OVER-VACCINATION
Challenging Big Pharma's lucrative over-vaccination of people and animals
About Elizabeth Hart
Aluminium and vaccine safety – Cochrane
CHALLENGING OVER-VACCINATION POLICY AND PRACTICE IN AUSTRALIA
Conflicts of interest…and vax committees
LETTERS CHALLENGING OVER-VACCINATION
Over-vaccination – MMR / HPV / Flu / Pertussis / Pet vax
OVER-VACCINATION WITH THE 'NO JAB, NO PAY' LAW
Cochrane Nordic and HPV vaccine safety
The Conversation – a marketing arm for the university and research sector?
Vaccination Schedules
Tag Archives: Andrew Wakefield
Vaccination – suppression of dissent and biased media reporting
Brian Martin is Professor of Social Sciences at the University of Wollongong, Australia.
He is interested in the general field of 'suppression of dissent', including whistleblowing, free speech, systems of social control and related topics.[1]
Martin has published articles on vaccination, and states his involvement in the vaccination debate "is primarily as a defender of fair and open debate on contentious issues" given his "long-term interest in dissent". He has acknowledged that, personally, he does not hold strong views about vaccination.[2]
For information, here are hyperlinks to two of Martin's recent articles which discuss suppression of dissent and biased media reporting in relation to vaccination.
In his article "On the suppression of vaccination dissent", Martin says: "Dissenters from the dominant views about vaccination sometimes are subject to adverse actions, including abusive comment, threats, formal complaints, censorship, and deregistration, a phenomenon that can be called suppression of dissent."[3]
His article includes reference to controversial vaccination critics Andrew Wakefield, Meryl Dorey, Jayne Donegan and Gary Goldman.
In his conclusion, Martin argues:
Suppression of dissent, through its chilling effect, can skew public debates, by discouraging participation. In Australia, critics of vaccination have become aware that if they become visible, they are potentially subject to denigration and complaints. Because of the level of personal abuse by pro-vaccinationists, many of those who might take a middle-of-the-road perspective, perhaps being slightly critical of some aspects of vaccine policy, are discouraged from expressing their views. The result is a highly polarized public discourse that is not conducive to the sort of careful deliberation desirable for addressing complex issues.
According to the highest ideals of science, ideas should be judged on their merits, and addressed through mustering evidence and logic. Suppression of dissent is a violation of these ideals. Challenging suppression is part of the struggle to push science towards its own stated principles.
In another article, "Biased reporting: a vaccination case study"[4], Martin analyses a news story by journalist Rick Morton about PhD student Judy Wilyman. Morton's story, titled "University paid for anti-vaccine student to attend conference", was published in The Australian on 28 January 2014.
Brian Martin is Judy Wilyman's PhD supervisor, and he provides an interesting critique of Rick Morton's attack on Judy Wilyman.
[1] Suppression of dissent – documents and contacts: http://www.bmartin.cc/dissent/
[2] Martin, Brian. On the suppression of vaccination dissent. Science & Engineering Ethics. March 2014, doi 10.1007/s11948-014-9530-3 http://www.bmartin.cc/pubs/14see.html
[4] Martin, Brian. Biased reporting: a vaccination case study: http://www.bmartin.cc/pubs/14Morton.html
This entry was posted in Vaccination - suppression of dissent and tagged Andrew Wakefield, Appeals to authority, Authoritarianism, Brian Martin, Censorship, Ethics, Evidence, Free speech, Gary Goldman, Jayne Donegan, Judy Wilyman, Meryl Dorey, Political freedom, Rick Morton, Scientific dissent, Status quo, Suppression of dissent, The Australian, Undone science, Vaccination critics, Vested interests, Whistleblowers on April 7, 2014 by elizabethhart.
The reluctance to acknowledge adverse reactions to vaccination
Here's a link to an article that illustrates the medical/scientific establishment's reluctance to publish material that casts vaccination in a bad light: "Special Report: How vaccine scares cast shadows over science".
Some quotes: (Emphasis added.)
At a Finnish medical convention in January 2011, a colleague approached neurologist Markku Partinen, laid a hand on his shoulder and said: "Markku, it's going to be a bad year for you."
