Vaccinate or vacillate. Inaction is criminal.

GPs Joust With Foes Who Say Jabs Can Kill Your Kids The 11 Myths Of Motherhood Vaccines Must Have `mad Cow Disease' Clearance DISEASE BEATERS.

2 4 6 9 18 20

a c c i

n a t

o r

v a c i

a t

e .

Vaccinate or vacillate. By Michele Sternberg. 461 words 16 June 2001 Gold Coast Bulletin GCBULL 48 English (c) 2001 Nationwide News Pty Limited The threat of a Gold Coast outbreak of whooping cough, and a rise in other diseases that we thought had long ago been conquered, has raised the debate on childhood immunisation. Michele Sternberg reports 'The only true preventative measure is immunisation' DISEASES that we thought were things of the past are reappearing in Australia. This week, it was a whooping cough outbreak on the Gold Coast. But will it be scarlet fever or polio next week? Medicos are angry because these diseases are preventable. However, as the Federal Government aims for 100 per cent immunisation coverage, the actual figure still hovers around the 75-80 per cent mark, leaving literally thousands of Australian children without any immunity to these sometimes deadly diseases. Australian Medical Association Gold Coast president Dr Maryse Badawy said the incidence of dangerous childhood diseases such as whooping cough had decreased around the world since immunisation was introduced. "The only true preventative measure is immunisation." Vaccinations provide a person with antibodies to fight the disease so 'in people who are vaccinated, the disease is less dangerous if they do pick it up', said Dr Badawy. She said the risk of a child reacting badly was 'very, very small'. Since the 1970s, parents have been strongly encouraged to immunise their children. Those against immunisation cite a number of reasons for their decision, including adverse reactions that include convulsions, brain damage and death. Vaccination Awareness Network national president Meryl Dorey said many parents felt pressured and often did not have all the facts on possible side-effects or adverse reactions. "Our aim is to fully inform parents so they can choose whether to fully immunise, selectively immunise or not immunise," she said. "Until the (Federal) Government can prove that a child won't be injured by vaccination, they should have to inform the parents." Most vaccines are free, paid for by the Federal Government which distributes funds to the states and territories to purchase specific vaccines. The vaccines counter a range of illnesses, including whooping cough, measles, mumps, rubella, hepatitis B, tetanus, and diphtheria. In 1997, figures from the Australian Childhood Immunisation Register estimated 76 per cent of Australian children were fully immunised.

Page 2 of 22

2012 Factiva, Inc. All rights reserved.

In Queensland, about 12,300 children under the age of one were protected. The register showed about 80 per cent had been vaccinated for polio and almost 83 per cent for diphtheria, tetanus and whooping cough. Mrs Dorey said an adverse reaction database compiled by the Vaccination Awareness Network had more than 700 reactions listed. She said reactions ranged from crying and fever to convulsions, brain damage and death. "It runs the whole gamut and, unfortunately, no one knows which child is going to react to what component of a vaccine." Document gcbull0020010712dx6g001r2

Page 3 of 22

2012 Factiva, Inc. All rights reserved.

n a c t

o n

c r

n a l

Inaction is criminal. 789 words 14 January 2001 Sunday Herald Sun SUHERS 42 English (c) 2001 Herald and Weekly Times Limited CONCERNING the ban on European beef products, whatever happened to "erring on the side of caution?" Michael Dak of ANZFA admits he does not know the infectious BSE is, and yet there are no plans to withdraw from use vaccines which could be contaminated with BSE. According to the Southwood Committee Report, commissioned by the British Government and released in February, 1989, but suppressed until 1999: "The greatest risk in theory ... would be from parenteral injection of material derived from bovine brain or lymphoid tissue. "Medicinal products for injection which are prepared from bovine tissues ... might also be capable of transmitting infectious agents." In other words, the risk of contracting vCJD from vaccines and other injected medicines is greater than the risk from eating meat. In Britain's Daily Express (May 2, 2000), a British Liberal MP, Mr Baker, stated: "The Department of Health was potentially criminally negligent in not requiring the immediate withdrawal or cessation of use of vaccines from potentially contaminated sources." I say the Australian authorities are likewise criminally negligent in this matter because they continued to purchase and use these vaccines knowing they are being withdrawn from use overseas. They compound their negligence with their inaction. These vaccines must be immediately withdrawn from use and all other vaccines in Australia must be given a clean bill of health before they can continue to be used. Anything less than this must call for charges of murder for those who allowed them to be administered. Meryl Dorey, National President, The Australian Vaccination Network, Inc. Bank theft COULD anyone explain why when you pay $40 extra a month off a Visa card, you are charged interest? It's time for one voice, one huge demonstration against thieving banks. Had enough of them, Port Melbourne Papacy vote valid JOHN H. Willshire (Letters, January 7), while undoubtedly sincere, conveys a misleading interpretation of the history of Papal elections. Nicholas II introduced the system of papal election by a vote of the College of Cardinals in 1059, and the requirement of a two-thirds majority of the vote was imposed after the Third Lateral Council of 1179. In light of this, it is hard to see how Mr Willshire comes to the conclusion that the system of papal election is "very much a modern day bit of ceremonial ritual ..."

