Thanks for bringing attention to the comprehensive selling-out of the Australian public by these supposed guardians of civil liberties. If we manage to avert this country's rapid slide into totalitarianism, every single one of these organisations needs to be disbanded and prosecutions may well be in order.
I do take issue however with your claim that "childhood vaccines have a deservedly positive reputation because they provide lifetime, sterilising immunity against truly terrible diseases". Mortality from infectious diseases had already declined by 95-99% BEFORE vaccines were introduced, and the rate of decline in mortality did not increase after widespread vaccination campaigns began. McKinlay & McKinlay estimated that at most, medical treatments (including vaccination and antibiotics) contributed less than 3.5% of the total decline in US mortality in the 20th century (see https://www.milbank.org/wp-content/uploads/mq/volume-55/issue-03/55-3-The-Questionable-Contribution-of-Medical-Measures-to-the-Decline-of-Mortality-in-the-United-States-in-the-Twentieth-Century.pdf), and there is no reason to suspect that the numbers would be substantially different in Australia.
Smallpox was not eradicated via population-wide vaccination, but by case isolation and ring vaccination. At the time smallpox was declared eradicated, the majority of the world's population had not been vaccinated against smallpox. The virus itself had been declining in virulence over the centuries, as is normal for viruses, and smallpox disease could well have disappeared with no vaccination at all: "In the twentieth century virulent smallpox (variola) was replaced naturally in Britain by a milder type (alastrim), antigenically identical but with a much lower mortality (1 per cent). This was then gradually eliminated by increased attention to isolation and contact tracing." (https://www.historytoday.com/archive/end-smallpox)
Few, if any, childhood vaccines confer sterilising immunity. The acellular pertussis vaccine, in particular, targets the pertussis toxin rather than the bacteria that causes whooping cough, and is acknowledged by vaccinologists to be the likely cause of the resurgence of whooping cough, which has increased in prevalence over the last few decades after decades of decline (e.g. see https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24277828/).
The case definition of poliomyelitis was changed after the polio vaccination campaign began, which led to a dramatic decline in case numbers: "Prior to 1954 any physician who reported paralytic poliomyelitis was doing his patient a service by way of subsidizing the cost of hospitalization and was being community-minded in reporting a communicable disease. The criterion of diagnosis at that time in most health departments followed the World Health Organization definition: ‘Spinal paralytic poliomyelitis: signs and symptoms of nonparalytic poliomyelitis with the addition of partial or complete paralysis of one or more muscle groups, detected on two examinations at least 24 hours apart.’ Note that ‘two examinations at least 24 hours apart’ was all that was required. Laboratory confirmation and presence of residual paralysis was not required. In 1955 the criteria were changed to conform more closely to the definition used in the 1954 field trials: residual paralysis was determined 10 to 20 days after onset of illness and
again 50 to 70 days after onset.... This change in definition meant that in 1955 we started reporting a new disease, namely, paralytic poliomyelitis with a longer-lasting paralysis. Furthermore, diagnostic procedures have continued to be refined. Coxsackie virus infections
and aseptic meningitis have been distinguished from paralytic poliomyelitis. Prior to 1954
large numbers of these cases undoubtedly were mislabeled as paralytic poliomyelitis. Thus,
simply by changes in diagnostic criteria, the number of paralytic cases was predetermined to
decrease in 1955-1957, whether or not any vaccine was used.”
Dr Bernard Greenberg, head of dept of biostatistics at University of North Carolina School of Public Health and chairman of the Committee on Evaluation and Standards of the American Public Health Association, 1960.
Thanks for your thoughtful, well-documented reply querying the role of childhood vaccines in reducing the incidence of childhood diseases. There was a time when I would have dismissed such views out-of-hand as the ravings of anti-vaxx' cranks but one of the many things that Covid mania has taught me is to have an open mind on previously 'settled science' and to be much more sceptical of the medical/phramaceutical industry. If they have got it so egregiously wrong on Covid and its fake vaccines, what else have they got wrong on other viruses and their vaccines?
Thanks for being willing to engage on this topic. I too dismissed this information on first hearing it, over 25 years ago, but it's incredibly well-documented and available to all those who haven't already made up their minds and don't wish to be confused with facts.
