False Balance? You mean, censorship, don’t you?

important_Opinion

by Meryl Dorey

Radio 4BC in Brisbane had the temerity to call me a few days ago to comment on a new QLD government initiative which would send out reminders to everyone who hasn’t vaccinated either their children or themselves and will also allow pharmacists to administer more vaccinations to more people.

As one of the representatives of an organisation supported by thousands of Australians who are skeptical about the medical evidence regarding vaccine safety and effectiveness, this radio station obviously felt that it was important to give a balanced view on the issue. And balanced, for those who don’t understand it, means at least two sides.

The pseudo-skeptics, on the other hand, disagree with the station’s decision to interview someone from the AVN.

Now, it’s OK to disagree – don’t get me wrong. Discussing and even arguing (politely and respectfully) about important issues is the basis of a civil and democratic society. And both I personally and the AVN as an organisation believe strongly in the right to discuss and examine all sides of any issue. This is the reason our organisation was formed 20 years ago and it is our core belief to this day.

But the hate groups, the Australian Skeptics [sic] and their splinter group, Stop the AVN, want the right to call the free and open airing of information on this issue ‘false balance’. They say that because they disagree with questions about vaccination (and other medical issues) and they are self-proclaimed arbiters of all issues scientific, anyone who does not support their point of view should not be given a platform to present their information. And make no mistake – it is their open intention to suppress this information and to harass, abuse and have the government cite anyone who dares to discuss the problems with vaccination publicly.

Below are links to the recordings of that program – I am putting them here in case the radio station gives in to pressure from these groups and takes those recordings down – this has happened before.

Dr Dylan Wilson


 

Meryl Dorey

 

Here are some of the hate-filled posts and tweets from SAVN members, including Rachael DunlopRachael Dunlop, VP of the NSW Skeptics [sic] (see one of her tweets for an idea of how this so-called professional deals with scientific issues). This organisation and SAVN have initiated a campaign to target this radio station to prevent them from ever allowing anyone on air who does not toe the party line on vaccination.

I hope you will take 5 minutes to drop the station a quick line and thank them for their fairness in allowing this information to be aired and to ask them to continue to do so. Here is their Contact Page.

Rachie re 4bc

 

Tierney re 4BCPlease note: Blog posts are opinion pieces which represent the views of the authors. They do not necessarily represent the viewpoints of the AVN National Committee. The AVN is a forum, support and information organisation and outlet for discussion about the relative benefits and risks of vaccinations in particular – and medical procedures in general. We do not provide medical advice but believe that everyone has the opportunity and the obligation to do their own research before making decisions for their families. The information we provide (including your personal review of the references we cite) should be taken in conjunction with a range of other data, including that obtained from government, your health care provider and/or other medical source material to assist you in developing the knowledge required to make informed health choices.

 

Posted in Censorship, Health rights, Medical Bully-Boys, Vaccination | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | 6 Comments

Marketing based medicine: how bad is it? – On Line Opinion – 7/7/2014

It should be the scandal of the century. It potentially affects the health of almost everyone. Healthcare providers and consumers alike should be up in arms. But apart from coverage in a few credible news sources the problem of Marketing Based Medicine, as psychiatrist Dr Peter Parry terms it, hasnt as yet generated the kind of universal outrage one might expect.

If you bought a new car and there was only a one in twelve chance that it would work properly, how would you feel? And what if there was a one in three chance that it was downright dangerous? Faced by these sorts of statistics, most consumers would be furious. And yet according to an articlein the ‘Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics’, entitled ‘Institutional Corruption of Pharmaceuticals and the Myth of Safe and Effective Drugs’ this may well be the state of affairs with pharmaceutical products.. The “…..proportion of new products with clinical advantages seems to have moved from about 1 in 8 down to 1 in 12, while the proportion with serious harms has gone up from 1 in 5 towards 1 in 3 .…..”

Strangely a public outcry seems slow coming.

via Marketing based medicine: how bad is it? – On Line Opinion – 7/7/2014.

Posted in Accountability, Fraudulent Research, Medical ethics, Vaccination | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Did NSW Fair Trading Illegally Leak Private AVN Information?

28886672_s

In November 2013, the Administrative Decisions Tribunal affirmed that the NSW Office of Fair Trading (OFT) may lawfully order us to change our name. Then, in December, our attempt to process the new name was thwarted when that name was somehow leaked to outside parties. This happened within hours of our payment failing due to an unauthorized access on our credit card. This enabled them to ‘get in first’ and register the name for themselves.

(Note: individuals can register business names immediately, whereas incorporated associations have to wait for OFT to register an official name on their behalf.)

This was not the first time we suspected sensitive information had leaked from OFT. Just one month prior, members of ‘Stop the AVN’ publicised the decision regarding our forced name change (mentioned above) before we ourselves were aware of it. At the time, the only parties with access to this information were OFT and the Tribunal itself. The event in December galvanised our suspicions.

Our contact at the OFT undertook to investigate the alleged leak, but despite this promise, it appears that no investigation has taken place and all communication with our contact has been cut off by the OFT without explanation.

During the past six months, many of our members have asked about the progress of this investigation. Each time, we have had to reply that we were still waiting. To date, we have had no adequate response nor any indication that an investigation has or will take place.

On May 15th of this year (six weeks ago) we issued the Commissioner with a statement of events, and asked for confirmation of its accuracy. We indicated the statement would be used to brief our members about what had occurred thus far.

We have been asked to sit tight ever since while a response could be prepared. And we have, until now. Our final deadline to OFT passed five days ago. The Committee has now decided to go ahead and release the statement.

Below is the letter, complete with the statement and an outline of our concerns. In addition, you will find subsequent correspondence between OFT and AVN.

——————————————————–

May 15, 2014

The Commissioner,
NSW Fair Trading

Ref: Your correspondence of 14/3/2014
by email to commissioner@finance.nsw.gov.au

Dear Commissioner,

Regarding the possible leakage from your office of sensitive information concerning our organisation.

Please read the following document and advise as to whether any of the information in the enclosure or the summary (below) is inaccurate. We request your response in writing no later than the close of business on Thursday, May 29, 2014. Should you require more time to respond, please contact us. In response to queries from our members regarding this issue, we intend to inform them using the information in the summary and full-text letter below. If we do not hear from you within this timeframe, we will presume that you agree with these statements and will proceed accordingly.

In summary:

1- No formal investigation took place. It is clear that sensitive information provided by the AVN, somehow flowed from NSW Fair Trading to third parties. Despite the disturbing nature of this situation, NSW Fair Trading has neglected to conduct an investigation.

2- Ms Lunney, our contact at the department, expressed deep concern about what had occurred. We were surprised then to be told that she was unavailable to speak with us subsequently.

3- It seems that someone within NSW Fair Trading did indeed release information to a third party. However, instead of treating this situation with the seriousness it deserved, a carefully-worded letter was sent to the AVN by Mr Stowe, the Commissioner of Fair Trading, giving us assurances of things we hadn’t alleged whilst avoiding those we had.

Kind regards,
Greg Beattie,
President
Australian Vaccination-skeptics Network Inc

Divider 1

Is the NSW Office of Fair Trading leaking privileged information?

Members of Stop the AVN have obtained information that was not in the public arena at least twice in recent months.

The first instance occurred on the 25th of November. When the Administrative Decisions Tribunal (ADT) decision was handed down in the case of the AVN against NSW Fair Trading, members of Stop the AVN issued tweets about our loss before we ourselves were informed and before this information was public knowledge. We confirmed with the Registrar at the ADT that the only person who had knowledge of this decision at the time the tweets were issued was the solicitor for NSW Fair Trading.

The second instance occurred in December of 2013.

At 11:36 AM on the 20th of December, Meryl Dorey faxed and emailed a copy of a Form A1 (application to reserve a name) as well as a credit card payment form to the Department of NSW Fair Trading.

Unfortunately, due to an unauthorised access of the AVN’s credit card, the payment was rejected on December 24th.

1- Within hours of the payment failure, members of Stop the AVN had registered the exact same name we had tried to reserve as well as three variations of that name with ASIC.

2- On Boxing Day (December 26th), the AVN’s President, Mr Greg Beattie, received a call from Mr Rick Morton, a journalist with the Australian newspaper, who asked him why our name registration had failed. At this point, we ourselves were unaware of any problem with the payment and Mr Beattie told him as much.

3- On January 2nd, Mr Morton published an article (Appendix A) stating that the AVN had failed to register the name Australian Vaccination-Sceptics Network. The only time that name (including the hyphen) had been written down was on the paperwork the AVN had submitted to the Department on the 20th of December.

4- That same day, January 2nd, the AVN was made aware of a blog post from Mr Dan Buzzard (the text of which was later posted to the AVN’s PO Box in Bangalow). (Appendix B). Mr Buzzard stated that on the 24th of December, his “investigators” notified him that we had attempted to register the name Australian Vaccination-Sceptics Network.

5- Also on the 2nd of January, the following online comment was posted on the website of the Northern Star newspaper in response to their story about the AVN’s ‘failure’ to register our name.

Sandra_Harvey of Ocean Shores wrote:

“So to reserve a name without paying for it until their hand is forced once again by NSW Fair Trading has backfired. Dan Buzzard registered the name Australian Vaccination Sceptics Network with ASIC. If they had simply paid up like any sane person who wanted to register a name, they would have nothing to complain about”

All of these events took place well before we ourselves were aware of the failure of our payment and at a time when our name reservation should not have been public knowledge.

When ASIC reopened in January, the AVN enquired as to whether any of the above information might have been available to the public on their database. We were informed that name reservations do not appear on the database until they have been registered with the relevant state authorities. In fact, they themselves don’t have access to name reservations from the various states so nobody could have found out about this from them.

On Monday, January 6th, Mr Beattie spoke with Ms Robyne Lunney, our contact at Fair Trading, to inform her of Mr Buzzard’s claims and the article published in the Australian newspaper. Ms Lunney was disturbed by these events and said she would investigate and get back to Mr Beattie. She requested more details which were provided later that day by email. [Appendix C]

On trying to follow up with Ms Lunney, Mr Beattie was twice told by Fair Trading that she was not available and would no longer be available to speak with him.

On the 11th of February, Mr Beattie sent an email to Ms Lunney asking how the investigation was progressing. [Appendix D].

He received a response on the 13th of February, but not from Ms Lunney. Instead, Ms Christine Gowland was the correspondent.
Her only response to Mr Beattie’s question about the ‘investigation’ was:

“A response to the other issues raised in that email and your earlier email regarding events following your name reservation will be provided shortly under separate cover.”

After having no other contact with the Department regarding this matter, Mr Beattie sent the following request to Ms Gowland on March 3rd, 2014:

Dear Ms Gowland

I understand from the last sentence in your email (below) that the matter of sensitive information falling into the hands of a third party is still being investigated by your office. Can you please advise me of the name and contact details of the branch or person conducting this investigation so that [I] may ask further questions directly?

[It is our understanding that proper procedure for such an investigation is that it be conducted by a separate branch and that the party requesting the investigation (in this case, the AVN) be informed of these details.]

Ms Gowland did not respond to Mr Beattie’s request for further details about this investigation. Instead, the next correspondence from her was received by the AVN on the 12th of March 2014. It was a letter informing him that the AVN had 5 days in which to comply with the order to ensure that our name was changed on all documents and on our website.