Page 4 of 22

2012 Factiva, Inc. All rights reserved.

And, while it is true that there have been too many occasions in which nepotism has afflicted the church, the assertion that "more often than not they appointed their own relative" is somewhat of an exaggeration. Mr Willshire should remember tradition, like history, is a living and developing entity. It was precisely because of abuses such as those he refers to that the current system came into being. S. Farrell, Address supplied Arty farce MAY I suggest individuals donating money to the arts take a look at Adam Cullen's portrait of David Wenham, this year's Archibald Prize winner. Compare this rubbish to the painting of the distinguished surgeon on the adjoining wall at the Victorian Arts Centre. Until the arts can distinguish between artists and efforts that could equate to that of an eight-year-old, I would suggest money be withheld from that fraternity. Peter Morrison, Melbourne Happy Howard WHAT a happy conjunction of events for the Howard Government. The US Reserve announces a sudden and unexpected reduction of 0.5 per cent in local interest rates - a reduction likely to flow on to Australia. This will be welcomed by the business community and those paying off home mortgages. There will be a natural fillip to the economy as funds become cheaper and people have a little more "disposable" income. It might also be sufficient to push the Liberal National Party Coalition across the line at the Federal election less than six months away. The Howard Government could not have written a better script. Michael J. Gamble, Belmont Just a dump ENGLAND only sees Australia as a dumping ground. The royal family has become dysfunctional and has no real meaning to the majority of Australians. Aussie, South Yarra Waste of time STEVE Bracks amazes me. Reduction of suburban speed limits is not the answer. A 10km reduction only reduces the energy content of a moving vehicle by 30 per cent. Around the City of Knox, to the council's credit, are many roads that used to be speedways. They now have speed humps, roundabouts and chicanes. The result is no more large trucks and no more short-cut speedsters. Close off sections of residential areas to through traffic. However, Mr Bracks - typical of Laborites, he won't fix the fixable - only wants to fix things that are no t broken, for political reasons. P.B. Travis, Bayswater. Document suhers0020010715dx1e0008x

Page 5 of 22

2012 Factiva, Inc. All rights reserved.

J o u s t

W i

o e s

W h o

a y

J a b s

a n

o u r

d s

News And Features GPs Joust With Foes Who Say Jabs Can Kill Your Kids Julie Robotham. 1,078 words 12 December 2001 Sydney Morning Herald SMHH 6 English Copyright of John Fairfax Group Pty Ltd Anti-vaccination campaigners give doctors a headache, writes Julie Robotham. Viera Scheibner, focal figure of Australia's anti-immunisation lobby, claims to have studied ``tens of thousands of pages of medical papers. If that means prominence, so be it.'' The trouble, say her many detractors, is that she has studied them selectively and interpreted them through the lens of a dangerous prejudice. Dr Scheibner (her qualification is in the study of microscopic fossils) says vaccination kills babies, with the deaths falsely attributed to sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS) or shaken baby syndrome. She doesn't believe this. She knows it beyond any doubt. ``I don't like you saying `beliefs' about me. These are facts.'' While marketing a baby breathing monitor invented by her late husband, Dr Scheibner says she noticed that parents reported a big increase in alarms in the aftermath of their child's immunisation. Since then, the Czech-born 66-year-old has been gathering research reports that might be pressed into service in support of her hypothesis. So how does she explain the fact that Australian SIDS deaths have fallen by about 50 per cent since the early 1970s during the same period that immunisation coverage has risen to more than 90 per cent of children? The deaths, she says, must ``very likely'' be appearing as other causes. ``It could be pneumonia, bronchiolitis.'' But the total infant death rate has decreased by 30 per cent during the past decade, in parallel with the fall in SIDS. Dr Scheibner insists she is not aware of this figure, though it is freely available from the Australian Bureau of Statistics. Page 6 of 22 2012 Factiva, Inc. All rights reserved.

Why had she not sought it? ``Because I am doing other things. I am very busy,'' says Dr Scheibner. Dr Simon Chapman says Dr Scheibner is charismatic and persuasive in public forums. . But the Professor of Public Health and Community Medicine at Sydney University deplores her ``ambiguous use of science''. He says the parents who listen to her are deprived of the opportunity for informed choice ostensibly a chief tenet of the anti-immunisation platform. If Dr Scheibner is the movement's scientific anchor, then Meryl Dorey is its canny, grassroots worker through her advocacy group, the ambiguously titled Australian Vaccination Network. The coalition of local groups can rustle up immediate political noise on a range of vaccination-related issues. Its current campaign is to remove the requirement for a doctor to sign off on a conscientious objector statement necessary if a parent wants Centrelink child-care assistance for an unimmunised child. Ms Dorey is also lobbying for mandatory reporting by doctors of all adverse symptoms that could have resulted from immunisation. She says she no longer expects mainstream support for her unpopular crusades and that only direct parent power will change the status quo. ``This issue will never be in the public eye until there's a grassroots push for more information ... for parents to be empowered that they are the experts on their children, not doctors, not the government.'' Julie Leask's PhD research at the University of Sydney is an examination of the apparent beliefs of anti-immunisation disciples such as Dr Scheibner and Ms Dorey. To investigate, Ms Leask has had to infiltrate. She joined the Australian Vaccination Network and attended its public rallies. Commonly, Ms Leask says, the belief is part of a package. Central is the theme that governments, hand in glove with pharmaceutical corporations, have an agenda to control or injure their citizens. This plays out in an ``all natural'' approach to food and medicine, and a reluctance to engage with what is seen as the ``system''. ``I think it's a religious faith ... They're not malevolent. They're passionate in a religious way,'' Ms Leask says. Their influence is limited. Fewer than 5 per cent of parents have any problem with immunisation, and the proportion of Australian parents immovable on the subject is even smaller about 1per cent. David Isaacs, Professor of Immunology and Infectious Diseases at The Children's Hospital at Westmead, opposes the concept of compulsory immunisation, calling it ``abhorrent''. But he believes doctors should go in hard on parents who resist jabs for their children. Page 7 of 22 2012 Factiva, Inc. All rights reserved.

