Greg Beattie misleads Health and Community Services Committee

Vaccination is an invasive medical procedure carrying unquantifiable risk and dubious benefit

♠ Greg Beattie, August 19th 2013 ♠

On Monday August 19th the Health and Community Services Committee (QLD) held a public hearing.

Entitled The Inquiry Into The Public Health (exclusion of unvaccinated children from childcare) Amendment Bill 2013 the transcript can be found here.

As reported in Brisbane Times the Committee rejected the amendment which would have seen unvaccinated children banned from accessing Child Care centres in QLD. Yet the same Committee specified in it’s report that it has not rejected supporting a bill with allowance for medical constraints or conscientious objection against immunisation. Despite the wide ranging abuse of the conscientious objection loophole to vaccination, such a bill is now in place for daycare in NSW.

In his opening address on August 19th, Committee Chair, Mr. T. J. Ruthenberg M.P. stated in part:

Witnesses are not required to give evidence under oath, but I remind witnesses that intentionally misleading the committee is a serious offence.

I remind those present that these proceedings are similar to parliament and are subject to the Legislative Assembly’s standing rules and orders. [Copy here]

The first speaker, President of the deceptively named Australian Vaccination Network, Mr. Greg Beattie began misleading the Committee immediately. This included:

The Australian Vaccination Network was formed to assist people in their search for information on this issue and to protect their right to make choices freely.

We support debate, because we recognise that it is through discussion that the truth is permitted to bubble to the surface.

Such noble sounding words. Soon we were back to the Beattie Aussies more readily identify with (Bold mine):

Vaccines are aggressively marketed. In fact, possibly no commercial product or service in the history of mankind has been so vigorously and thoroughly marketed. The backdrop of the campaign is fear – fear that your child, if not vaccinated, may suffer and ultimately die from an illness.

The fundamental slogan ‘Vaccines save lives’ expands into a story of how children frequently died from these illnesses until vaccination arrived and changed everything. Ironically, one of the few things we know without doubt is that this story is false. All who care to look for themselves find that vaccines played no significant role in the great fall in deaths.

The deaths did fall dramatically but, as can be seen in the appendices to our submission, it had nothing or little to do with vaccination.

He continues on. Empirical evidence is in stark dissonance to the “fundamental slogan” of vaccine manufacturers. Thus, parents are questioning “the integrity of the whole marketing campaign”. Er, are they? But why? Beattie lies with sophisticated aplomb:

For example, promoters claim that there is a scientific consensus that vaccination is safe. However, consumers are aware that countless studies have been published in the scientific literature indicating a relationship between vaccines and a host of serious conditions, including anaphylaxis, encephalopathy, lupus, type 1 diabetes, chronic fatigue syndrome, paralysis, multiple sclerosis, Bell’s palsy, arthritis, autism, asthma, seizures and many more.

Courts have repeatedly decided in favour of some of these relationships, including autism, and huge amounts of money have been paid out for death and serious injury. Still, the promoters deny their existence, saying they are not proven.

Beattie uses the fact that up to 75% of pertussis notifications have received the vaccine at some time, to generalise against all vaccines. Finding this out parents begin to wonder what benefit there is he warns. A perfect segue into this outright lie: Vaccination is an invasive medical procedure carrying unquantifiable risk and dubious benefit.

Beattie seems intent on annoying Committee member Dr. Alex Douglas. When the Committee comes to ask questions Dr. Douglas begins:

I would like to start with Mr. Beattie. I thought that was an extraordinary presentation based on the fact that last month the Health Care Complaints Commission in New South Wales made some pretty damning statements about your organisation.

In view of the fact that you have made a presentation which is incredibly similar to what was stated as certainly being reprehensible — I could use a variety of words — I would like to know what you have done since then to actually reappraise your position in view of what you have just stated today?

Beattie wants to know where his abomination and that to the HCCC “tie together”. Dr. Douglas refuses to be drawn in, informing Beattie “Basically, you are restating the same argument. It is the same argument”. He then asks if Beattie is aware of what Steve Hambleton had said about, “your continuing statements which are of the same ilk as presented here today?”.

Of course Beattie claims to have no idea, so Dr. Douglas enlightens him:

He said that your repeated presentations bring you great discredit and are, in fact, not helping the nation at all.