On March 13th, Mr Beattie wrote to Ms Gowland acknowledging her advice regarding our name change and reminding her that he had yet to receive a response to his request from the 5th of March for details on the internal investigation.

Ms Gowland responded on the same day as follows:

“A formal response will soon be provided to you regarding issues raised in regards to information surrounding the new name.”

On March 14th, Mr Beattie sent the following email to Ms Gowland:

Dear Ms Gowland

Thank you for your email. I must ask why you have neglected to identify the party conducting the investigation. Surely we are entitled to make enquiries to this party regarding time-frames and other issues. Is it a formal investigation? I ask because these are the questions being asked of me by our members.

I look forward to your response.

Kind regards
Greg Beattie
President
Australian Vaccination-skeptics Network Inc.

On the 21st of March, the AVN received a letter by postal mail from Mr Rod Stowe, Commissioner of NSW Fair Trading. This letter [Appendix E], was signed on March 14th but not posted until March 19th. The letter simply stated that Mr Stowe assured the AVN that NSW Fair Trading had not disclosed any details regarding the name Australian Vaccination-Sceptics Network to the media or in any public forum.

The use of this language is interesting. Whilst members of the media were clearly privy to this information, the AVN has never alleged that NSW Fair Trading had released it directly to them. Why then did Mr Stowe use these words? The fact is that information which was not in the public domain and was sent by us to NSW Fair Trading under current privacy legislation, somehow made it to these parties. The question is – how did this happen?

Divider 1

From: <commissioner@finance.nsw.gov.au>
Date: Wed, May 21, 2014 at 5:02 PM
Subject: Re: Correspondence from Australian Vaccination-skeptics Network     Inc.

Dear Mr Beattie

Thank you for your further correspondence on this issue, which is currently being considered. A formal reply will be forthcoming following careful consideration of the points raised.

I will shortly provide you with an updated reference number for this matter.

Regards,
XXXXXXXX
Office of the Commissioner | NSW Fair Trading

Divider 1

From: <commissioner@finance.nsw.gov.au>
Date: Mon, May 26, 2014 at 10:05 AM
Subject: Ref: FTMIN14/1376 – Correspondence from Australian     Vaccination-skeptics Network Inc.

Dear Mr Beattie

I write again to further acknowledge your latest correspondence.

The reference number for this matter is FTMIN14/1376.

Unfortunately, the Commissioner will not be able to meet your stated deadline for a response to the issues raised, especially due to the fact he has only just today returned from overseas leave. However, please be assured the matter is under consideration and a response will be forthcoming as soon as possible.

Regards,
XXXXXXXX
Office of the Commissioner | NSW Fair Trading

Divider 1

From: Greg Beattie
Date: Fri, Jun 13, 2014 at 2:00 PM
Subject: Re: Ref: FTMIN14/1376 – Correspondence from Australian Vaccination-skeptics Network Inc.
To: commissioner@finance.nsw.gov.au

Dear XXXXXXXX

Your ref: FTMIN14/1376

Please be advised that our committee intends to commence preparing the information for our members after close of business next week (June 20). We request that the Commissioner notify us before that date if he feels that any of the information in the timeline we sent him is inaccurate or otherwise not in order. We presume the Commissioner is familiar with the issue, having previosly considered the allegations. If any substantial inaccuracies can be identified before the time mentioned above, we will be happy to delay informing our members to allow further time for investigation.

Please ensure a copy of this email is forwarded to the Commissioner.

Kind regards

Greg Beattie
President
Australian Vaccination-skeptics Network Inc.

Divider 1

From: <commissioner@finance.nsw.gov.au>
Date: Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 11:38 AM
Subject: Re: FTMIN14/1376 – Correspondence from Australian     Vaccination-skeptics Network Inc.

Dear Mr Beattie

Thank you for this latest e-mail, which will be considered in the preparation of the Commissioner’s response to your previous correspondence on this issue (FTMIN14/1376).

Regards,
Office of the Commissioner | NSW Fair Trading

Divider 1

Date: Fri, Jun 20, 2014 at 7:17 AM
Subject: Re: FTMIN14/1376 – Correspondence from Australian Vaccination-skeptics Network Inc.
To: commissioner@finance.nsw.gov.au

Dear XXXXXXX,
Thank you for your email. It has now been more than five months since this matter was raised. Despite its concerning nature (something clearly acknowledged by your own representative) we still have not had an adequate response. I reiterate that our committee intends to prepare the information for members after close of business today (June 20, 2014). We will also consider whether further action is warranted.
Please ensure the Commissioner receives this email.
Thank you for your assistance.
Yours sincerely
Greg Beattie
President
Australian Vaccination-skeptics Network Inc.

Divider 1

From: <commissioner@finance.nsw.gov.au>
Date: Fri, Jun 20, 2014 at 2:35 PM
Subject: Re: FTMIN14/1376 – Correspondence from Australian Vaccination-skeptics Network Inc.

Dear Mr Beattie

I acknowledge your email and have made the Commissioner aware of it.
We are expediting the Commissioner’s response and hope to send it to you today.
Regards,
XXXXXXXX
Office of the Commissioner | NSW Fair Trading
Posted in Accountability, Vaccination | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , | 11 Comments

Autism Risk Increased With Combined Vaccine – Journal Paper Confirms Risk of Seizures is Doubled Compared to Separate Vaccines

Originally posted on ________________Child Health Safety_________________:

A new study in the Canadian Medical Association Journal confirms combining two common childhood vaccines into one rather than administering them separately doubles the risk of febrile seizures in children: Combined vaccine doubles seizure risk in childrenThe Vancouver Sun By Elizabeth Payne, Ottawa Citizen June 9, 2014.

This is the study concerned: Risk of febrile seizures after first dose of measles–mumps–rubella–varicella vaccine: a population-based cohort studyCMAJ June 9, 2014.  It compared MMR and MMRV vaccines, which is MMR combined with chickenpox [varicella] vaccine.

The study does not suggest the risk of autism is increased but people are no longer so gullible as to not make the connection.  A risk of seizures brings the risk of a brain injury and a consequent autistic condition: MMR Causes Autism – Another Win In US Federal Court  and Vaccination Causes Autism – Say US Government & Merck’s Director of Vaccines

What…

View original 302 more words

Posted in Autism, Seizures / Epilepsy, Vaccination | Leave a comment

A Response to “Anti-Vaxxers are Stupid and Contagious” – LivingWhole.org

Vaccine SalesmanOur kids aren’t vaccinated. If yours aren’t either then I guess that makes us all “stupid and contagious,” at least according to this winner of an article in the HuffPost.Apparently, not vaccinating is akin to someone getting drunk, getting behind the wheel of a car, and killing somebody. We’re also responsible for bringing back not-so-deadly diseases that were never eradicated, and putting the “supposedly protected” vaccinated children and the immunocompromised at risk. We’ll overlook the fact that most immunocompromised children actually can be vaccinated and that those who aren’t can’t be around vaccinated children either.

Our rational for not vaccinating apparently has nothing to do with the fact that we’ve actually taken the time to read the vaccine inserts and do the research, and everything to do with Jenny McCarthy. Oops, apparently I missed researching “her” when I was busy looking up the toxicological profiles of the additives in vaccines. Then again, my higher education left me without the ability to read a vaccine insert entirely. 

(click the link below to read the full article and to subscribe to the excellent LivingWhole blog)

A Response to “Anti-Vaxxers are Stupid and Contagious” – LivingWhole.org.

Posted in Health rights, Medical Bully-Boys, Vaccination | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Timeline to a Tragedy:Part 3 – Lessons go Unlearned

Monday, April 19, 2010

PMH sends 23 more reaction reports to the TGA. TGA receives them on April 20, 2010.

Divider 1

PMH emails the CDCD to say that over the previous 3 days, a further 22 emergency department admissions had presented following vaccination, bringing the total from that one hospital to 111.

Divider 1

CDCD emails PMH to say that there will be a meeting on Wednesday, April 21st in Canberra and they hoped to get more information then.

Divider 1

481354-saba-buttonChild admitted to the emergency department at PMH in the evening with a severe reaction following flu vaccine. Later transferred to the intensive care unit (ICU) (please note – this refers to Saba Button)

 Divider 1

Michael Rutherford from QLD Health, emailed Kerry White:

In response to your inquiry about the Ch 10 item of the death of a child the day after she had a swine flu vaccination, I am informed that there is no evidence to conclude the death was in any way related with the vaccination.

Kerry White responded:

 

Thanks Michael, what was the source of this information? What kind of evidence would prove that the child died from a vaccine adverse event.

 

To which, Michael Rutherford replied:

Dear Mr Swine Flu,

This lady, a member of the public who I would say anti-vaccine, asked me why QH [Queensland Health] had not issued a warning after the death of a 2-y-o from the vaccine. As you can see I responded to her that there was no evidence.

 

Kerry White, then responded with:

Michael, we have not referred specifically to this event – we have said only that there have been no deaths reported in Queensland or Australia associated with swine flu vaccination.

Tuesday, April 20, 2010

A paediatric nurse at Rockingham General Hospital (RGH) emailed PMH to say that they have been noticing adverse reactions being admitted to the emergency department. They asked if this was happening elsewhere.

PMH confirmed that they have been seeing admissions as well and asked for the number of patients presenting to RGH emergency department.

Divider 1

CIC stops using both Fluvax and Fluvax Junior.

Divider 1

The Microbiology Registrar calls the Paediatric Immunologist at PMH and the Director of the Vaccine Trials Group at the Telethon Institute to inform that that they had been notified of a very sick child following the seasonal flu vaccine who was now in intensive care.

Divider 1

St John of God hospital at Murdoch emailed the CDCD to say that 10 people had presented to their emergency department with flu vaccine reactions.

Wednesday, April 21, 2010

Triage nurses assigned to collect data on reactions at RGH.

Divider 1An expert teleconference takes place between various federal and state health officials. There are issues with the Australian Childhood Immunisation Register (ACIR) – the database that collects information on who is being vaccinated. 130 people have presented to emergency departments with seizures and fever following vaccination. Most are not admitted. SA has also reported reactions with ‘anecdotal’ reports coming in from Victoria and Sydney. Decided that there is no need to go to the media yet.

 

Divider 1The AVN received this email from a practitioner in WA:

… We are a surgery in WA and within the last 48 hours, have had 4 babies (all aged 1) that are patients of our clinic hospitalised for flu vaccine reactions. One has apparent permanent brain damage. We are ONE small clinic. There is no way, I believe, that the number is limited to just 45 cases of unwell children. (ed. note – at this point, WA had officially reported a total of 45 reactions to the vaccine)

Thursday, April 22, 2010

PMH sends reports of 8 reactions following flu vaccine to the TGA.

Divider 1

The Executive Director of Public Health is informed of reactions and the child in ICU. A request is made to inform the Minister for Health regarding suspension of the vaccination program.

Divider 1

During the teleconference, febrile reactions and the increase in emergency department visits are discussed. The rate is higher than in previous years. A full investigation is required which runs the risk of damaging the [vaccination] program.

Divider 1

Director of public health recommends suspending the vaccination program with the possibility of finding an alternative vaccine.

Divider 1

AVN receives report via a third party of a nineteen year old male who died within a few days of getting a flu vaccine.

I have just had word about a nineteen year old male (kids’ friend) who has died as a result of a flu vaccine he received last week. How do I find out more about the stats of this vaccine?  I would like to inform his grieving parents about the entire vaccine fraud currently going on….they have no idea and are probably believing the GP who dosed him.  I am still in shock that a healthy young male has died as a result.

