I’ve been in a combination of jet-lag/virus induced haze for the last week and a half which has left me lethargic and finding it difficult to concentrate.

But this morning I had reason to leap out of bed at the ungodly hour of 05:30 to hit the computer and report on some very good news.

Our government has gone done something good and given that this doesn’t happen very often, I reckon it’s worthy of a pre-dawn blog post.

The news, which was brought to my attention by Fuzztwin on Twitter, reports on changes to the current childhood immunisation schedule to include three new vaccines and increase the incentives for parents who complete the schedule, effective 2013.

From http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/more-news/inject-children-or-lose-money/story-fn7x8me2-1226205382138

Chickenpox or varicella which as not previously been covered by the schedule (and hence was an out-of-pocket expense for parents wanting to vaccinate against chickenpox) will now be included.

Also new is vaccinations for meningococcal C and pneumococcal.

The new schedule brings the number of infectious diseases covered by the schedule to twelve.

Importantly, reports indicate that the number of shots kids will be required to get will actually be reduced however, since there will be new combination vaccines used.

According to a report in The Herald Sun a new combination vaccine will cover measles, mumps, rubella and chickenpox in one shot and will be administered at 18 months replacing the previous MMR given at 4 years. The number of visits will increase however, owing to the new scheduled shot at 18 months.

There are also changes to the incentive scheme for parents and this is where it gets interesting (well, for nerds of legislation like me).

Under the current maternity immunisation allowance scheme introduced in 1997, parents receive two one-off payments totalling $258 if they complete the vaccination schedule. This will be scrapped under the new system and replaced with three payments of $726 each, paid at one, three and five years. If kids are not fully vaccinated, then the $2100 will be withheld. (This is part of the current family tax benefit part A end-of-year supplement so it’s not an entirely new benefit).

 

From http://www.smh.com.au/national/tax-threat-to-parents-who-dont-have-their-children-immunised-20111124-1nwwx.html

 

Health Minister Nicola Roxon said: “We know that immunisation is fundamental to a child’s lifelong health and that’s why we want to make sure that children are immunised at the right time.

“We want all Australian kids to grow up healthy, and immunisation is essential to that.”

What is not mentioned in any of the news stories is whether this effects the current options for conscientious objectors. Under the current system, you can still get the maternity immunisation allowance even if you don’t vaccinate, if you identify as a conscientious objector (CO). Excerpt from the Centrelink website which administers the payment:

a recognised immunisation provider (e.g. your doctor) signs a letter or form saying that:

• they have told you about the benefits and risks of immunising your child and you have a conscientious objection to immunising your child (your provider should complete a Health Insurance Commission Immu-12 form),

• immunising your child with a particular vaccine is medically contraindicated (your provider should use the Health Insurance Commission Immu-11 form),

• the child has a natural immunity to the disease, or

• the vaccine is not available,

• you or your partner are a member of the Church of Christ, Scientist and you have a letter from an official of the Church advising that you are a practising member of the Church.

This is certainly going to be the bit the anti-vaxers are interested in. The news stories appeared overnight (at least one was published at 12:00) so we have yet to see a reaction from Meryl and her buddies. But you can expect some major *head asplosions* on this one, guaranteed. Particularly since Meryl had previously claimed she has some sort of influence when it comes to vaccination policy. It seems she might have missed this one.

This is not the only piece of good news in this story either. Reports also detail a new pertussis awareness campaign in the form of mail-outs to warn parents about the dangers of the current epidemic and advise on ways to protect their kids.

This is a direct response to campaigning by the McCaffery family who lost their baby Dana in 2009 at 4 weeks of age in the grips of a pertussis epidemic. The family was never warned about the risks of pertussis or that they needed, as parents and carers, to get boosters, since the effectiveness of the vaccines wanes over time.

From the Age:

Ms Roxon said the aim of the whooping cough campaign was to raise awareness, particularly among parents planning pregnancies and others to be aware of the dangers to infants and the need to have vaccinations at two months, four months and six months after birth.
.

But the vaccinations do not provide lifelong protection from whooping cough and children should have booster shots at age four and then during teenage years, Ms Roxon said.

.

”Whooping cough is not just a childhood disease, as adolescents and adults can account for half the cases in the community.”