Just as anti-immunisers display wrenching pictures of babies allegedly damaged by vaccines, doctors should be prepared to outline graphically the potential consequences of catching vaccine-preventable disease. His own practice is to lay out their social duty to immunise in uncompromising terms and to tax them with selfishness if they still refuse. When all such strategies fail, Professor Isaacs begs parents to immunise their child against at least tetanus, which is carried in the soil and by animals and which can kill up to 10 per cent of infected people. ``That's completely preventable for a vaccine with no serious side effects,'' he said. Sue Page practises medicine in Lennox Head on the far North Coast. It is anti-immunisation heartland, where coverage rates are the lowest in NSW, and she is surrounded on all sides by propaganda. ``They've done letterbox drops. The pre-schools are targeted. As a GP it's really hard to have that level of anti-immunisation activity around you.'' Dr Page meets fire with fire. She reads every scientific paper her opponents are likely to cite. When a parent mentions it, she can pull it from the file and show them what it really says. Fourteen per cent of children are wholly or partly unimmunised in the Northern Rivers area, according to State Government statistics. Dr Page says that massively understates the problem. Thousands of people simply don't appear on the census, and local GPs have estimated 35 per cent to 40 per cent is more realistic. Despite that, she credits Ms Dorey and her supporters with forcing the Government's hand on legitimate improvements to the vaccine regime such as the move to subsidise the acellular whooping cough vaccine which causes fewer reactions. But she has little time for the anti-immunisation leaders, whom she accuses of ``dodgy play ... I used to think it was misunderstanding. Now I think it's more blatant than that.'' Dr Page's negativity does not extend to the concerned parents who imbibe the message. ``They actually do the reading ... They may be getting misinformation but I really admire them for wanting the information in the first place.'' </Tex t> Document smhh000020011211dxcc00015

Page 8 of 22

2012 Factiva, Inc. All rights reserved.

h e

1 1

y t

h s

o t

h e r

h o o d

Sunday Life The 11 Myths Of Motherhood By Kathy Evans, Kate Nancarrow, Rosemarie Milsom, Natasha Wood, Cathy Farrelly 4,685 words 13 May 2001 Sun Herald SHD 6 English Copyright of John Fairfax Group Pty Ltd You have a baby and suddenly you're not only up to your ears in nappies, you're slap bang in the middle of a great debate, too. There are whole books written on dummies (well, almost) but since nobody has time for all that we've distilled the arguments into bite-sized pieces... 1 Disposable nappies are evil Once upon a time, putting a nappy on our toddler Ceridwen was a piece of cake. That was before we switched to cloth, which with its cumbersome accessories such as extra padding and outer wraps, has turned a two-minute task into a 10-minute one. Changing her is like going on safari. First, we have to hunt the prey down (usually found giggling behind the sofa), pounce and wrestle her to the ground. By the time the first layer is on, she has made a bid for freedom and so we have to go through the whole palaver again. As cloth nappies are not very absorbent, we repeat this charade many times during the day. Why do we do it? For the bloody environment, that's why. A British study by the Association of Nappy Services using figures produced by Procter & Gamble, found that disposable nappies use 3.5 times more energy than washables, 2.3 times more waste water, 8.3 times more non-regenerative materials, 90 times more renewable materials and four to 30 times more land for raw materials. Not to mention the seven million trees which are felled to provide the pulp. According to a study by Choice magazine, Australian babies go through 7196 nappies a day, more than half of which are the reusable kind. (One quarter of parents surveyed said they only ever used cloth, 22 per cent used disposables and 53 per cent used both.) The cloth or disposable question generates more debate than any other. While it is generally accepted that breast-feeding is best for babies, the type of nappy used is seen as more of a lifestyle choice. But should it be?

