Canadian Hysterics and the Vaccine Dilemma
By Neil Z. Miller
The great nation of Canada is experiencing birth pangs and an identity crisis induced by the free exchange of vaccine information. In January, I gave a vaccine presentation to a large group of holistic farmers in Ontario, Canada. There were about 250 people in attendance, including numerous Mennonites. Much like the Amish, or Pennsylvania Dutch, Mennonite families lead simple lives, often avoiding modern technology, including vaccination.
This vaccine conference was hosted by the owner of a family-owned Canadian company that supplies natural, GMO-free products supporting sustainable agriculture. They also provide consultation services for livestock and crop production. The owner of the company became aware of vaccine problems when several of his own cattle became severely sick after cattle on an adjoining farm were vaccinated. Both the vaccinated and unvaccinated animals were affected.
Only two speakers were invited to this conference: a homeopathic veterinarian and myself. The veterinarian lives in upstate New York and drove across the border at Niagara Falls. She was held up by customs agents for one hour because they claimed she was taking jobs away from Canadians (by giving a two-hour talk). The agents even went online to find other Canadian veterinarians whom they believed could give the same presentation at the conference. Later, after telling me this story, the veterinarian and I suspected that the agents were not happy that her talk was on vaccinations. (Providing homeopathy for horses and cows probably didn't help either.) Perhaps Canada is protective against nefarious American influences!
A few days before I gave my talk in Ontario, I was invited to give another talk in Canada, this time in Vancouver, British Columbia. (I love Vancouver, Canada. I vacationed there a few years ago and came to appreciate the land and people. The Canadians seemed so genuine and civilized.) Joel Lord, who was organizing this event, invited me to speak at his Vancouver Vaccine Summit. However, he told me that he was on a shoestring budget and couldn't afford to fly me up there but that I could give my presentation via Skype. Darn! I always welcome opportunities to share my vaccine knowledge and I readily agreed to participate but I was disappointed that I wasn't going to visit Vancouver once again.
Joel began organizing the one-day event in January and set the date for March 12. He rented out a space for the conference at Simon Fraser University (SFU). One week before the conference, the Centre for Inquiry, a "science-based atheist group," wrote a scathing letter to Andrew Petter, the president of the University, calling for the University to "acknowledge its mistake in allowing the promotion of inaccurate information and dangerous quackery to happen on its grounds." Several members of the University's Faculty of Health Sciences and some local medical doctors also added their signatures to this letter and exerted pressure on the president to deny endorsement of the conference.
Although SFU president Andrew Petter was being pressured to prohibit the vaccine conference from occurring, he stated: "We have a university policy. It says we support freedom of expression. It doesn't mean we endorse the views. One of the reasons we endorse freedom of expression is because we believe the views that are expressed that are false or unthinking will be exposed as such through an exchange of views."
Petter's response did not quell the impending firestorm. Several newspapers picked up on the controversy and fanned the flames. For example, CBC News wrote that scientists believe the conference "is a threat to the health of children and the community." Nearly 400 comments were posted in their online forum. Many of them called for shutting down the conference and censoring the free exchange of information. Others were downright nasty. For example, one person claimed that anti-vaccinators "would rather see kids dying and getting disfigured from old world diseases, just as long as those evil corporations don=t make a profit."
The forum was pre-moderated. I tried to post a comment but the moderators would not allow it to be posted. Here is what I wrote:
"Canadian health authorities recommend 9 vaccines — hepatitis B, diphtheria, tetanus, pertussis, rotavirus, pneumococcal, Hib, polio, and meningitis C — for 2‑month‑old infants. Yet, this combination of vaccines was never tested for safety in any scientific study. The individual vaccines were put through clinical trials but the synergistic effect of combining them during a single pediatric visit was not studied for toxic synergy. Thus, the Canadian immunization schedule is not evidence‑based; it is not based on science — it is pseudoscience. The pro‑vaccinators on this forum who are criticizing anyone who questions vaccines by calling them 'anti‑science' need to provide scientific evidence that the childhood immunization schedule is safe. Provide one study that was conducted to confirm that injecting 2‑month‑old infants with a battery of 9 drugs simultaneously is safe."
