Valerie Foley

Posts Tagged ‘Vaccines’

Surely we can do this better…

In Medical, Parent issues, Perceptions, Research on May 22, 2014 at 1:51 am

On 19 May, 2014 mainstream media put an issue to bed.

Vaccines don’t cause autism. Once and for all. Let’s all accept the truth and move on.

The headlines were based on a paper published by the University of Sydney. My hometown. A great university. My interest was piqued. Oddly, it was produced by a research unit within the Discipline of Surgery, but it’s got the university logo on there. Seemed legit. The author appeared on the radio, soon after, and spoke to his paper. It was an unusual interview but again, I’m involved and interested… so I went looking for the paper.

It’s called ‘Vaccines are not associated with autism: a meta-analysis of case-control and cohort studies’. And unless you live in a box, you will have heard something about it over the last couple of days.

This paper is truly one of the oddest things I have ever seen, and I have seen a few odd things.

From its curious authors, the vehemently inaccurate promotion of the paper, the gleeful grasping of spuriously false headlines and finally, and most importantly, the paper itself… in my opinion, it’s the academic embodiment of the Chinese ‘interesting times’ proverb.

Let’s take a look.

First though, read the paper. Right through. Follow the links to the studies it references.

Follow the links in this post. I’m not trying to make anyone think anything, and I could care less how people process their own choices.

Clearly I am pro-vaccine safety. What you are is your own business.

Give this some time. It actually deserves it, if you genuinely care about whether there is indeed a link between vaccines and autism.

 

First, lets take a look at the authors.

Luke E Taylor (1)

This individual, the number one author, is a bit of a mystery. He doesn’t seem to come up on PubMed, apart from this article.

Could be this guy, a recent graduate of Brown University. He’s listed as a ‘senior’ in 2013. I’m assuming they don’t mean me to insert ‘citizen’ after that. He’s very interested in coal divestment.

Or it could be some mysterious unpublished very recent graduate of an Australian university. See Amy L. Swerdfeder, below.

 

Amy L Swerdfeger (1)

She seems to be a recently graduated medical student, with a Bachelor of Surgery completed in 2013. No stated link to autism or child health. She contributed to this paper as a student, one would assume, unless the paper was thrown together in three months, which would surely be problematic, in academic terms.

Previous to her medical study, Amy was a chemical engineer with Roche. She has one publication listed on PubMed. It’s this one.

 

Dr Guy D Eslick (2)

The man is an epidemiologist. His stated research interests on the University of Sydney’s website are:

My research has primarily focused on determining risk factors and understanding the epidemiology of gastrointestinal diseases for the most part upper gastrointestinal cancers, predominantly, esophageal cancer and related disorders. I am also interested in understanding the epidemiology of Rare Cancers.

He’s highly published, very experienced, clearly credible in his field.

Am I the only one who thinks it’s odd that his field has never included autism, childhood disease prevention, autism… any of the stuff that would indicate an interest in this paper. Dr Eslick says in the New York Post he was inspired by watching ‘medical documentaries on the issue’… Which seems totally legit, because research dollars are just lying around on the floor of universities and inspired TV watcher-academics can just pick them up and use them for whatever.

 

To summarise:

The two lead authors have NEVER published (well, at least they don’t exist on PubMed and we’re told that’s where we should be looking) and unsurprisingly have not spoken on behalf of the paper in the media. They may or may not have been students when the paper was created.

The 2nd author, sometimes referred to as the ‘senior author’ or ‘corresponding author’ (presumably because he might be the only one with a current paying job in the field of academia) is well published, in other fields of medicine. His children had febrile seizures post vax, but he wasn’t scared away because he gave them paracetamol they are just fine now. Pretty solid proof that vaccines don’t cause autism, right? Well, solid enough that he included that little anecdote in the paper.

He spoke so poorly in the media on behalf of not just the paper, but the general area of autism causation, he may as well have not turned up. FWIW, if you are going to slam Wakefield (and it’s totally your right), it would make sense if you slammed as though you had read the retracted paper. Then you would be able to slam it accurately. TL/DR… it doesn’t mention not vaccinating kids. Not once. Even though you claimed it does on radio.