Page 9 of 22

2012 Factiva, Inc. All rights reserved.

Katrina North, mother of eight-month-old Isobel, uses cloth, though she admits disposables may be more comfy. "They're certainly less bulky," she says. "But our main concern is the environment. Also, I was worried about the chemicals they use to absorb the wetness." But Catherine Winestone, mother of Libby, 4, and Emma, 2, says: "I've never so much as looked at a cloth nappy since the day I left the maternity hospital. I think young mothers have enough to cope with without the extra washing. "In my opinion, disposables are unbeatable. With cloth, the urine stays on the skin and I worry that the risk of infection is higher. Babies cry enough, without the added misery of nappy rash. "Also, I wouldn't want to be carting a soiled nappy around with me when we're out. As for the environment, by the time you bleach and boil all those cloth nappies, it's not really that much different to using disposables. Neither is harm-free." KE 2 Children should be taught from an early age When I was a child, my week went like this: piano on Monday, drama on Tuesday, violin on Wednesday, Girl Guides on Thursday, horse-riding on Friday, ballet on Saturday. And on Sunday, I went to church. My parents were part of the post-war middle class who believed in exposing their kids to opportunities denied to them during the hardships of World War II. It's a trend which has burgeoned with affluence. Nowadays, expendable income must be invested in the child's future. Look through any parenting mag and the range is overwhelming. Kindermusik, Kiddy Gym, holistic horse-riding, maths tuition, movement, creative art classes, puppetry, psychotherapy, embroidery and Singing In the Suzuki Style - where learning can begin as early as pregnancy (your foetus WILL sing...) Is it really necessary? Yes, says Andrew Bunn, national manager for the Kumon Institute of Education, a Japanese-based learning program aimed at helping students tackle English comprehension and mathematical calculations from a very early age. (There are 30,000 Kumon students in Australia, from 18 months up. The majority, however, are pre-school and primary age). "It is very important for students to have structure. They need the opportunity to learn and while play is very important, it is not the only means of learning," says Bunn, who believes Kumon prepares students for high school education with its technique of setting minutely graded worksheets. However, Angela Rossmanith, author of the book When Will the Children Play?, is worried that hot-housing children erodes their childhood and turns them into mini-intellectuals. "Time is precious these days, adults rush from here to there, and we are imposing adult rules onto children. We think that being busy is good and if we are busy, then they should be, too.

Page 10 of 22

2012 Factiva, Inc. All rights reserved.

"But a great deal of structured learning means the child doesn't get the chance to play and it is through play, and often repetitive play, that children learn and explore." KE 3 Children must be trained to sleep You stick rigorously to a routine. If Ricky Martin invites you for a pre-show drink, you decline because it clashes with little Isabella's bedtime routine. You're trying to establish patterns that will set her up for the next few years. You firmly believe that people whose children have sleeping problems bring it on themselves. Too lenient, too quick to cuddle, altogether too indulgent. God, some people even have their four-year-olds sleeping in the same room as them, some even in the same bed. All the books and all the under-fives correctional sleep centres Tweddle and Queen Elizabeth in Melbourne, and Tresillian and Karitane in Sydney -recommend the importance of a routine and the increasing separation of mother and baby at bedtime. Their routines are "designed to teach the infant/child to self-settle and learn to put themselves to sleep," according to Karitane's guidelines for struggling parents. But out there in the suburbs, there are mothers who think this early separation is a form of cruelty and the "controlled crying" techniques employed by sleep centres as a form of torture. Jacqueline Barrett and her husband had their son, Oliver, sleeping in their room until he was nearly three, much of it actually in their bed. "I think if you let children separate when they are ready, they do so, without fuss. I would never leave Oliver to cry himself to sleep or push him away if he wanted to be with us." Barrett did not see Oliver's demand that she go to bed when he did as a particular burden. "He was always up until about 8.30pm anyway because we always included him in everything. If we were going out for a meal, he would come with us. It works for us." "Well, it wouldn't work if she had more than one child," mother of four Marlene White snorts down the phone. "How big a bed would you need for four kids and two adults?" And that's the nub, according to maternal and child health nurse Sandra Maroney. She says, for some families, co-sleeping arrangements work well but "if you're unhappy and angry about your children's sleeping arrangements, you may need some professional help. And, I think it's true, our experience shows a regular routine and a bed of their own works best, particularly for toddlers." KN 4 All junk food is bad "It's very well-documented that children eat identically to their peers, either at child-care centres or at home," says Judith Myers, dietitian at Melbourne's Royal Children's Hospital. Page 11 of 22 2012 Factiva, Inc. All rights reserved.

Ah, so that's why even the toothless baby is gumming away on a McDonald's fry while the rest of the family has a fine dining experience at the drive-through. Myers says the best way to get children eating well is to set a good example: "Do as I do, not as I say." She suggests it's hard to get children to eat fresh vegetables if they see their parents and siblings always tucking into pizza and soft drink. But most of the tut-tutting about food is about what other people give their kids: "Humph. She sent Cheyenne to school with honey and Milo sandwiches on white bread with Coke for after." And, even those who can quote children's vitamin requirements chapter and verse still know the value of food bribes. "Of course, I bribe the kids with food; I just try to make them reasonably healthy bribes," says Claire Masters. "When they were really little, they thought rice cakes were like Lindt chocolate. Now they are older, we go for icecream or a banana smoothie in the summer or they love going out for pasta or Chinese on Friday night. "On long car journeys, we bribe with toys or books but not lollies. McDonald's we just ignore and say that's what other people do. Not us." But even parents with "good" eating habits sometimes have trouble getting their children to eat fruit and vegetables. Children may turn up their noses at steamed vegetables, others don't like any foods mixed together, others won't eat anything cooked. Superchef Stephanie Alexander had a daughter who lived on lamb chops in her childhood so it can happen to the best of us. Myers says persistence is the key: don't just give in to junk food for peace. "Even if they are just living on mandarines and sardines, keep offering them other foods because it won't continue for six months." KN 5 Immunisation is necessary After partially immunising her two eldest children, Meryl Dorey decided against immunising her two youngest children. She started the Australian Vaccination Network to provide parents with information about vaccination. I took my son along at two months of age to have him vaccinated and he ended up having a really bad reaction. He had a high fever, high-pitched crying for about five or six hours and then he developed sleep apnoea where he would stop breathing in his sleep, which was very frightening. We stopped vaccinating my daughter when she was six months old. I'd gone to the States and information was a lot easier to get there than it is here. After doing all that research, we felt very comfortable making the decision not to vaccinate. We were still worried about the diseases at that stage but we decided if we weren't going to vaccinate, we'd have to take some responsibility Page 12 of 22 2012 Factiva, Inc. All rights reserved.