The moderators were allowing pro-vaccine propaganda to be posted but they were apparently censoring some comments, so I wrote to the moderators:
"Moderators, why are so many people on this forum allowed to call non‑vaccinators idiots or anti‑science? Their derogatory comments are permitted, yet you censor my very pertinent comments addressing the non‑scientific immunization schedule. I weep for Canada. If the censoring you have exhibited at CBC News is typical of other media outlets in Canada, I don't see how freedom of speech and democracy can survive. The great nation of Canada will eventually fall. You have my email address. At least be kind enough to tell me your reasons for stifling the free exchange of ideas."
I never received a response from the CBC News moderators. That was too bad because I could have also provided them with a recently published peer-reviewed study that I co-authored with Dr. Gary Goldman. We analyzed more than 38,000 official reports of infants that had adverse reactions following their vaccinations. We compared the number of vaccines each infant received to the severity of the adverse reaction. Infants who received the most vaccines were the most likely to be hospitalized and die. Our study confirms the dangerous practice of administering several vaccines simultaneously to infants. Our study also confirms the unscientific nature of the childhood immunization schedule: studies have not been conducted to determine the safety (or efficacy) of administering multiple vaccine doses in a variety of combinations as recommended by CDC guidelines. You can read our entire study here.
In the midst of all the pre-conference hysteria, I was contacted by the producer of a prominent radio station in Vancouver. The host of one of the shows wanted to interview me. Once on the air, he went into a frenzy about Dr. Wakefield and how he lost his license. Apparently, that was all the "proof" he needed to confirm that vaccines are safe and that anyone speaking out about them is crazy. He also told his audience that if the conference were allowed to proceed, it would cause huge epidemics throughout Canada and around the world, and would eventually lead to the end of civilization as we know it.
Meanwhile, demonstrations against the university and against the conference were being planned. Extra security was required and Joel Lord was forced to pay for it or lose the site. I was starting to feel good about not being in Vancouver, and my planned presentation via Skype from the safety of my home made sense.
When the conference finally started, there were technical difficulties with the sound and two of the presenters dropped out. I was asked to start my presentation early, right after Dr. Tetyana Obukhanych, a research immunologist. I had prepared a powerpoint presentation on the American and Canadian immunization schedules, ingredients in vaccines, and overdosed babies. However, due to technical difficulties I had to give my presentation without my powerpoint slides. (That didn't bother me too much since I have all the information in my head.) I also summarized the two vaccine studies that I co-authored with Dr. Goldman. (Our study on international immunization schedules and infant mortality rates can be read here:)
Following my presentation, I opened up the floor to questions. The audience could see and hear me on a big screen. I could see the audience as well. I answered questions on numerous topics including some that were clearly from pro-vaccinators. My talk lasted 90 minutes and ended with exuberant applause. Everyone left the conference more knowledgeable than when they arrived.
For more information about vaccines, read my article called Make an Informed Vaccine Decision.
Sherie
But all you are really doing is name-calling.
Posted by: For Sherie | April 11, 2013 at 11:10 AM
Historically, there have always been individuals - health professionals amongst them - who have opposed any change in healthcare practices, including some physicians who vigorously resisted washing their hands between patients.
I suggest that those who oppose vaccines are paranoid - you may not have trust your parents or other early caregivers.
Canada won't fall, as the author suggests, because we are guarded about allowing antivaccine people into our country.
One need only visit graveyards to know that vaccines prevent the massive loss of young children suffered by families less than a hundred years ago.
As for profit making companies marketing vaccines - aren't those who sell "natural" healthcare products out there to make a buck? Or do they give all those goodies away without charge?
As a former public health nurse with a keen interest in epidemiology, I'm encouraged to believe that we are no longer living in the Middle Ages - because most people are following the vaccine recommendations put forward by most health advisors and governments!
Posted by: Sherie Angevine | April 11, 2013 at 11:01 AM
"As we know, the dose makes the poison principle holds true with regard to vaccines."