In summary form, the results of what you are doing are doing irreparable harm to the communities across Australia and are, in fact, driving down getting our immunisation rate above the magical number of 93 per cent.

Beattie replies, “That is because Steve Hambleton is a promoter of vaccination. Our organisation is a promoter of free choice. At the moment our organisation is under severe attack from all who those who would want to promote vaccination…”.

He also insists vaccination uptake is rising a treat thanks very much, choosing to ignore the reality of complacency or refusal, wherever and for whatever reason.

All up it was a predictable scheme of lies and deceit from Greg Beattie, made all the worse in view of the organisation he was representing. The fact the bill was not passed had nothing to do with the rubbish he put forward. The AVN Inc. are well exposed as a self-serving untrustworthy gang for whom truth and evidence mean nothing.

Submissions to the Inquiry can be read here.

Every Vaccine Is A Little Victory

Vaccination is now recognised as one of the most successful and effective public health interventions for saving lives and promoting good health.
Prevention is a key goal in healthcare and the ability of vaccines to prevent illness and death associated with many serious diseases is one of the success stories of scientific innovation

♦♦ Dr. James Reilly, Minister for Health, Ireland ♦♦
Still from "vaccination victory" video

Last month, during European Immunisation Week (April 21st – April 27th), Ireland launched a rather clever campaign to help remind the public of how crucial national immunisation programmes are. More importantly it included how vital it is to complete a vaccine schedule. A schedule may be one or a varied series of vaccinations, immunisations, shots and/or doses.

These may be had once, twice, three or even more times, at different ages, when exact or different time-periods have elapsed, and at which the same or different amounts of vaccine is given. Boosters can be scheduled or even recommended for other members of the family. All this depends almost exclusively on the vaccine under consideration.

So it seems that the development of immunity is remarkably complex. It is not difficult but it’s complexity can be gleaned through the above and use of terms such as “partial immunity”, “fully immune”, “waning immunity”, “herd immunity”, etc. Thus it’s very important to take the advice of your GP, doctor or local health authority rather than try to “research” the topic yourself.

The development of immunity may be complex, but we do know the development of vaccines is perhaps the greatest advance of modern medicine. In fact rather than getting bogged down in the copious amount of information regarding vaccines one could simply observe that Every Vaccine is a Little Victory.

Which brings us to the campaign itself launched last month in Ireland. Check out the video below. Chaps: you’re permitted to chuckle, smile, use words like “cool”, “nice kid”, suggest it’s a “top idea” and so on. Ladies: you may “Squeeee!, use words like “cute”, “gorgeous”, “Awwwwww”, etcetera. Do pass it around, all.

No matter how you react I trust you agree it’s a good idea. There is so much information and misinformation about vaccination, that purporting to “research” the topic and decide against vaccination is likely to involve denial of evidence. Indeed, quite a lot of evidence denial goes into rejecting vaccination.

Similarly, it’s going to prove rather challenging to suavely explain to ones mates and relatives the immunodynamics behind ones child’s third MMR vaccine. One might also look overly ambitious mounting a dinner discussion based on why it is quite safe to “complete the MMR schedule, chaps, in temporal proximity to this seasons influenza vaccine”. 

Or reassure the gang over coffee that Janine can have faith in the immunogenicity of the live-attenuated influenza vaccine (LAIV) taken concurrently with the twins’ 56 week MMR dose. Perhaps, what’s really on everybody’s mind is the GMP standards as they apply to the reconstitution of vaccine diluent preparations?

Umm… No. As stated the amount of information out there is truly copious. Only the anti-vaccine lobby can keep a straight face whilst claiming to grasp the entirety of vaccine science and rewrite it’s conclusions at the same time. Perhaps they have drastic inside information on reconstituting vaccine diluent preparations?! Or rather, perhaps their unique way of getting attention is just a unique way of… getting attention.

For the rest of us, given that it’s far better to accept the word of qualified experts who overwhelmingly support vaccination, the word on the street is that Every Vaccine is a Little Victory. Presently it’s vital to remember this. The South of Wales in the UK is in the grip of a measles epidemic. Well over 1,100 cases and a frantic MMR catch-up programme has left the anti-vaccination lobby with all the charm of a malignant Chucky the Court Jester.

