DOCSLIB.ORG

(No Jab, No Pay) Bill 2015 Submission

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
(No Jab, No Pay) Bill 2015 Submission 16 October, 2015 The Committee Secretary Senate Standing Committees on Community Affairs PO Box 6100 Parliament House CANBERRA ACT 2600 Dear Committee Secretary, Re: Submission to the Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee Inquiry into the Social Services Legislation Amendment (No Jab, No Pay) Bill 2015 I am a Solicitor who has practiced in areas of law that have pertained to the issue of vaccination. Consequently, having conversed with professionals in various scientific and medical fields of practice on this issue and prepared matters for hearing based on their expertise, I make the following submission to emphasize the extent that the proposed legislation breaches fundamental human rights and the government’s responsibilities to it’s families and children. According to the Social Services Legislation Amendment (No jab, No pay) Bill 2015 Explanatory Memorandum and Statement of Compatibility with Human Rights: “This Bill will introduce a 2015 Budget measure relevant to families. This Bill amends the immunisation requirements for child care benefit, child care rebate and the family tax benefit Part A supplement. The changes will tighten the existing immunisation requirements for these payments, reinforcing the importance of immunisation and protecting public health, especially for children. From 1 January 2016, this measure makes these payments conditional on meeting the childhood immunisation requirements for children at all ages. Exemptions will only apply for valid medical reasons, or if the Secretary has determined in writing that a child meets the immunisation requirements. The Secretary will be able to determine that a child meets the immunisation requirements after considering any decision-making principles set out in a legislative instrument made by the Minister. Individuals with a conscientious objection will no longer meet the immunisation requirements under subsections 6(3) and 6(4) of the A New Tax System (Family Assistance) Act 1999 (the Family Assistance Act). Immunisation requirements will also be extended to include children of all ages. At present, a child’s vaccination status is only checked at ages one, two and five for the family tax benefit Part A supplement, and up to age seven for the child care payments.” The Financial impact statement further asserts that: “This Bill is expected to produce savings of $508.3 million over the forward estimates.” 1 The Bill is flawed in two respects: 1. Lawfully: a. It’s statements of purpose are incompatible; b. It’s proposed method of application potentially uncertain and arbitrary; c. It is discriminatory, unfair, unjust and violates basic human rights and freedoms; and 2. Methodology: a. It is based on the assumption that vaccines are proven to be safe and effective and that one size fits all; b. There is less need than ever due to high vaccination coverage and very little risk from the diseases vaccines are purported to prevent (as well as those diseases for which no vaccine was introduced en masse). Consequently, and as I expand on further in this submission, the limitations to human rights proposed by this Bill are not in all the circumstances and in the public’s interest reasonable, appropriate or necessary. 1. Legality of the Bill Incompatible statements of purpose 1. The purpose of the Bill is stated as being: “The changes will tighten the existing immunisation requirements for these payments, reinforcing the importance of immunisation and protecting public health, especially for children”, but also, “This Bill is expected to produce savings of $508.3 million over the forward estimates.” It can only be assumed such savings are the consequence of parents choosing not to (or to continue not to) vaccinate their children. Thus, there can be no expectation the legislative changes will in fact reinforce “the importance of immunisation and protect public health, especially for children”, as asserted. 2. The expected savings being a measure of the Bill’s anticipated failure is reason alone to conclude that it should not be legislated. 3. Further, has the cost of these vaccines (and potential harm that can ensue, as detailed below) been taken into consideration in the event these parents do decide to vaccinate on the compulsion of a financial penalty, in which case there may be a significant cost rather than savings produced. Lack of certainty 4. The implementation of the proposed legislation leaves open the question as to what vaccines will be imposed upon Australians and in potentially arbitrary circumstances. 