If a transcript or podcast for Guy Eslick’s interview on the ABC appears, I will link it, but aside from a lot of odd mumbling… he said something very unusual in an interview with Richard Glover on ABC 702 (our public broadcast station here in Sydney).

He said the paper references a study comparing autism rates in vaxed and unvaxed children. (It does no such thing. It references a study comparing children vaccinated with thimerosal containing vaccines and vaccines containing no thimerosal. A very very different thing).

A vaxed vs unvaxed study is the one thing that has not been done, and is the one thing that is being consistently called for by both the autism community and concerned members of the US Congress.

Why would a professional epidemiologist, ‘inspired’ by something he’d seen on a screen, make a mistake about an important key finding of his own study?

 

Then there’s the paper itself.

Touted in the media as a study that blows the lid off the idea that vaccines could cause autism, a study that involved over 1.2 million kids and a triumph for Autism Speaks (my personal favourite given that their only involvement unless there’s something going on that I can’t identify was to promote its publication on their website).

It’s not a study. It’s a meta-analysis. Calling it a study is like calling a cardboard shanty town a brand new housing development.

It’s not new information, and therefore not anything resembling news. Being a meta analysis, it collates and reviews old information. That’s the point. The idea that the autism community would somehow benefit from the arbitrary collation of information that most thinking parents are very familiar with and have ready access to is perverse to say the least.

It isn’t published by anyone with a link to previous autism research or vaccine science and works very hard to state its independence and lack of conflict of interest. Given its publication under the auspices of the University of Sydney, the authors should not need to state within the paper that they don’t feel remotely conflicted. Unless, of course, the lady doth protest too much.

Autism Speaks pushed this baby hard. So much so that their news release was shared 34.5 thousand times on FB (as of 3 days after they released it). Compare this with 737 shares of an older passionate John Elder Robison plea to self advocates, and 559 pitiful clicks for a gut bacteria article.

 

The content of the paper raises many hairs located on or near the back of my neck, as well.

Studies that drew their cohort from actual VAERS reports were excluded.

Papers that recruited their cohort of participants solely from the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) in the United States were not included due to its many limitations and high risk of bias including unverified reports, under reporting, inconsistent data quality, absence of an unvaccinated control group and many reports being filed in connection with litigation.

So, actual studies involving individual people who managed to get their adverse event report through the system (no mean feat) were excluded because of possible bias. But studies funded by public health officials, with legitimate vested interests in promoting universal vaccination and companies with stated interests in the area… they were a-ok. On other matters, I wonder, if VAERS is a cesspool of bias, where is the reliable information relating to adverse events in relation to vaccine administration? I guess it… um… doesn’t exist.

On VAERS, a fine system if you can kick it into gear, I hear, the authors seem to have forgotten something. It’s American. The authors are Australian, and while I fully concede the internet brings us all together in an amazing way, it doesn’t make us all American. Why an Australian epidemiologist would, in the conclusion of his paper, encourage me (an Australian reader who lives in his city) to make a report of an adverse event following vaccination to VAERS is beyond me. We have a fine system here called AEFI. It’s a different system as our governments are distinctly different. Unless, of course, the paper was not written for me, but for a distinctly American audience. Odd, as it includes in its analysis papers from the UK, Europe, and Japan (and strangely, no Australian data). Also odd, as it is a paper from the University of Sydney, but yay for globalism.

 

It’s a study of statistics.

Epidimiology is a wonderful field, that has saved many lives by analyzing and predicting trends in disease. But is it the best way to view the potential safety of individual vaccines on individual human children?

In my experience, using statistics to analyze and predict the safety of a vaccine to an individual child (because that’s what it comes down to when you do the ‘vax hold’ on your baby in the GP’s office) is an interesting tactic.

It’s like telling someone who is just about to slam on the brakes because a semi-trailer has jack-knifed at high speed in front of them, that its OK because this stretch of road has had less accidents on it than the road they took yesterday.

The two things are related, and semi relevant to each other,  just not in relation to the actual decision at hand.