Australia has been fighting unacceptably high pertussis levels for years now. Recently, Aussie health authorities have begun to act on inadequate legislation that has well served the deceptively named Australian Vaccination Network Inc. Concurrently the AVN Inc. are fighting the NSW Office of Fair Trading to keep the name that has led to so much sickness, deception and despair.

With rising conscientious objection in the developed world, vaccine preventable diseases once thought all but eradicated are making a firm comeback. In the developing world, communities and parents are risking their lives to access vaccines for their children.

It was with certain purpose last month in Dublin then that Dr. James Reilly the Irish Minister for Health addressed a crowd gathered at the Royal College of Physicians, Trinity College. Health News Ireland reported that, Reilly observed:

“Vaccination is now recognised as one of the most successful and effective public health interventions for saving lives and promoting good health,” he told the gathering in the prestigious Royal College of Physicians, which nestles in the shadow of Trinity College.

“Prevention is a key goal in healthcare and the ability of vaccines to prevent illness and death associated with many serious diseases is one of the success stories of scientific innovation”.

He appeared to have no time for the detractors, the nay-sayers; or the ‘scattered thinking’ brigade, as he dubbed them.

Every vaccination is a little victory

Modern humans do poorly at gauging risk-benefit. A Pfizer booklet titled Vaccines – Protect Your Health at Every Age includes:

The vast majority of side-effects are minor and temporary, such as a sore arm or mild fever and have nothing to do with the infectious disease against which the immunisation is directed. New vaccines go through a rigorous testing in development and approval phases in Europe to make sure they are safe. The European Medicines Agency also monitors any adverse side-effects that might occur after the medicine is licensed.

In Ireland the National Immunisation Advisory Committee advises the “Chief Medical Officer in the Department of Health on immunisation-related and vaccine matters”. Their responsibility to the Department of Health is to ensure the ability “to enable evidence-based immunisation related policy decisions”.

Committee Chair is Professor Denis Gill – (interviewed here). He ponders vaccines as a victim of their own success.

A lot of parents don’t realise just how bad the past was. Take measles, for instance: 1-in-1,000 children will die as a result of contracting measles.

Put it another way, one of the reasons we are living longer is because we are surviving childhood.

It is of course, beyond ironic. This theme arises in other areas also – from human rights to consumer rights.

Our health and longevity afford us the opportunity, through ignorance, to sabotage the very means that provide the improvements in the first place.

Every Vaccine Is A Little Victory

——————

The anti-vaccination lobby’s long history

Hat tip to @BadScienceWatch.

From Jenner to Wakefield: The long shadow of the anti-vaccination movement


From YouTube Description:

In 1998 a medical furore broke out when The Lancet published an article by Andrew Wakefield questioning the benefits of the MMR vaccination which was being given unquestioningly to children throughout the UK.

Coming 202 years after the first vaccination by Edward Jenner, which led to the eradication of smallpox throughout the world, this recent incident is only the latest in a long history of questioning the benefits of vaccination.

From early irrational fears born of outdated medical understanding through to the latest medical research and findings, Professor Gareth Williams traces the history of the anti-vaccination movement and its long tail, reviewing the social settings in which the fears were found and offering a balanced assessment of vaccination as we find it today.

The transcript and downloadable versions of the lecture are available from the on the Gresham College website:
http://www.gresham.ac.uk/lectures-and…

Gresham College has been giving free public lectures since 1597. This tradition continues today with all of our five or so public lectures a week being made available for free download from our website.
http://www.gresham.ac.uk

Dorey and Dingle’s Vaccine-Autism Doppelgänger

Back on January 15th Meryl Dorey offered a rather messy tweet designed to sustain her fictitious claim that all vaccines are causally linked to autism.

Dorey_Jan15

I say “messy” because the January 14th Huffington Post article linked to, refers to the Vaccine Compensation Injury Program Court, compensating children that the ‘Post author wrongly insists have autism. Yet suppose this author – anti-vaccine terror-tattler David Kirby – was correct. We are still left with compensation awarded to children with autism. Not because of their autism.