In a follow-up email, after checking for further details, this person reported that:

I spoke to one of our son’s friends who visited the grieving parents today. The boy, 19 years old, received the flu vaccine on Monday (this week), was admitted to hospital Wednesday night with pneumonia and died last night. He was symptomless and well on Monday.

(Please note: This death has not been reported by the media)

AVN receives a telephone call from a nurse at PMH stating that every time an ambulance pulls up to the emergency department, all staff members look around and say – “I hope this isn’t another flu vaccine case.” The nurse told me that they had seen dozens of infants and children in just the last 2 weeks and that if the doctors did not ‘do something about it soon’ they were going to take matters into their own hands and go to the media.

Divider 1WA Health suspends flu vaccination program for children five years of age and younger and informs the Federal authorities.

Friday, April 23, 2010

The AVN received this email from one of our WA members:

… I also heard some very sad news about a family here in Perth today. They had their child vaccinated with their 1 year old injections last week. He is due to turn one on anzac day. 12 hours after his vaccination he had a severe reaction and is now brain dead. They are looking at turning off the life support in the next couple of days. I nearly cried when I heard this. Can you believe it? PMH is even admitting that it is a reaction to the vaccine.

(Please note that this death has never been discussed in the media.)

Divider 1

PMH sends 5 more reaction reports to the TGA.

Divider 1

Commonwealth Chief Medical Officer, Jim Bishop, suspends the national flu vaccination program for children.

Divider 1

CSL, the vaccine manufacturer, stops distribution of paediatric flu vaccines nationally.

Divider 1

Dr Jeannette Young, CHO for QLD, issues a media statement giving parents assurance that the ‘swine flu’ vaccine is safe and effective and that they should be giving it to their children over the age of six as well as taking it themselves.

Divider 1

Samantha Keegan emails Christine Selvey, Kerry White and Greg Shaw from the Federal Health Department following the CHO’s press release mentioned above.

Heard this previewed on Mad King for 830 – said have been 44 kids admitted to hosp in WA after vac.

Could mean the fuss on dead 2 year old after swine flu injection flares up.

 

Saturday, April 24, 2010

Email from Naomi Ford, A/Media Manager (South), Queensland Health to Dr Jeannette Young:

I have just received a call from Suellen Hinde from the Sunday Mail. She says she’s been told that a set of twins from Browns Plains received the seasonal flu vax (some time ago – she’s not sure of the exact date) but word is they both had an adverse reaction and one twin died. Is this true?

I assume that from the info yesterday that this is incorrect but can you please advise.

Dr Young replied to Naomi Ford as follows:

There has not been any notification to the relevant national body or to QH of any death in qld as a result of receiving the seasonal flu vaccine. If she has names and permission of the parents I am very happy to look into whether there has been any specific information about the two children.

Naomi Ford provided Dr Young with the following information:

The journo advises that the child’s name was ASHLEY EPAPARA who died unexpectedly at home on 9/4/2010 at age 2 years 4 mths. I’m told this patient had the seasonal flu shot on the afternoon of 8/4/2010.

Are you aware of this? Please advise.

Dr Jeannette Young then authorised a media response to Suellen Hinde, a reporter with the Sunday Mail. In that response, she claimed that:

Neither Queensland Health nor the relevant national body have been advised of, or are aware of any death allegedly related to a 2010 seasonal flu vaccination or Pandemic (H1N1) 2009 (human swine flu) vaccination in Queensland.

Monday, April 26, 2010

In an email from Dr Young to Naomi Ford – please note: The subject line of the email is ADVICE re: CH10 story on child death vaccination link – dropped at this stage:

Perhaps in hindsight (such a wonderful thing) I should have asked the coroner about whether a child had died in mt gravatt after receiving a flu vaccine. We certainly were not told until Saturday and I have again checked yesterday with the hospitals around mt gravatt if they had heard anything. I note that was done at the tim

Tuesday, April 27, 2010

Email from Alisha Lucas, Southside Area Health to Dr Russell Schedlich:

Further info from Friday. Has this all settled now? We have the scripts all in place.

I heard only through my family that a 2 yr old died on the weekend after having swine injections and now all docs have been told to cease giving the vac. Is this true?

Thursday, April 29, 2010

QLD Health issues a press statement to the effect that Dr Amir Mohammad Eskandari has been reported to the QLD Medical Board for failing to report the death of Ashley Jade Epapara less than 12 hours after the seasonal flu vaccine.

Tuesday, May 18, 2010

Email from Naomi Ford to Dr Jeannette Young:

Ch 10 has phoned wanting comment saying the phoned the dept on 9 April telling them about the little girl who allegedly died after having flu shot. She’s wanting to know how we can say we weren’t aware when they called and advised us. Please advise.

Posted in Accountability, Censorship, Medical Bully-Boys | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Timeline to a Tragedy: Part 2 – The cover-up deepens

Saturday, April 10, 2010

Christine Selvey emailed Dr Jeannette Young, Chief Health Officer (CHO), QLD Health:

Russ (Dr Schedlich) contacted DOHA yesterday to try to find out what has been reported to the TGA. …

 

Dr Young replied to both Christine Selvey and Dr Schedlich:

I assume the death is unrelated to the school clinics but have we heard of any death related to pandemic vaccine?

Monday, April 12, 2010

Dr Russell Schedlich sends the following email to Dr Jeannette Young:

Have not yet heard back from DOHA (Commonwealth Department of Health) and will follow up with them today, but they were certainly not aware of any Australian deaths. I understand that WHO (the World Health Organisation) is saying that there have been a few reported deaths temporally associated with vaccination.

Divider 1

Six cases of suspected flu vaccine reactions reported by nurses at the emergency department at PMH.

Divider 1

Parent in Geraldton calls CDCD after seeing several children at the Geraldton hospital reacting to flu vaccine. CDCD called the hospital to ask them to report any reactions to them and to the TGA.

Divider 1

Mother calls CIC to report that her daughter had an adverse reaction to the flu vaccine. She had called PMH and was told that they were experiencing an increase in admissions at their emergency department. The CIC rang the CDCD to express concern after receiving calls from 3 parents advising them of flu vaccine reactions.

Divider 1

PMH reports that three children had presented to the emergency department experiencing seizures within 24-48 hours of flu vaccination.

Divider 1

CDCD called the TGA to ask if other states have been reporting reactions to the flu shot.

Divider 1
A nurse at PMH contacted the director of the emergency department at that hospital to advise them that there were currently 6 children being treated in emergency after suffering reactions 24-48 hours after flu vaccination.

Tuesday, April 13, 2010

Craig Davis sends an email to Christine Selvey:

NOCS (ed note: Notifiable diseases unit in QLD) has nothing recorded about a death following vaccination. I’ve checked with Kay Campbell in NOCS data-entry and she has confirmed that she has seen nothing either.

Divider 1

Ten patients presented to PMH emergency department reported as experiencing adverse reactions to flu vaccines. Hospital requests a check back through the EDIS (Emergency Department Information System).

Divider 1
The CDCD emailed the TGA to follow up from their phone call the previous week. Again, they notified the TGA about seizures, febrile convulsions and other reactions being experienced and asked whether other states were experiencing similar. The TGA advised that a medical officer would be back in touch.

Divider 1

Samantha Keegan sends the following email to the QLD Minister for Health’s office, cc’ing several other QLD Health employees:

Channel 9 is asking about a link between the Sudden Unexpected Death of a 2-yr-old girl on Friday and the child’s vaccination against swine flu 24 hours before her death.

Channel 10’s News Editor gave me his word he would not run anything on Fri-then ran a short 3 par ‘live read’ (no vision or interviews).

ABC and Courier Mail agreed not to run anything after I discussed the public health ramifications of children not being vaccinated with them.

An autopsy has been done on the child, but the cause of death is unknown. …

Divider 1

The following media response is sent to Channel 9. In the footer, it says it was written by Kerry White and approved by Jeannette Young and Christine Selvey:

PR

In relation to the above press statement, Dr Jeannette Young responded to Kerry White as follows:

Assuming Christine [Selvey] is ok with it then I am fine.

Wednesday, April 14, 2010

 

CDCD emails the TGA because there has been no return phone call re-reactions. TGA sends a return email to the CDCD advising that there have been a number of reactions reported to Panvax (adult flu vaccine) and Panvax Junior (the vaccine for infants and children). TGA says there were four reactions notified nationwide at that time.

Divider 1

CDCD emails summary of reactions being experienced in WA to that point and requests information from other states.

Divider 1

Public Health nurse gives verbal report of 3 or 4 children with high temperatures for 12 hours following vaccination.

Divider 1

SA Nursing Director Immunisation Section calls CDCD asking if there have been any adverse events reported in WA as SA was seeing them after flu vaccination.

Divider 1

CDCD emails regional public health units informing them that they may be seeing flu vaccine reactions and requesting that these be reported.

Thursday, April 15, 2010

PMH reports that there were more reactions presenting overnight. A database is established and reports are sent to the TGA. The TGA states that these reports are not received until April 20th, 2010.

Divider 1

A microbiology registrar calls a paediatric immunologist at PMH to report that his own child had a febrile convulsion after receiving flu vaccine.

Divider 1

PMH emails the CDCD and confirms that 27 patients have presented – 5 with confirmed febrile convulsions following vaccination.

Divider 1

SA Nursing Direction Immunisation Section emails TGA, DoHA and all State Health Departments to inform them that SA is seeing increased numbers of children with high fever and vomiting after flu vaccine.

Divider 1

CDCD emails all public health units informing them that all reactions must be promptly reported – “not in a month’s time”.

Friday, April 16, 2010

The AVN is contacted by a QLD mother who sent the following email:

I contacted Channel  10  Brisbane on Monday to confirm the details stated here (Please see news report quoted on 9th April, 2010). All correct and the newsroom guy said that a Post Mortem was going to be done on Monday.

No press release from the Health Minister  appears to have  been released yet and no other TV or radio station  or Queensland  newspaper appears to have reported on this.

I have today, Friday 16th April about 11.30 am  contacted Janelle Miles the medical reporter for the Courier Mail, who said she was aware of the story but they (the Courier Mail) chose not to report it.

I asked why, she said there was no proof it was due to vaccination. I asked her if she knew about the Post Mortem , she said she knew a little .

I will go through the Courier Mail for the last week and see if any death or funeral notices for the toddler.

Don’t know if you guys can find out anymore….. or how you find  out if there will be a Coroners report.

 

PMH emails CDCD to report that there have been 90 possible presentations following flu vaccination – 22 of which were notifiable (seizures, temperatures over 40℃.

Divider 1
CDCD calls parents of children reacting to flu vaccine to find out what brand of vaccine had been administered and where it was given.

Divider 1
The TGA emails SA Nursing Director Immunisation Section to inform them that there had been 62 reactions reported so far – 22 of which were in people 18 years of age or younger. They requested all unsubmitted reaction reports from all states.

Divider 1
The Victorian Health Department emails TGA, DoHA and all State Health Departments to say that they have been receiving reports of high fevers and vomiting after flu vaccination.

Last part of timeline will be uploaded tomorrow

Posted in Vaccination | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Timeline to a Tragedy: Did incompetence, lies and a government cover-up lead to deaths?