Overall, this is a step in the right direction by the Australian Government and I applaud Nicola Roxon for (finally) taking action. The introduction of the chickenpox vaccine is also a welcome addition to the schedule, since it costs as much to get as the current maternity immunisation allowance (~$200) making the incentive seem moot.

It’s still early in Australia, and since this story only broke overnight, I wait with interest for the response of the anti-vaxers. I’ve also searched, but to no avail, for a government media release, as I’m keen to find out if any changes have been made to the CO conditions.

One suspects they will remain in place, at least in some form, since they are necessary for kids with genuine medical reasons for not vaccinating, but given that the maternity immunisation allowance scheme is to be scrapped, it appears they will at least need to be migrated, if not re-drafted.

I await with interest.


Update: the government statement about changes can be found here


Subscribe to comments Comment | Trackback |
Post Tags: , , , , , , , ,

Browse Timeline


  • Pingback: Online Casinos

  • Chris

    Then you would have no trouble answering my question about the costs of treating versus treating measles. The latest outbreak of measles in Europe one out of four reported cases required hospital care. Just give us the figures that show it is cheaper to treat those people than providing two MMR doses per child.
    .
    As an example here is an article about the costs of hospital care during a measles epidemic in California: Pediatric hospital admissions for measles. Lessons from the 1990 epidemic.
    .
    I am positive you can come up with how much more Big Pharma profits from selling MMR vaccines than from the medications needed to treat those who get encephalitis and pneumonia from measles. Just provide the title, journal and date of the PubMed indexed paper to support your conclusions. Though I really should not have to tell you that if you have a medical/science research background.

  • Eleen

    I was looking for information about immunisation and happened to find this page. I appreciate the experience shared here and the research that some of you have done. I have to say that I am confused as to what to do at the moment and will probably be going around looking for more reading materials.

    -

    While I am here, I would just like to convey my experience with the medical and research industry, which I think it important to those who are really looking for good information on vaccination.

    -

    My doubts with the medical and the research industry exists because I was actually involved in the industry, and know for a fact that many of the researches (even peer reviewed ones) sustains themselves from funding by “interested parties” – that could include anyone from the government, non-governmental organisations (which essentially don’t have much money themselves, what more to fund this), philanthropists and more commonly the pharmaceuticals themselves. Many researchers generally struggles to obtain funding, especially one of the size and length that will be required of a vaccine and research for cure (unless one is seriously famous or attached as an adjunct to a university that gets a lot of governmental funding). As such, when a funding happen to comes along, the nature of the research can be influenced by the terms of the funding (I am not going to go into how often this happens). Because of this, many of the researches (especially those funded by pharma companies) could be what I would call “indirectly skewed/ biased”.

    -

    Saying this, there are many medicines and vaccine out there that does have more benefit that costs involved, but it is difficult to trust everything peer review articles says.That is why I am out here looking for information on people’s experiences with the vaccines, rather than rely on journals for information (so difficult to distinguish between the Bona Fide ones or the “tainted” one).

    -

    I personally feel that Chris and Maggie’s defence of the vaccine is righteous (and from my experience is typical of the reaction that researchers -even non academic ones- usually project)- I am not sure whether I would agree with their stance and how they are defending immunisation, but after reading the comments from top to bottom, I can say that I am kind of sick of the roundabout way the discussing is going on as a result of this righteousness.

    -

    We get you point about the need for vaccines, now can we please let someone else talk and share their experience here so that the rest of us can benefit from it too. Thanks.

  • Chris

    And when you are done, perhaps you can explain why you think insults are a valid substitute for actual evidence.

  • Chris

    PB, just click on the links I provided. Just hover your mouse over the titles of the paper until the little arrow turns into a picture of a hand, then click on the button. Read the papers.
    .
    After you have read them, then you can explain clearly how preventing measles measles with two MMR doses is more costly than treating the 20% of reported measles cases in hospital. Plus exactly how the vaccine is more risking than actually getting measles.
    .
    Be sure to provide verifiable evidence. Especially now that NSW is experiencing the worse outbreak of measles in over a decade.

  • PB

    Chris:

    Please post the title, journal and date of the papers that support you are not a complete idiot and extreme rude person.
    You can’t? That means you are one then..

