interview with radio broadcaster, climate science denialist and beacon for conservative anger, Alan Jones.

Covering issues from mining, to respect for the office of PM, to potential for sustainability, to denial of climate change Jones argues Australia is “entitled” to a better Prime Minister. Side stepping a few points such as flaws in the science challanging climate change vs the wealth of science supporting it, Jones suggests topics choose him. His science illiteracy and propensity for ad hominem attacks against those of differing opinion is at times mixed liberally with logical fallacies as Jones insists on maintaining the upper hand.

Whilst denying using abusive terms Jones immediately defends those he uses as justified. Rob Oakeshott is “brain dead” for supporting climate change agendas and will unlikely get another job. On Greens Senator Sarah Hanson-Young, calling her “a fool is flattering… that’s flattering”. One would have been delighted if the irrelevant anti-Greens sentiment – indeed anti-Left sentiment – buoyed by claims of anti-Right climate conspiracies could be supported with evidence.

Perhaps most regrettably Jones falls back on the commonly debunked climate science denialist tactic of citing ICPP emails as legitimising any and all denial of climate change. Now well established as a careless use of language entirely divorced from the volume of data, the leaked emails are of no moment. One can only imagine if Aussies applied the same logic to Jones’ illegal “cash for comments” scam [Wikipedia entry]. Should his criminal conduct and breach of media codes be seen as cause to mistrust his transparency?

Unusually, despite the platform of the ABC and given the impact of his show on community opinion, Jones produced not one cogent argument to support his irrational position on climate change. His best appeal to authority is to reference interviewing “some of the leading scientists in the world… finest minds” who said anthropogenic climate change affirming science is “a hoax”. Having interviewed a senior IPCC scientist, Jones completely loses track by noting he “agreed with most of the statistics I offered”. Then his famous fallacy gets a run.

Quoting the percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere, the percentage of that arising from from emissions and the percentage of that which is derived from Australia, he triumphantly reinforces the 0.000018% of atmospheric CO2 attributable to Aussie emissions. The child-like reasoning here is shocking. It’s a little number thus cannot be of menace. That climate is certainly effected by tiny, cumulative changes leading to dramatic and devastating consequences seems beyond him. As is the impact of only a couple of degrees increase in average temperature. But is he really serious?

CFCs make up a tiny fraction of 1% of our atmosphere. Yet CFC-11 has 17,500 times carbon dioxide’s capacity to trap heat in the atmosphere. That 0.04% of CO2 Jones loves to quote. Jones has no problem with the science of ozone depletion, nor action taken to preserve the ozone layer. Surely then, a bright chap like him could further appreciate the power of minor changes to atmospheric chemistry. Though there’s no political gain to be found in denying ozone preservation. No cleverly crafted junk science making up cushy rebuttals. What if we applied this dismissal approach to human health?

The size of the HIV or Ebola virus is microscopic. The percentage of body surface area opened by a bullet wound is insignificant. The number of cardiac cells to misfire and lead to a lethal infarction is minuscule compared to the total. A tiny blood vessel amongst hundreds of thousands, effecting 0.000018% or less of brain neurons can change a life, wipe memory, destroy speech, render us blind and so on. No doubt he could comprehend such simple notions. Suffice it to say it pays to remain skeptical of Jones’ motives. Or indeed, respect how effective the climate change denialist movement has been.

There was of course, no defence of the scurrilous and unconscionable abuse of science behind the entire denialist movement. For example, consider this from an article by Donald Prothero published in e-Skeptic, late last September:

As Oreskes and Conway documented from memos leaked to the press and published in their book Merchants of Doubt, in April 1998 the right-wing Marshall Institute, SEPP (Fred Seitz’s lobby that aids tobacco companies and polluters), and ExxonMobil, met in secret at the American Petroleum Institute’s headquarters in Washington, D.C. There they planned a $20 million campaign to get “respected scientists” to cast doubt on climate change, get major PR effort going, and lobby Congress that global warming wasn’t real and was not a threat. Then there was the famously cynical 2002 memo from GOP pollster and spinmeister Frank Luntz to the Bush White House:
The scientific debate is closing [against us] but not yet closed. There is still a window of opportunity to challenge the science… Voters believe that there is no consensus about global warming within the scientific community. Should the public come to believe that the scientific issues are settled, their views about global warming will change accordingly. Therefore, you need to continue to make the lack of scientific certainty a primary issue in the debate, and defer to scientists and other experts in the field.