2 Human Rights, fairness and equality Summary 5. This Bill is being quietly introduced into parliament with little or no media discussion of the human rights that will be derogated or analysis of the benefits and risks surrounding the invasive medical procedure that vaccination entails: which current schedule includes around 86 antigen doses contained in 8 injections before 12 months of age, and another 2 by 4 years of age. The linked vaccines and doses are listed in the Standard vaccination schedule for family assistance here: http://www.humanservices.gov.au/customer/subjects/immunising-your-children 6. In particular, no consideration has been given to the constituents of vaccines; acknowledged links to serious adverse events following vaccination (set out in government publications and manufacturer’s product insert sheets) and mounting health issues, particularly autoimmunity, Autism Spectrum Disorder and Alzheimers disease (identified in expanding published scientific literature). And in comparison to the very low risk of not only contracting a disease but suffering a complication from it, as disease impact has considerably reduced since the early 1900’s and there is over 90% vaccine coverage of the population 1 so as to provide the asserted desirable “herd immunity” & REFERENCES 7, 8, 21 & 67. 7. The Bill proposes to coerce families financially dependent upon government benefits to accept all vaccines for their children and all those that come onto the market and are added to any recommended schedule, ignoring the risks. Consequently, facilitating our children becoming human vaccine trial guinea pigs, due to surrogate endpoint rules relied upon to evaluate efficacy of a vaccine for licensure and lack of requisite study of long term health outcomes. For the large proportion of Australians who are recipients of government benefits there will be no opportunity to refrain from even one scheduled vaccine without financial penalty. 8. Those benefits are: Family Tax Benefit Part A supplement, child care benefit and child care rebate. As is evident from the expected savings, the financial impact is a significant one. 9. The right to refuse a medical procedure totally freely, with no form of penalty, would be denied. A form of compulsion not authorised either expressly or by implication in the Australian Constitution and contrary to our human rights. In effect freedom of choice will remain only with the wealthier sections of society and, consequently, equality denied, with no justification (as set out in more detail below); at potentially great expense to the public and great risk to our children. 10. The proposed reforms raise significant concerns regarding Australia’s international law obligations to respect, protect and fulfil the human rights, in particular the rights set out in the international Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), which covenant recognises “the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family (as) the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world”. Informed consent to a medical procedure 11. The Australian Government itself instructs that patients’ right to informed consent must be upheld [at 2.1.3 – of the Australian Government Department of Health, Australian Immunisation Handbook 10th Edition (2013) (AIH)]: “2.1.3 Valid consent Valid consent can be defined as the voluntary agreement by an individual to a proposed procedure, given after sufficient, appropriate and reliable information about the procedure, including the potential risks and benefits, has been conveyed to that individual.2-6 As part of the consent procedure, persons to be vaccinated and/or their parents/carers should be given sufficient information (preferably written) on the risks and benefits of each vaccine, including what adverse events are possible, how common they are and what they should do about them7 (the table inside the front cover of this Handbook, Side effects following immunisation for vaccines used in the National Immunisation Program (NIP) schedule, can be used for this purpose). 3 For consent to be legally valid, the following elements must be present:6,8 1. It must be given by a person with legal capacity, and of sufficient intellectual capacity to understand the implications of being vaccinated. 2. It must be given voluntarily in the absence of undue pressure, coercion or manipulation. 3. It must cover the specific procedure that is to be performed. 4. It can only be given after the potential risks and benefits of the relevant vaccine, risks of not having it and any alternative options have been explained to the individual. The individual must have sufficient opportunity to seek further details or explanations about the vaccine(s) and/or its administration. The information must be provided in a language or by other means the individual can understand. Where appropriate, an interpreter and/or cultural support person should be involved. Consent should be obtained before each vaccination, once it has been established that there are no medical condition(s) that contraindicate vaccination. Consent can be verbal or written. Immunisation providers should refer to their state or territory’s policies on obtaining written consent (refer to Appendix 1 Contact details for Australian, state and territory government health authorities and communicable disease control).” 2 The Australian Constitution 12. All rights of the Australian people are protected except where the Constitution expressly provides otherwise. Pursuant to the Annotated Constitution of the Commonwealth of Australia (Quick & Garran, 1900, page 346): “… laws passed by the Parliament of the Commonwealth...