  • Angie

    Personally I agree with immunisation however the reasons are different then most. At the time before vaccinations were introduced death count was decreasing meaning that humans were creating own body immunity to it. Soon after vaccination was introduced death cases slightly increased before falling again. This shows that the our body has the capacity to create its own immunity to diseases. However, if we stop immunising our children, diseases would likely to come back killing many before our bodies were able to create immunity. Hence I Immunised my children because not doing so, would be like strengthening virus and bacteria hold on us.
    .
    I do have to say, that this is my opinion based on what I observed on vaccination graphs when vaccine was first introduced. You might be able to find the graphs at ABS but it has been a long time since I saw it so could not provide you with the link.
    ,
    Ultimately, you are your children’s parents and you just need to follow your gut feeling and do what you feel to be best. I personally believe that immunisation effectiveness has a long way to go, its not pure like the real thing hence some properties in it might not be good. However, its up to each individual to do what they feel its right.
    .
    My problem with this initiatives are two folded:
    (1) stopping CCB because proof has not been submitted is wrong. I had my CCB and JET stopped because I did not submitted my child’s immunisation record – many issues and reasons behind….. my child was four and apart from the four year old immunisation, she had all the previous immunisations
    (2) Stopping CCB and JET is like punishing not only parents but also Childcare providers. I even contemplated stopping studying… To get everything back on its place has given so much stress that I am now sick unable to work and study. The system need to change!!!
    .
    Change should be -
    NOT TO STOP PAYMENTS UNTIL CHILD IS 5 YEARS OLD – I say this because just because a child did not have the 4yrs old immunisation, it does not mean that child’s immunisation is not up-to-date, hence stopping CCB and JET is wrong. A child is 4 years for 12 months of their lives, hence the system is wrong!!! Medicare recognised this however Centrelink does not…
    .
    Sorry all for being too long…. Cheers

  • Chris

    Mr. Stamos, just give us the title, journal and date that it is cheaper to treat certain diseases than prevent them. Then we might believe you.
    .
    Some references:
    The Clinical Significance of Measles: A Review
    .
    Health Consequences of Religious and Philosophical Exemptions From Immunization Laws, Individual and Societal Risk of Measles
    .
    I anxiously await your citations that show getting measles with a one on a thousand chance of permanent disability or death is better than getting the MMR vaccine. Do respond soon!

  • steve stamos

    Vaccination not immunization
    .
    Big Pharma and their supporters have a callous absence of regard for the billions of years of evolutionary development that took us to our present, intact form, without their complex technologies like vaccination.
    .
    They shamelessly promote baby formula over breast milk and synthetic immunity via vaccines over natural immunity. Their Frankenstein philosophy promotes the introduction of foreign DNA capable of pathogenesis, toxic metals, preservatives and chemical compounds into the body of human beings.
    .
    The Institute of Medicine, which has long functioned as a front group for the pharmaceutical industry and receives tens of millions of dollars in annual funding from drug companies and global elitists openly, admits that vaccines cause measles, febrile seizures, anaphylactic shock, live virus infections and other potentially fatal side effects.
    .
    Has our advanced modern medicine produced humans in possession of great health and longevity? No. As a matter of fact quite the contrary… But it gets worst. Health problems and issues that were associated, in the past, to old age, today are affecting young children, 5, 10 and 15 years old, all thanks to full of hot air advanced modern food manufacturing processes and medicine.
    .
    But as you’ll know, tyrants don’t want to debate the facts. They just want to CONTROL everybody and SILENCE any serious discussion. They are all about asserting FORCE and POWER rather than allowing the best intellectual ideas to rise to the top. By silencing discussion, terrorizing and threatening they can maintain their own monopolies and ideas.
    .
    Those who choose, at any time, for any legitimate reason to question what mainstream medicine push, they are automatically labelled quacks, laughed and scorned and offered up for public ridicule.
    .
    However, what Big Pharma, and its supporters passes as “science” today is so snortingly laughable that could make your ribs hurt. People living in the future will look back with wonderment on how we could have been so delusional.

  • Pingback: Las penas del Agente Smith

  • D.Jones.

    Let’s face it: the only real justification for using vaccines to “immunize” ourselves against disease is derived from the natural fact that when challenged by infectious agents the humoral arm of our immune system launches a successful response capable of conferring lasting immunity. Were it not for the elegance, proficiency, and mostly asymptomatic success of our recombinatorial immune system in dealing so well with infectious challenges, vaccination would have no cause, no scientific explanation, no justification whatsoever.