But it’s powerful hoo doo for the family driving down the same stretch of road tomorrow. It’s way safer than the alternate route, statistically. So their chances of making it to Grandma’s house in one piece are high.

It means very little to yesterday’s driver. But very little means much to them, as they are (best case scenario) recovering from a serious road accident.

 

It’s spurious science anyway.

A couple of quotes from the paper that make me go, ‘Hmmm…’

“The only review to suggest that a link could not be excluded was that by Ratajczak looking into the aetiology of autism and concluded that it is multifactorial involving genetics and/or inflammation of the brain caused by a wide variety of environmental toxins, one of which may be mercury.”

Aaaaaaand, this isn’t significant because…? In a selective analysis that excludes studies of actual adverse events, one related study backs up the concerns of parents worldwide and it’s not significant because it’s only one of lots that say other things, statistically.

But sure, no link. Whatevs. No link in any of these either, right?

 

“Studies were included that looked at either MMR vaccination, cumulative mercury (Hg) or cumulative thimerosal dosage from vaccinations to ensure all proposed causes of ASD or regression were investigated.

ALL proposed causes of ASD or regression? That’s a broad church. One that is not even remotely charted by looking at three very limited issues.

 

“While at the level of the individual avoidance of immunisation may be seen as conferring lower risk by avoiding possible associated adverse events, the increase in parents deciding to take this course of action has substantially decreased ‘herd immunity’ among populations, subsequently increasing the risk of catching potentially more serious infectious diseases”

Apart from being the world longest sentence, and virtually impossible to decipher… I need some references on this one. How do we know parents choosing to not immunize because they want to avoid possible adverse events (and not because of their religious beliefs, social morays, they fear needles) has substantially decreased ‘herd immunity’. And while we are at it, why put herd immunity in inverted commas? Unless it might not be a totally reliable medical thing, but a very effective marketing strategy. After all, life long immunity from a naturally fought infection doesn’t require booster shots for anyone in the herd.

While I’m on this paragraph, how do those infectious diseases become MORE serious as a result of people choosing not to vaccinate against them? I’d really like a reference on that.

 

Finally, the title of the paper. ‘Vaccines are not associated with autism: An evidence based meta-analysis of case-control and cohort studies’

Good solid stuff right there. Sends a clear message to the punters.

It does however fail to acknowledge that the paper looks at studies that looked at the MMR, DTP/DT (known as DTaP in Australia) and ‘thimerosal-containing vaccines’. So, the other vaccines, the ones that don’t contain thimerosal, Hg mercury or aren’t the MMR (that would be the vast majority of the Australian vax schedule)… those ones are OK? Aren’t vaccines at all? Must be fine because these ones are totally OK?

This is really really dodgy PR. It’s not information parents can use to feel safer about the relationship between vaccines and ‘autism’ or the actual risks to their individual child.

Well, not if you look past the sound bites.

And if you do want to look beyond the soundbites, please please look here. Heather White’s detailed analysis of the science behind in this study is seriously the most useful thing you will read on this matter.

 

My questions.

1. Inspiration aside, why would academics, under the pump and struggling for resources, develop and  publish a paper on a subject area that is not their own?

Unpublished number one authors, total lack of experience in the area the paper focuses, odd American slant on an Australian university paper… what’s going on here?

This is like getting a caterpillar to teach nutrition because it likes to eat vegetables. It seems like a cute and semi-credible idea, but really it’s just plain odd.

 

2. Why did this paper get so much airtime?

It’s not new information. It’s all accessible. It ignores actual studies based on actual reports of adverse events reported in the USA. It ignores data from its own country.

Leave aside the science, and just look at the methods. This isn’t world shattering stuff, simply a new look at old data.

And yet, almost thirty five thousand shares from AS alone, in three days. 3.5 thousand hits on a google news search.

 

3. When people around the world, including Australia, have children whose major post vaccination afflictions include seizures, gastrointestinal disturbance, auto immune disease, encephalopathy, mitochondrial disorders and progressive connective tissue disorders… why do we continue to ignore them?