Incredibly Jones says at one point he “finds it hard to believe people in politics behave the way they do, and expect people to take them seriously”. It’s a brilliant example of Poe’s Law colliding with the Dunning-Kruger effect.

Enjoy…

http://vimeo.com/30841685

“Vaccine Shedding”: Time Up For Another Vaccine Myth

Posted in Anti-Vaccination Lobby, Denialism, Health, Science by

One myth often pulled out by antivaccination lobbyists to malign vaccine safety is the senseless term “Vaccine Shedding”.

Whilst in context we all know what is meant, it’s worth pausing to consider that the term is a byproduct, if you will, of the antivaccination movement’s skill at sowing misinformation. The unrivaled ability to scan a headline and regurgitate some ghastly tale about vaccines. To squeeze another fallacious vaccine “danger” onto the shelf, content in the knowledge it will soon have a life of it’s own.

The colloquial use of this nonsensical term seeks to convey that an individual who has been vaccinated can readily shed part of the vaccine and cause infection in the unvaccinated. Which by definition demands them to have shed not a vaccine but an infectious agent. Indeed a virus or bacterium. Which by extension demands the vaccine to contain a live virus or bacteria. This then opens the door to viral shedding the vast complexities of vaccine induced immunity and viable modes of excretion – aka shedding. That won’t stop your garden variety anti-vaxxer claiming any vaccine can lead to infection of the unvaccinated via this ghastly “vaccine shedding”.

But that’s only part of the story. “Vaccine shedding” is a double barrelled myth in that transmission is assumed to occur ipso facto. Shedding is not transmission. Period. Yet denial of vaccine efficacy requires internalisation of some whacky stuff. Including the erroneous belief that viral shedding follows MMR vaccination. Yet worse is the myth that inactivated vaccines pose the risk of infection due to “vaccine shedding”.  Pertussis often brings out the malicious side of anti-vaxxers. DTaP is inactivated. Indeed the pertussis component is acellular. Update: The acellular pertussis vaccine is an example of a subunit vaccine.

So, you may wonder at the nature of Cynthia Janak who writes in Will the vaccinated infect the unvaccinated? That is the question with Whooping cough:

Before I continue I want to tell you about a fact that is known by the CDC, etc. That is called vaccine shedding. This is the transmission of the virus from a vaccinated person to an unvaccinated person. [….] I want you to understand that this is true for vaccines including the Whooping Cough. What you could have happen is that all these parents and child care workers are going to get the vaccine and then take care of children. [….] The vaccinated have the potential to infect the unvaccinated child. This could cause the next epidemic of disease like what happened with the small pox epidemic.

So, in Cynthia’s mind “vaccine shedding” is, “…transmission of the virus from a vaccinated person to an unvaccinated person”. Wrong. And it’s true for whooping cough. Impossible. Yet Cynthia Janak asserts there’s potential for an epidemic like smallpox? Pure fiction. Contracting pertussis because an unvaccinated and infected child or adult who ignores boosters has breathed on someone is, however, a simple fact. Aiming to inflate the danger of her misguided concern about “vaccine shedding” as “known by the CDC”, Cynthia uses references to FluMist.

FluMist a live attenuated influenza vaccine (LAIV) sprayed into the nostrils and well understood regarding shedding. Concerns about administering a live virus this way should be respected. So should the facts about any risks. It sheds in low concentration for short periods via nasal discharge. It is not associated with person to person transmission. Given that wild type influenza sheds at far higher concentration, is found on fixtures, objects, skin and is strongly associated with transmission, severe illness and complications it seems Cynthia has been selective about what’s “known by the CDC”.