  • http://scepticsbook.com Maggie

    Hi Darren, there are a lot of things to address in your comments but first up, most vaccines are not live viruses or bacteria for that matter, so to say the kids “carry the virus” is not correct. Most vaccines are either attenuated (meaning not alive) viruses or parts of the infectious agent, so they are not alive. In some cases it is just a part that will generate an immune response.
    .

    Secondly, you can’t inject someone with “aids” – aids is the condition resulting from infection with HIV. To become immune to HIV you need antibodies which you can get from either contracting the virus naturally or getting a vaccine which at the moment we don’t have. This is because HIV mutates rapidly so as fast as a vaccine against the capsid proteinsis developed, it mutates to avoid it faster. But we are getting closer to an HIV vaccine.
    .
    I think it’s pretty irresponsible to suggest that injecting kids with “aids” is okay especially considering many thousands of kids already are HIV infected. I hope you realise what an offensive statement this is.
    .
    I’m sorry, but I’m not sure what this statement means; “if the disease is gone then where is it coming from for us to still be so afraid of them”. If you wish to rephrase it, I will try to address it.

  • darren

    and if your kids is vaccinated then im not sure why so much worry from the parents of those kids, wont an unvaccinated child only infect another NON VACINATED child.
    and im sure an unvaccinated child can still develop a strong immune system.
    i think parents are becoming too lazy why dont you just have the kid, get a photo and then donate it to science to “look” after it.

  • darren

    heres a way to put it, perhaps its the vaccinated kids infecting our unvaccinated kids.
    a vaccinated child is expoed to the virus and therefore carries the virus.
    so if they get sick from it again and infect my kids then i say they are the ones bad for our society.
    and what if they tried the same idea with aids, how many of you pro vaccinationists would inject your child with aids to “make sure they dont die from it”.
    if the disease is gone then where is it coming from for us to still be so afraid of them

  • Joe

    From: http://www.fahcsia.gov.au/sa/families/payments/Pages/strengtheningimmunisation_faqs.aspx

    Guess what under the new system IMMU-12 still exists

    What exemptions will be available for the new immunisation conditions linked to the Family Tax Benefit Part A supplement?

    While the Government considers that immunisation is an important health measure for children and families, existing exemptions will continue to be available.

    A child may have a temporary or permanent exemption if a recognised immunisation provider determines that receiving the vaccine is medically contraindicated. A child may also receive an exemption from the immunisation requirements if a recognised immunisation provider indicates that the parent has a conscientious objection to immunising their child.

    These exemptions will also continue for Child Care Benefit.

  • http://thinkingisreal.blogspot.com/ AndyD

    For the record, Tania, I agree that vax is a personal choice. What I object to is people telling lies or spreading misinformation about it so that some parents end up making a choice they may not have made if they knew the truth. A lot of conscientious objectors who bother to comment online expose their adoption of such misinformation when they quote things like “all toxins are always toxic”, which is absolute nonsense.

  • tania

    The studies you left above do not show who was vaxxed and who wasn’t in Australia. Some statements being said above are misleading. Here are some misleading statement’s im reading that the studies do not even say.
    For eg: vax can prevent sids (noone knows in reality what causes or prevents sids). 1 in 200 unvaccinated babies will die of pertussis. (It actually said 1 in 200 babies will die). Vax was the reason why disease in this country was eradicated. Stat’s are being shown from countries with extreme poverty.

    .
    It is not your job to explain anything to me ,that is about the only thing we will agree on. So stop trying to explain, i’m happy with my choices. Part of the vax problem is yes people will disregard personal exp and that is a shame because vax is a personal exp. Will we also disregard the small studies of school’s and childcare centre’s? Yes we will, because what would small groups of people reveal. Even those who were injured by vaccine or disease are from small groups of personal exp.

    .At my age if i was going to study science or statistic’s i would have my now. That is why i will leave it to the expert’s to help me make my choices and not you. Do you suggest the many more who are vaxxed with no question’s asked and parent’s who aren’t informed and do it blindly also need to go study science? Consent without knowledge isn’t a real consent. Think the seedy doctor and nurse who originally told me my son had a 99 percent chance of getting tetanus prob’s need to go back and study science or medicine considering it is their field and they can’t even get that simple thing right.

  • Chris

    Gary:

    Do any studies show this Chris?