as far as the children's nutrition went and what form of treatment we would use if they became ill. Once they do contract an illness, if their immune system is strong and if they're properly treated, then there's no problem. My children have all had the measles, including the one who was vaccinated against it, and they came through it really well. (All) my children have also had whooping cough and my husband and I, too. It's the one I was frightened of because I'd seen the commercials on TV, the babies gasping for breath. We treated it using homoeopathics and none of us was sick for more than two weeks. Dr Mukesh Haikerwal is a general practitioner and is vice-president of the AMA in Victoria. It's safe, it's effective, and it does protect kids against some really nasty things. There are always potential side effects with anything you do but there are also side effects from not doing things and the side effects of not immunising are pretty tragic. Parents who immunise their children are affording them the best protection they can against very disabling and often fatal illness. We mustn't forget that measles is still one of the biggest causes of death among children in the world. With measles, the chance of pneumonia is huge and there are other complications, including full-blown encephalitis, which is the whole of the brain becoming inflamed. With vaccines, you get about 95 per cent coverage, which is pretty good. And those 5 per cent who haven't actually produced antibodies will still get some reduced severity of illness if they do get exposed. The thing with measles and the vaccine, if the majority of the population is immunised, you get a very good cushioning effect, so the chance of contracting it is very small. My own kids have been vaccinated. With all our vaccines, we do put out information about what to watch out for if you do get a reaction. You can get a rash around the area and a temperature and so on. But a lot of these things are no longer a concern. With the purity and nature of the vaccines, there aren't the temperature rises that you used to get. Bad reactions are very rare. CF 6 Child care is wrong It's like a form of "values" tennis. A report comes out saying long days spent in child-care centres leads to aggression and other undesirable behaviour in the under-fives. The pro-family groups, who long for the days when mummies and pre-schoolers spent their days together looking for animal shapes in fluffy white clouds, smash the findings over the net to the working mums who, they perceive, are not only neglecting their children but probably causing them long-term emotional damage as well. Governments also come in for a serve because, according to groups such as the Australian Family Association, "government needs to do more to provide choice for parents, for families, so that one parent is in a position to be able to stay at home when it is possible". The child-care researchers and superwoman newspaper columnists lob back the now-standard answers: the negative research was based on child-care centres in the United States or Western Lithuania - somewhere where the standards and accreditation and staff-child ratios are significantly below that of Australian centres. Swedish and Israeli researchers, however, are almost invariably positive about the effects of child care so should be wheeled out at every opportunity. Page 13 of 22 2012 Factiva, Inc. All rights reserved.

But for all the talk about parental guilt and concern about child care, it's hard to find anyone who thinks that what they've chosen for their children is likely to cause them damage. "Both my girls love creche. If I thought they hated it, I'd do something else," says Marilyn Petriou. "I think children need to be with other children to learn social skills. I don't think it makes them more aggressive; they work out how to negotiate and get on with each other." But one family's social skills course is another's hyper nightmare. Jacqueline Barrett took her son out of creche after nine months when he was just over two. "He was there three days and I found he was over-stimulated. He only slept for 20 minutes or so and when he was home with me, he'd be either really clingy and demanding or going nuts pulling everything out of the shelves. It's like he had to be good all the time at creche because I wasn't there or there were so many kids and so few arms." KN 7 Children need a routine It's the hippyish Winona Ryder dream - that children brought up with counterculture godfathers and in the company of adults, but without rigid timetables and the word "no" ringing in their ears are able to develop their true creative selves and go on to have successful and interesting adult lives. Preferably with Johnny Depp somewhere close at hand. These children are, invariably, Listened To and their every utterance (and violin solo) is welcomed as if it contained the answer to the meaning of life. Precocious tendencies are seen as an example of maturity and intelligence - two qualities highly prized. Routines of bed and meal times are for, well, duller children from more rigid families. And, of course, children have rights, too. Why shouldn't Ariel have a strong opinion on where the family holidays? "I taught kids like this for years," says former primary teacher Gavin Wilson with a sigh. "The idea of listening to children is obviously healthy but allowing nine-year-olds to pontificate endlessly about conservation or to decide where the family will holiday or eat is just rubbish. They become mini-tyrants who find it quite hard to get on with other children, in my experience." But artist Mary Amato - "yes, I'm a hippy and proud of it" - thinks people like Wilson would raise a nation of "junior John Howards", if they could. Amato and her musician partner have only one child, 10-year-old Louella, who has been included in the family's activities and discussions since she was born. "No, we never bothered with a routine. We took her to live with my relatives in Italy when she was 18 months old and in Italy, there's a lot of visiting and eating together. Children are not banished like here and there's always a spare pair of arms. Louella is not a monster. She's herself and she's creative. I'd be delighted if she turned out like Winona Ryder." KN 8 Dummies are for dummies It's hard to believe an inexpensive object made from rubber and plastic can create so much controversy. Condemned for spreading infection, distorting teeth and creating Maggie Simpson-like dependency, the dummy continues to come to the rescue of desperate parents dreaming of that elusive good night's sleep.