The AVN has created a timeline of events surrounding the ill-fated flu vaccination campaign, from its launch in WA on the 19th of March, 2010 up to the 18th of May, 2010. It paints a disturbing picture of government incompetence; bureaucrats whose only aim seems to be avoiding having their policies questioned; lies from those responsible for protecting the health of the community; and a group of caring parents kept in the dark about the real risks of a medical procedure that caused hundreds of hospitalisations and an unknown number of deaths.George Orwell1

We have merged 3 sets of data to bring you this information:

1-    The timeline included in the Stokes Report, commissioned by the WA government to examine what went wrong with the flu vaccination campaign and make suggestions as to how to prevent the same happening again.

2-    The Right to Information (RTI) request revealing how Ashley Epapara’s death was covered up to prevent criticism of the vaccine. The correspondence in this RTI also proves that both the Chief Health Officer (Jeannette Young) and the Minister for Health were alerted within hours of Ashley dying, despite their claims to the contrary.

3-    Phone calls and emails from parents and health practitioners received by the AVN during the worst of the reactions in WA and elsewhere. Most concerning is the fact that the AVN’s information includes two reports of deaths following flu vaccine – one an infant in Perth and another a 19-year old young man near Newcastle. Neither of these has ever been reported in the media nor, to the best of our knowledge, have they been included on Australia’s national database of vaccine reactions.

The recommendations of the Stokes report have, for the most part, been ignored. What happened four years ago, can happen again. Protecting vaccination policy still appears to take precedence over alerting consumers to warning signs of an unfolding tragedy.

Our health officials are claiming there is no vaccination debate; minimising the known risks and exaggerating the unproven benefits to declare vaccines beyond question. They follow this up with an agenda of vilification against those who have the greatest stake in the issue – the parents of Australia’s children.

Timeline of WA Flu Vaccine Disaster

(Please note – all emphasis has been added by the AVN and this blog will be uploaded in 3 sections due to the large amount of information included.)

Official studiesFriday, March 19, 2010

Flu vaccination campaign launches in WA with letters being sent to all families whose children are in the target age group, urging them to be vaccinated against influenza. No information is provided to alert them to the fact that this is an experimental, untested vaccine.

Wednesday, March 31, 2010

A local health service in WA contacted public health to report reactions in six out of nine children who had received the flu vaccine the day before. One child was hospitalised.

Thursday, April 1, 2010

A public health nurse contacted the Communicable Disease Control Directorate (CDCD, WA), telling them of flu vaccine reactions and one child who was hospitalised. Authorities reassured this nurse that “reactions are common” and asked her to report to the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA)

Tuesday, April 6, 2010

An immunologist working at the Princess Margaret Hospital (PMH) contacted the Telethon Institute (the organisation being paid by pharmaceutical manufacturers to conduct a trial on flu vaccination in children) with concerns that their own child was experiencing a reaction to the Fluvax vaccine.

Thursday, April 8, 2010

A senior nurse emailed CDCD to inform them of a number of calls from parents reporting vomiting and fever after receipt of flu vaccines.

Divider 1
Ashley Jade Epapara, her twin sister and her older brother received their flu shots from a local doctor. That night, all three became ill.

Friday, April 9, 2010

Reports received from the nursing staff at PMH that children were presenting to the emergency department “unwell” after receiving the flu vaccine.

Divider 1

Bunbury hospital called the CDCD to report that an adult had presented to their emergency department suffering a suspected reaction to the flu vaccine.

Divider 1

CDCD emailed the Central Immunisation Clinic (CIC) at the WA Department of Health to confirm that they had heard of some children who were experiencing high fevers, pain and vomiting leading to hospitalisation after flu vaccinations.

Divider 1

Ashley Jade

Ashley Epapara and her family

Ashley Jade Epapara was found dead in her bed at 6.30 on the morning after receiving the vaccine. Her twin sister and older brother who also received the shot are ill.

Divider 1

Channel 10 News runs the following report at 5:00 PM:

Possible swine flu vaccination death – toddler dies in Brisbane

The Brisbane 5pm  Channel 10  TV News  – Friday 9th April 2010 reported  Mt Gravatt police are investigating the sudden death of  a 2 year old toddler .

The death occurred a day after the girl and most of her family had been immunised with the  Swine Flu vaccination.

The Queensland  Health Minister (Paul Lucas) said that no-one should avoid Swine Flu vaccinations.

Divider 1

Samantha Keegan, A/Manager (Corporate) QLD Health, sent the following email to other QLD Health Officials:

Channel 10 have rung saying they have been informed by a very reliable source a 2-year old has died following some kind of flu vaccination.

Sounds a bit suspect as they said QPS is ‘aware’ – Police media know nothing.

Kerry White, Senior Public Affairs Advisor to QLD Health sent the following email to the Commonwealth Health Media Unit as well as to various officials with QLD Health:

 

Gday all, just to let you know (UNOFFICIAL) a two year old had died at Mt Gravatt, a Brisbane suburb, with “no suspicious circumstances”, we have had a TV inquiry already who says police suggested the only thing different in their lives recently was swine flu vaccination. Police seem to have left this as a possibility for post mortem investigation.

That is all we have at the moment, nothing official yet. Awaiting more detail.

Please advise total number of vaccinations in Australia, adverse events, any deaths attributed? And global?

 

Samantha Keegan, A/Manager (Corporate) with QLD Health wrote the following email:

Had a call from Channel 10 about a story they wanted to do on a two-year-old girl who died at Mt Gravatt this morning.

The QAS was called and police attended. There were no suspicious circumstances.

However, someone involved (think it was a police officer) told the journalise the death may have been linked with a flu vaccination given to the child 24 hours before its death, and an autopsy will be performed Monday to rule it out.

I have spoken to police media who followed up with the area to make sure no further statements of the nature were made and spoke to CH 10 News Editor about the unlikeliness of a link and the possible panic such a story could cause.

He has agreed to drop the story at this stage. No other media have called.

 

Email from Kerry White to Neil, Media Unit, Commonwealth Department of Health and Ageing

Gday Neil, a police office apparently made some comment to a Channel 10 reporter abt a possible vacc connection. Samantha has spoken to police media and got them to put a stopper on that talk, and to Channel 10 who have agreed to go no further, not run anything.

 

Email from Neil to Kerry White:

Thanks Kerry, and thanks Samantha for setting the coppers straight.

The irony is that I provided a one-hour briefing to reps of all State and Territory Premiers and Police media units about pandemic flu in Adelaide only last week. Part of that presentation included my thoughts on how people in authority (ie. Doctors in my case) can totally undermine health programs by making silly comments about perceived safety issues.

 

Email from Neil to Kerry White:

Much appreciate the heads up. Please keep me posted on this one.

I’m keen to hear if this blows up. Certainly has the potential to seriously undermine the confidence in the program and I’d like to jump on it before it does blow up (if possible).

 

Email from Kerry White to Dr Russ Schedlich, State Health Incident Controller, Pandemic H1N1 2009:

…In QLD it seems on the latest info I can find that we have had 199 adverse events (33 hospitalised) reported from 717,167 immunisations administered. (AVN note: 717,167 vaccines may have been distributed but there is no information on how many of those were actually administered.).

To be continued tomorrow, May 23, 2014…

Posted in Accountability, Censorship, Death, Influenza, Vaccination | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 4 Comments

Apparently “…there’s nothing to debate”

by Greg Beattie

Queensland’s Chief Health Officer, Dr Jeanette Young, has refused to participate in a panel discussion on vaccination at this weekend’s Healthy Lifestyles expo on the Sunshine Coast, saying “there’s nothing to debate”. In the wake of this, disturbing details have now emerged of a cover up by her office regarding the death of a child following vaccination.

sopa-censorship-billBrisbane two-year-old, Ashley Jade Epapara, died shortly after a flu vaccination on April 9, 2010, just two weeks before the vaccine was withdrawn nationally in a blaze of publicity due to severe reactions. Police attending the scene of the death told reporters there were no suspicious circumstances apart from the vaccine. But Queensland Health staff acted quickly to quash that suggestion, instructing police to “ensure no further statements of the nature were made”, and securing agreement from media outlets to not pursue the story.

With the story suppressed, the vaccine continued on a path of destruction, particularly in Western Australia where an aggressive campaign was underway to vaccinate every child in the state.

It was not until April 22 that the vaccine was withdrawn from use in children. During and immediately following this period, many children endured severe reactions including Saba Button, who remains profoundly disabled. One wonders whether Saba’s parents, or those of the many other children affected, would have taken their child for the shot had they known about the tragedy in Brisbane. Unfortunately few knew about the vaccine connection in the Brisbane tragedy because of the cover up.

The following email excerpts were recently forwarded to us by a concerned third party. They are part of a Right to Information (RTI) release. They demonstrate clearly that health department staff deliberately and successfully prevented Australian parents from being warned about the potential for danger with this vaccine. (You can read the entire RTI by clicking this link for part 1 and this link for part 2.)Government Censorship

APRIL 9
“…someone involved (think it was a police officer) told the journalist the death may have been linked with a flu vaccination given to the child 24-hours before its death, and an autopsy will be performed Monday to rule it out.

“I have spoken to police media, who followed up with the area to make sure no further statements of the nature were made and spoke to the CH 10 News Editor about the unlikeliness of a link, and the possible panic such a story could cause.”
- Samantha Keegan, A/Manager, Corporate, Queensland Health.

————————————-

“I’m keen to hear if this blows up. Certainly has the potential to seriously undermine the confidence in the program and I’d like to jump on it before it does blow up (if possible).

“…and thanks Samantha for setting the coppers straight.
Neil, Media Unit, Department of Health and Ageing, Canberra.

————————————

APRIL 13
“Channel 9 is asking about a link between the Sudden Unexpected Death of a 2-yr-old girl on Friday and the child’s vaccination against swine flu 24 hours before her death.

“Channel 10’s editor gave me his word he would not run anything on Fri – then ran a short 3 par ‘live read’ (no vision or interviews).

“ABC and Courier Mail agreed not to run anything after I discussed the public health ramifications of children not being vaccinated with them.”
- Samantha Keegan, A/Manager, Corporate, Queensland Health.

There were many more emails exchanged, as can be seen in the RTI release, and Dr Young was kept informed the whole way. Within two weeks, a disaster had evolved forcing an urgent national withdrawal of the vaccine. When Dr Young was again approached by the media she issued a press release, feigning ignorance:

APRIL 25
“Until now, neither Queensland Health, nor the relevant national body had been advised of, or were aware of, any death allegedly related to a 2010 seasonal  flu vaccine in Queensland”.
Jeanette Young, Chief Health Officer, Queensland Health – April 25, 2010

The problem with the current approach
In the following days, we will be publishing a detailed series of articles regarding a more in-depth account of these events. One thing is clear: the current approach of our health authorities sometimes involves withholding, or suppressing vital information. In this case, the approach had clearly devastating consequences for some families.

Free SpeechWhat’s not immediately apparent is that this is actually the general ‘modus operandi’ of health authorities when dealing with vaccination. Whenever possible, they avoid discussing concerns raised by the media or consumer groups. Even worse, they openly state that these concerns are unjustified or dangerous in and of themselves. In short, “there’s nothing to debate”.

The refusal by Dr Young to provide a spokesperson for this weekend’s Healthy Lifestyles Expo is an example of this modus operandi. Her comments that the organisers should have exercised due diligence and not allowed anyone from the AVN to speak is another. Accusing the AVN of spreading ‘misinformation’ and ‘debunked theories’ is something Dr Young should be prepared to defend publicly. Her reluctance to do so is simply in keeping with this approach.