Thus Dorey’s misleading query, “… how many more do we need b4 govt admits vaccines cause autism?”, is rather scurrilous. And that’s only if Kirby’s attempt to mislead the reader is based in fact. As it turns out the heading Vaccine Court Awards Millions to Two Children With Autism does not describe the events as they occurred.

In the case of Ryan Mojabi, on page 2 of the Court of Federal Claims Decision Awarding Damages document one reads:

On June 9, 2011, respondent filed a supplemental report pursuant to Vaccine Rule 4(c) stating it was respondent’s view that Ryan suffered a Table injury under the Vaccine Act – namely, an encephalitis within five to fifteen days following receipt of the December 19, 2003 MMR vaccine… and that this case is appropriate for compensation under the terms of the Vaccine Program.

That’s clear. Encephalitis, which is a Table injury under the Vaccine act.

Still, referring to Ryan the family had blamed all vaccines administered between March 25th 2003 to February 22nd 2005 as collectively causing “a severe and debilitating injury to his brain, described as Autism Spectrum Disorder”. Without picking over every detail there is a lack of agreement on exactly when and how persistently ill Ryan became. The family had travelled overseas and whilst the totality of doctor’s visits falls well short of that expected for a child as ill as Ryan’s parents allege, evidence was provided that he had presented with fever and rash in Tehran on January 6th 2004.

In August 2007 Ryan’s parents testified he had (post vaccination) experienced screaming, lethargy, floppiness, fever and shaking hands in 2003, just prior to travelling overseas. Ryan’s doctor has no evidence nor record of these events being reported as claimed. Nor that he had agreed to an overseas trip for Ryan whilst he was in that condition.

On page 15 of an earlier court document, Revised Ruling Regarding Factual Finding (May 2009) Ryan’s performance under Checklist for Autism in Toddlers [CHAT] on two dates well past his MMR vaccination, is discussed.

On May 10, 2004, at Ryan’s sixteen month well-child visit, Dr. Armstrong completed a Checklist for Autism in Toddlers (CHAT) screen. Ps’ Ex. 4 At 25. That CHAT screen indicated that Ryan was interested in other children, pretend play, peek-a-boo, points with index finger, makes eye contact, and brings object for show. On January 25, 2005, Dr. Armstrong examined Ryan for his twenty-four month well-baby check. Ps’ Ex. 4 at 31. During the visit, Dr. Armstrong conducted another CHAT screen, and again Ryan positively performed each of the listed behaviors.

The second case involves Emily Lowrie. Emily has a diagnosis of Pervasive Developmental Disorder – not otherwise specified and seizure disorder. PDD is not autism, but may be referred to as “atypical autism”. It is a form of ASD. According to Australia’s Raising Children’s Network, symptoms are “usually fewer or less pronounced” than with Autistic disorder or Asperger’s syndrome. There is evidence that Emily did develop a Table injury close to the time of vaccination. Yet there is no evidence that autism resulted and Kirby’s claim is simply false.

The vaccines-cause-autism devotees excel in labeling PDD-NOS as “autism” and often flesh out large samples by including “autistic like symptoms” where clear diagnoses of encephalitis and encephalopathy exist. As it happens Kirby runs off the tried and true Bailey Banks case. Bailey was diagnosed with PDD – a class of conditions to which autism belongs. Meryl Dorey misled her audience at the Woodford Folk Festival by fudging such diagnoses and for good measure plagiarising part of the Banks’ final ruling document. She added “[Autism]” to misrepresent PDD after lifting a quote directly from page 17 of the Banks v. HHS case file.

Other stunners exploiting the “autism-like” symptoms include the Pace Law School student debacle orchestrated by Mary Holland. This motivated Dorey to inform a commercial radio audience “hundreds, possibly thousands of families had been compensated”, as a result of vaccines causing autism. You can chase more on it up here.

Kirby also mentions Hannah Poling as though it is a foregone conclusion she developed autism from vaccination. Hannah’s mitochondrial enzymatic deficit and many environmental factors may trigger the encephalopathy she was compensated for. Many children with her mitochondrial condition develop encephalopathy in the first two years of life. As is often the case when science meets law, evidence is challenged by other dynamics. In this case it was the tireless efforts of her parents.