Maybe because it’s easier to think of those conditions as the mystery meat of developmental medicine than call them what they are – autism. Or maybe because what they are saying is scary. Or maybe because the change that would be required if we listened properly seems so huge, it’s better to let Forbes Magazine call them crazy. Over and over and over. It’s better to shut down rational thought, and replace it with a smokescreen of big words and calmative statistics.

A generation of ‘coincidental’ paediatric collateral damage is not good enough, as an outcome of this ‘discussion’. It’s just not.

I get people’s need to feel safe. I had it too. I felt really safe, before I vaccinated my child. I did the ‘right’ thing. And it all turned to health custard. My son is disabled for life, in a world that doesn’t recognize his disability as chronic, treatable, preventable or medical. That does not make me feel safe. I can’t contemplate what it will do for him when we are gone.

Comparing misery is a dirty game, so ‘would you rather a child with ‘seizures, gastrointestinal disturbance, auto immune disease, encephalopathy, mitochondrial disorders and progressive connective tissue disorders AKA autism or a kid with measles?’ is a very poor argument.

Standing up and asking the real questions, calmly, rationally, without fear mongering and without the might of Autism Speaks denial behind it, might just be a more mature approach.

Don’t you think?

Excuse me while I ask this guy.

 

Image

(OK, he’s a worm… damned internet, misrepresenting the ‘truth’ again)

 

 

 

Give this to anyone who thinks I am an idiot…

In Action, Medical, Parent issues, Perceptions, Research on September 25, 2013 at 6:28 am

Before I start… two warnings.

Avert your eyes and ears if you think you can’t handle reading about vaccination.

I think we really need to grow some sophistication when it comes to this issue, so I’m going to talk about it. I’m not going to argue, so if you are up for a barney, re-post this in your own networks and enjoy.

Also, this is long. Get a drink.

Almost a week ago, someone I have a lot of time for posted this article on Facebook.

At the time, I responded with a simple message that made it clear, politely, that it did not reflect either our experience or our understanding of the ‘science’ and pretty much left it at that. The discussion went on without me. I find this is the best way to preserve my mental and heart health.

On the same day, Billy and I went to the local pharmacy to pick up his epilepsy medication (a joy for another post).

A woman about my age and clearly under the weather, sat down next to Billy. She was, to put it politely, green around the gills and was waiting for her own medication. Billy was making one of those repetitive clucking noises with his throat that I know a lot of you will be familiar with, and I asked him to stop, suspecting that a woman on the verge of hurling would not respond well to that sound. She thanked me.

Somehow, in response to something someone said about a local chickenpox outbreak, the grateful green gilled woman said, ‘Oh WHY don’t people vaccinate their children!?’

At first I smiled politely. The lapsed Catholic in me didn’t want to walk straight into her bad books. Then I thought, ‘Screw that!’ (with the non-Catholic part of me) and said, ‘We don’t vaccinate anymore, because my son here is vaccine injured.’ I expected her to nod politely (we live in a polite neighbourhood) and ignore what I said, but instead she looked me in the eye and said ‘What does that mean?’.

I’ll interject here and say, I am not making this up to make a point. There is nothing I hate more than fruity autism blogs featuring clearly confected stories designed to make a hero out of the writer and a soft point about the wonders of autism. This woman exists, and she was genuinely blown away by the fact that kids can be damaged by vaccines. Which, in turn, blew me away to a more hopeful place.

I told her Billy’s story – that he didn’t cope well with any of the vaccines in the first year of his life, that his tongue swelled and he became lethargic for days after each one, that he still blitzed the average milestones up to his first birthday, that he developed rubella from the MMR and when he recovered he was silent. Much speech and occupational therapy later, he got some (but nowhere near all) skills back. He was, by then, diagnosed with autism.

Then, at 3.5 after struggling with the varicella and meningicoccal vaccinations, Billy got sick. He was weak, he wasn’t eating, he was vomiting anything he put in his mouth. He was in hospital for two weeks, not improving much, when a nurse noticed he was retaining urine and dragging his left foot when he tried to walk.

In what seemed like the speed of light, Billy was transferred to another, bigger hospital. He was poked and prodded. He gave what seemed like too much blood from his tiny body, he had nerve conduction tests and a spinal tap, he had an MRI at midnight. By now he was paralysed from the waist down, his remaining reflexes were hard to detect, his body was weak.