Page 14 of 22

2012 Factiva, Inc. All rights reserved.

When her newborn daughter had trouble sleeping, Lynda Estok reached for a dummy only to find that it made matters worse. Despite her experience, she still believes that dummies serve a purpose. "Kelsey was a very tense baby and had a lot of sleeping problems. We ended up giving her a dummy to help her get off to sleep but once she'd drifted off, it would fall out of her mouth and that would wake her up. It just didn't work. If Kelsey had taken to a dummy, I probably would have used it quite a bit. As a mum, you just try to do the best you can. If the dummy pacifies your child and you get a good night's sleep, then it's worth a million dollars." Dianne Thompson would not let her first child have a dummy but by the time she gave birth to her third child seven years later, she decided she couldn't live without one. "I thought that it was a cop-out to stick a dummy in a baby's mouth. It seemed lazy. Then Max came along and everything changed. Maybe it was because I had the other two kids and I was tired all the time but he was a very unsettled baby. I wanted to get back into the workforce part-time and so I decided not to breastfeed. Maybe that also had a lot to do with it. He loved his dummy but when he started to walk, he lost interest in it. We never really had to struggle to get him to give it up. I wouldn't say they (dummies) are good or bad. I just think it's up to the individual to make the decision. I'm a lot more relaxed about it all." RM 9 Smacking is criminal When you were disciplined as a child, what was your parents' implement of choice? A splintered wooden spoon, a belt, the sole of a shoe or a length of rope? Maybe you were simply slapped? Under legislation endorsed by the NSW Government last month, parents who hit their children on the head or neck - or for more than a brief period - will no longer be able to use "reasonable" punishment as a defence. The legislation won't outlaw smacking or brief or "trivial" physical punishment and parents will still able to use an implement for a short period as long as the force isn't excessive, but the move has freshened up the great smacking debate. "The laws are already clear in all states about what constitutes child abuse and assault so this idea of turning so many parents into criminals overnight is ridiculous," says Bill Muehlenberg, the national secretary of the Australian Family Association, a pro-family lobby group. "Countless generations in the past have known the occasional smack and I don't think they were worse for wear. I'm not saying that it's OK to abuse your children. That is all together a different issue." Alex Damon isn't so sure. "For many people, it's (smacking) a basic infringement of human rights. It's that linkage with abuse that's so clear to me. It's that whole attitude of ownership of kids and that as adults you can do whatever you like with them. That's what concerns me." Damon, father of four and the coordinator of EPOCH (End Physical Punishment of Children) continues: "My kids certainly get disciplined. They're normal boys. They're boisterous, they tease each other and they fight but I can't ever see a point where I'd think that smacking would achieve anything. Most of the time (people) smack because it's a reaction to being angry or frustrated - it's not really about discipline." But the grim reality of toddler tantrums can very quickly crush even the highest of ideals. When she was pregnant with her first child, Sally Maddock used to gloat about her approach to discipline. "I always Page 15 of 22 2012 Factiva, Inc. All rights reserved.

looked down at people who hit their children around the back of the legs," she says. "It was always a sign to me that they couldn't cope, that they were bad parents. After I had James, I found that there were times where it was necessary to smack him. A lot of the time, it was because he was sticking something into the video or throwing toys into the toilet. When he turned three, he was unbearable for a while and there just seemed like there was no other way to deal with it." RM 10 TV is bad Visit the Spragg family and you'll be in for a shock. The four children aged between four and 10 are likely to be absorbed in various activities ranging from woodwork, painting, reading and swimming. There's no television or electronic games. "I think television takes away their freedom," says Anita Spragg. "I really want to protect their early childhood." The impact of television on children is a hot topic. We've been told that too much exposure can have a powerful effect on behaviour, development and health. But is it all bad? "Television is not bad in itself," says Barbara Biggins, the president of Young Media Australia. "It also has enormous potential. It entertains and educates but we have very good evidence that a diet of media violence will increase the risk of children choosing to use violence to resolve conflict. You also increase the risk of them becoming more callous about the impact of violence on other people. The child might also look at the world as being mean and scary." Paediatrician Dr Patricia McVeagh agrees. "If supervised and used in moderation, TV can provide stimulation and children can learn. Problems with health and behaviour arise when children are watching TV unsupervised and not doing anything else." Both Biggins and McVeagh emphasise the need for parents to take an active role in overseeing their child's television diet. They support the "off and on" approach. "Discuss which programs are appropriate and then turn it on for that specific selection," says McVeagh. Mum Stephanie Battaglia says: "I sit somewhere in the middle. I wouldn't go as far as getting rid of it but I do control what they watch. On a school day, I allow James and Brigitte to watch about an hour to an hour and a half. They're not allowed to watch it before school because they wake up too late. If they're dressed in their uniforms and ready with 10 minutes to spare, I'll let them watch until it's time to go. I also make sure they are involved in after-school sport and other activities. If there's a balance then I think you can avoid any problems." RM 11 Breastfeeding is essential Emily Mckinnon is nurse-in-charge of the Epworth Hospital's paediatric ward. Mothers should breastfeed for as long as possible, which in my opinion is up to two years but it is the first few months that are crucial. I believe in breastfeeding because it's natural, it helps the bonding process between mother and child, and it improves the child's immune system. Breastfed babies also gain more weight in early stages after birth. A breastfeeding mother is able to regulate her hormone levels, which helps against postpartum depression, as well as helping a woman return to her pre-birth weight. The downside is that it can be physically exhausting, it can make it difficult for a mother with a Page 16 of 22 2012 Factiva, Inc. All rights reserved.