In a narrow sense perhaps HOWEVER there is an overriding medical principal that should always be observed; the precautionary principal.
"First do no harm."
As applied to "vaccination" it says in part; do not inject mercury in any amount into a human body UNLESS you can prove the reward of injecting the mercury exceeds the risk of not injecting the mercury.
This of course applies to any substance injected but for mercury we have more than enough evidence to justify NEVER injecting one atom of mercury.
For example they tell us the mercury is NOT an active ingredient and is only a "preservative" which could be totally eliminated by supplying only single "vaccination" packaging.
Posted by: Lou | March 27, 2013 at 04:02 PM
The CBC can be counted on to toe the pharma line; it is after all government owned.
Posted by: Carter's Daddy | March 26, 2013 at 11:12 PM
Fanning the flames of passion through outright disinformation over many decades, the vaccine industry has managed to create a mob mentality in a portion of the populace, both here in the U.S. and, obviously, in Canada. To that degree, it's an inquisition. We can only hope to woo our way into closed minds with continued information. A can opener won't do it.
Good work, Joel and all who supported and participated in the event.
Posted by: Shawn Siegel | March 26, 2013 at 12:59 PM
+1 Robyn and samaxtics.
Kudos to Neil and Joel and others with the courage to stand up to the bullying. And SFU for standing up and advocating for free speech and open debate. And I am a bit embarrassed by the toady reaction to this event by the "un-debatable science" crowd, however I think the title of this piece - "Canadian Hysterics" - is a bit of a broad brush stroke.
Posted by: Shiny Happy Person | March 26, 2013 at 11:18 AM
Thanks Neil for your contribution to Joel's Vancouver conference. I live in Vancouver and though I could not make it to the conference that day, I do know of some that did and said that it was a great conference.
It is hard for me to fathom that here in Vancouver - home to Green Peace, multiculturalism, 420, environmentalists abound to name a few... including freedom of speech (check out the steps of the art gallery any day of the week) that there could be such a fuss by pro-vaccination groups towards Joel's Conference. But shockingly there was. What rock they crawled out from, I'm not sure... because most of us never knew they existed.
There are so many parents in BC that do not vaccinate(vaccines are not mandated in Canada)their children or themselves for that matter and I truly wish they would have known about this conference.
Kudos to Joel for persevering... I certainly hope he has another soon. I'll be there for sure.
Posted by: JC Travers | March 25, 2013 at 11:26 PM
Jeanette, you just said a mouthful. Their censorship efforts have the exact opposite effect of insipiring confidence. Why are they so afraid to discuss the issues? Judging from the people I spoke to on the phone they thought it was quite odd, out of proportion.
Posted by: Jen | March 25, 2013 at 11:23 PM
Ah its just a controversial topic, I'm Canadian and I'm not vaccinated, and neither is my daughter. There will always be people brainwashed by the vaccine promoters, but some of us have brains enough to make an educated decision and not just get swept up by the hype. We are allowed to be exempt at least, unlike some states.
Posted by: Robyn | March 25, 2013 at 07:05 PM
I wish more institutions took this position:
"One of the reasons we endorse freedom of expression is because we believe the views that are expressed that are false or unthinking will be exposed as such through an exchange of views."
Are vaccination-under-any-and-all-circumstances proponents afraid of being convinced otherwise, themselves, or just afraid of others learning how much current vaccination practices violate informed consent? Their avid censorship certainly doesn't inspire confidence. It actually brings considerations of more nefarious motives to mind, my mind at least.
Posted by: Jeannette Bishop | March 25, 2013 at 06:21 PM
Those evil vaccine quacks...
Posted by: CS | March 25, 2013 at 05:43 PM
Samaxtics, I totally agree with you that the Gorski worshippers (largely American) are the ones commenting and putting in their 2cents on events such as this and Jenny M's appearance at a Canadian cancer event (I happen to think the women would have enjoyed her energy and positive outlook). In fact, I think it was an American doc that first raised issue with it and started the hate campaign. Of course in Canada we would have some docs/researchers who would be more in favour of vaccines than questioning any problems but it has to chap their arses that there is an increasing amount of research coming out of Canada that isn't so favour able toward vaccine safet/efficacy- ex.s: MMR timing and efficacy, flu shot efficacy for seniors and in general, flu shots and GB risk, Shaw/Tomljenovich's works etc.