He was diagnosed with Transverse Myelitis and high dose steroid infusions were started. We were told by the hospital that they suspected a delayed vaccine reaction, he was enrolled in a longitudinal study of vaccine injured children, his neurologist said ‘no more vaccinations for this child.’ We were told 30% of people with TM did not survive, 30% survived with significant disability, and 30% recovered fully.

It took another two weeks of treatment, trial, error and some truly spectacular doctoring (on both ends of the spectrum) for our tiny boy to walk and talk (actually he talked a LOT better, but that’s a steroid related story for another day) and be strong enough to come home. He came through with some residual nerve damage that complicated an already complex toileting journey, but beyond that, he was back.

I didn’t tell the green lady all of that. I gave her the Cliff Notes. She was sick as a dog, and Billy was insisting on seeing how much of his almost 5ft frame he could cram onto a glass shelving unit.

But she listened and when I drew breath she said, ‘Why are you so calm about this?’

I said I’m not really. I’m like an emotional duck – smooth-ish on the surface, but beating myself with birch fronds underneath. But I am determined those in our position should share our stories as rationally as we can, otherwise it’s easy for people to dismiss said stories as perverse, money hating, conspiracy theorist, whale singing, dismissible nonsense.

And, they’re just not.

And even though she hastily thanked me and excused herself, with her hand over her mouth, the lady in the chemist understood that for the first time.

So, why am I forcing my figurative family slide show on random strangers?

I have all sorts of suspicions about the broader context around vaccination, just as I do about the safety of food and medication and public transport and building codes and international and domestic security.

(Did I mention I am Irish? We are quite fond of anticipatory catastrophising… which really means I should never ever have been put in this position in the first place, but I digress.)

Despite my underlying, nagging fears about protecting my child from what seemed like very remote-chance conditions given our lifestyle,  I did exactly as I was told. Mostly because I was terrified something would happen to my precious child.

I’d seen news stories about babies with whooping cough, which (despite its jolly name) doesn’t involve the good kind of whooping. I’d had measles and mumps. My memory of them didn’t involve much hilarity.

I definitely asked my doctor questions. I wanted to know about how safe the vaccines were (very, I was told). I wanted to know what was in them (non-live viruses, I was told). I wanted to know how to protect my baby from trauma (pre-emptive paracetamol, I was told).

So we vaccinated. Repeatedly.

We did everything we were told, and our son didn’t respond well. Instead of being protected from harm, he was walked into harm repeatedly. By us, the adults charged with his loving care.

Thankfully, his doctors (at a major children’s hospital) are open enough to acknowledge what has happened. It’s acknowledged as something they have seen many times… it’s not dismissed (as it is for so many other children). I’d be happier if we lived in a time when their views were openly discussed and shared, but we don’t.

Why?

Well, let’s go back to the stupid news article, and the ‘conversation’ about it. Let’s think about what people do when they read an article called ‘Six Myths about Vaccination’. They don’t research, they don’t question. People react.

There is no subtlety, no analysis, no discourse in articles that come with the word ‘myth’ in the title. And there is no subtlety in the response to them either.

Like most fear based discussions, people retreat to their safe corners, without taking more than a moment to acknowledge the validity of the other corners. Which (I’m guessing) feels awesomely righteous if you have a fully vaccinated child who sailed through the experience and is happily dancing toward adulthood. It must feel disturbing if you are a parent who thoroughly researched and made the decision to not vaccinate.

It feels like being kicked in the guts repeatedly when you are us.

So let’s get real about this.

Here’s what the Australian Government’s Understanding Childhood Immunisation booklet says about vaccination:

“Immunisation is a simple, safe and effective way of protecting children against certain diseases. The risks of these diseases are far greater than the very small risks of immunisation.”

Let’s start with ‘simple’.

You should read this, it’s freely available online. Most people don’t. I didn’t. None of it sounds simple to me, but hey, I’m not a doctor.

In addition to containing the immunising antigen(s), vaccines may also contain the following:

  – Adjuvants, which enhance the immune response to an antigen; an example is aluminium hydroxide.

