In reply to Cindy Lynch’s response to the Debating Vaccination article (MM July 5).
I would like to point out that I was very careful not to add my personal view or opinion on whether I was pro- or anti-vaccination. Most of the thread of the Vaxxed documentary is not anti-vaccination. It is more aligned with getting the record straight and releasing real results. The alleged evidence suggests that vaccination would be less risky if it was in fact delayed until the newborns were a bit older. However, when all links to harmful effects are denied it leaves no room for discussion/investigation. I appreciate the link to the information that you provided as that will no doubt help people in their process of information gathering. It may have been amiss of me to not include any reference to information from the manufacturers of vaccinations. The reason that I did not include such information is because pro-vaccination information is given to every mother/parent in New Zealand who is about to have or has just had a child. It is further backed up with every visit by the midwife and visit to the doctor. It is also frequently broadcast via mainstream media as well. Providing more pro-vaccination information won’t help to balance the pool of information that is already so unbalanced that many people don’t even know that other information exists. The main point that I was making is that we actually have to look at the facts. The worst of the facts is that there is no legislation that indicates that adverse effects of vaccination (if there ever are any) need to be reported. This is nothing but a mockery of science. How can we make informed decisions when risks (if any) are not reviewed and published as they are with drug trials?
Eugene Sims, Warkworth Natural Therapies and MM health columnist (abridged)