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program: Awareness, Perception, and Communication Considerations
    The National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program: Awareness, Perception, and Communication Considerations Developing a Comprehensive National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program Research Report Presented by Banyan Communications and Altarum Institute For the U.S. Health Resources and Services Administration Division of Vaccine Injury Compensation June 2010 Table of Contents 1. Introduction and Background ................................................................................................................. 1 a. VICP BACKGROUND: RELATED LEGISLATION ................................................................................................. 2 2. Review of the VICP Literature ................................................................................................................. 4 a. METHODOLOGY ............................................................................................................................................. 4 b. VICP PERCEPTION AND REACTION ................................................................................................................ 4 c. VICP MESSAGING AND PROMOTION ............................................................................................................. 7 3. Scan of the Field: VICP Players, Media, and the Online Environment .................................................... 12 a. METHODOLOGY ............................................................................................................................................. 12 b. VICP AND
    [Show full text]
  • Anti-Vaccine Activists, Web 2.0, and the Postmodern Paradigm –Anoverview Of
    Vaccine 30 (2012) 3778–3789 Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect Vaccine j ournal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/vaccine Anti-vaccine activists, Web 2.0, and the postmodern paradigm –Anoverview of tactics and tropes used online by the anti-vaccination movement ∗ Anna Kata McMaster University, Psychiatry and Behavioural Neurosciences, 555 Sanatorium Road Hamilton, Ontario, Canada L9C 1C4 a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t Article history: Websites opposing vaccination are prevalent on the Internet. Web 2.0, defined by interaction and user- Received 26 May 2011 generated content, has become ubiquitous. Furthermore, a new postmodern paradigm of healthcare has Received in revised form emerged, where power has shifted from doctors to patients, the legitimacy of science is questioned, and 25 September 2011 expertise is redefined. Together this has created an environment where anti-vaccine activists are able to Accepted 30 November 2011 effectively spread their messages. Evidence shows that individuals turn to the Internet for vaccination Available online 13 December 2011 advice, and suggests such sources can impact vaccination decisions – therefore it is likely that anti- vaccine websites can influence whether people vaccinate themselves or their children. This overview Keywords: Anti-vaccination examines the types of rhetoric individuals may encounter online in order to better understand why the anti-vaccination movement can be convincing, despite lacking scientific support for their claims. Tactics Health communication Internet and tropes commonly used to argue against vaccination are described. This includes actions such as skew- Postmodernism ing science, shifting hypotheses, censoring dissent, and attacking critics; also discussed are frequently Vaccines made claims such as not being “anti-vaccine” but “pro-safe vaccines”, that vaccines are toxic or unnatural, Web 2.0 and more.
    [Show full text]
  • Dear Committee Secretary, Senate Standing Committees on Community Affairs
    From: To: Community Affairs, Committee (SEN) Subject: Social Services Legislation Amendment (No Jab, No Pay) Bill 2015 - Submission Date: Thursday, 1 October 2015 12:31:52 AM Social Services Legislation Amendment (No Jab, No Pay) Bill 2015 - Submission Dear Committee Secretary, Senate Standing Committees on Community Affairs I am writing in response to the proposed legislation that would mean parents making a conscientious choice around vaccination would no longer be eligible for Family Assistance. Firstly there is no such evidence or ‘science’ to prove that this move would decrease the level of contractable childhood illnesses at all in Australia. Furthermore there are scientists and experts in the field who are questioning the safety and efficacy of vaccines and I put to you that where there is risk and where there are questions there must be a choice. To disregard such information and questions marks definitive changes in our freedoms as we know them now. And this poses fundamental questions of human rights and needs to be considered more deeply. I believe vaccinations have a place and can be used responsibly to slow disease where necessary. I am not saying I don’t believe in them. And I am not saying that I don’t believe in the science. I don’t believe all the science is being represented by the mainstream media and considered by the Australian government. I will firstly address efficacy and secondly vaccine injury, both with direct quotes and references from doctors and scientists and reputable investigative journalists. NY Times 25th November 2013. “But scientists say the problem of surging whooping cough cases has more to do with flaws in the current vaccines than with parents’ resistance.
    [Show full text]
  • Why Anti-Vaccine Claims About NVICP Cases Are Wrong
    Minnesota Journal of Law, Science & Technology Volume 20 Issue 1 Article 11 8-7-2019 Using and Misusing Legal Decisions: Why Anti-Vaccine Claims about NVICP Cases Are Wrong Dorit Rubinstein Reiss UC Hastings College of Law Rachel Heap Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.umn.edu/mjlst Part of the Administrative Law Commons, Health Law and Policy Commons, and the Other Medicine and Health Sciences Commons Recommended Citation Dorit Rubinstein Reiss & Rachel Heap, Using and Misusing Legal Decisions: Why Anti-Vaccine Claims about NVICP Cases Are Wrong, 20 MINN. J.L. SCI. & TECH. 191 (2018). Available at: https://scholarship.law.umn.edu/mjlst/vol20/iss1/11 The Minnesota Journal of Law, Science & Technology is published by the University of Minnesota Libraries Publishing. Using and Misusing Legal Decisions: Why Anti-Vaccine Claims about NVICP Cases Are Wrong Dorit Rubinstein Reiss*and Rachel Heap† Abstract The question of whether vaccines cause autism spectrum disorder (autism, or ASD) has been extensively studied. Studies from different countries around the world, looking at millions of children in total, examined it and found no link. Despite this powerful evidence, the actions of a small group who fervently believe that vaccines cause autism may lead people to question the data. One tactic used to argue that vaccines cause autism is the use of compensation decisions from the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program to claim such a link. This article demonstrates that not only does the nature of proof in the program make its decisions ill-suited to challenging the science but also that the cases used do not, in their content, support that conclusion.