Jon Poling a neurologist and his wife Terry Poling a nurse and lawyer unfortunately refer to their victory as a “landmark” in vaccine-autism compensation. Little wonder certain key documents now remain under seal in other cases, providing conspiracy fodder for the likes of Kirby.

Some of Kirby’s conspiratorial nonsense includes:

Some observers will say the vaccine-induced encephalopathy (brain disease) documented in both children is unrelated to their autism spectrum disorder (ASD). Others will say there is plenty of evidence to suggest otherwise. […] Whether HHS agreed with Ryan’s parents that his vaccine-induced brain disease led to ASD is unknown. The concession document is under seal.

It looked like the family had a weak case.

But then something changed.

In October, 2010, Ryan’s attorney filed four new exhibits (under seal) and proposed amending the court’s “findings of fact.” […]

Readers are supposed to conclude something dark and dastardly has occurred. Never mind Kirby actually repeats the fact that there is no evidence for his supposition.

Orac does a great job of knocking Kirby off and quite rightly refers to one jaw-dropper as “Grade A conspiracy mongering”. We’re asked to accept that Emily’s mother, Jillian Moller, is relaying a factual account when we read:

After the ASD diagnosis, the judge reportedly became convinced that Emily would prevail. “My attorney said she was angry, she felt forced into a corner with no choice but to find for us,” Moller said. “She said, ‘Emily has autism, and I don’t want to give other families who filed autism claims any hope.'”

One doesn’t expect any different from an attempt to amplify the long disproved, non-existent link between vaccines and autism from Meryl Dorey. Yet even amongst our most radical evidence denialists and defenders of alternatives to medicine, should not a PhD give pause to consult the facts? To at least, say, delineate between autism and PDD-NOS. Maintain a bit of fidelissima integritatum with one’s readers perchance?

Not for Dr. Peter Dingle it seems. He’d tweeted recently and placed the same conclusion in the lap of “the independent court”. Could it be? A fortnight later than Ms. Dorey’s effort the event was repeating itself? Surely there was a new story. But no. Doc Dingle had availed himself of Kirby’s caper and leaped to the same conclusion. With exactly the same HuffPost tweet. It was identical. It was… a dopellgänger!

Dingle_Jan29

On a serious note, the damage done by individuals such as Dingle perpetrating this myth is far from insignificant. It ignores the truth and does little for those in genuine need of compensation.

It is right and proper that children injured by vaccines are compensated. With brain damage rates of one in one million related to MMR of course we will see these cases. Yet for cases of measles infection the rates are one in one thousand. Of course there is no anti-vaccine compensation program.

Although differences are subtle, denying the evidence and etiology peculiar to vaccine injury and disability helps no-one. If we consider similar patients all presenting with Acquired Brain Injury, virtually identical symptoms yet various etiology it is easier to see the importance of this. Road trauma, stroke, near drowning, boxing or other sporting injury may all present identical motor, speech, memory and other lifestyle challenges. False links driven by ideology would rightly appear bizarre.

What we do know in these VCIP cases is that several million dollars have been awarded to each child.

Yet it was not because vaccines cause autism.

AVN: Australian Vaccination Nut-jobs?

When we had a measles outbreak this organisation pushed it around that it was a major conspiracy to push the vaccine

– NSW Minister for Fair Trading, Anthony Roberts, speaking on 2UE –

As you may be well aware the Australian Vaccination Network is confronting the reality of its deceptive name.

One possibility in view of the order to change its name within two months or face deregistration may at least save on logos and letterhead acronyms. In an interview today on 2UE NSW Minister for Fair Trading, Anthony Roberts observed that such groups were “nut-jobs” (a technical term he assured listeners) who frequently also offer the benefits of positive vibes and living on fresh air.

Yes, we’ve noticed.

Perhaps not endearing in the eyes of some but Australian Vaccination Nut-jobs is certainly a darn sight more accurate than any title conveying expertise.

Let’s face it. Anthony Roberts may be firm, but he’s also fair. The AVN could become The AVN. Which would also work for the “Hate Group”, Stop The AVN.

© – Tracey Spicer and Tim Webster interview Anthony Roberts on 2UE.

AVN name misleading

“The Northern Star tried to contact the AVN but it did not return our calls”