    .
    I posted many studies above, and infinitely more than you (since you can’t divide by zero). It is not my job to explain them, and the to continue to explain that you cannot compare a high vaccinated group against your own personal experience. I have more pressing duties due to the holiday season, though perhaps you and tania would benefit from taking some statistics and science classes from a local college when classes start up again.

  • tania

    Doctors support and orders are two very different things.
    Some people will not vaccinate, get used to it.
    It has always been there, and is not going to go away.
    When you accuse people of risking and gambling with their children’s lives you will get sent a list back of real risk and gamble.

    .
    Tetanus is so rare,even hospital casualties are rare. I can find the stat’s on how many roughly get hospitalised but doesnt say if were vaccinated or not. Shouldn’t be too hard to tell us, considering how rare.

  • http://thinkingisreal.blogspot.com/ AndyD

    Interesting discussion –here– on tetanus vax – and conscientious objection.
    .
    The background story, in the blue inset, is noteworthy if you think death is the only effect from tetanus.

  • http://thinkingisreal.blogspot.com/ AndyD

    Wow! Still going?!?
    .
    Tania, if I understand correctly, you’re saying your child has a specific medical reason for evading vax? If so, then I’m not sure what your issue is since clearly the government is not going to force you to go against doctors’ orders and no pro-vaxxer is going to insist you do so either if you make that clear (without couching your defence in terms that read like a conspiracy or pointing at other risks and shouting “look, that’s much worse!”).

  • Gary

    I too would like to see how many where and where not vaccinated.
    Do any studies show this Chris?

  • tania

    You show me a case where an unvaccinated child has died of tetanus Chris. Then after that i would like to ask why the remaining 10.2 children of 89.8 vaccinated (Australian bureau of stats,unless they “also” have made them up or didn’t understand them) also didn’t die of tetanus. Not one. You can send me back studies of how many were hospitalised, but they must state how many were vaccinated and how many weren’t.

  • Chris

    Still no evidence that any of the vaccines with a tetanus component is more dangerous than tetanus, diphtheria, pertussis or polio. The really reason is that it does not exist.
    .
    Though you did just prove that the reason there are so few tetanus cases is because of the large number are vaccinated. Except you missed out listing the references, so I can only assume you made them up or did not understand them.

  • tania

    The decline in deaths from infectious diseases has been attributed to a range of social and demographic changes, public health measures and medical advances. Australia bureau of statistics.

    . Percentage of children 60-<63 months of age (age calculated at 30 June 2011) vaccinated against tetanus is recorded at 89.8 percent australia wide(medicare,bureau of stats and gov,au).

    .
    Recent surveys of school children
    have generally found histories of incomplete immunization in groups
    varying from 26% to 60%. sa.gov.au

    .
    For subjects aged 50 years and over, less than 60% were immune or partially immune to diphtheria and less than 75% to tetanus. s.a gov.au

    .
    In 1995 the Australian Bureau of Statistics released a report showing that only 53 per cent of children aged between 3 months and 6 years were fully immunised against a range of potentially fatal diseases. This rate was one of the lowest in the developed world.

    .

    I ,nor ,Dave are going to send you scientific evidence that the tetanus vaccination is worse than the tetanus, because we have never claimed or stated this as you keep saying. Quote where we have stated this or claimed this please.

  • Chris

    Tetanus is only rare because most people have been vaccinated. So why are you all refusing to post actual scientific evidence? I will assume because it does not exist.

  • dave

    Ty Gary….Chris your missing the point again. Tania nor I are claiming the vaccine for tetanus is more dangerous than tetanus FOR THE LAST TIME. BOTH ARE BAD BUT TETANUS IS RARE. Do you or anyone on this page actually know or have met anyone who has had tetanus.

    .

  • Chris

    Except he missed out on the crucial bit: the evidence. Just post the title, journal and date of the papers that support your statements that the vaccine for tetanus is more dangerous than tetanus. Why is that so difficult?

  • Gary

    Well said Dave.