    [Show full text]
  • Animal Factory
    Animal Factory By David Kirby ISBN 13: 978-1-4299-5809-7 ISBN 10: 1-4299-5809-X About this Guide The following author biography and list of questions about Animal Factory are intended as resources to aid individual readers and book groups who would like to learn more about the author and this book. We hope that this guide will provide you a starting place for discussion, and suggest a variety of perspectives from which you might approach Animal Factory. About the Book In the 1990s reported autism cases among American children began spiking, from about 1 in 10,000 in 1987 to a shocking 1 in 166 today. This trend coincided with the addition of several new shots to the nation's already crowded vaccination schedule, grouped together and given soon after birth or in the early months of infancy. Most of these shots contained a little-known preservative called thimerosal, which includes a quantity of the toxin mercury. Evidence of Harm explores the heated controversy over what many parents, physicians, public officials, and educators have called an "epidemic" of afflicted children. Following several families, David Kirby traces their struggle to understand how and why their once-healthy kids rapidly descended into silence or disturbed behavior, often accompanied by severe physical illness. Alarmed by the levels of mercury in the vaccine schedule, these families sought answers from their doctors, from science, from pharmaceutical companies that manufacture vaccines, and finally from the Center for Disease Control and the Food and Drug Administration-to no avail. But as they dug deeper, the families also found powerful allies in Congress and in the small community of physicians and researchers who believe that the rise of autism and other disorders is linked to toxic levels of mercury that accumulate in the systems of some children.
    [Show full text]
  • U.S. Markets for Vaccines
    U.S. Markets for Vaccines U.S. Markets for Vaccines Characteristics, Case Studies, and Controversies Ernst R. Berndt, Rena N. Denoncourt, and Anjli C. Warner The AEI Press Publisher for the American Enterprise Institute WASHINGTON, D.C. Distributed to the Trade by National Book Network, 15200 NBN Way, Blue Ridge Summit, PA 17214. To order call toll free 1-800-462-6420 or 1-717-794-3800. For all other inquiries please contact the AEI Press, 1150 Seventeenth Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036 or call 1-800-862-5801. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Berndt, Ernst R. U.S. markets for vaccines : characteristics, case studies, and controversies / Ernst R. Berndt, Rena N. Denoncourt, and Anjli C. Warner. p. ; cm. Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN-13: 978-0-8447-4280-9 ISBN-10: 0-8447-4280-5 1. Vaccines industry—United States. 2. Market surveys—United States. I. Denoncourt, Rena N. II. Warner, Anjli C. III. Title. [DNLM: 1. Vaccines—economics—United States. 2. Drug Discovery—economics—United States. 3. Drug Industry—economics—United States. QW 805 B524u 2009] HD9675.V333.U6 2009 381'.456153720973—dc22 2009006713 13 12 11 10 09 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 © 2009 by the American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research, Wash- ington, D.C. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be used or repro- duced in any manner whatsoever without permission in writing from the American Enterprise Institute except in the case of brief quotations embodied in news articles, critical articles, or reviews. The views expressed in the publications of the American Enterprise Institute are those of the authors and do not neces- sarily reflect the views of the staff, advisory panels, officers, or trustees of AEI.
    [Show full text]
  • Nber Working Paper Series Confirmatory Bias in Health
    NBER WORKING PAPER SERIES CONFIRMATORY BIAS IN HEALTH DECISIONS: EVIDENCE FROM THE MMR-AUTISM CONTROVERSY Mengcen Qian Shin-Yi Chou Ernest K. Lai Working Paper 26772 http://www.nber.org/papers/w26772 NATIONAL BUREAU OF ECONOMIC RESEARCH 1050 Massachusetts Avenue Cambridge, MA 02138 February 2020 We are grateful to Mary E. Deily, Tin Cheuk (Tommy) Leung, and Suhui Li for valuable comments and suggestions. We also express our gratitude to conference participants at the 6th Biennial Conference of the American Society of Health Economists and the 9th World Congress of the International Health Economics Association for useful discussion. The first author (Qian) gratefully acknowledges financial supports from the National Science Foundation of China (Grant No. 71704027) and the “Chenguang Program” supported by the Shanghai Education Development Foundation and the Shanghai Municipal Education Commission (Grant No. 17CG03). The views expressed herein are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Bureau of Economic Research. NBER working papers are circulated for discussion and comment purposes. They have not been peer-reviewed or been subject to the review by the NBER Board of Directors that accompanies official NBER publications. © 2020 by Mengcen Qian, Shin-Yi Chou, and Ernest K. Lai. All rights reserved. Short sections of text, not to exceed two paragraphs, may be quoted without explicit permission provided that full credit, including © notice, is given to the source. Confirmatory Bias in Health Decisions: Evidence from the MMR-Autism Controversy Mengcen Qian, Shin-Yi Chou, and Ernest K. Lai NBER Working Paper No. 26772 February 2020 JEL No.