Posted by: Jen | March 25, 2013 at 04:41 PM
Although Public Health Canada and, I think WHO, mention Canada as a hep b at birth country, this vaccine is not on the recommended schedule for most provinces (thank God). I actually spoke to someone at the president's office at SFU and they seemed very confident in their stance on letting the conference be hosted- even the telephone directory person thought it was weird that all the "science"- types were so worked up over it. Too many people have been adversely affected by vaccines (even if the pro-vaccine zealots only casually acknowledge that vaccine's can have risks, as with any medical intervention)
. What's odd is that measles vaccine is recommended earlier than 2years, contrary to the latest Canadian research finding that MMR given before 2years does not confer very strong protection.
Posted by: Jen | March 25, 2013 at 03:56 PM
Vaccine mafias are greedy genocidal quacks, nothing more. And so called science vaccinology is pure quackery. Congrats for bravery to confront these quacks and criminals.
Posted by: no vac | March 25, 2013 at 03:04 PM
Re: the customs agents. It’s no different if you are a Canadian going into the States. Ridiculous rules and regulations are the norm for both countries. When I lived in the States and before I got my green card, I was not even allowed to volunteer for a charity organization. I know of a case where a snowbird (a Canadian who lives in the States during the winter) was tossed out of the country for 5 years for retrieving a model plane off the roof of his wheel-chair bound neighbour because she could have hired someone to do it.
Moving on....
The Health and Science dept. of SFU were recently the recipients of a $1.4M donation of lab instruments from Merck. Of course they felt compelled to speak out about this conference. SFU is happy to tell you or anyone else to STFU for $1.4M.
When you read the comment section of these articles, many of the commentators are the same people that worship at Gorski et al’s feet. Not even Canadian. Most Canadians are not impassioned enough to write in to these papers. And for that reason I’d view them as mostly paid pharma shills, American in nationality no doubt. It must be distressing to the pharmaceutical companies that our medical system is socialized and as such it must be harder to influence doctors the way they do in the States. Not much in the way of vaccine requirements/mandates here either. Even the BC nurse’s union were able to shut down the flu shot /wear a mask job requirement.
So of course they are going to try to influence at the university level. But in our everyday life in conversations with people, my husband and I are amazed at how many people are saying no to vaccines. And these are people who don’t even have family members with autism. So people are thinking about this issue, researching and choosing not to vaccinate. Even if they aren’t writing in to papers to voice their opinion. Which is more the Canadian way.
Posted by: samaxtics | March 25, 2013 at 01:14 PM
"All substances are poisons; there is none which is not a poison. The right dose differentiates a poison"
- Paracelsus (1493-1541)
"The Dose Makes the Poison"
"A substance can produce the harmful effect associated with its toxic properties only if it reaches a susceptible biological system within your body in a sufficient concentration (a high enough dose). The toxic effect of a substance increases as the exposure (or dose) to the susceptible biological system increases. For all chemicals there is a dose response curve, or a range of doses that result in a graded effect between the extremes of no effect and 100% response (toxic effect). All chemical substances will exhibit a toxic effect given a large enough dose. If the dose is low enough even a highly toxic substance will cease to cause a harmful effect. The toxic potency of a chemical is thus ultimately defined by the dose (the amount) of the chemical that will produce a specific response in a specific biological system."
Source: http://learn.caim.yale.edu/chemsafe/references/dose.html
As we know, the dose makes the poison principle holds true with regard to vaccines.
The IOM recently concluded the CDC vaccine schedule was "safe" BUT then went on to say in their own words:
"However, the elements of the schedule -- the number, frequency, timing, order, and age at which vaccines are given -- are not well-defined in existing research and should be improved."