  • dave

    You will probably have to speak to people on an individual basis(or google my child was injured by a vaccination and google the stat’s of how many people got tetanus in australia this year and weigh it up yourself) to see if the disease a child may get (15 in 300 million in america) is worse than an injury (Severe allergic reaction less than one in a million). Both can happen but both are extremely rare. I’m not going to be the judge of what is worse, both are bad.
    .
    It is up to the individual’s to make an informed decision.
    Either way, you are taking a “risk” as you say. You know your children better than anybody, we know our’s.
    .
    When people are writing on this blog saying unvaccinated children put immunised kid’s in danger (yet those in our group were all fully immunised,still got it quiet serious and did not catch it from unimmunised children) Tania or i or even Annoyed (who we do not know) will write of personal experience. That’s not bragging.
    .
    Now let others have their say. The more people write the more we learn, goes for pro or anti.

  • Chris

    Dave, what evidence do you have that the various forms of tetanus vaccine are more dangerous than the actual disease? Just post the title, journal and date of the scientific paper that shows a child is at greater risk by getting a vaccine than actually getting tetanus. Thank you.
    .
    Please do not presume what I think. I go by the data. While vaccines are neither 100% safe nor effective, the actual diseases are worse. Tetanus is a nasty disease, so you really need to show me how the vaccine is worse.
    .
    (oh, and her little anecdote was a brag, there is no other way to describe it, because it was definitely not data nor evidence)

  • http://scepticsbook.com Maggie

    I did find it and thanks. My post is here http://theconversation.edu.au/meryl-dorey-at-woodford-folk-festival-a-hazard-to-your-childs-health-4678. I should have another one up tomorrow.

  • http://thinkingisreal.blogspot.com/ AndyD

    Hey Dr Rachie – did you find this link http://www.abc.net.au/contact/upheld/s2739849.htm?

    Saw you ask on Twitter but I don’t tweet.

  • dave

    Hi Maggie and ty,
    I know your info, and appreciate the way you speak. Chris continues to äccuse Tania of putting our child at risk, saying they think they are smarter than everyone else speaking and bragging. I have to assume Chris thinks vaccines are a hundred percent safe and everybody can or will take them the way he is carrying on and ordering people to show evidence when they have.
    .

    I’m not saying i don’t believe you but the stat from gov.au says one in 200 babies will die,not one in 200 unimmunised kids will die. What it doesn’t say is if the child caught it from an unimmunised or immunised person in the first place or the child’s health status before getting sick. With so few who have died it should be easy to give us this info.

  • http://scepticsbook.com Maggie

    Hi Dave,


    Where is you evidence that states any vaccine is 100 percent safe. Where is your evidence that say’s every single person can be vaccinated safely. Where is your evidence that immunised children can’t catch disease.

    No one has said this, because it’s not true. No vaccine is 100% safe (or effective for that matter), not everyone can be safely vaccinated and immunised kids can still catch the disease.

    .
    But vaccines will reduce the severity of the disease and the morbidity and mortality. No vaccine is 100% safe but the benefits outweigh the risks. The complications from a bout of pertussis are far worse than the side effects from the vaccine. One in every 200 unvaccinated kids who catch it will die. And a vaccine is not a force field – it won’t stop bacteria or viruses getting into your body but it prepares your body to fight them faster, so they don’t get so much of a hold = less disease severity.
    .

  • dave

    Brag? You say brag twice actually. How rude. This is a blog about government withdrawing money from parent’s who have the right not to immunise if they see fit. Therefore there is going to be a lot of diverse speaking, from those who immunise and those who don’t, yet you say brag. Do you think we wanted our friends and families children to be so ill, so we could brag.
    .
    Where is you evidence that states any vaccine is 100 percent safe. Where is your evidence that say’s every single person can be vaccinated safely. Where is your evidence that immunised children can’t catch disease.

    .
    I tell you mate, she said we have a good reason not to vaccinate with doctor’s backup. She doesn’t need to provide you with any scientific evidence,but she does. It’s all there in the links from the gov.au and the CDC. Don’t go accusing my good partner of “risking ” our son’s life, who you know nothing about.
    .
    Do you think it is appropriate for a nurse to tell parent’s they are getting such and such vaccination when it is in actual fact something else. Do you think it is appropriate a doctor could give out misleading info such as our son had a 99 percent risk of tetanus.

    Tania has already said the pro’s and con’s is listed under .gov.au and the CDC. Any vaccine site show’s ingredient’s from the past are banned, vaccine’s from the past are banned (does this mean the scientist’s got it wrong the first time and parent’s were told it was 99.9 percent safe). Before the fluvax 2010, that vaccine was listed as safe. We know better now don’t we. But were we putting our son at “risk” as you say by chancing the flu without immunisation.