career to return to work, and blood-borne diseases and drug dependencies can be passed on. Sometimes, the pressure from society, family and friends to breastfeed can be too overwhelming and can make a woman give up if she is having trouble getting the baby to take the breast. Her decision should be respected and alternatives considered. Tanya Walker, 41, has twin girls (now aged nine), and gave up breastfeeding them after 12 days. Having been a nurse in my earlier years, I was an advocate of breastfeeding. I knew the advantages gained by both mother and child in breastfeeding and approached it with a very positive attitude. My experience of personally breastfeeding started about three hours after the birth of the twins, and is still as vivid today as though it happened yesterday. The babies were crying and so the nursing staff suggested "we" give it a go. They sat me in a comfortable chair, told me to relax, and bought one of the girls over. They explained that if the baby "attaches" correctly, then it won't hurt. My nipple was placed into the crying baby's mouth. Immediately, she attached and I screamed - it was like having my nipple squeezed by a vice! We tried again, I couldn't believe the excruciating pain of it. The sister kept telling me to relax but it was impossible. I stayed in hospital for 11 days as we hadn't had any luck getting the feeding under our belt. I was very disappointed as I had more than enough milk to feed both babies but I felt it best for both my well-being, mental and physical, as well as the girls to stop. Prior to having children, many of my friends had said that women forget the pain of childbirth. Following my own children's birth, I now give similar advice to other friends but with a little difference: "I have forgotten the pain of childbirth but I will never forget the pain of breastfeeding." I feel that the choice of whether to breastfeed a child or not should be weighed up with all the factors. No woman should ever be made to feel inferior. Most of my close family and friends and the hospital staff had been witness to the gruelling time I had, so thoroughly supported my decision. I don't think my daughters suffered in any way. They were, and continue to be, the healthiest of all the children I know. They grew faster than the average and they rarely got sick despite being constantly around other children in care at an early age. NW Document shd0000020010713dx5d002vl

Page 17 of 22

2012 Factiva, Inc. All rights reserved.

a c c i

n e s

u s t

a v e

a d

o w

s e a s e '

e a r

a n c e

News; Letters Vaccines Must Have `mad Cow Disease' Clearance 313 words 19 January 2001 Illawarra Mercury ILM 16 English Copyright of John Fairfax Group Pty Ltd WHATEVER happened to ``erring on the side of caution''? Michael Dak of ANZFA admits he does not know the infectability of BSE (bovine spongiform encephalopathy), or mad cow disease, and yet, there are no plans to withdraw vaccines which could be contaminated. According to the Southwood Committee Report, which was commissioned by the British Government and released in February 1989 but suppressed until 1999: ``The greatest risk in theory ... would be from parenteral injection of material derived from bovine brain or lymphoid tissue. Medicinal products for injection which are prepared from bovine tissues ... might also be capable of transmitting infectious agents.'' In other words, the risk of contracting vCJD (BSE's human equivalent variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease) from vaccines and other injected medicines is greater than the risk from eating meat. Richard Smallwood claims that gelatine, tallow and milk products need not be banned because they are processed. His ignorance of this issue is appalling. It takes one hour at 600 degrees Celsius to inactivate the prions that cause vCJD. None of these products receive this sort of processing. In The Daily Express (May 2, 2000) a British Liberal MP, Mr Baker, stated that: ``The Department of Health was potentially criminally negligent in not requiring the immediate withdrawal or cessation of use of vaccines from potentially contaminated sources''. I believe that Australian authorities could be likewise potentially negligent in this matter because they continued to purchase and use these vaccines whilst knowing they had been withdrawn from use overseas. We know for sure that the MMR and polio vaccines contain beef gelatine and could be contaminated. Page 18 of 22 2012 Factiva, Inc. All rights reserved.

