Following on from yesterday's blog about Paul Offit's Science Friction, .. today's blog is about how Nikki Turner's presentations to the Parliamentary Select Committee are tainted with the same "blight". Part of Paul Hutchison's recommendations to Parliament included Nikki Turner's unfactual statement (under her IMAC guise) that if vaccination against measles stopped, New Zealand would see 5,000 to 6,000 measles hospitalisation and 20 - 60 deaths per year. A pretty spectacular statement when the medical literature (and Starship hospital policy) makes it so clear that complications and deaths can be radically reduced with vitamin A. In this upload, you will see IMAC's measles claims, and following that, you will see the death decline graph for New Zealand. Following on from that you will see....
... a report from the 1932 Appendices to the New Zealand Parliamentary journals about measles and other childhood disease BEFORE the advent of antibiotics, which starts with the sentence... "For several years now...." Read that VERY carefully. After that, you will see two pages from medical journal called paediatric Research, which shows similar progress in USA before the antibiotic era - as well as what the major problems were. Before anyone suggests I might have taken Shulman out of context, here is the full paper.
For some, the New Zealand measles death decline graph alone, might be enough to say, "I see what you mean", but it's not enough for me.
It's important that people see and understand a lot more evidence in order that there is absolutely no wriggle room whatsoever to rebut my next statement, which is: "The only person who could make such a ficticious statement is a person who is EITHER completely unaware of the capacious data within the Auckland University Philson Medical Library AND the Ministry of Health's Library on infectious disease death decline...., which proves IMAC'S measles statements wrong ... OR --- choses --- to ignore that humungous stack of information on that topic."
Members of the public, don't even need to look in medical literature to know that what she says is fiction. All they need to do is take a week, and go to the History room on Auckland Public library and troll through all the Appendices to Parliamentary Journals and Official Year books from 1872 to now.
It doesn't matter to me which of those two red options above, is the correct one, because either way, such a person isn't trustworthy enough to be "advising" the Government.
A knowledgeable person might also think that if DR Paul Hutchison remembered - or checked - his own medical literature, or that held in the Wellington Department of Health Library, he would have challenged her on that statement, and more besides. But unfortunately, whatever medical history education he undertook, appears to have escaped his radar.
Here are three graphs on New Zealand deaths from Measles and diphtheria, and patients discharged from NZ hospitals after whooping cough. Now, isn't that interesting. Did YOU realise that the pertussis vaccine is about as useful as tits on a bull?
As you saw, the measles death decline graph - as well as the diphtheria graph - clearly showed relentless and steady death decline which had had NOTHING to do with vaccination.
However, if you REALLY wanted to stretch the truth, you could make a case for 20 - 60 measles deaths in the middle of the great depressions, either at the end of the 1890's, or in the 1930's. But...today?
You might ask, "How did such a remarkable measles death decline happen?" No doubt some might suggest... "Well, you know... antibiotics and all... were the next saviour of the world".
Did antibiotics which came on stream about 1945, contribute to the decline of measles deaths, or general Infant Mortality in New Zealand? Have a look at this New Zealand information on our infant mortality, and assess for yourself which vaccine/antibiotic had much to do with those official figures. In that context, study these carefully, particularly page five. Do the maths for yourself.
This sort of official evidence isn't just confined to New Zealand of course. He's a pdf of the same evidence from Chicago.
These are crucial concepts which Nikki Turner, Paul Offit and all vaccine defenders consistently refuse to take into account in their fictitious statistical massaging. As the dates and information in Shulman's article graphically illustrates measles death decline in USA was well on the way well before any vaccines. Using that go-back machine, Google news archives, I picked up this wonderful doctor's report from a Berkeley newspaper in 1935.
I had to laugh today, when Paul Offit stated that the "anti-vaccination movement: was born in USA in 1982". (read transcript here ). Silly man. Smallpox vaccination was "compulsory" in USA from before 1900, yet the dear doctor from Berkeley pointed out that so many children hadn't had the smallpox vaccine in the west and midwest.... because of a very strong anti-vaccination movement! Be comforted though, because the dear doctor from Berkeley confirmed, as does the medical literature from UK from the anti-vaccine uprising there from the 1870's onwards, that the majority of the smallpox cases had been so mild ... and presumably inconsequential. He did not, however, divulge how many were vaccinated.
One of the great things about internet is that if you know how to use it, and where to look, you can find out the FACTS for yourself.
So just how many of any of the diseases for which there is a vaccine, which people like Nikki Turner try to use as emotional blackmail, were actually prevented by vaccines? What sort of death decline can we REALLY attribute to vaccines?
Then ask yourself why it is that you never get shown medical articles like this?
Nikki Turner's unsubstantiated use of hypothetical measles cases and deaths as a scaremongering tactic, is the sort of selective use of information we have come to expect from the worlds' vaccine zealots .
But there is a specific reason for this in Nikki Turner's "plan".... to the Government, which I will deal with in the next blog.