    [Show full text]
  • Qt60b551qq Nosplash 1Dbebcd
    Copyright 2011 by Elena Conis ii Acknowledgements Portions of Chapter 6 appeared in the Journal of Medical Humanities 32, no. 2 (2011): 155-166. iii Abstract Calling the Shots: A Social History of Vaccination in the U.S., 1962 – 2008 Elena Conis In two centuries of vaccination in the U.S., the last five decades constituted a unique era. American children received more vaccines than any previous generation, and laws requiring their immunization against a litany of diseases became common. Vaccination rates soared, preventable infections plummeted, and popular acceptance of vaccines remained strong—even as an increasingly vocal cross-section of Americans questioned the safety and necessity of vaccines and the wisdom of related policies. This dissertation examines how and why, between the 1960s and 2000s, Americans came to accept the state–mandated vaccination of all children against a growing number of infections despite the growing prominence of vaccine doubts. I argue that vaccines and vaccine policies fundamentally changed the ways health experts and lay Americans perceived the diseases they were designed to prevent. Second, I demonstrate that vaccination policies and their acceptance throughout this period were as contingent on political, social, and cultural concerns as they were on scientific findings. Thirdly, I show how, as new vaccine policies took shape, feminism, environmentalism, and other social movements laid challenge to scientific and governmental authority, with profound—but previously overlooked—implications for how Americans perceived vaccination. Finally, I argue that the relationship between vaccination beliefs and political ideology is more complex than historians have heretofore asserted, for selective and blanket vaccination doubts at the end of the twentieth century were as informed by leftist critiques of iv capitalism and social hegemonies as by traditional American libertarian ethics.
    [Show full text]
  • Imagining Illness: Public Health and Visual Culture, University of Minnesota Press, 2010, 285 Pp., $27.50 (Paperback)
    International Journal of Communication 6 (2012), Book Review 43–47 1932–8036/2012BKR00090043 David Serlin (Ed.), Imagining Illness: Public Health and Visual Culture, University of Minnesota Press, 2010, 285 pp., $27.50 (paperback). Reviewed by Joy V. Fuqua Queens College/City University of New York Imagining Illness: Public Health and Visual Culture makes the most of timing. Not only does editor David Serlin’s introduction utilize a do-it-yourself YouTube video titled ―HPV Boredom 2‖ as its starting point, but the anti-HPV vaccine Gardasil has become a more than tangential topic in the 2012 presidential process. Contenders for the Republican nomination have rendered various opinions about Texas Governor Rick Perry’s 2007 executive order that required all young girls entering sixth grade to receive the vaccine unless their parents opted out. The Texas legislature quickly overturned the order and now the state does not require the vaccination. Indeed, Perry’s current ―hands-off‖ regulatory position seems to contradict such an executive order, even to the extent that during one of the 2011 Republican presidential debates, both Ron Paul and Michele Bachmann challenged Perry over his executive order. Bachmann went so far as to charge, without any medical evidence, that Gardasil caused ―mental retardation.‖ The debate over the vaccine’s public health implications called attention to the ideological features of public health policies. Another key contemporary frame for the reception of this collection of 12 essays is the ongoing public health disaster in Japan. As the nuclear disaster continues to unfold, Fukushima is fast becoming a global event that challenges a ―containment‖ approach to public health.