Repeat: "The dose makes the poison"
So, to anyone presenting please use this quote and point out that the IOM admits that the science on key elements of the CDC schedule that is "the number, frequency, timing, order, and age at which vaccines are given -- are not well-defined". The SCIENCE IS NOT COMPLETE!!!
More proof that the medical establishment is LYING and misleading the public into a false sense of security with regard to vaccine safety and the safety of the CDC vaccination schedule. More proof that they are poisoning our kids shot by shot. Dose by dose.
IOM quote source:
"IOM Report Details Strategy for Monitoring Safety of Childhood Immunization"
Date: Jan. 16, 2013
http://www.iom.edu/Reports/2013/The-Childhood-Immunization-Schedule-and-Safety/Press-Release.aspx
About Paraclesus:
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/442424/Paracelsus
Posted by: Sarah | March 25, 2013 at 12:44 PM
I too live in Canada! I was totally surprised by CBC TV that recently aired a report on the 2008-09 H1N1 flu vaccine. They reported from a scientific study that stated what everyone already knew, the shot had actually given people the flu. Perhaps there is a small crack in the media armor?
And yet, this is not the dominant media message. TVO, a not-for-profit Ontario network recently blasted educated white women for choosing not to vaccinate their kids. They are anti-science the panel of white men declared! If they had bothered to ask a woman, they might have discovered that women have actually read the science and are making informed decisions. Worried Moms do great research.
I feel the tide is slowly turning. Women/new mothers are asking questions, choosing to wait on vaccination, selecting vaccines, doing research, opting out. Happily, our Charter of Rights (thank you PET and VRAN) gives us freedom in this regard and people are taking advantage of it.... if slowly. Is vaccination a women's issue as well??!
Posted by: Heather Fraser | March 25, 2013 at 10:52 AM
In fact Dr Edward Shorter who was part of that Maurice Hilleman interview is based at a Toronto University I believe .
You should have asked him to comment at SFU ?
I bet Mr Shorters children & grandchildren ducked all the vaccines !
Posted by: Jilly Ann Beret | March 25, 2013 at 10:33 AM
Greg
I just think that Goldacre is playing games. He is much more likely to re-cycle old material about the big bad pharma than pursue new ones. It's a lot of meticulously shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted. It is noteworthy that his Guardian blog ceased just before the David Lewis story broke in Nature News in November 2011.
http://www.nature.com/news/2011/111109/full/479157a.html
John
Posted by: John Stone | March 25, 2013 at 10:32 AM
Why didnt you play back the Maurice Hilleman interview for all those thickies .....
A clear admission by the head of Muck's vaccine division , that vaccines caused Aids , caused cancers and caused leukemia's in the american public from the 50's onwards .
Where can the pro-vaccinators hide when they listen to a recording like this ?
Posted by: Jilly Ann Beret | March 25, 2013 at 10:29 AM
They will not intimidate me ... I will not bow to any of their pressure ! Vaccines are poisonous shi^ite and I want all the Pro-vaccinators to take their fill of them . Make sure you vaccinate all your kids & grandkids too , you'll soon be joining us , the righteous & just !
Posted by: Jilly Ann Beret | March 25, 2013 at 10:22 AM
Thanks for asking pertinant questions.
Mr. Miller,
Have there been any basic research compilations showing school vaccination coverage rates (aren't all schools in the U.S. now reporting their coverage numbers to health authorities) next to student absentee rates due to sickness? In other words, if more vaccines equal less illness, schools with the highest coverage should show the lowest absences due to illness. Conversely, if vaccines are not so good at protecting childrens' health, the schools with the highest coverage rates will show more days missed due to illness. I would think "medical privacy" would be a non-issue in this type of inquiry as total numbers vs individual records would be of interest.
Posted by: Curious | March 25, 2013 at 10:04 AM
If "they" really had the science on their side, the vaccine promoters would welcome this kind of debate. They could show us their thorough and independent studies proving vaccine safety and they'd have the stats to prove that vaccinated kids were healthy and thriving. They can't do this and therefore they don't want a discussion.