Parents are entitled to all information that may matter to them. If the police, or the media, or any other group feel the information is important, then it is. The AVN speaker at the expo, Ms Meryl Dorey, will be raising issues that are of concern to all potential consumers of vaccines. The public deserves to have these issues addressed at the forum and they rightly request the presence of a representative from their taxpayer-funded health department to explain why such concerns should not be considered important.

Suppression of vital information when parents are faced with making informed decisions about their children’s health is clearly not the answer. Responsible health officials tend to prefer education over coercion when it comes to health choices. It is essential that any information which matters to consumers is never actively withheld from them, and that any discussion this prompts is welcomed by our publicly funded health officials.

Please read the attached Right to Information documents (part 1 and part 2) to follow the trail of suppression by health officials in both the Queensland and the Commonwealth governments.

Further analysis will be available on this blog in coming days.

Timeline to a Tragedy: Part 1 – Did Incompetence, Lies and a Government Cover-up Lead to Deaths?

Timeline to a Tragedy: Part 2 – The Cover-Up Deepens

Timeline to a Tragedy: Part 3 – Lessons Go Unlearned

Posted in Accountability, AVN, Censorship, Medical Bully-Boys | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Another day – Another Courier Mail Hit Piece

Laura Chalmers - Courier Mail Censorship Specialist

Laura Chalmers – Courier Mail ‘Journalist’

by Meryl Dorey

I don’t know why Laura Chalmers from the Courier Mail even bothers to contact anyone from the AVN before writing about us?

This is the third time she’s been in touch with me about a story in recent weeks and yet, she has never  reporting anything I’ve said. A few weeks ago, she even sent me a 2 or 3-page summary of our talk so I could approve it before she went to print –  and she  never used one word of what I had to say.

Let’s look at the bright side though – if she isn’t reporting fairly or in a balanced manner, at least she isn’t misquoting me or taking me out of context.

She has done the same thing with the AVN’s President, Greg Beattie – wasting so much of our time for nothing. Is this just window dressing for the Courier Mail? Are they just pretending that they really care or are interested in presenting both sides whilst continuing to report whatever will make their Board and their advertisers happy?

Who knows. But here, for the record, is what I sent Laura Chalmers last week when she contacted me about this ‘story’ (you can read the entire ‘hit piece’ by using the link at the bottom of this blog post) – and how ironic is it that the media is openly calling for censorship on ANY subject? Such a slippery slope!:

Dear Laura,

This is not the first time that attempts have been made to block the presence of someone from the AVN at a public event. SAVN did this a few years ago at Woodford and it resulted in a record number of people in attendance at the vaccination discussion. They were literally standing in the aisles and lined up out in the street 8 or 10 deep to hear the talk. The same thing can and most probably will happen if a similar campaign is run regarding my talk at this event.

Don’t forget that one of the SAVN stalwarts, Peter Bowditch, publicly confirmed he would debate me at the Healthy Lifestyle Expo and then, backed out, reneging on his promise to attend. The organisers have been actively seeking someone from the medical fraternity to come and present the other side for over 6 months, but nobody was willing to defend the anti-choice stance.  Since SAVN and the medical community appear to be incapable of holding their own on this issue before a live audience, they want to stop anyone else from hearing what I and the AVN stand for.

Censorship sometimes backfires and as a journalist, you should be aware of that. Perhaps you’d like to read some of the articles at this website: http://www.bmartin.cc/pubs/backfire.html

Kind regards,
Meryl Dorey

For those who are interested in hearing about some of the potential issues with vaccination, please do come and hear me speak or just say hi to me at the AVN’s stand at the Healthy Lifestyle Expo in Caloundra. Here’s a discount ticket for you and your family. The organisers have literally been through hell and back over this issue. They have had their website hacked, threatening calls made to them and to the other stall holders and they have had to get the police involved. Yet, they are standing firm in support of freedom of speech and freedom of choice. If you believe in what they are doing, please take a moment to visit their website (click the discount ticket image below) and use the contact form there to drop them a line and say – WELL DONE!:

B1G1-VistaprintIn the meantime, below is a link to the article in today’s Courier Mail calling for the Expo to ban me from speaking. If the medical community and the media are fighting this hard to shut the AVN up, it means that we are on the right track. Those who have evidence to back up their beliefs do not try to censor opposition. They are happy to debate and discuss these issues in an open and respectful manner.

It is only those who have no data to defend their assertions who will, in desperation, take the immoral step of trying to censor those they disagree with.

Health experts call for ban on anti-vaccination campaigner Meryl Dorey at Healthy Lifestyle Expo | The Courier-Mail.

Please note: Blog posts are opinion pieces which represent the views of the authors. They do not necessarily represent the viewpoints of the AVN National Committee. The AVN is a forum, support and information organisation and outlet for discussion about the relative benefits and risks of vaccinations in particular – and medical procedures in general. We do not provide medical advice but believe that everyone has the opportunity and the obligation to do their own research before making decisions for their families. The information we provide (including your personal review of the references we cite) should be taken in conjunction with a range of other data, including that obtained from government, your health care provider and/or other medical source material to assist you in developing the knowledge required to make informed health choices.

Posted in AVN, Censorship, Seminars / Webinars, Vaccination | Tagged , , , , , , , , | 3 Comments

Why isn’t the Health Care Complaints Committee’s inquiry transparent?

by Meryl Dorey

11074700_sIf you have been following this blog for any length of time at all, you would remember that we have been covering an issue of vital importance to everyone living in NSW specifically and Australia as a whole. That is the issue of an attempt by the NSW Health Care Complaints committee to grant yet more unprecedented powers to the NSW Health Care Complaints Commission (HCCC).

Many of our members and supporters have sent written submissions to this committee explaining their objections to these proposals.You can see the page on the NSW Parliament website which will provide you with information on this inquiry – The Promotion of False or Misleading Health-Related Information or Practices.

Originally, the time period for submissions was supposed to end in December, 2013. It was then extended until the 7th of February 2014.

I personally know of more than 50 submissions to this inquiry made by AVN members. There would be many more.

In my experience, whenever a parliamentary inquiry has called for submissions, those submissions are published on the website as they are received or within a matter of days of receipt. In this instance, however, no submissions have been made publicly available and in fact, most people who submitted to this inquiry have not even received a confirmation that their submission was received.

At the end of February, 2014, I contacted Mr Jason Arditi, the Committee Manager, to ask why none of the submissions had been uploaded to the committee website even though submissions had been closed by, at that point in time, a couple of weeks.

I was told that the committee had not yet considered any of the submissions but that they would be meeting in mid-March and would consider them at that time and they would be published by the end of March.

The end of March came and went and again, no submissions were uploaded.

I contacted Mr Arditi in early April and at that time, I was told that the Committee had indeed met in March but had not considered any of the submissions. They were due to be considered at the meeting being held in mid-April and the submissions would be uploaded by the end of that month.

I asked if it was normal procedure to not publish submissions until they had been considered and Mr Arditi informed me that it was neither normal nor abnormal to proceed in this way. Whilst most committees do publish on receipt, this particular committee had chosen to do things differently.

The end of April came and went with no submissions on the committee website.

I contacted Mr Arditi on May 1st to ask why, once again, no submissions had been uploaded to the website. He told me that the committee had, in fact, considered the submissions during their April meeting and that they would be uploaded. It’s just that some of them were defamatory in nature so they would need to have sections blacked out before they were made public. He assured me that this would be done and they would be there by Friday, May 9th. Today, in fact.

I  asked for a firm publication date during my last conversation with Mr Arditi and he gave me his assurance that these submissions would be online by today but disappointingly, they are not there. Won’t they make the slightest attempt to appear transparent by abiding by their promise to publish these submissions?

A less trusting person than myself would be starting to wonder if the committee was trying to hide something? Why this ongoing failure to inform the public of the reasons why those in the community oppose their intended power grab?

Maybe one of you will have better luck getting an answer than I have? If you’d like to contact Mr Arditi, his details are below. Please let me know if you do get a result. We have a right to see this information and to consider what the committee has considered.

Please note: Blog posts are opinion pieces which represent the views of the authors. They do not necessarily represent the viewpoints of the AVN National Committee. The AVN is a forum, support and information organisation and outlet for discussion about the relative benefits and risks of vaccinations in particular – and medical procedures in general. We do not provide medical advice but believe that everyone has the opportunity and the obligation to do their own research before making decisions for their families. The information we provide (including your personal review of the references we cite) should be taken in conjunction with a range of other data, including that obtained from government, your health care provider and/or other medical source material to assist you in developing the knowledge required to make informed health choices.

Posted in Accountability, HCCC, Health rights | Tagged , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Peter Bowditch-Running Scared

johann_wolfgang_von_goethe_courage_3368The Bowditch non-debate saga continues.
by Meryl Dorey

For those who haven’t yet read about this issue, you can do so on the following blog posts: The Great Vaccination Non-Debate and Are You Brave Enough to Follow Through, Peter Bowditch?

Apparently, Mr Bowditch is well aware of his lack of knowledge on the issue of vaccination because he is using every tactic at his disposal to try and worm out of fulfilling his promise to debate me. One can only assume that his two letters of acceptance – one made to the organisers of the You Can Heal Yourself Expo and the other to me personally via this blog – were made under the incorrect assumption that I would not accept his offer.

Unfortunately for him, however, I threw a spanner in the works by stating that I would accept his challenge and debate him at the Expo at the end of May. The deadline for him to confirm with the organisers is just 2 days away – on Friday, the 9th of May.

So far, he has used every possible excuse for why he would be unable to follow through on his promise to attend and debate me.

  • He suddenly realised that he needs to be back in Sydney by 11 am on Sunday and for some reason, airplanes aren’t working on Saturday night to allow him to do that.
  • Debating me would legitimise my arguments and this is something he was unaware of when he made his challenge in early April and repeated it again at the end of the month.
  • The You Can Heal Yourself Expo is a “Festival of Batshittery” (eg one where both sides of this debate are welcome and wanted) – something he didn’t realise until just now.

Bowditch Debate

And now, he is twisting his offer to debate by trying to turn it into something completely different – an essay competition where he will have the assistance of his friends at Stop the AVN to do his research and write his ‘homework’, showing the internet world how brave and knowledgeable he is about vaccination.

Yesterday, I received the following letter from Mr Bowditch and wrote back to him (below) immediately. I haven’t yet heard back from him. Neither have the Expo organisers.

One has to wonder how far he is prepared to take this charade of having been genuinely willing to expose his knowledge of vaccination (or lack of thereof) to public scrutiny. It is telling, however, that he is so brave in front of the SAVN hordes yet turns tail and runs when faced with the prospect of having to support his vitriolic opposition to informed choice in a public venue. As have ALL of the other SAVNers, not one of whom had the courage of their convictions to honestly present the pro-vaccine-safety and effectiveness point of view at this expo.

My response to Peter Bowditch’s ‘challenge':

Dear Mr Bowditch,

You accepted the public debate at the You Can Heal Yourself Expo. Neither I nor anyone else forced you to accept this. And you accepted it twice – once via the organiser’s website – once via the AVN’s website.

To quote you directly:

“Please notify the organisers of the Healthy Lifestyles Expo that I was serious when I offered to debate you. Now that you are aware of this you can no longer claim that nobody from the sanity side of the non-debate is prepared to step up to the plate.”