 – Preservatives, which reduce the risk of contamination; some examples are 2-phenoxyethanol, which is also used in many cosmetics and pharmaceuticals, and thiomersal, which is used in the Q fever vaccine but is not present in any of the vaccines on the National Immunisation Program for young children.

 – Stabilisers, which improve the shelf-life and help to protect the vaccine from adverse conditions; examples are sucrose, mannitol, lactose and gelatin. Stabilisers are also used in most confectionery and many pharmaceuticals.

 – Emulsifiers or surfactants, which alter the surface tension of the liquid vaccine; examples are polysorbate-80 and sorbitol. Emulsifiers are added to most ice creams and many pharmaceuticals.

 – Residuals, which are minute or trace amounts of substances that remain after the manufacture of the vaccine; examples of residuals detectable in some vaccines are formaldehyde, antibiotics such as neomycin or polymyxin, and egg proteins.

Further details of a particular vaccine’s constituents can be found in either the product information (PI) or the consumer medicines information (CMI) for individual vaccines. This information is presented in the shaded box for each vaccine under the disease-specific chapters in Part 4 of this Handbook (current June 2012); however, it is important to note that PIs and CMIs are updated periodically. The most current versions of the PI (and CMI) for vaccines (and other medicines) are available from the TGA website (www.tga.gov.au).

I don’t use preservatives, emulsifiers, surfactants, residuals or adjuvants in the rest of my life. I have no idea why we think it’s OK to inject them into our bodies, but hey… the scientists know it’s safe right?

Hmmm… ‘safe’. Let’s look at safe.

Read this to see how vaccines are safety tested: TGA Vaccine Regulation Overview

(TL/DR: tested by the manufacturer, not an independent body or a government body, but by the manufacturer who stands to make untold millions from the acceptance of one vaccine into the national schedule. Not duplicated or validated, not even reviewed, simply viewed by an Advisory Committee and ratified. Not tested in combination with the other vaccines already in the schedule. Privately tested and risk assessed in the hen house, by the fox.)

The best possible outcome is that epidemiologically (statistically across the population) a vaccine can be shown to cause a minimal percentage of AEFIs – adverse events following immunisation.

Then, once they are added to the schedule, there’s the question of individual safety – actual AEFIs to consider.

The information no-one wants to acknowledge, is that adverse reactions to vaccinations happen. They, as the epidemiological (AKA ‘safety) data states, are uncommon. They are not, by any stretch of the imagination, statistically rare. Especially when you consider how few are reported and that even fewer are acknowledged.

Billy is someone who experienced a series of adverse reactions to vaccinations. Despite this, we were encouraged to continue. We did. He is now permanently disabled.

Would he always have been disabled? As his parents who have lived in such close proximity to him and his development, we do not believe so. We do not think there is anything close to evidence to prove he was ‘born disabled’ (and we have a LOT of video to back up our lived experience). Would he be ‘less’ disabled had we made different choices? Potentially.

Hilariously (and I mean that in the non-hilarious sense) many people feel a perfect right to insist we are wrong (and oddly NONE of them are doctors). The doctors, at least the experienced ones who have lived and worked for a long time in the company of children like Billy, absolutely agree with us. In fact, they were the ones who suggested it to us.

The most recent available Australian data on reported vaccine reactions is sobering.

Here are some facts:

“The overall AEFI reporting rate for 2011 was 10.4 per 100,000 population, compared with 17.4 in 2010. The AEFI reporting rate was the third highest for the period 2000 to 2011, after peaks in 2010 (17.4).”

It happens. It happened to us.

I’m not even close to saying all vaccination should cease, but that is only because I do not understand enough to say anything like that with any confidence. It’s clear to me it was not safe for us, and for a long time our doctors insisted it was, despite clear signs to the contrary.

I think we should find out who vaccination is safe for and who it isn’t safe for. Then, when people make a choice, they are making the right one for them – not for the economy, not for the statistics, not for their access to government benefits, but for their individual child’s health.

