Comments on: Anti-vaxers “hysterical” over accurate and positive report on vaccination

By: scep dick

scep dick — Wed, 10 Feb 2010 10:05:42 +0000

Thanks.

Told you my maths was rubbish.
So the notifications are Drs notifications and the hospitalisations are (obviously) when they are admitted. Can one cross over ie being a notification and then go to hospital?

By: AndyD

AndyD — Mon, 08 Feb 2010 14:35:00 +0000

@scep dick | This site gives 1:763 for babies under 1yr. The overall average may well be higher but it's clear from this report that babies are most at risk. | "In the three year review period, infants aged less than one year accounted for 3% of all notifications (n=763) but 50% of hospitalisations (n=655)."

By: Maggie

Maggie — Mon, 08 Feb 2010 12:46:56 +0000

@scep dick, that number of cases was for the entire population, not just babies. So Toni’s stats are correct.

By: scep dick

scep dick — Mon, 08 Feb 2010 11:00:11 +0000

I know this issue is sad and its upsetting but I have some questions about the McCafferty case.

In another post about Dana, the Toni is stated as saying “Pertussis can be deadly, for every 1 in 200 children. Three babies have died from infections in Australia this year.”

Is she referring to the amount who contract whooping cough and then die or the entire population (which is definately incorrect!)?
According to the National Notifiable Diseases Surveillance System
http://www9.health.gov.au/cda/Source/Rpt_1_sel_A.cfm
there was 29,316 cases of whooping cough in 2009. If one in 200 babies died (who contract it) we would have 146 deaths! Thats far far more than three. Im pretty crap at maths so if I’ve made a mistake please correct me.
But to me this seems like a case of scare mongering!

By: Robert

Robert — Fri, 18 Dec 2009 16:42:24 +0000

Yes Liz, why should we let FACTS stand in the way of instinct and anecdotes?

My brother believes in herbal “medicine” and believes firmly that the difference in real meds and herbal is that the pharmacies “put in the side effects”.

Why? Because a guy with a Master in Herbs told him so.

FACTS are all that matter. Not bull like that, and homeopathy, and gut instinct.

My gut instinct is to protect my children. shots hurt. So do I protect them from the shot or from the diseases that are prevented?

I’ll take the long and healthy life over my instinct to protect from a shot.

By: AndyD

AndyD — Thu, 03 Dec 2009 03:57:41 +0000

Okay Liz, I’ll sign up for my university course in medicine and immunology next week and get back to you in 5-10 years on what I find out. You too?

As a matter of interest, do you apply this logic to everything in life or do you sometimes trust that scientists might have some vague clues about their particular corners of expertise?

By: LIZ

LIZ — Tue, 01 Dec 2009 00:52:35 +0000

Choice and self-education are still the biggest issues here. Dont just rely on all the hype and horror stories either way. It is up to the individual to thoroughyl resreach based on all the available evidence, and then make a decision based on fact and anecodtal evidence, AND instinct. And the government needs to stope using coersion to get people to act. We need simple facts on both sides, and full disclousure by all interested parties.

Stop attacking eachother. This should not be a ‘THEM’ and “US”‘ arguement. And I dont think anyone who has not researched the issue for themselves has no right to comment based on media hype and heresay.

By: » Parents refuse chemotherapy for mud treatment.

» Parents refuse chemotherapy for mud treatment. — Tue, 13 Oct 2009 12:21:09 +0000

[...] of Dana McCaffery and the anti-vaxers back in April. You can read my previous blogs about this here and [...]

By: Gravity’s Rainbow » Blog Archive » What I’ve Noticed

Gravity’s Rainbow » Blog Archive » What I’ve Noticed — Sat, 23 May 2009 15:53:36 +0000

[...] The Skeptic’s Book of Pooh-Pooh points out an awesome news story on the danger anti-vaxers create for children in their communities. The anti-vaxers hypocrisy is also on display in their support of chemical castration for autistic boys. [...]

By: Michael Grayer

Michael Grayer — Tue, 05 May 2009 09:49:04 +0000

An excellent piece of reporting. It shows that you can create a news-magazine-show report that both appeals to the emotions and conveys the right message, backed up by proper evidence.

On the point regarding Meryl Dorey’s unchallenged comments, I agree that in some respects this was a shame. However, in other respects, this was a good thing. Predominantly, it undermines the argument raised by anti-vaxxers that their side of the story was given no fair consideration and that the coverage was biased.

If her comments had continually been challenged, then (in the eyes of the non-expert public at least) this may have reinforced her position as “plucky underdog” which earns a good deal of public sympathy. Pursuing the homeopathy line in this report would have resulted in further unsubstantiated nonsense, and would have ultimately detracted from the point of the report – that failing to have your child vaccinated puts your child and other people’s children at unnecessary risk. Homeopathy will have to wait for another day. Or another show, such as this recent BBC programme: blogged here.

In the light of this, how Meryl Dorey can argue that this was a “horrible”, “one-sided report” is beyond me.