Nov 26, 2012

A new publication on immunisation, with an overview from Sir Gus Nossal and others

The Australian Academy of Science has launched a publication, The Science of Immuni

Melissa Sweet — Health journalist and <a href=Croakey co-ordinator" class="author__portrait">

Melissa Sweet

Health journalist and Croakey co-ordinator

The Australian Academy of Science has launched a publication, The Science of Immunisation, Questions and Answers, which aims to “address confusion created by contradictory information in the public domain” and to “explain the current situation in immunisation science, including where there is consensus in the scientific community and where uncertainties exist”.

The document addresses six questions:

  1. What is immunisation?
  2. What is in a vaccine?
  3. Who benefits from vaccines?
  4. Are vaccines safe?
  5. How are vaccines shown to be safe?
  6. What does the future hold for vaccination?

In the article below, Sir Gus Nossal, who chaired the group that reviewed the publication, gives an overview of the recent history of immunisation successes.


The risk-benefit equation is overwhelmingly in favour of vaccination

Sir Gus Nossal writes:

The anti-vaccination lobby is wrong, dead wrong. The truth is that vaccines are undoubtedly history’s most cost-effective public health tool.

As the saying goes, prevention is better than cure and vaccination proves that in spades. In industrialized countries we have virtually vanquished most epidemic diseases and it’s largely due to vaccines.

What is particularly ironic is that resistance to childhood vaccination is largely a phenomenon of developed nations. Those who lobby against it are able to do so because of the very success of vaccination.

Because we don’t have diphtheria epidemics, because whooping cough epidemics are rare, because we don’t see tetanus and smallpox any more Australians don’t have first hand experience of how devastating such diseases can be. That means the alleged side effects of vaccines may seem more frightening than the diseases they prevent.

It is true that side effects do exist but they are generally trivial.  It is also true that serious side effects happen but they are vanishingly rare, occurring in only about one in a million vaccinations. Moreover, public health surveillance can catch problems such as the unacceptably high rate of febrile convulsions in children under age 5 who received one type of the 2010 influenza vaccine.  It was quickly withdrawn for children under 5 and was replaced by other vaccines for that age group.

While unacceptable, this was not a legitimate excuse to lobby against universal vaccination. Despite claims to the contrary, the risk-benefit equation is overwhelmingly in favour of vaccination.  Consider the relatively common symptoms of pertussis: paroxysmal cough followed by whooping (hence the common name of “whooping cough”), apnoea, pneumonia and occasionally, seizures and encephalopathy.

As recently as the 1980s, extra wards were opened in children’s and infectious diseases hospitals in Australia every two to three years to cope with regular epidemics of measles during which many children died from associated illnesses such as encephalitis and pneumonia. Measles can also cause lifelong disability, including deafness, blindness and mental disability.

When vaccination against measles, whooping cough, polio, tetanus and diphtheria was introduced to Australia the incidence of the diseases dropped precipitously to, in many cases, virtually zero.

It is clear the anti-vaccination lobby is a serious thorn in the flesh of public health. For instance, it played a major role in the outbreak of measles, mumps and rubella in the UK. Thanks to the efforts of a brilliant public health expert by the name of David Salisbury who effectively publicized the importance of immunizing children with the measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) vaccine, Britain was on the very threshold of eradicating measles from the UK. Then along came one researcher with a totally fallacious claim the vaccine causes autism.

It took nine independent studies over several years to dispel public doubt and counter the baseless but fearful assertions being peddled as a result of this single, fraudulent paper by the anti-vaccination lobby.

It turns out the incidence of autism in people who had the MMR vaccine is identical to that of people who did not have it. But the anti-vaccination lobby startled parents so much the vaccination rate, which was up to 92-93 per cent, plummeted to 60-70 per cent in different parts of the UK. What was the end result? Outbreaks of all three diseases, which are not yet under control.

That is a terrible tragedy triggered by ignorance. Measles, mumps and rubella are preventable diseases. To help parents understand the importance of getting their kids vaccinated, the Australian Academy of Science has prepared a booklet —The Science of Immunisation: Questions and Answers – which explains the basics of vaccination.

Very simply, vaccines work by stimulating the body’s natural defence system, the immune system.  When you get an infection or a vaccination – the process is similar — the white cells of the blood have the capacity to divide and fabricate precious disease-fighting molecules called antibodies. The antibodies are fashioned to exactly fit onto key molecules of the pathogen, the infections microorganism, which is then neutralised in a highly specific manner.