There’s no arguing that people dying unnecessarily of serious disease is something we want to prevent. Vaccinating abundantly against childhood diseases that rarely have serious side effects and against conditions that we may have very little chance of being exposed to… seems like economically driven overkill to me.

Let’s look at measles and hepatitis B.

The government’s own figures on the risks of serious complications from measles make it very clear that the risks of serious complications are low in unimmunized people. They are lower in immunized people. So, you can still get measles if you are immunized, according to the government. If you get measles naturally and fight it, you are immune for life.

So, now we are onto the issue of vaccination being ‘effective’. It obviously is, in the short term, for some people, but clearly, immunity is not guaranteed. If it was, vaccinated people would not get measles, and boosters would not be necessary.

There are numerous documented cases of disease outbreaks among vaccinated populations, highlighting the short term effects of vaccine mediated immunity –
Mumps
Measles
Chickenpox

Along with numerous simple analyses of the validity of herd immunity and the relationship between vaccine mediated immunity and passively acquired (maternal antibodies) immunity.

People are questioning, because there are valid questions to be asked. Big questions and little questions, broad societal ones and specific individual ones.

Hep B, is an easy vaccine to question.

The government’s own information on Hepatitis B explains how it is transmitted:

– perinatal transmission from infected mother to neonate (vertical transmission), usually occurring at or around the time of birth
 – parenteral or mucosal exposure to infected blood and other bodily fluids; common scenarios include:
* sharing of contaminated equipment that penetrates the skin, such as needles (among persons who inject drugs), tattoo equipment, body-piercing equipment, acupuncture equipment and razor blades
* needle-stick injury, for example, in a healthcare setting
* contact between infective body fluids and mucous membranes
* sexual contact (including vaginal or anal intercourse, although the latter is associated with a higher risk)
* non-sexual contact with an infected person (horizontal transmission), including household transmission, for example, child-to-child transmission through contact between open sores or wounds.

So… if I, as a mother was not infected (easy to ascertain) and had no plans to expose my child to anyone who was infected (again, easy to do), or to anyone who engages in any activity that might involve needles, razor blades or sexual activity with infected people (haven’t let him exchange bodily fluids with anyone like that yet) then he, as a newborn baby was vaccinated against hepatitis B because…

(INSERT YOUR ANSWER HERE BECAUSE CLEARLY THERE’S A GIANT GAP IN MY COGNITION THAT NEEDS FILLING)

So, vaccination not safe for everyone. It’s not effective for everyone. It is not simple for everyone. And there are some bizarre aspects to it that make no sense at all.

The issue here is very clear.

Whether you vaccinate or not is your business. However, it is a decision that requires thought and analysis. The decision cannot be made by your doctor because they are not you. The decision has to include your medical history and your family’s medical history.

It is a risk.

For some of us, the immediate risk level may be very low and for some that risk is very, very high. We do not know, with anything even resembling surety who is who (though I, personally would suggest anyone with a family history of auto-immune or metabolic issues or previous vaccine reactions could be given their own personal red flag right now).

If you have vaccinated and your child is OK, you are fortunate. Maybe a little, maybe a lot… but you are fortunate.

Maybe, rather than assuming people who choose not to vaccinate are idiots (acting on opinion, believing things that are not true, socially irresponsible), consider their position. It’s different to yours, but so is their DNA, and that is a crucial difference for many many reasons.

If vaccines work, then you are safe from infection. Then again, if vaccines worked, my son would not be disabled.

See what I did there?

It’s not simple. It’s not about facts or myths or right or wrong. It’s not black or white.

Life is full of grey, and this issue is among the greyest.

Now, go and play with your healthy kid. I’m here to answer any questions you have about our story (as long as you don’t threaten to vomit on me like the lady in the chemist).

PS. I truly hate that now that I have posted this, I am ducking for cover, awaiting the trolls and the nonsense that comes from posing questions about vaccine safety. May I remind everyone that I’m not even remotely interested in arguing. Accept the truth of my story. Take it elsewhere and use it for fodder if you wish.

But, please respect our position. We did not ask to be here, but now that we are, we think it irresponsible to remain silent, for all sorts of reasons.

We really need to get better at this.