There are many sites like that attacking anti-vaccination data. And many sites attacking pro-vaccination data. Both sides throw about accusations of lies, intent to deceive, claims of integrity etc. etc. As I said in an earlier post, half of the mid-nineties Qld Health booklet on "immunisations" was untrue - determined, as the writer of your link recommends, by accessing the original articles in libraries, the internet not being the marvellous tool that it is today.
Whether Qld Health was deliberately lying, intending to deceive or just plain sloppy is impossible to tell, as they didn't reply to my letter pointing out the discrepancies and asking for an explanation.
The sulpha drugs are an interesting point - but most of the vaccines are against viruses, and the sulpha doesn't seem effective against pertussis.
So many things about this issue become matters of blind acceptance - the fact that people refer to immunisation, or being immunised, whereas what they usually mean is being vaccinated. The two words are not synonymous, but usage has merged them so that people assume that being vaccinated means that you are immunised. Never has there been a documented 100% effectiveness of a vaccine.
All I want is for people to realise that the blunt assertions hammered time and again by vaccine advocators are not the whole story; that there is a wealth of data out there that contradicts their beliefs; and that not everything they say is true. At the end of the day it is the choice of the parents.