In the following months, other scientists ridiculed him, questioned his methods and motives, and raised doubts about his mental stability. Colleagues began crossing the street to avoid him, he says.
Partinen, director of the Helsinki Sleep Clinic and Research Centre, had raised the alarm about a GlaxoSmithKline vaccine called Pandemrix. He had discovered the drug, used to protect people from H1N1 swine flu, may be linked to a jump in cases of narcolepsy, a rare sleep disorder, in children and young people. He knew his findings might help limit the risks of narcolepsy for other children around the world, but was fearful nonetheless. The work was bound to generate scientific suspicion and public anxiety. Indeed, he struggled to get his paper on the vaccine published.
His story underscores an increasingly tough challenge for scientists balancing compelling data with public concern over vaccines and their side effects. Treatments which stimulate immunity to disease are highly controversial. In the past couple of decades – especially after a British doctor made now-discredited claims linking the measles-mumps-rubella (MMR) vaccine to autism – the field has become even more charged. After the false alarm sounded by British doctor Andrew Wakefield, some scientists say they are more hesitant to credit reports of potential side effects from vaccines.
Partinen is keen to distance himself from Andrew Wakefield, calling Wakefield a "fake". It will be interesting to see how history views Andrew Wakefield, time will tell on that score…
The article provides another scientist's perspective:
At a medical centre on the outskirts of Helsinki, another Finnish scientist agrees with Partinen's results and is probing the mechanics of the Pandemrix-narcolepsy link, which she thinks may have to do with the vaccine's super-charging effect on the immune system.
Outi Vaarala previously worked in research on autoimmune diseases and diabetes. Since crossing over into the field of vaccinology, she says she has found herself harangued in emails and phone calls by people on one side accusing her of undermining trust in vaccines, or on the other begging her to join an anti-vaccine crusade.
"There's not the kind of open discussion we used to have. You're afraid you will lose your whole career if you say something bad," says Vaarala. "When you're dealing with vaccine it suddenly becomes like working in politics, or religion."
Partinen tells of the problems he encountered in publishing his results:
Partinen attended another Helsinki medical conference last month, two years after he had been warned about difficult times ahead. But this time he was leading the first Nordic Symposium on Narcolepsy and its links to the H1N1 swine flu vaccine.
"When we found this, we wanted to publish our results and spread the news to the world because we knew Pandemrix was also being used in other countries," he said. "But there were big problems."
Having double- and triple-checked his findings, Partinen approached the New England Journal of Medicine, one of the world's most respected medical journals, and submitted his study for publication. He says the journal asked for several revisions to the paper, then finally declined to accept it.
"After that we sent it to The Lancet," he said, stressing that this was the same journal which published the now discredited Wakefield paper.
While it is not unusual for such high-level medical journals to reject many papers, Partinen said he was shocked by the strength of The Lancet's resistance to his.
"It was quite exceptional, they asked for revision and revision and revision," Partinen said. "Then they said they'd made an editorial decision – that they couldn't publish it because we didn't know the (biological) mechanism (behind the link between narcolepsy and Pandemrix)."
Partinen argues that scientists don't know the biological mechanisms behind a whole host of diseases – multiple sclerosis and diabetes to name just two – yet The Lancet is full of peer-reviewed papers about those.
Neither The Lancet nor the New England Medical Journal would comment on their editorial decisions.
By the time Partinen's study was published – March 2012, in the open-access journal of the Public Library of Science, PLoS One – many more scientists had replicated his findings, the H1N1 flu pandemic that Pandemrix was designed to protect against had been declared over, and the vaccine's use had been restricted.
For those with narcolepsy it was already too late.
"There is no doubt any more that there is a link," Partinen said. "But it's taken three years to get here."
It's alarming that the medical and scientific establishment, for example highly influential journals such as the New England Journal of Medicine and The Lancet, is reluctant to acknowledge safety problems with vaccines.
The public is ill-served by this cover-up to protect the status quo.
With so many vested interests in play, who can be relied upon to provide objective research into vaccine effectiveness and safety?