“Vaccine shedding” is better suited to mid 19th century notions like the infectious miasma, wafting about in terrifying unseen clouds held aloft by our lack of knowledge. Nor does the rare instance of shedding suddenly turn any agent into a virus with the infectious capability of Ebola. But anti-vax voices are often raised in triumph that the crime of “vaccine shedding” places the community at greater risk than the rising numbers of unvaccinated.

The scale of error associated with this belief is akin to the myth of potential vaccine injuries outweighing the benefits of vaccination. Serious injuries that do occur are primarily in populations genetically predisposed to latent complications and manifestation is extremely rare. Injuries, disability and death from vaccine preventable disease would occur at magnitudes many hundreds or thousands of times greater and can manifest in anyone. Vaccine injuries are artificially inflated by confusing correlation (sometimes years apart) with causation, and by including red marks, crying, sleep disturbance or omitting that event X was a serious allergic reaction to latex syringe components. Similarly, arguing ones unvaccinated child is at risk from, or has been infected by, a recently vaccinated child is quite a claim.

Viral shedding itself is by no means ignored by the medical community. It’s of primary concern in the management of immune compromised patients, pregnant women and newborns. Varicella is an excellent example in that a.) viral shedding is well understood and b.) the risk from shedding can be discerned from precautions taken. Following varicella vaccination, viral shedding can be detected in the stools for six weeks.

In the case of immunodeficiency disorders or immune suppression from drugs, transfusions, stem cell transplant, chemotherapy etc, the recommendations are to avoid contact with fecal matter of vaccinated subjects and to observe good hygiene. To put this in context, unvaccinated children who spend one hour in a room with an infected child (shedding varicella) stand a 95% chance of contracting varicella (chicken pox). This is why vaccination against varicella is vital and choosing to not vaccinate your child places him or her and by extension countless others at risk of serious complication.

For nursing mothers post natal varicella vaccination need not be delayed if they are varicella-susceptible as varicella hasn’t been found in breast milk post maternal vaccination. There is no problematic risk of viral shedding to newborns provided hand washing and other hygiene measures are followed.

Whilst rare, a post-varicella immunisation vesicular rash can form. Again whilst quite rare, viral shedding can occur at this site. Plainly stated it’s incredibly rare for an unvaccinated child to be infected with varicella from a vaccinated subject and a series of events, including transmission, must occur within a small window of opportunity. Greatest precautions must be taken in the case of immune suppression. Writing in Vaccines in immunocompromised patients, Janet R. Serwint, MD Consulting Editor notes:

Because the varicella virus rarely can be shed through a postimmunization vesicular rash that may develop, recommendations include avoiding contact until the rash resolves.

In March this year there was an interesting case of viral shedding. The antivaccination lobby bellowed that Varicella zoster virus DNA had been found in the saliva of people over 60 vaccinated with the live Zostavax vaccine manufactured by Merck. In this age group Herpes zoster (shingles) is the target. Shingles is the result of infection with VZV earlier in life which may reactivate as immunity declines or from novel infection. Despite blog headings like Vaccinated people SHED LIVE HERPES for up to a month AFTER vaccination, be aware it was 2 of 36 “vaccinated people” who made the grade.

There was no indication of infection risk at the time. Today transmission is considered rare. Packet inserts carried the standard warnings found in varicella immunisations to avoid contact with infants, nursing mothers and immunocompromised individuals. “Doctors never tell you this”, lied the anti-vax lobby. The end result is that, fortuitously, it appears a saliva test could be developed allowing for detection and antiviral therapy before the painful rash appears. All up with rare potential for transmission from about 5% of recipients of a vaccine that’s not widely used it was a non event.

With MMR the lack of viral shedding renders any risk of horizontal transmission in this manner null and void. If challenged with the claim of “vaccine shedding” specific to Measles, Mumps, Rubella vaccination you’re being misled.

