Jeni Barnett and her anti-vaccine drivel revisited.

This article has been cross-posted at…

 

http://www.jenibarnett.com/2009/02/
mmr_and_me.php

 

Since other people are doing such a great job of tearing Jeni Barnett’s broadcast into little logical fallacies, e.g. The Holford Watch – Some Rebuttals to Jeni Barnett’s Canards in Her LBC Radio MMR Segment (incidentally a great job with the blog watching guys, you were really all over this one), I thought I’d take a closer look at the other load of dross the LBC idiot published, namely her blog…

 

Posted by Jeni in | 5 February 2009

http://www.jenibarnett.com/2009/02/
mmr_and_me.php

 

I am not a scientist,

 

Painfully obvious. Not an iota of research went into this broadcast. Her answer to the simple question posed by Yasmin of Chelsea in the original broadcast, “Could you tell me what’s in the vaccine? What do you think is in the vaccine?”

 

“No, I can’t.” Was Barnett’s reply.

 

Despite seconds earlier having said, “But I don’t want my child to be fiddled with with all sorts of stuff that’s in a vaccine.”

 

Ignorance, pure and simple.

 

I would not claim to be a scientist.

 

I wouldn’t worry about that Jeni, Andrew Wakefield still claims to be a scientist and even offers you some support. Despite being one of the most famously discredited British doctors in recent years…

 

“What you’ve been offered is a series of fanciful notions that are backed up only by the fact that someone has offered them who has a couple of letters after their name, M.D. or Ph.D. That does not make it good science…

 

It’s at best speculation, idle speculation. Now, at worst–at worst–it’s a contrivance. It’s a contrivance that’s been developed and articulated and promoted by its chief proponent, and that’s Andrew Wakefield. He promoted it for financial gain. Either way it’s not science.”

 

V. J. Matanoski, appearing for the U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Service (Respondent) in U.S. Court of Federal Claims, Transript of Cedillo v. Secretary of Health and Human Service (Day 12), pp. 26, 28-29.

 

When tested on the contents of the MMR vaccine I told the truth. I did not have the facts to hand. Was I ill informed? Yes.

 

Then a responsible broadcaster would not have been having the debate. Research first, talk when you have the facts.

 

As a responsible broadcaster I should have been better prepared

 

It has just been established that you are not a responsible broadcaster.

as a parent, however, I can fight my corner. I don’t know everything that goes into cigarettes but I do know they are harmful.

 

And how do we now know that cigarettes are harmful? Because science has told us so, through painstaking, randomised, double-blinded, peer-reviewed trials that can be replicated by researchers throughout the world, thus forming a consensus based on evidence.

 

That same, rigorous methodology now tells us that modern vaccines are safe and that the results of studies by Andrew Wakefield and his ilk were, at worst, “contrived” and at best, “poor science”.

 

Nevertheless, the scientific method works and has presented us with real, replicable, evidence.

 

As a professional should I have been better prepared – YES – but the discussion took off in a direction I hadn’t expected when I received a vicious phone call from a Nurse I was utterly thrown. I won’t get thrown again.

 

The call you received was not vicious, the healthcare professional you spoke to was right. You were, and are, wrong. It’s as simple as that. You were not unfairly spoken to in any way.

 

I find it interesting that the vitriol that comes out of the pro MMR lobby is precisely why Allopathic medicine is struggling. Most of us who seek alternatives allow others their position but often the ‘others’ have a real problem allowing us ours.

 

There are no “alternatives” to evidence-based medicine. There is either medicine or quackery, science or fiction. You ask to be “allowed your position”, “what’s the harm?” is the question. Well, when you give an opinion, that can cost lives, to thousands of people over the air-waves, the cost can be measured in the lives of innocents.

 

The web site “What’s the Harm?” details over four thousand cases of people, mostly children, killed or injured because of “vaccine denial”. Read a few stories and answer your own question at this URL…  http://whatstheharm.net/vaccinedenial.html

 

Doesn’t change my mind though. The fact that I decided not to have my child jabbed was my decision alone. And it is a lonely decision. To be singled out and held totally responsible for a measles, mumps or rubella ‘epidemic’ is clearly ludicrous.

 

It is clearly ludicrous, until you reach an audience of thousands and encourage them, through example, to flout common sense and play roulette with the lives of their own and others’ children.

 

Single jabs on demand? Why is that a problem?

 

Injecting tiny babies with substances that may compromise their immune system needs to be looked at not shouted down.

 

 

There is no harm in the “one injection at a time” approach, except that it’s a waste of NHS time and money, and a wasted opportunity to fully vaccinate your child…

 

The Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia – Vaccine Myths

 

Myth1: Getting so many vaccines will overwhelm my child’s immune system

 

No doubt about it, the immunization schedule recommended by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) can seem daunting. Your child can receive up to 23 shots by the time she’s 2 years old and as many as six shots at a singledoctor visit. So it’s not surprising that many parents have concerns about how vaccines might affect a child’s developing immunity and often cite these as a reason to refuse a vaccine.

 

But it should be the least of your worries. “Children have an enormous capacity to respond safely to challenges to the immune system from vaccines,” says Dr. Offit. “A baby’s body is bombarded with immunologic challenges – from bacteria in food to the dust they breathe. Compared to what they typically encounter and manage during the day, vaccines are literally a drop in the ocean.” In fact, Dr. Offit’s studies show that in theory, healthy infants could safely get up to 10,000 vaccines at once.

 

The bottom line: It’s safe to give your child simultaneous vaccines or vaccine combinations, such as the five-in-one vaccine called Pediarix, which protects against hepatitis B, polio, tetanus, diphtheria, and pertussis (also known as whooping cough. Equally important, vaccines are as effective given in combination as they are given individually.

 

http://www.chop.edu/consumer/jsp/division/generic.jsp?id=81553

 

There is no truth to the fallacy that multiple vaccines for children “may compromise their immune system”.

 

We have already established that you have no idea what’s in a vaccine, and thus no idea of what you are talking about, so try and educate yourself before spouting such dangerous nonsense.

 

And I do not accept that my position, as a radio broadcaster, is irresponsible if I should choose to share my own personal dilemma.

 

No? Then look again at the “What’s the Harm?” web site. Look again at the four thousand plus, killed or harmed by vaccine denial, then deny that a broadcaster who reaches an audience of thousands has a responsibility to the truth, before sharing their own “personal dilemma” – like your audience is some sort of unpaid therapist.

 

I would like some of my critics to try and run a three hour programme.

 

What has that got to do with anything? Try and be a hospital doctor for just one shift, try and be a nurse for the same, try and run just one, well-designed, valid, replicable biological experiment, that can withstand peer-review, then whinge pathetically about how hard your job is.

 

I am interested in the debate not a witch hunt.

 

Then urge your employers to allow the use of the audio files of your broadcast to enable such a debate.

 

Should anybody from BAD SCIENCE read this I urge you to continue the debate, and if it gets too heated there is always the option of turning me off.

 

Jeni Barnett, Febrauary 5^th 2009.

 

There is no need for this debate to become heated. It isn’t really a debate. The facts are in, the case is closed. Vaccines are safe and there is no factual evidence to support a claim otherwise.