For more general discussion on flu vaccination see: Annual flu vaccination and the influenza industry
Special Report: How vaccine scares cast shadows over science. Thomson Reuters News & Insight. 21 March 2013: http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/03/21/us-vaccines-narcolepsy-specialreport-idUSBRE92K06620130321
This entry was posted in Adverse Reactions, Flu Vaccine, Vaccination - suppression of dissent and tagged adverse reactions, Andrew Wakefield, flu vaccination, GlaxoSmithKline, narcolepsy, Pandemrix, vaccine safety on March 22, 2013 by elizabethhart.
Petition against HPV vaccines – please consider signing this petition! November 19, 2014
Arrogant scientists and dangerous 'gain-of-function' experiments – a letter to the US National Science Advisory Board for Biosecurity (NSABB) October 27, 2014
Request for retraction of the Cochrane Vaccines Field systematic review re vaccine safety and aluminium August 11, 2014
UPDATE: Interim response from NHMRC re vaccination policy and practice in Australia July 21, 2014
UPDATE: Vaccine safety and aluminium – a challenge to Cochrane July 17, 2014
Vaccine safety and aluminium – a challenge to The Cochrane Collaboration July 8, 2014
French Vaccine Debates – UPDATE June 9, 2014
Boy given Gardasil HPV vaccine against mother's wishes May 23, 2014
France: Aluminium adjuvants and HPV vaccines up for debate May 21, 2014
The MMR second dose – an email to the President of the Australian Medical Association May 3, 2014
Over-vaccination of dogs with parvovirus and other vaccines remains prevalent practice April 23, 2014
Questions about vaccination policy and ethics for the NHMRC April 16, 2014
UPDATE: NHMRC Ethics Committee and the MMR second dose April 13, 2014
Vaccination – suppression of dissent and biased media reporting April 7, 2014
Measles/Mumps/Rubella (MMR) vaccination and 'informed consent' – a letter to the NHMRC Australian Health Ethics Committee March 24, 2014
International Medical Researchers Issue Warning about HPV Vaccine Side Effects March 23, 2014
Vaccination committees – power, influence, and 'conflicts of interest'… March 10, 2014
'Informed consent' and the Measles/Mumps/Rubella (MMR) vaccine – challenging the US Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices March 6, 2014
Adverse events after HPV vaccination – international symposium held in Japan, February 2014 February 26, 2014
Vaccination – a climate change commentator enters the fray… January 28, 2014
More re conflicts of interest and 'the science of immunisation'… January 28, 2014
Court orders girls must have MMR vaccination against their and their mother's wishes November 15, 2013
The Conversation – a marketing arm for the university and research sector? November 13, 2013
HPV vaccine promotion and government interference November 11, 2013
More on over-vaccination of pets… October 25, 2013
UPDATE: Response from Professor Ronald Schultz re vaccination 'boosters' for dogs October 1, 2013
Paul Offit and the MMR 'booster' September 6, 2013
Controversial HPV Vaccination – Recent developments in Israel, India and Japan September 6, 2013
Over-vaccination of dogs with unnecessary 'boosters' August 21, 2013
UPDATE: Conflicts of interest and 'the science of immunisation' August 19, 2013
Influenza: marketing vaccine by marketing disease May 21, 2013
Conflicts of interest and 'the science of immunisation' May 13, 2013
Is universal HPV vaccination justifiable? May 2, 2013
"Tot given MMR jab without mum's permission" April 2, 2013
The reluctance to acknowledge adverse reactions to vaccination March 22, 2013
MMR + Varicella – required in Australia July 2013 March 22, 2013
'Gain-of-function' experiments
Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP)
Aluminium adjuvant
Australian Medical Association
Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority
Australian Technical Advisory Group on Immunization (ATAGI)
Chickenpox / Varicella Vaccine
Cochrane Vaccines Field
Companion Animal Vaccines (Dogs)
Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation (JCVI)
Measles/Mumps/Rubella (MMR) Vaccine
Meningococcal
NHMRC Australian Health Ethics Committee
Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee
Vaccination – suppression of dissent
Vaccine industry and conflicts of interest
Whooping Cough / Pertussis Vaccine