Thanks for bringing attention to the comprehensive selling-out of the Australian public by these supposed guardians of civil liberties. If we manage to avert this country's rapid slide into totalitarianism, every single one of these organisations needs to be disbanded and prosecutions may well be in order.
I do take issue however with your claim that "childhood vaccines have a deservedly positive reputation because they provide lifetime, sterilising immunity against truly terrible diseases". Mortality from infectious diseases had already declined by 95-99% BEFORE vaccines were introduced, and the rate of decline in mortality did not increase after widespread vaccination campaigns began. McKinlay & McKinlay estimated that at most, medical treatments (including vaccination and antibiotics) contributed less than 3.5% of the total decline in US mortality in the 20th century (see https://www.milbank.org/wp-content/uploads/mq/volume-55/issue-03/55-3-The-Questionable-Contribution-of-Medical-Measures-to-the-Decline-of-Mortality-in-the-United-States-in-the-Twentieth-Century.pdf), and there is no reason to suspect that the numbers would be substantially different in Australia.
Smallpox was not eradicated via population-wide vaccination, but by case isolation and ring vaccination. At the time smallpox was declared eradicated, the majority of the world's population had not been vaccinated against smallpox. The virus itself had been declining in virulence over the centuries, as is normal for viruses, and smallpox disease could well have disappeared with no vaccination at all: "In the twentieth century virulent smallpox (variola) was replaced naturally in Britain by a milder type (alastrim), antigenically identical but with a much lower mortality (1 per cent). This was then gradually eliminated by increased attention to isolation and contact tracing." (https://www.historytoday.com/archive/end-smallpox)
Few, if any, childhood vaccines confer sterilising immunity. The acellular pertussis vaccine, in particular, targets the pertussis toxin rather than the bacteria that causes whooping cough, and is acknowledged by vaccinologists to be the likely cause of the resurgence of whooping cough, which has increased in prevalence over the last few decades after decades of decline (e.g. see https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24277828/).
The case definition of poliomyelitis was changed after the polio vaccination campaign began, which led to a dramatic decline in case numbers: "Prior to 1954 any physician who reported paralytic poliomyelitis was doing his patient a service by way of subsidizing the cost of hospitalization and was being community-minded in reporting a communicable disease. The criterion of diagnosis at that time in most health departments followed the World Health Organization definition: ‘Spinal paralytic poliomyelitis: signs and symptoms of nonparalytic poliomyelitis with the addition of partial or complete paralysis of one or more muscle groups, detected on two examinations at least 24 hours apart.’ Note that ‘two examinations at least 24 hours apart’ was all that was required. Laboratory confirmation and presence of residual paralysis was not required. In 1955 the criteria were changed to conform more closely to the definition used in the 1954 field trials: residual paralysis was determined 10 to 20 days after onset of illness and
again 50 to 70 days after onset.... This change in definition meant that in 1955 we started reporting a new disease, namely, paralytic poliomyelitis with a longer-lasting paralysis. Furthermore, diagnostic procedures have continued to be refined. Coxsackie virus infections
and aseptic meningitis have been distinguished from paralytic poliomyelitis. Prior to 1954
large numbers of these cases undoubtedly were mislabeled as paralytic poliomyelitis. Thus,
simply by changes in diagnostic criteria, the number of paralytic cases was predetermined to
decrease in 1955-1957, whether or not any vaccine was used.”
Dr Bernard Greenberg, head of dept of biostatistics at University of North Carolina School of Public Health and chairman of the Committee on Evaluation and Standards of the American Public Health Association, 1960.
Hi, Robyn.
Thanks for your thoughtful, well-documented reply querying the role of childhood vaccines in reducing the incidence of childhood diseases. There was a time when I would have dismissed such views out-of-hand as the ravings of anti-vaxx' cranks but one of the many things that Covid mania has taught me is to have an open mind on previously 'settled science' and to be much more sceptical of the medical/phramaceutical industry. If they have got it so egregiously wrong on Covid and its fake vaccines, what else have they got wrong on other viruses and their vaccines?
You have provided much food for thought.
Cheers,
Phil from Adelaide
Thanks for being willing to engage on this topic. I too dismissed this information on first hearing it, over 25 years ago, but it's incredibly well-documented and available to all those who haven't already made up their minds and don't wish to be confused with facts.