So, are you “prepared to step up to the plate” and debate me at this forum or not? An answer would be appreciated.

If you are not going to attend this debate after stating quite clearly that you would do so, could you please have the courtesy to inform both myself and the organisers of that fact?

I will not enter into any other discussion with you.

Kind regards,
Meryl Dorey

Peter Bowditch’s letter to me:

Dear Ms Dorey,

The following challenge has been posted on various Facebook pages and my
personal blog. I would appreciate an acceptance by Thursday.

Thank you.

================================

Challenge to Meryl Dorey.

Here are the three questions to be “debated” at the Expo in Caloundra on
May 24:

1) Does herd Immunity apply to the use of vaccinations

2) The ingredients in Vaccines are Toxic and Small Babies cannot tolerate
even small amounts

3) Can it really be proven that it is vaccination that is controlling
disease rates or do diseases die out naturally and recur in cycles.

And here are the rules:

1) No discussion of the AVN or Meryl Dorey at all, as this is about
Vaccination not personalities

2) All information and debate to be kept on topic

3) All discussion and debate is to be kept informative, educational and
scientifically grounded

4) At all times a civil and respectful attitude is to be kept in tone,
word and deed

These questions and rules have been set by the event organisers. With one
change (that Rule 1 also prohibit discussion of Australian Skeptics, SAVN,
or me) I propose a written debate.

At or before 9pm on Sunday, May 11, I will produce three essays, each
approximately 1000 words, addressing the three questions. Ms Dorey is
invited to do the same. To avoid either of us gaining an advantage neither
will get to see the other’s submissions before they are published. Both of
us will email our submissions to nominated administrators of both the SAVN
and AVsN Facebook pages, and all six will be published simultaneously (as
closely as possible) on both sites.

Ms Dorey says that I am afraid to debate her. I am giving her the
opportunity to make her arguments in front of audiences which are divided
on their opinions on vaccines and I am prepared to do the same.

Bring it on.

The saga continues…the clock is counting down. Peter Bowditch has 48 hours to prove that he is brave enough and honest enough to follow through on his offer to debate me. Only time will tell.

Please note: Blog posts are opinion pieces which represent the views of the authors. They do not necessarily represent the viewpoints of the AVN National Committee. The AVN is a forum, support and information organisation and outlet for discussion about the relative benefits and risks of vaccinations in particular – and medical procedures in general. We do not provide medical advice but believe that everyone has the opportunity and the obligation to do their own research before making decisions for their families. The information we provide (including your personal review of the references we cite) should be taken in conjunction with a range of other data, including that obtained from government, your health care provider and/or other medical source material to assist you in developing the knowledge required to make informed health choices.

Posted in Accountability, Medical Bully-Boys, Vaccination | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 5 Comments

Are you brave enough to follow through, Peter Bowditch?

BowditchAs you have read on this page, the deadline for someone to come forward and debate me is coming up. It is this Friday, the 9th of May.

After writing my blog article, The Great Vaccination Non-Debate, Peter Bowditch of the NSW Skeptics and a very active ‘contributor’ to their splinter group, Stop the AVN, posted the following comment to the AVN’s blog:

“Please notify the organisers of the Healthy Lifestyles Expo that I was serious when I offered to debate you. Now that you are aware of this you can no longer claim that nobody from the sanity side of the non-debate is prepared to step up to the plate.

“In case this comment doesn’t manage to get through moderation, a screen shot will be published on Twitter and Facebook.”

I instantly wrote back to Mr Bowditch, informing him that, as it said in the blog post, anyone who wanted to be involved in the debate should contact the organisers and let them know.

I did inform the organisers about Mr Bowditch’s offer to debate me and they sent him 2 invitations without getting any response. Let me repeat – as of this weekend, despite 2 written invitations in response to his offer to debate me at the You Can Heal Yourself Expo at the end of this month, Peter Bowditch, who made the offer of his own free will, has not responded.

What’s worse, he now appears to be trying to blame me for his failure to follow through on his promise to debate me. Yesterday, he sent the following tweet out to his followers:

Bowditch Debate

Apparently, he wants to make it appear that he was unaware of the venue of this debate and, now knowing it, he will no longer debate me.

But the truth is that the venue and all debate details were freely advertised and Mr Bowditch is the one who contacted me to say he wanted to debate.

Come on, Peter! I’m calling on you to either accept the invitation (which was sent at your request) or admit that you are too scared to debate me on this issue. You can’t have it both ways.

You are the one who accepted the challenge – and you are the one who has to follow through or admit that you are afraid to debate.

Posted in Accountability, AVN, Medical Bully-Boys | Tagged , , , , , , , , | 23 Comments

The Hate Debate – LivingWhole.org

Hate DebateThis is one of the best overviews of the vaccination issue and why the fear and hatred being spread by so many is completely illogical. Please read this in full and if you like it too – share it with others.

I am sick of it – this vaccination debate. My convictions not to vaccinate have been firm for six years now and I was comfortable living a low-profile life and letting other more notable vaccine advocates carry the torch; and then I started seeing misleading t.v. interviews, news stories, and backlash against parents and unvaccinated children. I saw reputable medical professionals get crucified and reputations destroyed for questioning the mainstream norm. I saw laws passed in other states removing freedoms that rightfully belong to parents and individuals as a whole. I saw fear, blame, finger-pointing, lies, and flat out hate being propagated and encouraged by people, physicians, and popular media avenues towards parents who don’t vaccinate, and their children.

This isn’t a vaccination debate, it’s a hate debate, so let’s call it what it is. And when it got personal, I got involved.

To read more, please click the link below

 

The Hate Debate – LivingWhole.org.

Posted in Vaccination | Tagged , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

AVN Supporters speak in support of their rights

19359622_letterbox1Below are the letters which AVN members and supporters have sent to the various State and Federal Health Ministers and Shadow Ministers in support of the right to conscientiously object to vaccination without being penalised or discriminated against in any way.

As always, these letters are articulate, intelligent and passionate. There are many letters here and at least twice as many people have informed us that they wrote but did not send copies of their letters to us. There are most likely many more who wrote without informing us as well. The upshot is – when your rights are threatened – you don’t sit back and take it, you take action. We will be contacting the Federal Health Minister’s office next week to find out what the final recommendation was after the meeting and will be sure to let you all know. But be assured – if the Ministers have decided not to press ahead with this dreadful plan to penalise Australian families, it will be because of your efforts.

One last note – this page was put together very quickly so if the formatting is a bit wonky or any letters were missed out, we apologise profusely for any problems.

Dear Honourable Health Minister,

I am disgusted yet not surprised by the latest attacks on those of us who are Conscientious Objectors to vaccination. The attacks by both State and Federal Governments on our right to choose regarding vaccination have been constant for the last 2 years.

The media implies that parents opting out of vaccination are somehow following a trend, or are stupid or (insert this weeks insult here). The Medical establishment does not like the sacred cow of medicine, vaccination, being questioned, so it is fighting back in the most bullying and hostile of ways; do what we say or face consequences. This time it will be loss of Governement payments, my feeling is that next in line will be our right to opt out of vaccination.

I could write ad nauseum on the reasons I have chosen not to vaccinate my children. After my eldest child suffered a terrible reaction to her Hepatitis B vaccine at birth I started to research the issue. I was staggered that no Doctor had ever mentioned any of the information I discovered.

In brief vaccines are toxic (ethyl mercury, aluminium, formaldehyde etc), contaminated ( monkey DNA and viruses, aborted human foetal tissue, chicken viruses, pig viruses…it’s a long list) and ineffective (all of the so called Vaccine Preventable Diseases had decreased over 90% by the time the vaccines for those diseases arrived). Not to mention that vaccinated individuals can shed the viruses they have been vaccinated with!

The list of those killed or disabled by vaccines is growing by the day. As demonstrated by VAERS ( Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System) in the USA the consequences of vaccination can be deadly or life ruining, and these types of consequences are not rare. Despite the howling protests of Governments everywhere; vaccines can cause autism. Cases like those of Hannah Poling (US courts) and Valentino Bocca (Italian Courts) prove this. There are tens of thousands of other children out there with the same story as these children.

The tragic case of Saba Button in Western Australia in 2010 shows that citizens are correct to have doubts over Government authorised vaccination campaigns. Saba was permanently disabled after receiving the untested Fluvax vaccine. Hundreds of children in WA were hospitalised as a result of this vaccination. Parents WERE NOT told about the status of this vaccine or the risks involved ( A WA health spokesperson said 1/1000 children were “expected” to have febrile seizures but the rate was 10 times higher than they expected i.e. 1/100 children suffered febrile seizures). It is criminal that parents were not told of this risk prior to vaccination. What about the right to informed consent? What happened to “first do no harm”?

Saba Button’s parents have set up a foundation in her name to raise money to help with the costs of her fulltime care needs. So for the Health Minister to take a few hundred dollars out of vaccine refusers pockets is not even a drop in the ocean of the cost of caring for a vaccine injured child. Personally there is no sum of money that could ever induce me to vaccinate my children and that is true of all the other vaccine refusing parents that I know.

The financial ramifications of the Health Minister’s plan do not bother me, but the ethics behind his decision do. If my child is vaccine injured it is not the Health Minister, Government or Doctor who pay the price. It is my burden to carry, so the choice should be mine , unencumbered by draconian and coercive Government policies.

I could provide you with a lot more information regarding vaccines, but lets face it, you already know them. Concerned and intelligent parents have been writing to all forms of Government for years now saying the same thing, fighting to maintain our right to choose.

The problem for the Government, Medical Establishment and Drug Companies is that there is now a tsunami of educated parents who are refusing to vaccinate their children. I have no doubt that the fight for our rights will be a hard one and it is already getting very ugly. Unfortunately for the Government it is too late. There are now vaccine-damaged children living on every street in Australia and their parents are very vocal. We will stay vocal. We will speak our truth and spread information about vaccine dangers wherever we go and we will not be shut up. So you may try to impose draconian legislation to “punish”us for being so caring, intelligent and righteous, but it is too late. In the words of Andrew Wakefield “There is no place for indulging futile displacement activity, sanctimonious posturing and self-protectionism. In the battle for the hearts and minds of the public you have already lost. Why? Because the parents are right; their stories are true; their children’s brains are damaged; there is a major, major problem.”

Yes the public is fast becoming aware of vaccine dangers. I ask that the Minister also looks into the issue and not be fobbed off by his advisors.

Some interesting points to research

1) The safety studies of the current vaccine schedule (no wait, there aren’t any).
2) The safety studies proving that is safe to inject infants with ethyl mercury (these studies don’t exist either)
3) A study comparing long term health outcomes of fully vaccinated verus fully unvaccinated children. (This doesn’t exist either. Would the Minister please make this type of study his number one priority. We have been asking for this study to be done.)

I trust that the Minister will allow parents the right to choose whether or not to vaccinate their children. Anything less would be an infringement on human rights.

In Support of Conscientious Objection to Vaccination,
AH

Divider 1

Dear Minister Dutton,

I have just spoken with your office of my concern that family tax payments may be withdrawn from parents who have chosen not to immunise their children.

The person who took my call suggested that I send an email to support the phone call.

I treat many children with autism spectrum disorders, severe allergies and worrying gastrointestinal disturbances whose parents firmly believe their problem began with vaccination. I believe them for two reasons – first, their stories have convincing yet uncanny similarities – and there are so many of them, and second, because what happened to their children mimics what happened to mine when they too were vaccinated.