    .
    Each to their own mate, but when you accuse people of risking their child’s life ,well i can safely say all children’s lives are at risk from the moment we have them. Tania and i certainly didn’t make our decision light heartedly and have our Doctor’s backup. PLease dont bother responding like a broken record, we are done speaking to you. Let other’s have a chance to talk mate about their experiences, pro or con, immunised or not.

  • Chris

    In the future when you brag about a medical decision that actually puts a child at risk be prepared to defend it real science, and actually list the data that support those “pros and cons”. Because it still looks like you chose to not protect your child from tetanus due to what vaccine was available.

  • tania

    My doctor and our family have outweighed the pro’s and con’s, the risk’s of the disease and the risk’s of side effects. Im happier to listen and speak with my doctor who knows our medical histories ty.

  • Chris

    “Where have i claimed the risk of the tetanus vax is greater than the risk of tetanus.”
    .
    By denying your child protection when he was injured. What evidence do you have that the vaccine offered was more dangerous than the real risk of tetanus?

  • tania

    I seem fixated on the word may? You were the one who wrote i quote you vaccines can prevent sids. The study didn’t say that. It said may,casually associated. Unlike you,I haven’t used any may’s in any info i have shared ,i have used statistics from the aus.gov pages that have actually happened, no may’s. So im saying you are fixated by may’s. You say the risk of tetanus may be small. No may there,it is small.

    .
    Where have i claimed the risk of the tetanus vax is greater than the risk of tetanus. (Although some pro immisation sites will not only show you the dangers of the disease but also show you side effects ranging from low to severe and info on who should be immunised with caution or who shouldn’t be). We would be misleading to say vaccinations have no side effects or everyone can have them.

    .

    The CDC list info on diseases,immunisations and side effects if anybody want’s info. No pro immunisation site will claim a vaccine is 100 percent safe. And when medical staff and parent’s are jabbing with no questions asked (ie does your child have a fever,is your child sick at the moment,does your child have allergies) is stupidity.

  • Chris

    You are changing the subject. Unlike you I have supplied actual studies, and you seem to be fixated on the word “may.” That is what is used in risk and probability, something that seems to elude you. You are claiming that the risk of the vaccine is greater than the risk of tetanus. Yet, you cannot go by what has happened in a group of mostly vaccinated persons, when you and your family have not been protected from tetanus, a bacteria that exists in soil. The risk of tetanus many be small, but it exists and as you spend more years unprotected that probability of getting tetanus increases.
    .
    Again, what is your evidence that getting a vaccine is dangerous? Your choice is to either answer that question or stop commenting. Do not try any more diversion tactics.

  • tania

    Maggie,,, i am spacing my paragraph’s but when i press enter it group’s together. I prob’s need to forget the newspaper format and instead leave 2 lines between paragraph’s. Bear with me…

    Tania, it’s not you. The comments are not formatted to leave spaces between paragraphs and I can’t seem to fix it. I’ve been going in and adding fullstops between paragraphs and this adds spaces (see the . between your sentences). You can do this or I can fix it for you later. Don’t stress. – Maggie

  • tania

    About 25,000 people die every day of hunger or hunger-related causes, according to the United Nations.
    .

    This isn’t a 15 in 300 million risk. This isn’t a one person in 6 years risk. This isn’t a disease. So who is taking responsibility for this “risk, gamble”. I can’t even call it a risk or gamble. Who do we need to interrogate about the deaths of 25,000 people dying from hunger today. Not might,or may,but will. They are/were part of the herd.
    .

    I have said at least 2 times i have a good reason to not jab and this is between my doctor ,my partner, my extended family and myself. Not you Chris.
    .

    From your link,Vaccines may help prevent sids. MAY. This association may be casual . There is a lot of might’s ,may’s, casuals in this study you show.

  • Chris

    While car accidents are often no preventable, tetanus can be with a vaccine. So you still have no good reason to protect yourself and your family from tetanus.
    .
    Also, vaccines can also prevent SIDS:
    Vaccine. 2007 Jun 21;25(26):4875-9. Epub 2007 Mar 16.
    Do immunisations reduce the risk for SIDS? A meta-analysis.

    Immunisations are associated with a halving of the risk of SIDS. There are biological reasons why this association may be causal, but other factors, such as the healthy vaccinee effect, may be important. Immunisations should be part of the SIDS prevention campaigns.