Peak shedding of Rotavirus occurs on “post-vaccination days 6 through 8”. Published in The Lancet Rotavirus vaccines: viral shedding and risk of transmission, notes:

Immunocompromised contacts should be advised to avoid contact with stool from the immunised child if possible, particularly after the first vaccine dose for at least 14 days. Since the risk of vaccine transmission and subsequent vaccine-derived disease with the current vaccines is much less than the risk of wild type rotavirus disease in immunocompromised contacts, vaccination should be encouraged.

The “vaccine shedding” bogeyman got a free kick with the FluMist LAIV vaccine. You may remember the hype. The spraying of “living influenza virus” straight into children’s brains was going to lead to mutation and death on an unprecedented scale. It would genetically revert to the wild type. Transmission would thus be uncontrolled. It would quickly prove useless against changing seasonal strains. ADR’s would rise…. and so on. Ultimately the cost proved to be a deterrent. Mayo Clinic have produced a welcome article on LAIV Myths.

In a comprehensive 2008 study with a sample aged 2 – 49 years, shedding “of short duration and at low titers” was detected in nasal swabs on days 1 – 11. LAIV recipients “should only avoid contact with severely immunocompromised persons for 7 days after vaccination”.

On Shedding and Transmission of Vaccine Viruses, in a larger piece on influenza vaccination of HCP, the CDC write:

One concern regarding use of LAIV among HCP has been the potential for transmitting vaccine virus from persons receiving vaccine to nonimmune patients at high risk. Available data indicate that children and adults vaccinated with LAIV can shed vaccine viruses for >2 days after vaccination, although in lower titers than typically occur with shedding of wild-type influenza viruses. Shedding should not be equated with person-to-person transmission of vaccine viruses, although transmission of shed vaccine viruses from vaccinated persons to nonvaccinated persons has been documented in rare instances among children in a day care center.

One study conducted in a child care center assessed transmissibility of vaccine viruses from 98 vaccinated persons to 99 unvaccinated controls aged 8–36 months; 80% of vaccine recipients shed one or more virus strains (mean duration: 7.6 days). [….] The estimated probability of acquiring vaccine virus after close contact with a single LAIV recipient in this child care population was 0.6%–2.4%.

It was also documented that should HIV positive children be exposed to LAIV shedding, “… serious adverse outcomes would not be expected to occur frequently”. So the combination of live virus shedding and immune deficiency in the case of LAIV presents low risk. Certainly the overall risk associated with the rare transmission following shedding after LAIV is insignificant given the risk of regular influenza virus transmission.

We’re running out of dramatic scenarios for the antivaccination lobby to cling to. With polio the wild virus replicates in the intestine and is shed in stools for up to a month. Transmission in developed nations is thus faecal-oral like other stool shed viral components. It is of course so rare as to be unheard of. However, given that the IOM report into evidence and causality of vaccine adverse effects found a causal link between the oral polio vaccine (OPV) and vaccine associated paralytic polio (or Vaccine Derived Polio Virus), we should seriously consider shedding in areas where this is documented.

In fact the question has been asked if prolonged VDPV shedding could be a source of reintroduction following polio eradication. The more compromised the immune system the more likely the individual is to have problems with vaccine induced immunity. A study looking for VDPV shedding in immune deficient subjects in Abidjan, Cote d’Ivoire found no cases in a sample of 419, and therefore a “minimal risk of reintroduction [after eradication]”. In respect of general exposure to shedding in these environments transmission of the wild type polio virus eliminates any concern over post vaccination viral shedding. Crowding, sewerage, water quality etc all contribute to wild polio spread in ways that do not apply to the developed world.