The beauty of immune system is its specificity. Measles vaccines act only against measles, polio only against polio. Antibodies are tailor-made to fit the particular bug.

This fundamental process is well known to science and well documented by epidemiologists and public health experts. Along with clean drinking water and public sanitation there is absolutely no doubt that vaccination dramatically reduces childhood illness and mortality.

My take-home advice for parents is pick up or download the Academy’s booklet, talk to your doctor and follow the Australian guidelines for what vaccines to give your infant and when to do so.

Remember you and your kids are benefiting from several decades of first-class research. Remember that the disease is far, far worse than vaccine side effects.

Because my family and I know vaccination is critical to the health of all Australians, every single one of my four children and nine grandchildren have been properly vaccinated.  ENDS.

• Sir Gus Nossal has been President of the International Union of Immunological Societies, Chairman of the committee overseeing the WHO’s Vaccines and Biological Program, and Chairman of the Strategic Advisory Council of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation Children’s Vaccine Program.


Further reading

• At The Conversation, Professor Fiona Stanley says the history of myths about immunisation “demonstrate why it’s absolutely crucial that medical researchers obtain solid laboratory data about new and combination vaccines, test them rigorously and obtain very good surveillance and monitoring data. The public must have confidence that the research is done and done well.”

• At the publication’s launch, parents were encouraged to google “immunisation” rather than “vaccination” to increase their chances of finding reliable information online.





(Visited 1 times, 1 visits today)


Leave a comment

7 thoughts on “A new publication on immunisation, with an overview from Sir Gus Nossal and others

  1. Shields Linda

    The public would benefit if ads could be run on all TV channels and social media such as Youtube with pictures/films of children with the vaccine-preventable diseases. We can hardly blame young parents for falling prey to the anti-vaccine lobby if they have never seen how frightening (and damaging) these diseases are. One has to be at least 50 to ever have seen anyone with tetanus, and older for diphtheria.

  2. Elizabeth Hart

    For information, I’ve recently established a website titled: “Over-vaccination – Challenging Big Pharma’s lucrative over-vaccination of people and animals”: http://over-vaccination.net/

    The website is not ‘anti-vaccination’, rather, it is questioning the value of certain individual vaccines, and revaccinations of dubious value.

    There are pages on:
    – Over-vaccination – a multi-billion dollar market;
    – controversial Human Papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination;
    – the arbitrary Measles/Mumps/Rubella (MMR) second ‘booster’ dose;
    – annual flu vaccination and the flu industry;
    – pertussis/whooping cough – how does increasing the number of ‘boosters’ of the current vaccine protect against the new strain?
    – over-vaccination of pets – an unethical practice;
    – questions for the Australian Technical Advisory Group on Immunisation (ATAGI); the Australian Academy of Science re “The Science of Immunisation: Questions and Answers”; and The Cochrane Collaboration;
    – forum discussion on vaccination e.g. the university and CSIRO-funded The Conversation forum; Ben Goldacre’s ‘Bad Science’ forum; and the Virology Blog.

    There’s a ‘big picture’ on the lucrative international vaccine market which needs to be exposed, including questioning the ethics of over-vaccination.

  3. Elizabeth Hart

    I’ve been trying to find out how ‘informed consent’ is obtained from parents of babies/children before vaccination. I think this is very much a grey area, particularly as immunisation is generally required to qualify for Family Tax Benefits: http://immunise.health.gov.au/internet/immunise/publishing.nsf/Content/faq-related-payments#immunised

    It seems that vaccination is, in effect, mandatory for the general population of children.

    In this regard, I recently forwarded an email to Professor Terry Nolan, Chair of the Australian Technical Advisory Group on Immunisation (ATAGI). Professor Nolan is also a member of the Australian Academy of Science’s Working Group for the publication “The Science of Immunisation: Questions and Answers”: http://www.science.org.au/policy/documents/AAS_Immunisation_FINAL_LR_v3.pdf

    In my email to Professor Nolan I raise the issue of consent in relation to the second dose of the live Measles/Mumps/Rubella (MMR) vaccine, questioning the ethics of this arbitrary second dose, as it’s likely most children will be immune after the first dose of this live vaccine, which can be verified by serological testing for those cautious parents who might prefer this option.