    [Show full text]
  • Anatomy of a Scare | Print Article | Newsweek.Com
    Anatomy of a Scare | Print Article | Newsweek.com http://www.newsweek.com/id/185853/output/print Anatomy of a Scare When one study linked childhood vaccines to autism, it set off a panic. The research didn't hold up, but some wounded families can't move on. Sharon Begley NEWSWEEK From the magazine issue dated Mar 2, 2009 Like many people in London on that bleak February day in 1998, biochemist Nicholas Chadwick was eager to hear what the scientists would say. The Royal Free Hospital, where he was a graduate student in the lab of gastroenterologist Andrew Wakefield, had called a press conference to unveil the results of a new study. With flashbulbs popping, Wakefield stepped up to the bank of microphones: he and his colleagues, he said, had discovered a new syndrome that they believed was triggered by the MMR (measles, mumps, rubella) vaccine. In eight of the 12 children in their study, being published that day in the respected journal The Lancet, they had found severe intestinal inflammation, with the symptoms striking six days, on average, after the children received the MMR. But hospitals don't hold elaborate press conferences for studies of gut problems. The reason for all the hoopla was that nine of the children in the study also had autism, and the tragic disease had seized them between one and 14 days after their MMR jab. The vaccine, Wakefield suggested, had damaged the intestine—in particular, the measles part had caused serious inflammation—allowing harmful proteins to leak from the gut into the bloodstream and from there to the brain, where they damaged neurons in a way that triggered autism.
    [Show full text]
  • HIV Management
    HIV Management Updates in HIV Primary Care OHSU CHRISTOPHER EVANS, MD/ MPH, AAHIVS ASSISTANT PROFESSOR OF MEDICINE HIV CLINIC TEAM LEAD PHYSICIAN OREGON HEALTH & SCIENCE UNIVERSITY M AY 3 0 TH 2019 OHSUNo Financial Disclosures Learning Objectives • Understand the role of role of Primary Care in HIV • Understand the epidemiology of HIV in the United States • Appreciate the multiple comorbidities in patients living with long term HIV infection • Understand current guidelines and screenings for the health maintenance of HIV patients • Understand the role of Pre Exposure Prophylaxis (PreP) in at OHSUrisk patients for HIV • Appreciate the future science of an HIV Cure HIV Testing Recommendations USPSTF recommends that clinicians screen adolescents and adults 15-65 years and all pregnant women for HIV infection (Grade A) Younger adolescents and older adults who are at increased risk should also be screened Repeat screening should be considered for those known to be at risk for HIV infection Rationale for updated recommendations: OHSU ART reduces progression to AIDS, AIDS-related events and death and substantially reduces transmission of HIV Data support earlier initiation of ART, and routine testing helps identify patients earlier Moyer VA. Screening for HIV: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation. Ann Intern Med 2013;159 (1):1-10, w1- OHSU Late Diagnosis of HIV in Oregon 41% of Oregon adults have ever been tested for HIV 2008 – 2012 (39%) of Oregonians newly diagnosed with HIV infection had severe enough immune suppression to meet AIDS criteria within 12 months of diagnosis Most have likely had been infected for ≥7 years These individuals reported missed opportunities for testing, often because they didn't recognize or report OHSUtheir HIV risks.
    [Show full text]
  • Online Vaccine Opposition: Identifying Trends and Contextualizing Criticism
    ONLINE VACCINE OPPOSITION: IDENTIFYING TRENDS AND CONTEXTUALIZING CRITICISM A THESIS IN Sociology Presented to the Faculty of the University of Missouri-Kansas City in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree MASTER OF ARTS by SARAH ANN CZECH B.A., University of Missouri-Columbia, 2008 Kansas City, Missouri 2014 © 2014 SARAH ANN CZECH ALL RIGHTS RESERVED ONLINE VACCINE OPPOSITION: IDENTIFYING TRENDS AND CONTEXTUALIZING CRITICISM Sarah Ann Czech, Candidate for the Master of Arts Degree University of Missouri-Kansas City, 2014 ABSTRACT While there are studies that that have been done to show how content attributes of vaccine- critical websites have changed over time, there is very little discussion about the social and historical context of that criticism or the theoretical framework through which that criticism can be understood. To fully understand vaccine opposition requires knowing why that criticism exists, the context through which criticism trends arises, and why this criticism is taking place specifically online. Data with context is infinitely more valuable. The purpose of this study was to identify the current trends in vaccine opposition on the internet through an examination of the content attributes of vaccine-critical websites, to situate current criticism socially and historically, and explore the theoretical basis for criticism like this residing on the internet. In addition, it aims to broaden and deepen an earlier analysis performed by Sandra Bean in 2011. To do this, vaccine-critical websites were identified through major iii search engine queries and snowball-type sampling from links to additional sites off the websites previously identified. The content attributes of each website homepage were analyzed through a content analysis that utilized both the codebook used in Bean’s 2011 study as well as an expanded range of codes to better facilitate the comparison of the two.
    [Show full text]