Remembering that viral shedding is of paramount concern in the management of immune deficiency and immunocompromise, let’s revisit the Janet R. Serwint, MD of Vaccines in immunocompromised patients. Rather than warn against exposure to immunised children the recommendation is to ensure schedules are up to date and an annual inactivated influenza vaccine is on board. Pay attention to reference to MMR, varicella and rotavirus:

One strategy worth emphasizing is the immunization of household contacts, particularly other children and adolescents in the family. This procedure is essential to try to minimize exposure of the immunocompromised patient to household contacts who might contract vaccine-preventable illnesses. Pediatric health-care clinicians need to update and review the vaccine status of all siblings and pediatric-age household members. Annual influenza vaccination of all family members with inactivated influenza vaccine is recommended in addition to ensuring routine immunization of all other recommended vaccines.

MMR, varicella, and rotavirus vaccines, although live viral vaccines, are recommended for immunocompetent household contacts because transmission of the virus is rare. The lack of viral shedding with MMR eliminates concern regarding transmission. Because the varicella virus rarely can be shed through a postimmunization vesicular rash that may develop, recommendations include avoiding contact until the rash resolves. For the rotavirus vaccine, avoidance of contact with the stools by the immunocompromised patient and good hand hygiene measures by all family members for at least 1 week after vaccination should be implemented.

In conclusion it’s clear that “vaccine shedding” is a nonsense phrase. The lack of accounts of children transmitting viruses to younger siblings and friends after vaccination is a dead giveaway. Whilst viral shedding is a reality we can be confident that:

  • Viral shedding applies only to live virus vaccines and is significantly low, low risk
  • Post vaccination viral shedding of rotavirus and varicella is detected in the stools for 4-6 weeks respectively. It’s of such low risk as to be of cautionary interest regarding immunocompromised individuals
  • Genuine concern about viral shedding in these groups is managed with sound hygiene and avoiding contact with stools
  • In rare cases of post varicella immunisation vesicular rash shedding may occur. Transmission is still unlikely
  • The lack of viral shedding following MMR eliminates any concerns about transmission
  • Claims of DTaP shedding and transmission are bogus
  • Stories about whooping cough transmission from vaccine shedding are demonstrably false
  • Stories of polio infection being a risk due to shedding are designed to scare
  • Antivaccination lobbyists use false and incomplete information about shedding to create fear of vaccines/the vaccinated
  • Shedding of LAIV is at markedly low concentration, short duration and transmission is dwarfed by seasonal influenza transmission
  • Accurate information about the topic is drowned out by antivaccination sites and “mothering” forums making inaccurate claims

Update: April 13th 2015 – Added references;
Is the MMR vaccine spreading the measles virus?: The question of shedding

Case of vaccine-associated measles five weeks post-immunisation, British Columbia, Canada, October 2013: http://www.eurosurveillance.org/ViewArticle.aspx?ArticleId=20649
Live Attenuated Influenza Vaccine [LAIV] (The Nasal Spray Flu Vaccine): http://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/qa/nasalspray.htm
Live Attenuated Vaccines (LAV): http://vaccine-safety-training.org/live-attenuated-vaccines.html
Measles – Q&A about Disease & Vaccine: http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vpd-vac/measles/faqs-dis-vac-risks.htm
Measles: Questions and Answers: http://www.immunize.org/catg.d/p4209.pdf?q=measles
Measles Vaccination: http://www.cdc.gov/measles/vaccination.html
Rotarix WHO leaflet – tube: http://www.who.int/immunization_standards/vaccine_quality/Rotarix_liquid_tube_product_insert_text_2009.pdf?ua=1
Rotavirus: http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/pubs/pinkbook/downloads/rota.pdf
Transmission of Measles: http://www.cdc.gov/measles/about/transmission.html

Dr. Rachie slays the Nine Vaccine Ringwraiths with Science

Posted in Anti-Vaccination Lobby, Health, Science by

Five Vaccine Myths in Futile Flight From Evidence

It’s official! Reports that have been coming in from Middle Earth for the last couple of days are indeed accurate. Dr. Rachie (aka Dr. Rachael Dunlop) has unleashed the power of science on the undead corpses of nine vaccination myths, expunging their essence for all time.

All good fiction-fantasies have their mythical characters and the best mythical characters are those that keep returning time and again despite being killed off. So it is with these nine. Although long dead these myths have been constantly exhumed. Script writers of the antivaccination movement, faced with oblivion, have kept writing them into the story time and again.