  • tania

    Chris not that i need to justify to you, im going to say no i didn’t keep up any tet shots with the blessing of a doctor and nurse (who don’t know each other) who know our medical records from birth on.
    .

    15 in hospital with tetanus is sad, that is not ok with me. But neither is the 600,000 reported road crashes;
    .

    200,000 reported injuries as a result of road crashes;
    .

    22,000 serious as a result of road crashes requiring long term care and treatment; and
    .

    1,600 people killed in road crashes in australia per year. Should i not put my child in a car .This is a much higher risk of hospitalisation.
    .

    I also feel for the 3500 who die from sids each year. Do we not have children?

  • Chris

    Those were only the cases in children. It was not all of them (most cases of tetanus are older people who have not kept up their tetanus boosters). But that was fifteen too many children who had to spend time in hospital (one for two months). Why is that okay with you?
    .
    Still, you do need to explain what risk you perceived in the vaccine you denied your child (and it would help if you actually had some scientific evidence to support your reasons). Why would you take a real risk that your child could end up in the hospital?
    .
    And have you kept up with your tetanus boosters? If not, why?

  • tania

    Chris, are you taking population into account. That was an american link, and there were no deaths.wow, 15 cases in a population of 300 million people.
    .

    From 1992 through 2000, 15 cases of tetanus in children less than 15 years of age were reported from 11 states. Twelve cases were in boys. Two cases were in neonates less than 10 days of age; the other 13 cases were in children who ranged in age from 3 to 14 years. The median length of hospitalization was 28 days; 8 children required mechanical ventilation. There were no deaths. Twelve (80%) children were unprotected because of lack of vaccination, including 1 neonate whose mother was not vaccinated. Among all unvaccinated cases, objection to vaccination, either religious or philosophic, was the reported reason for choosing not to vaccinate.. “We have not verified the content of this report” at the very bottom. (my reason is not philosophical).
    .

    3 in one hundred cases might be fatal? Might?. Don’t know where you got you stats as they differ from the au gov stat’s Andy.

  • Chris

    Braden:

    Also, if a child was never vaccinated, is it easy enough to start at around two years of age.

    .
    It should be. Some of them would not be required, since the dangers of rotavirus and Hib are past. But consult a pediatrician or GP.
    .
    You might find this article interesting from a blog run by several doctors, and a few others (including a pharmacist, lawyer, veterinarian):
    http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/index.php/toxic-myths-about-vaccines/
    .
    AndyD, do you think Tania actually read the article, “Philosophic Objection to Vaccination as a Risk for Tetanus Among Children Younger Than 15 Years”? The one that listed how many days some of the children spent on a ventilator?

  • http://thinkingisreal.blogspot.com/ AndyD

    During 2001–2002, there was one death from tetanus, in a person aged over 60 years (health.gov.au). That’s not really a gamble is it now.”
    .
    Okay Tania, but do you know how many CASES there were (it’s not always about deaths)? Do you know the vaccination rate in Australia? If almost everyone is vaccinated for tetanus, then would you really expect to see thousands of infections?
    .
    Not vaccinating because of low incidence of infection is like cutting the strings off your parachute because all the people who parachuted before you survived.
    .
    Also, consider these stats… [I've bolded a bit for you]
    .
    In Australia, tetanus is rare, occurring primarily in older adults who have never been vaccinated or were vaccinated in the remote past. There were 18 notified cases of tetanus during 2001–2005, but 120 hospitalisations (July 2000–June 2005) where tetanus was the principal diagnosis.4,5 This discrepancy suggests under-notification. During 2001–2005, there were 2 deaths from tetanus.4,5 The case-fatality rate in Australia is about 3%. Neonatal tetanus is a frequent cause of infant mortality in parts of Asia, Africa and Latin America. Effective protection against tetanus can be provided only by active immunisation…
    .
    I didn’t know about the 3% death rate. That’s high. Three in every 100 infections will be fatal. That’s not really a gamble is it now?
    .
    Of course, to know if it’s actually a gamble, or not, you’d need to refer to Chris’s questions about evidence of harm from vaccinating.

  • Braden

    Thanks Chris i wont jump to any conclusions.

    Also, if a child was never vaccinated, is it easy enough to start at around two years of age.