Anne Dachel, Media
Posted by: Anne Dachel | March 25, 2013 at 09:59 AM
Neil, I am thankful that you were able to educate some people on the dangers of vaccines, at the least you opened their eyes, and probably had a larger effect on the pro-vaxers than you might think. Now at least they have something to think about and look into further, instead of just going along with the establishment, now maybe they'll do a little more research and think for themselves.
Posted by: Victor Pavlovic | March 25, 2013 at 08:37 AM
Mr. Miller,
Thank you for your information on vaccine safety. I live in Canada and agree with your comments that Canadian immunization officials are involved in the cover-up to obscure vaccine damage. We see this for instance in the reported autism rate. Previously, officials were reporting out autism rate as lower than the US. Suddenly, our rate started mirroring yours of 1 in 88. With your rate now at 1 in 50, I am waiting to see ours updated to the same number. Perhaps our officials are afraid that if they actually research the real number it will yield a shocking rate as high as the South Korean rate of 1 in 38.
Regarding your comments on suspect studies, I posted remarks on another article on this matter. I think its relevant to this discussion, so I will post it again.
''For those of you who are interested in learning exactly how the scientific studies that we are being asked to digest over common sense are ‘concocted’, you may want to read Ben Goldacre’s, ‘Bad Science’. Ben Goldacre is a British surgeon, doctor. In his book, Goldacre details phamas connivance and out-right deceptions in their drug trials. For instance, they will test drugs only on healthy, young individuals to get better results even if the drug is intended for the elderly. If a trial was to be done in series and positive results were obtained during the initial stage they will quickly stop the research and publish the results. Conversely, if the results are poor they will continue to run trials until they get better results. They will lower the bar and test their drugs not against a competitive drug but against placebos. When testing they will blanket for everything hoping to find something positive regardless if it fits with the initial hypothesis. If the results are undesirable they will delay publication hoping the study will be forgotten. When they do publish undesirable results they will hide them in lesser read journals. Goldacre details how these insidious practices have resulted in drugs coming to market that have caused countless injuries and deaths. Not surprising, Goldacre work has earned him the ire of pharma figures.
Funny, despite being so critical of pharma’s science, Goldacre does not have many kind regards for our movement. He sees us also as anti-science people for challenging mmr studies. I do not consider myself to be anti-science. I think the scientific method is a wonderful, impressive tool for understanding our world. I am certainly not anti-science, but instead, like Goldacre, I am anti-‘bad science’. And unfortunately, Goldacre is not listening to his own argument when he details how much ‘bad science’ there is but fails to realize that we need common sense to sort through the guck. Usually if scientific studies do not jive with common sense this is a good indication that we are being sold junk science. I say ‘usually’ because indeed there are instances when individuals’ biases or errors in accounting for counter-intuitive phenomena may lead to discrepancies between science and common sense. In these exceptional cases the discrepancies can be easily explained by plausible accounts and the science can be accepted. For instance, in the example I gave in my earlier post of the counter intuitive phenomenon of the earth appearing flat when its round, the discrepancy can be explained by accepting that because the earth is so large from our vantage point while on it, it appears flat. Observing a ship in the far distant, we see the ship’s sail before the mast proving that the mast is obscured by the earth’s curvature – and, therein the discrepancy is quickly settled. What explanation can then be offered for countless of parents who witnessed their child’s dramatic decent into autism after vaccination despite studies (albeit studies that merely looked in mmr and thimerosal) saying that vaccines are not responsible? Well, there is the argument that children developing autism during vaccination is merely a coincidental thing, and its implied that these previously healthy kids would have also abruptly and dramatically developed autism even without vaccination. Likewise, we are told that the explosion with kids having autism in the last decade that corresponds with the expanded vaccination schedule is due to better diagnosis, despite there being no evidence that there are hordes of elderly autistic adults who were missed. Do these explanations sound plausible? They don’t! Even pro-vaccines proponents have a tough time keeping a straight face after uttering such nonsense. There is no plausible resolution for vaccine science and common sense. Vaccine science fails miserable the common sense bar and it leaves us with no choice but to accept it as ‘bad science’.'
Greg
Posted by: Greg | March 25, 2013 at 08:01 AM