Known as ring-wraiths because the argument that sustains the myth is circular nonsense they have been led by the most powerful and most often killed myth, Vaccines Cause Autism. Lured to Mount Mama Mia by rumours of untapped Quantum nearby, the nine never stood a chance. Autism was the first to fall as Rachie recounted the disgrace to befall Andrew Wakefield and his fraudulent caper. It was cut down with a double reminder that, as a result of this fraud, he was now unlicensed and the work withdrawn from publication. Retracted!

Before it could summon any more lies or buy the blood of any more children, Dr. Rachie finished Autism off with the weight of 20 years research and a brand new comprehensive review. She wrote in the ancient, powerful, yet sacred runes of science:

The largest study was done in Denmark and covered all children born from January 1991 through December 1998. A total of 537,303 children of which eighty-two percent were vaccinated for MMR were examined and there was no association between vaccination and the development of autistic disorder.

Further, in August 2011, an exhaustive review of the scientific literature by the Institute of Medicine in the US concluded that overall “few health problems are caused by or clearly associated with vaccines”. …12,000 peer-reviewed articles, covering eight different vaccines were pored over by a committee of 18 experts in the largest review of adverse events associated with vaccines since 1994… there is no causal relationship between vaccines and autism.

It was predictable who would fall next. Vaccines Cause Autism’s trusted side kick Vaccines Contain Mercury shrank back from the power of Science. Witnesses claim the air crackled with electricity as Dr. Rachie intoned confidently from The Book Of Evidence. She reminded the ghastly creature:

Mercury has not been present in routine childhood vaccines in Australia since 2000 and it was never in the MMR vaccine. Prior to 2000, thimerosal, an organomercury compound, was used in the manufacturing process of vaccines as a preservative.

Writhing and shrieking in despair it was finished off with more reminders that methyl mercury and bio-accumulation apply to sea foods. Then it suffered the same fate as ethyl mercury (the erstwhile preservative) does on entering the body, if it is used in adult vaccines. Total elimination.

This immediately got the attention of  journalists assembled nearby. Vaccines Contain Mercury and Vaccines Cause Autism had stopped off mere days earlier at the Magical Homeopathy Well as they travelled, they thought, in search of Quantum. It was there they spoke to a small gathering of journalists, admitting they intended to mix the magic water with the Quantum to concoct The Elixir of Everything.

“We’ve never felt more alive, more invigorated than right now”, said the King of vaccine myths – Vaccines Cause Autism

Posing for Fountain Of Beauty photo’s (left) outside the Magical Well, the pair cut a sadder spectacle than Fran Sheffield and Isaac Golden in a medical library.

Asked if they knew they were in fact, long dead and to all intents and purposes had never really existed, Vaccines Cause Autism responded confidently:

“Quite the contrary my dear fellow. We’ve never felt more alive, more invigorated than right now and both look forward to another summer of terrifying innocent parents and driving up vaccine preventable disease. We have promotional tours planned with Meryl Dorey who’s been awfully suppressed of late, poor thing… free speech and what. But with some grossly inflated figures on the number of shots kids receive before school – it’s 12 but we’re saying something like 35 – and appearances with our friend and colleague “Vaccines have never been tested”, we should have a splendid time of it. Besides chaps we don’t have a lot of say in the matter. It’s the Power of the Burning Stupid that keeps us going and with this interweb business today there’s no shortage of that, what?”

Such confidence was clearly best suited to behind the silicon battlements of his home fortress on Mount McCarthy. Against the power of science the wraiths stood not a chance. The next to fall was Vaccines Contain Toxic Ingredients. A particularly irrational creature this one takes advantage of general ignorance. Eg, few know that whilst infants receive about 4 milligrams of aluminium from vaccines in the first 6 months of life, they receive 10 milligrams from breast milk and 40 mg from formula over the same time. Yet aluminium is essential as an adjuvant and actually allows less antigen per dose. Adjuvants work to aid the immune response making the vaccine more effective.