    For information, my email to Professor Nolan can be accessed via this link: http://users.on.net/~peter.hart/Email_to_Prof_Terry_Nolan_ATAGI_MMR_11_March_2013.pdf

    I previously forwarded correspondence on this matter to the Federal Health Minister, Tanya Plibersek, in June 2012, but her office refused to respond to my letter, a startling example of lack of accountability of this government minister: http://users.on.net/~peter.hart/Letter_to_Minister_Plibersek_re_MMR_vaccine.pdf

  4. Elizabeth Hart

    Re the Australian Academy of Science’s publication “The Science of Immunisation: Questions and Answers”.

    There needs to be more transparency in relation to this publication. For instance, I understand that Professor Ian Frazer, who is co-chair of the Working Group for the publication, receives royalties from the sale of HPV vaccines in the developed world. This fact was acknowledged on his article “Catch cancer? No thanks, I’d rather have a shot!” published on The Conversation, 10 July 2012: https://theconversation.edu.au/catch-cancer-no-thanks-id-rather-have-a-shot-7568

    However, there is no mention of this potential conflict of interest in The Science of Immunisation: Questions and Answers, or on the Australian Academy of Science’s website: http://www.science.org.au/policy/immunisation.html

    For information, here’s a link to emails I have forwarded to Professor Suzanne Cory, President of the Australian Academy of Science, on this matter: http://users.on.net/~peter.hart/Academy_of_Science_Disclosure_Statements.pdf

  5. Shields Linda

    Of course, Gus Nossal’s report on immunisation is invaluable, and of course all the notable writers are right. But how to convince young parents to have their children immunised is another matter. It is hardly surprising that they think twice about it, when they have never seen a child with any of these diseases. You have to be at least 60 to ever to have seen polio, and a lot older for diphtheria. Even measles is rarely seen, and parents can’t be expected to know what it might mean if their child contracts measles, let alone its very serious complications. I suggest a television and other media advertising campaign showing films and photos of children with the diseases. They are very frightening, and might bring home to young parents the importance of getting their children immunised.

  6. Elizabeth Hart

    Further to my previous comment regarding over-vaccination, detailed and fully-referenced letters I have written on this subject are pertinent, e.g.

    – Is universal HPV vaccination necessary? http://users.on.net/~peter.hart/Is_universal_HPV_vaccination_necessary.pdf

    – Questions re the Ethics of Australian Government Mandated Vaccination (re the questionable second dose of the Measles/Mumps/Rubella live vaccine): http://users.on.net/~peter.hart/Letter_to_Minister_Plibersek_re_MMR_vaccine.pdf

    – An open letter to the NSABB re the political and ethical implications of lethal virus development (re the influenza industry): http://users.on.net/~peter.hart/Open_Letter_to_Paul_Keim_NSABB_31_Jan_2012.pdf

    Again, it’s about time the media applied some critical analysis to the vaccine industry…

  7. Elizabeth Hart

    More and more vaccines are being added to the vaccination schedule with little or no consultation with the community. Are all these vaccines really necessary? It’s my opinion that that there is a great deal of lucrative over-vaccination being pushed upon citizens/children.

    An article in New Scientist in late 2011 reported: “While the rest of the pharmaceutical sector struggles to keep afloat as expiring patents send profits plummeting, the vaccine industry has become remarkably buoyant.”(1) A recent report on the global vaccines market notes: “Thanks in part to the adult influenza market and vaccines such as Gardasil and Prevnar, the global vaccines market has enjoyed a decidedly solid boost in revenue. Ten years ago, the vaccine market sat at $5.7 billion dollars…now, that market has soared to $27 billion.”(2)

    With vaccine manufacturers sizing up the potential for lucrative global vaccine markets, and scientists lining up for vaccine royalties, there are strong vested interests to consider.

    It’s about time the media starting applying some critical analysis to this issue…

    1. Debora MacKenzie. Vaccines enjoy a healthy return. New Scientist. 28 September 2011. Magazine issue 2831:
    2. 20 Top-selling Vaccines – H1 2012. FierceVaccines, 25 September 2012:

Share this article with a friend

Just fill out the fields below and we'll send your friend a link to this article along with a message from you.

Your details

Your friend's details