At the time I knew little about the vaccine debate but expressed my concern to the vaccinating doctors that the high fevers and problems that followed were somehow linked to the vaccine they had not long given. My concerns were dismissed out of hand, and still are today whenever I retell what happened. Though much improved my children continue to be affected by those early problems, even into adulthood.

If I had my time over again I would certainly be one of those seeking an exemption for my children as they and I (and others like us) have had to bear the burden – not the doctors who gave the vaccine or the government that advised them to do so.

Did you know that most people who now have a conscientious or medical exemption to vaccines started out as vaccine proponents and trustingly had their child vaccinated as recommended? Do you know that they only stopped giving subsequent vaccines because that child became one of the unlucky ones? These are the people you wish to remove family tax payments from – payments that initially were never intended to be linked to vaccination.

If you remove these payments you will not be punishing parents who just can’t be bothered to go and get the vaccine, you will be punishing those who have already tried to do the right thing and now bear the consequences of following medical and governmental advice. It seems to me that they should be compensated rather than punished like naughty school children for not continuing to do something they are convinced harmed their children.

Please don’t compound their heartache and loss by removing this much needed payment. To do so would be grossly unfair.

Yours sincerely,
FS

Divider 1

To: Mrs Jo-Ann Miller Shadow Minister for Health, Queensland

Dear Mrs Miller,

I am writing to you about this matter, since you are the Shadow Minister of Health in my State of Queensland.

I find it very hard to comprehend that there should be vaccinations, and taken beyond that mandatory vaccinations. I have taken close interest in reading all the articles I can on this matter from sources that are not censored. It seems that all information in the Australian Media is censored.

As a child in South Australia in the war years I was given a tetanus vaccination, and I came out in a total severe body rash. In India in 1946, as a child aged 11, I had another fall from a horse, with a cut requiring stitches. Although the Doctor was told by my Mother about the first reaction, he insisted on giving me another tetanus vaccination. This time I was paralysed over my body for two days, and could not get out of bed or turn over, and was kept in a darkened room in the family house with someone with me all the time.

It is a fact that the Pharmaceutical companies have taken control of the whole world, paying for medical training for doctors, and totally influencing their decisions, so they don’t think of questioning their training. They are rewarded by holidays and gifts, provided they write out a sufficient number of prescriptions. The Minister of Health said on a broadcast that any doctor who would not vaccinate would no longer be able to practice as a doctor. Most doctors have families and mortgages, and how would they find another career. So the GPs continue to vaccinate, but those who know with families, do not vaccinate their own children.

All vaccinations damage. Most of them create the very disease they are meant to protect against. They all have mercury and formaldehyde, and unfortunately viruses have also got into the mix.

The flue epidemic after the War 1914-1918 was created by vaccinations and killed more people than died in the War. Those who were not vaccinated did not get the flue.

Please investigate this yourself. You will not be able to change the world situation, due to bribery and corruption, but at least you will be able to influence decisions about mandatory vaccinations, giving the choice to parents who know the dangers, or who are just wary about damaging their children.

You are welcome to forward this email on to others.

Sincerely
SW

Divider 1

Dear Ministers,

On the eve of ANZAC Day it seems the Australian Government seeks to dishonor what our countrymen fought for 100 years ago. Freedom, choice and democracy.

I oppose any moves by the Government to remove the right of a person to be a conscientious objector with regard to vaccinations.

People should have the same rights to vaccinate or to not vaccinate.

I oppose any moves to take away our right to entitlements based on our vaccination decision and status.

I am sure that in legal circles this could be called ‘Blackmailing’. (Blackmail refers to a situation that arises when a person threatens another person with some form of punishment if they do not offer some form of concessions. http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=blackmail)

Nobody should be FORCED to have their child be vaccinated.

We live in Australia, a democratic society which means (taken from http://moadoph.gov.au/democracy/australian-democracy/):

The Australian democracy has at its heart, the following core defining values:

freedom of election and being elected; freedom of assembly and political participation; freedom of speech, expression and religious belief; rule of law; and other basic human rights.

As far as I am concerned it is my basic human right to choose how I medicate myself and my children. If you take away government entitlements you are penalising those that make an educated and informed choice that is different to the current political and medical dogma, and are saying that I don’t have a right to choice.

Regards,

DW

Divider 1

Dear Minister Dutton,

I ask you to please not participate in the discrimination against loving parents who have legitimate concerns about vaccinating their children, please do not persecute parents by taking away government entitlements that are meant for every eligible low income family struggling with the costs of raising their children, it is ethically and morally wrong.

The current environment of blaming unvaccinated children for every disease outbreak under the sun is unjustified and very worrying especially for me as I am both a conscientious objector and a recipient of the government payments that they are thinking of taking away from parents like myself.

My name is Tasha David and I am a widowed Mum of 8 and also a committee member of the AVN, but today I am writing to you as a Mum. I have vaccinated 6 of my children to varying degrees and they all have neurological, allergic and autoimmune disorders as well as having poor general health. My two unvaccinated children have excellent health and no neurological disorders yet I had them when I was in my late 30’s when they should have been more susceptible to the disorders that are affecting their elder siblings. We also did genetic testing and there was no genetic reason found for their afflictions. In my position would you have continued vaccinating your children, and do you believe that I should be punished financially for doing what I believe was in the best interests of my children?

What this proposed legislation is in essence saying, is that parents like myself are bad parents and do not deserve the same rights as other parents but on what basis is the judgement made? I love and adore my children, I make sure that my children are safe from physical harm, that they are educated, they are fed nourishing whole meals that I cook from scratch, I support their immune systems through nutrient rich supplements, foods and probiotics and we avoid all additives, preservatives etc and toxic chemicals in the home, and they get plenty of fresh air, exercise. If my children are sick which is very rarely then I keep them home so that they are not exposing any other children to any illnesses that they may have and this has worked really well for my children especially my unvaccinated children, they have never had or needed an antibiotic in their lives unlike their elder siblings which have all had antibiotics. Almost all of my vaccinated children have been admitted to hospital for either asthma attacks, rotavirus and grommets for chronic ear infections etc, my unvaccinated children have not. I have researched countless vaccine studies that show pros and cons and have seen firsthand what vaccines can do to my children, so by deciding that vaccination is not for my children anymore does this make me a bad mother?

If we are going to start penalising parents for making their decisions that they know in their hearts is best for their children and call them irresponsible parents, where does it end? Is it fair that parents that smoke, drink and do drugs around their children are eligible for these payments, are they better parents than us? What about parents that feed their children chips and coke and sweets all day and let them run around the streets all hours of the day and night, are they better parents? Going on the proposed legislation by Minister Springborg they are, as they will still be eligible for these payments yet we will not. How can this be considered anything other than discrimination?

I always wonder how a parent who believes in vaccination would feel if they were punished for vaccinating their child because of the shedding from the live vaccines? If they were vilified and condemned by their government,the media and other parents and were told that there children should not be allowed near other children in school, in public etc how would they feel? How did we get to this point where the Government and media are stirring up hatred against parents like me, are there great epidemics of disease in unvaccinated children? No, there isn’t so why the hatred, the demonising of parents, the encouraging of the us and them mentality, why are we so eager to hate others for being different?

If the Government is so worried about conscientious objectors why don’t they talk to us, why can’t we have an open discussion where both sides can be heard, how can you think that financial penalties are the only way to reach an understanding with parents?

The other part that does not make sense to me about all of this is why the Government thinks taking away Centrelink payments is going to change the minds of the rich affluent suburbs which are the ones with the lowest vaccination rates, this type of discrimination only targets the poor?

We have just experienced the largest Whooping cough epidemic and the vast majority of cases were in the vaccinated, so how many others are not protected by their vaccinations and are walking around thinking that they are? Or are asymptomatic transmitters of the disease?

“This research suggests that although individuals immunized with an acellular pertussis vaccine may be protected from disease, they may still become infected with the bacteria without always getting sick and are able to spread infection to others, including young infants who are susceptible to pertussis disease.”

http://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/Newsroom/PressAnnouncements/ucm376937.htm

Why is that the Government has only got a passive surveillance system in place for vaccine reactions/injuries? How can we really know how many vaccine injuries and deaths there are if they is no mandatory reporting system in place?

“Professor Bryant Stokes, the eminent neurosurgeon and former head of WA Health who reviewed the events for the state’s health minister, concluded in a report tabled in the WA Parliament last August that the “slow response” by federal and state authorities had “not served the public well”. It was “disturbing”, he noted, that Australia had not put in place the surveillance and reporting systems recommended by the World Health Organisation, which had advised all countries in August 2009 to “conduct intensive monitoring for safety and efficacy” of the pandemic vaccine, Panvax.”

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/features/virus-in-the-system/story-e6frg8h6-1226063484330

How is it that we can vilify parents for not vaccinating their children by saying that the science is clear when there has been no long term health outcomes comparing the fully vaccinated vs fully unvaccinated? Shouldn’t this be done before we even start to think about discriminating against conscientious objectors?

How can we have herd immunity when adults have not been vaccinated appropriately for decades, and the theory was based on natural immunity to start with not vaccine induced immunity?

http://www.webmd.com/vaccines/news/20140206/many-us-adults-not-getting-key-vaccines-cdc

Why is there such a push to force vaccination on parents when they are much more serious priorities that deserve the governments full attention ie 1 in 6 having developmental delays, sky rocketing numbers of Asthma, Allergies, Autoimmune disorders, Autism, ADHD, Alzheimer’s, Cancer etc? What about the estimated 18,00 to 30,000 dying from medical errors in our hospitals?

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-04-06/australia-on-verge-of-allergy-epidemic/2628058 http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/Lookup/4428.0main+features42009 http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-02-04/cancer-now-biggest-killer-in-australia/5236148 http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-06-10/lack-of-data-creates-concern-over-true-extent-of-medical-errors/4744286 http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-02-04/cancer-now-biggest-killer-in-australia/5236148

Why have we forgotten the hundred children rushed to hospital in WA with febrile seizures because of the Fluvax vaccine, and the death of Ashley Epapara, the severe brain damage of Saba Button and even more recently Lachlan Neyland? Do these children not deserve to be protected also, why is it that a child that is injured or killed by a disease is given priority over children that have been injured or killed by vaccination? Who decides which life is more worthy of protection?

http://www.tga.gov.au/safety/alerts-medicine-seasonal-flu-100702.htm#.U0UEb6J7R2A http://www.perthnow.com.au/news/western-australia/saba-button-the-girl-who-is-never-alone/story-e6frg13u-1226035296706 http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/nsw/toddler-who-was-given-an-adult-flu-shot-is-left-severely-brain-damaged-and-unable-to-walk-or-talk/story-fni0cx12-1226756398505 http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/toddler-ashley-jade-epapara-2-dies-after-flu-vaccination/story-e6freon6-1225857803417

Conscientious objectors are just trying to raise healthy children like everybody else we just believe that there has to be a better way than injecting substances in to our children with an unknown long term health outcome. Parents should be allowed to make the choices that they believe are right for their children whether it be to vaccinate or not, especially when there is no way of knowing whether your child will be the one having a serious adverse reaction. I couldn’t save my first six children from life long chronic illness please do not punish me for trying to save my last two from this.

This is my family’s story…

Thank you for your time and I hope that this helps in some way Kind regards Tasha David

To all the Honourable Members of Parliament State and Federal to whom this has been sent.

