I was very disappointed to read today that Prime Minister Julia Gillard has decided to resort to blackmail in order to try and get Australian parents to alter their informed, legal option on whether or not vaccination is the best thing to do for the health of their kids. Does she really think that giving the impression that they are withdrawing $2100 in family benefits (as it turns out conscientious objectors can still get the benefits) is going to change people's mind about what is best for their children?
Health minister Nicola Roxon claims that "immunisation is fundamental to a child's lifelong health". Does she have any evidence to back this up?
Is it because the increase in Australia's childhood vaccination to 95% has gotten us great results? NO: in fact our whooping cough notifications have gone from 318 in 1991 and 800 in 1992 to 34,837 in 2010 and already 32,515 in 2011 according to the official stats from the Department of Health and Ageing. In fact the ACT, which has the highest rate of vaccination in Australia, has more than double the cases of whooping cough of most other states - and seven times the rate found in Tasmania.
Is it because we have seen a higher rate of disease in those who have not been vaccinated? NO: The Federal Government refuse to keep statistics whether those presenting with the disease are vaccinated or not (despite the fact that people have been calling for this simple measure for years).
Is it because there is no evidence of people who have remained healthy without this 'fundamental' ingredient (vaccinations)? NO, in fact my experience is that some of the healthiest people I know fit into that very group. Not high level evidence I know but certainly proof that vaccination is not 'fundamental' to lifelong health.
And what comes next? We know that diet and exercise play a vital role in the development of a child's immune system. Do we deny family benefits to parents who don't meet nutritional requirements for their kids? Do we remove the benefits from parents who don't get out and exercise enough with their kids? Or do we actually think that it is the role of the parent to decide what is best for their child's health?
Our government seems to assume that people who have not vaccinated their kids either do it out of laziness or out of ignorance. In my experience nothing could be further from the truth. In fact under our current system if they wish to attain family payments they cannot be either. They must make a proactive choice to not be vaccinated, they must then be fully informed of the pro's and con's of the choice they are making by a fully licensed medical practitioner and they must then lodge those forms in order to receive the payment. $2100 is not going to force them to make a decision that they do not believe is in the best interest of their kids.
In fact the government says that this will save the taxpayer $209 million. I would like to know how. Is it because they know that it will not actually make any difference to people's behaviour and they will instead just be pocketing the money for no changes in health outcomes? Or is it because they have evidence that it will increase vaccination rates, increase health and save them money? If so I would love to see it.
In my chiropractic practice I do not impose my beliefs on any practice member. When asked I tell them that vaccination is a very personal decision and one that you should only make once fully informed. I share with them information from BOTH sides of the debate and encourage every parent to make their own informed decision. I would encourage our own federal government to do the same.
Subscribe to this comment's feed
written by Sue, November 29, 2011
1. What would the whooping cough rates be if nobody was vaccinated? and
2. Do you deny that childhood is now safer because children don't suffer from polio, congenital rubella, epiglottitis and Hib meningitis?
written by Paul Lawrence, November 29, 2011
written by Mike, November 30, 2011
Several children died from the swine flu as well as adults, but you never can saw that was the cause because then you will be sued! One of those adults was my wifes uncle who got sick the next day from the swine flu and was dead 5 days latter. The bottom line it is our choice not the governments/pharmaceutical companies decisions.
written by Martin smith, November 30, 2011
There is zero causal correlation between asthma rates, auto immune disease and many of the other anti vax catch cry illnesses and vaccination. Vaccination is not without risk, nobody worth a pinch of salt has said otherwise, but the vaccine schedule as it stands now has a far smaller risk of adverse outcome, and a much better benefit than not vaccinating. That is in plain and simple language, and with overwhelming scientific evidence, you have a more likely beneficial outcome by vaccinating than by not vaccinating.
The only way you can deny these fairly simple facts is to either invoke inane conspiracy theories or use junk pseudo science. It really is that simple.
written by Martin smith, November 30, 2011
written by Dr Brett Hill, November 30, 2011
To be fair Martin you made a lot of statements but provided us with no facts or research (which incidentally is exactly what the Governments vaccination website does).
written by Paul Lawrence, November 30, 2011
O.K. how about the fact over 700 Chiropractors were jailed for the crime of 'Practicing medicine without a license?' What was that, a simple misunderstanding.
O.K. how about the fact that the American Medical Association was found guilty of conducting a criminal conspiracy over many decades against an alternative health profession in the supreme court in the United States in (the Wilks case). The Supreme Court ruled their only motivation was to protect the financial interests of their members and sponsors (the multinational pharmaceutical companies) and of course themselves.
Can anyone seriously believe that with the amount of money at stake (ie. a large percentage of all the wealth in the world) these bastards wont kill and suppress and conspire. Naivety lies with those that don't believe in conspiracies.
And on the subject of truth, its truth when you report what the research statistics show, even if it upsets multinational chemical companies and government ministers, and dare I say it, parents who have vaccinated and cant stand the thought they may have inadvertently harmed their child. even if it shows the brain is damaged or infant mortality rates are directly correlated to the number of vaccines in a countries' vaccine schedule . The truth is when a researcher finds a problem with autism linked to vaccination they be allowed to publish it, not be discredited and ostracised from the medical community as in the case of Dr.Andrew Wakelin. Falsehood is when we only tell people part of the whole story because it might upset the readership or those in power
written by Mike, December 01, 2011
If I happen to be in public life could the information be used against me?
Could it be leaked at schools and used as a point of ostracism for me and my children, a real risk as anyone in that situation will attest to.
No, much better to have a register of all those who have taken antibiotics unnecessarily leading to antibiotic resistance and super bugs that my immune system now has to cope with even though I've never taken them.
Give the money to those that eat healthy, exercise regularly see a Chiropractor and pay out of their own pockets to use herbs and vitamins rather than taking the free synthetic chemicals the big pharmaceutical companies claim will make you healthy.