These vaccines must be immediately withdrawn from use and all other vaccines in Australia must be given a clean bill of health before they can continue to be used. - MERYL DOREY, National President, The Australian Vaccination Network, Inc. Document ilm0000020010711dx1j0048x

Page 19 of 22

2012 Factiva, Inc. All rights reserved.

DISEASE BEATERS. By JEREMY CALVERT. 876 words 6 July 2001 Herald-Sun HERSUN 22 English (c) 2001 Herald and Weekly Times Limited IN the 1700s, English doctor Edward Jenner noticed that milk maids had excellent skin. Unlike most people in that era they seemed not to catch smallpox and therefore didn't suffer from severe pock-marking of the face. Mr Jenner deduced that the milk maids were protected from the smallpox virus because of their exposure to the related disease, cow pox. He started injecting small samples of the cow pox virus into human patients, and found they too were protected from smallpox. The first vaccine was born. Since then some of the most deadly diseases in the world have been tamed through the development of vaccines. A rabies vaccine was developed in 1885, whooping cough in 1914, tuberculosis in 1921, tetanus in 1926, poliomyelitis in 1960, and many others in more recent times. Vaccines fool the immune system by exposing it to a mild form of a disease-causing germ. The immune system recognises the need to fight the germ, and produces a number of cells custombuilt to tackle it. When the real bug comes along, the immune system is primed to beat the germs. Jonathan Carapetis, an infectious disease specialist at the Royal Children's Hospital, said today's vaccines had been refined to a near-perfect level. "The ones we routinely give to all children are usually somewhere between 80 and 100 per cent effective," he said. He said last year's measles outbreak in Melbourne showed their effectiveness. "Every case of infection was in an un-immunised adult," he said. "Not one immunised child was infected." In Australia there is a legal requirement to either immunise your child or to conscientiously object before a child can be enrolled in a public school, and for the family to be eligible for child care allowances. Page 20 of 22 2012 Factiva, Inc. All rights reserved.

The immunisation program provides free vaccination against nine common diseases. Optional vaccination is now available for chicken pox and pneumococcal disease. Vaccinations are provided through community health centres, or can be obtained from family GPs. Mr Carapetis dismissed fears about immunisation. "Adverse reactions to vaccinations are usually limited to swelling and redness at the point of injection," he said. He said severe allergic reactions were extremely rare. "The idea of severe problems like brain damage and the like, if they do occur they occur in about one of every 100,000 to one million cases," he said. "The risk of severe problems from the vaccine is far less than the risk of severe problems from the diseases they are immunised against." Mr Carapetis said another benefit of good immunisation programs was the eradication of certain diseases. It is thought that within two years the world will be declared free of polio and diphtheria. It was declared free of smallpox, but there have been suspected outbreaks since. But he said immediate protection for children against serious diseases was the most important reason to immunise. "These diseases we vaccinate against are not mild diseases," he said. "Whooping cough can kill, measles can kill. "I think the most effective argument is to talk to someone who is a bit older and has lived through something like a polio epidemic, they have seen these diseases and know how bad they can be." B UT not everyone agrees immunisation is the only way to go. The Australian Vaccination Network lobbies for change in the Government's immunisation program. AVN president Meryl Dorey said it was not opposed to vaccination, but simply called for parents to be provided with better information. "We believe everyone has the right to make free and informed health choices," she said. "Right now the way the vaccination programs are being run in Australia, no one is being given that right." Mrs Dorey said most members of the AVN chose to treat illness when it occurred rather than seeking an alternative form of vaccination, although some chose to use homeopathic treatments. Page 21 of 22 2012 Factiva, Inc. All rights reserved.

IF YOU OBJECT IF you choose not to immunise your child, you are required to fill out a conscientious objector form. You must obtain a form from your GP and you must have your doctor's signature. If your child is not immunised, and you do not fill out a conscientious objector form, you will not be able to enrol her/him in a public school. You also may not be eligible for certain child allowances. Government vaccination schedule (0-4), children born before May 1, 2000 2 months Diseases: diphtheria, tetanus, pertussis (whooping cough), poliomyelitis, haemophilus influenzae type B (Hib) 4 months diphtheria, tetanus, pertussis, poliomyelitis, Hib 6 months diphtheria, tetanus, pertussis, poliomyelitis, Hib 12 months measles, mumps, rubella, Hib 18 months diphtheria, tetanus, pertussis, Hib Four years diphtheria, tetanus, poliomyelitis, pertussis, measles, mumps, rubella Children (0-4) born after May 1, 2000 Birth hepatitis BC 2 months diphtheria, tetanus, pertussis, Hib, hepatitis B, poliomyelitis 4 months diphtheria, tetanus, pertussis, Hib, hepatitis B, poliomyelitis 6 months diphtheria, tetanus, pertussis, poliomyelitis 12 months measles, mumps, rubella, Hib, hepatitis B 18 months diphtheria, tetanus, measles, measles, mumps, rubella, poliomyelitis Vaccination schedule (4 plus) 1013 hepatitis B 15-19 diphtheria, tetanus, poliomyelitis Non-immune women of child bearing age measles, mumps, rubella 50 diphtheria, tetanus 65 plus pneumococcal vaccine (every 5 years), influenza vaccine (every year). Document hersun0020010911dx76001uv

Page 22 of 22

2012 Factiva, Inc. All rights reserved.