Dr. Rachie looks at some more myths about toxic ingredients from those exploiting ignorance to outright lies. She noted wisely that the dose makes the poison, throwing this at the creature in a blazing ball of pure, lethal fact. You may hear of how carcinogenic formaldehyde is and that it’s in vaccines. What scaremongers omit to tell you is that it’s only carcinogenic at certain concentrations. Whilst these concentrations aren’t found in vaccines they are found in particle board and other building materials. So, throw out your furniture and rebuild your house if you have an issue with formaldehyde.

Vaccines Have Never Been Tested suffers a gruesome fate. With her lab coat glowing incandescently Dr. Rachie held The Book of Evidence aloft enveloping this long dead beast in the pure light of reason:

When people claim that vaccines have “never been tested” they usually mean that they have not undergone randomized placebo controlled trials (RCTs). To do an RCT of a vaccine you would need to take two groups of kids, give one group the vaccine, and the other a placebo, then expose both groups to the disease to see which ones survive. Raise your hand if you can see the problem here…

In fact other vaccines have been tested. Remember the 2 million children who parents shoved them forward to receive the polio vaccine in a trial? Or the extensive HPV vaccination trials just finished to great success in Australia?

Vaccines Don’t Work Because Vaccinated Kids Get The Disease crumpled under the weight of evidence that crushed boulders to dust and left craters in the ground. Including the harsh reality that fatalities occur in the unvaccinated. Put simply, vaccines may not be magical or transcend the laws of reality as do vaccine myths but they prepare the immune system to fight viral infections. And in the main, some diseases making a comeback, like measles, only effect the unvaccinated. Using this argument on immunity that wanes or is specific to strains (such as whooping cough and influenza) is a darstardly trick of this myth. Keep an eye out for this ghoul. Don’t be fooled and get yourself a booster for pertussis.

Improved Living Standards Not Vaccination Reduced Disease A truly heinous beast indeed. We dealt with this one here copiously when Viera Scheibner tried it on recently, if you wish to check the video. But Dr. Rachie uses the sure fire Powerful Evidence Kill Shot to dispense with this Being from beyond. Gazes were quickly averted as sounds of cracking bones and squishing innards mixed with Mia’s cheering.

Hib incidence 1993 to 2005Since 1993 when the Hib (Haemophilus influenzae type b) vaccine was introduced into the Aussie schedule there’s been a >90% drop. In fact it’s now so rare epiglottitis once a sign of Hib can’t be assumed to be so. When isolated today, lab’ tests may reveal Haemophilus influenzae not to be Type b. This is a powerful impact from a single vaccine over a time when public sanitation, access to clean water and living conditions have not changed.

Infectious Diseases Are Harmless – Children are meant to get them never saw it coming. Wearing earplugs to block out ridicule and mocking laughter, this foul demonic entity was slayed with a barrage of Truth. Amongst other great points Dr. Rachie destroyed this “right of passage” wraith – dead before it hit the ground – with a devastating:

If you still think infectious diseases are harmless, wander through your local cemetery one day and note how many children died from diseases that we no longer see in society today – stamped out largely due to mass vaccination.

Vaccines Cause or Spread The Disease They Are Meant To Prevent has always been completely mad, so this was a mercy killing in truth. Leaping and frothing about uncontrollably it’s hard to comprehend it’s intent. You may have read some annoying anti-vax blurb or Facebook post about “my sister’s, neighbour’s, butcher’s, dog’s, vet’s, accountant was off for weeks with the flu after having the vaccine”. Bollocks. Only a large scale production failure could lead to “disease by vaccine”.

Before it vanished in a puff of smoke Dr. Rachie marched up to the wretched odourous thing, and inscribed on it’s forehead magical runes using the Quill Of Logical Legend:

Experiencing a slight temperature and/or a sore arm after getting a vaccine is actually a good thing. While some people misinterpret this as “getting the flu after the flu vaccine” it simply indicates that your immune system is responding…. This means next time you come across the disease in the environment your body is ready with an arsenal of antibodies to attack it before it can make you really sick.

My Child’s Immune System Will Be Overwhelmed is a rather pathetic little myth with low self esteem and a profound lack of confidence. And you can see why. With a mighty heave it was tossed into the Glare Of Truth under the rays of which it crackled and sizzled and finally shrivelled to a blackened crisp:

The amount of immune challenges that children fight every day (2,000 — 6,000) is significantly greater than the number of antigens in any combination of vaccines (about 150 for the entire vaccination schedule).

Well, that’s nine dead ringwraiths. All thanks to Dr. Rachael Dunlop, using nothing but Science. But like any good story they can be revived with another telling. So do be on the lookout. There are more goodies over in the article which is one I highly recommend following up on. There’s some great links and if you reckon there’s more myths (and there are) you can dig up some evidence based answers there to strike down these ghoulish zombies when they stagger into view.

For those aware of anti-vax tactics, there’s a jolly good comment from Mia who has no time for them or their deceptive ways. Striding across the drawbridge from her castle she cast a withering eye upon the Anti-vax Orcs, cowering below mumbling the same spells over and over. Undeterred by their putrid breath or horrid ugliness Mia spoke:

NOTE: looking through the hundreds of comments in the backend of the site, I can see the Anti-Vaccination people are up to their usual dirty tricks of linking to bogus crap research and commenting many many times under different names to try and make their cause seem better supported than it is.
People? VACCINATE your babies. Give your children boosters. And get a booster yourself.
And no, I don’t respect other people’s choices to not immunise their kids when they have the potential to kill other people’s babies.
It’s like respecting other people’s ‘right’ to drink and drive.
Bollocks to that.

Now if only we could work that into a public service announcement….

Nine Vaccination Myths Killed Off Once Again

Debunking Viera Scheibner on Sunrise

Posted in Anti-Vaccination Lobby, Denialism, Health, Immunisation, Media by

In 1985 a micropalaeontologist who had emigrated from Slovakia to Australia in 1968 was testing the breathing patterns of babies recently vaccinated with DTP.

Using an infant breathing monitor invented by her late husband the geological surveyor with NSW Department of Mineral Resources claimed to have witnessed “stressed breathing”. With this one unconfirmed assertation the woman, Viera Scheibner, went on to claim she had discovered the cause of Sudden Infant Death Syndrome. She attempted to alert the scientific community to this Nobel Prize worthy “discovery”.

The claim – having none of the specifics of established scientific inquiry – was dismissed. Thus began the long career of arguable revenge that has driven Viera Scheibner to not only blame vaccines for almost all physical ills but to claim her conclusions come from the very literature source whose authors spurned her “discovery”. Claiming vaccines cause AIDS, asthma, immune suppression, Legionnaires, SIDS, Shaken Baby Syndrome, indeed all infectious disease, Scheibner insists “orthodox medical research” shows this. Disease conversely is “good”.

Scheibner is a role model to Meryl Dorey of The Australian Vaccination Network. However Viera clearly tries to fool Australians. In her book she writes that when Japan moved vaccination age from under 12 months to 2 years the incidence of SIDS “virtually disappeared”. In fact she had sourced her figures from vaccination compensation. In Japan SIDS is only diagnosed in infants under 12 months. Thus SIDS had not disappeared, only the opportunity to link it to vaccination compensation.

Despite claiming that Sweden abandoned pertussis vaccination due to a loss of trust, Scheibner forgets to recount the immediate rise in pertussis cases and their research effort into new pertussis vaccines. Nor does she recount how Sweden resumed pertussis vaccination to great success. She continues to insist vaccines have done nothing more than “sensitise” human beings to viral infection despite dissenting data and massive drops in disease. Scheibner also denies smallpox was eradicated.

This video refutes the claims she recently made on Channel 7’s Sunrise program in Australia.

Viera Scheibner on Sunrise