I believe you are meeting to decide wether or not to continue to allow Government payments to be made to those who object to vaccination. No mention as to the legitimate reasons for objections, of which there are many.

My wife and I raised our children from 1974 till the last born in 1990. We were aware of the discussion and claims regarding the efficacy of vaccines, but chose to vaccinate untill our last baby reacted badly to the vaccine and we saw what others had warned us of. There are real dangers with vaccines and to deny that is to deny the truth. Who is responsible for the wellbeing of our children? Did you give them to us? Why are the vaccine manufacturers indemnified against prosecution for the death or disablement of those injured by vaccines?

Should you even consider such a proposal then we do not live in a democratic country.

Yours Sincerely
DGS

Divider 1

Minister Dutton,

I have spoken with Alex in your office and left a message for you. He suggested I could also write.

With respect, I want to pass on my views as they relate to your discussion with state health Ministers on the potential removal of (or tightening of) conscientious objection (CO) clauses with Vaccination policy.

First, CO is NOT used ‘willy nilly’ – people who do appropriate research and then make an informed choice take advantage of this right. The difficulty experienced in actually finding a GP who will sign such a form is testament enough to the fact that the clause is not being ‘taken advantage of’.

Second, our constitution provides us with the right to refuse medical treatments against our will. As such governments of both persuasion have often argued that vaccination is not compulsory – but you then tie access to certain family payments to vaccination status which effectively ‘force’ compliance with vaccination policy. This is under-handed and dishonest.

If you do believe vaccination is such an important public health initiative, then make it compulsory, institute protection-schemes for those that are vaccine-damaged (or better yet, allow once again the common law right to sue vaccine manufacturers!), fund and instruct the TGA to do proper analysis including post-market safety studies, don’t ‘farm out’ investigation of reactions to the companies that produce the product, and instruct all health practitioners to keep accurate reaction statistics rather than just voluntary adverse reactions registers. Also, fund the studies that have been called for ad nauseum (with such calls being ignored so far) for long-term health outcomes of the fully vaccinated versus the fully non-vaccinated.

The FTB is an important payment most used by needy families in our society. It should not be in any way linked to whether or not you have a medical procedure. The fact that it currently is, means you MUST allow conscientious objection.

The argument you and others have put forward regarding the importance of high vaccination uptake is always predicated on the ‘greater good’ which is turn is based on a theoretical mathematical model of herd immunity…the levels required to achieve herd immunity continue to change and rise, because we reach the level suggested and then we find eradication has not occurred, and fully or mostly vaccinated populations are still contracting these diseases! You can’t blame unvaccinated children for fully vaccinated outbreaks! True, there are populations that for whatever reason are not able to be vaccinated (partly because of the toxic ingredients in vaccines!)…but if you look into the history of flu vaccine policy for example, you find profound conflicts of interest and policies derived from ‘expert’ panels without any evidence or research – particularly the justification to vaccinate the over-65 age-group originally was non-existent!

Ministers are often guilty of spouting inaccurate information regarding vaccination – first confusing vaccination with immunisation (they’re NOT the same thing!), second, claiming extremely high levels of safety based on voluntary reporting data, third claiming efficacy based on the fact that people don’t contract the disease after innoculation (with no evidence they were EXPOSED to the organism and no analysis of differences in immunocompetency or the factors which might raise immunocompetency in some population groups/individuals while not in others!) Leaps of faith are made with inadequate basis, and this informs your public policy.

Please…if you (and by this I mean the pro-vaccine lobby) are not willing to sit down and have a real, inclusive debate and address areas of perceived or actual lack in the evidence to back up your policy, don’t force people who HAVE researched the issue into something they firmly believe could cause greater harm than good.

If you cannot achieve herd immunity through education then surely there is some reasonable doubt you have not adequately addressed…and the way most pro-vaccination experts contribute to the public debate further inflames this issue. By just simply trying to deny that there is a valid debate, or for that matter ridiculing alternative points of view, you don’t actually do your cause any favours! Removing the only real option for people to still receive their rightful government funds

As Minister for HEALTH (not minister for sick-care) it would be amazing if you began to heavily promote research and public policy based not on the minimum standards needed to avoid illness, but on what is required to achieve sufficiency to maximise full function and the expression of ultimate health. The philosophy underpinning allopathy – whereby society is effectively taught to only respond to their health status when they experience a symptom is the real issue here!

Clearly I’m passionate about this issue and I would welcome any indication from you that you have considered this email – a ‘pro-forma’ email will just further reinforce my opinions as presented in this letter!

– Regards,

Dr. P

Divider 1

Peter Dutton,

I oppose any moves to take away our right to government entitlements based on our vaccination decision.

Nobody should be FORCED to have their child be vaccinated.

The Australian Constitution No 51 ‘The provisions of maternity allowances, widow’ pensions, child endowment, unemployment, pharmaceutical, sickness and hospital benefits, medical and dental services (but not so as to authorize any form of civil conscription), benefits to students and family allowances’

By removing the family tax will not get me to vaccinate my children but will place more financial stress on my family and will cause us to tighten our belts even further. Are you sure this decision will really profit out children? Are you not satisfied with the 90% you already have claimed?

Jesus therefore says to him, If thou doest, do quickly.

God bless

PB

Divider 1

Letter of Objection for Peter Dutton.

I write in regards to the proposed removal of the conscientious objection clause in relation to vaccination and remove entitlements. This is in Violation of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution. The Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act was signed & Sealed in 1900, by Queen Victoria using the Royal Seal, which then became the law-making seal of the Federal Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia at Proclamation in 1901. No other symbols or system can be used to create an authority of any kind, OVER the civil & political rights of the legal or private Persons of the Commonwealth of Australia. The Queen holds the title Defender of the Faith, upholding our Commercial and Civil rights to Common and Canon Law . That title is a direct covenant with God Almighty. A contract. In her, and her alone, through that contract, lies the authority to Judicially adjudicate over the men & women of the Contract.

Commonwealth Of Australia Constitution Act

Part V – Powers of the Parliament

51.The Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to make laws for the peace, order, and good government of the Commonwealth with respect to: -

(xxiiiA.) The provision of maternity allowances, widows’ pensions, child endowment, unemployment, pharmaceutical, sickness and hospital benefits, medical and dental services but not so as to authorise any form of civil conscription, benefits to students and family allowances.

Correct me if I have read this wrongly but it states not as to authorise any form of civil conscription to medical services. So there we have it, this is why vaccination is a voluntary procedure.

Be aware that we the people are watching you and are growing in numbers and will hold you accountable for the decisions you make.

I have informed you of the illegality of enforcing vaccinations and hereby this communication is a letter of objection.

Vaccination has no scientific background to support it. Wherever we have so many vaccine failures it becomes a scam.

Science means 100% efficacy, nothing less can be deemed to be back by science. No failures not now not ever, I have witnessed to many vaccine failure particularly the Flu Vaccine for it to be considered scientific.

We the people are now looking at this hoax in growing numbers as you can never fool all the people all the time.

You are elected by the people to stand up for the people. Its high time you backed the people who elected you to office as opposed to the corporate entities who only have profit as there agenda and care not for anyone or the planet.

Yours Sincerely

RM

Divider 1

To the Hon. David Davis, Hon. Peter Dutton, Hon. Catherine King and Mr Gavin Jennings

I am a Victorian resident, Company Director, mother of young children and supportive wife to a very hard working tax payer, and I write sharing my concern regarding current discussions about vaccination and the removal of rights of Conscientious Objectors (CO).

As a fellow Australian citizen, I respectfully ask that our Health Ministers and Government Officials please respect our rights as parents (and human beings) to make decisions on behalf of our children. Many parents choose to vaccinate, but some believe it is not in the best interests of their children to follow the current Australian Vaccination Schedule or to vaccinate at all. With so many vaccines required to stay “up to date”, my husband and I do not feel comfortable injecting our children so often and with so many vaccines as is currently suggested. My mother was instructed by her GP back in the 1980s not to even think about vaccinating me until I was at least 6 months old, and with far less vaccines required when I was a child, it is no wonder some parents are not “fulfilling” the current schedule.

As it stands, we are one of the CO families which have been vehemently despised, blamed and shamed throughout the media and some medical circles in recent times. We submitted the CO paperwork (which, ironically, was misplaced at Medicare for one of my children although we sent the letters together) so that Centrelink/Family Assistance/Childhood Vaccine Registry would cease sending us so much correspondence in reminder letters, tax benefit reduction threats and the like. We thought it was the right thing to do considering our options, and we trust you will take on board that right to choose. Considering my vaccinated daughter contracted the chicken pox last year from who knows where and gave the illness to her siblings, one of which is unvaccinated, I really cannot see us changing our position in the near future and I do not believe it is fair, constitutional or downright “Australian” for my children to be forcibly medicated against our wishes.

It is very unfortunate when an industry (which does not have any scientific research supporting the safety of injecting multiple vaccines at a time as suggested by the current schedule) has more clout than the parents of the precious children being injected. The right to choose to vaccinate or not is one right we desire to stand up for; for our children and for their wellbeing.

Please take note of my conscientious objection to any discussions penalising CO families for making a decision for their individual family.

Yours sincerely
SE

Divider 1

The Hon. Peter Dutton, MP Minister for Health

Dear Minister,

I am writing to offer an ordinary, informed citizen’s view of a proposal by your Queensland state counterpart, Lawrence Springborg, for using undue and unrelated financial penalties to coerce conscientious parents, in contravention of Australia’s human-rights obligations, to undertake a course of action that in their view may endanger, threaten, or compromise their own children’s health: Mr Srpingborg’s proposal to remove from such parents the admittedly burdensome option of lodging conscientious objection, for the purpose of receiving an unrelated tax rebate, to the questionable* practice of universal vaccination using all the vaccines not yet banned that the industry that stands to profit by their sale “recommends”.

That such a successful industry as the pharmaceutical industry is must increasingly rely upon punitive measures, upon physical force, upon court orders, and, at least in the United States, upon physical violence in order to force its most disreputable products upon resistant consumers is a strong indicator that something has gone awry in the most expensive marketing campaign that any industry has yet financed.

What industry with a product that works and offers great benefits to its potential customers has ever had to force that product down their throats? If the most expensive marketing in history has failed to persuade a minority of parents of the value of all vaccines to their children, what has gone wrong that the product must be delivered punitively (and, in the U.S., even at gunpoint)? If the product cannot be sold at any price, then perhaps it is the product, not the consumer, that has something wrong with it.

What has undermined the success of vaccine marketing, minister, may be a mix of fundamental changes in perception.

First, formerly pro-vaccination parents have seen their children being harmed by vaccines and have chosen to educate themselves and to realise that vaccination is not the be-all and end-all of child health.

Second, formerly zealous paediatric proponents of vaccination have seen their patients damaged and have undertaken their own research.

Third, international studies of the long-term health of the vaccinated and the unvaccinated have come up with results that unarguably speak against indiscriminate childhood vaccination as a long-term health strategy.

Fourth, several studies that supported vaccine efficacy and safety have emerged as having been tampered with, ghostwritten, and forged altogether.

Fifth, alternatives to vaccination have been studied and have been found to be effective preventatives of infectious illnesses.

And, sixth and most tellingly, the Internet, as did the Gutenburg press in its day, has enabled parents and concerned citizens to conduct their own research, communicate their findings, and question formerly unquestionable dogmas.

Possibly the greatest subversion of the success of vaccination marketing, however, has been the refusal by the most vehement proponents of the unquestionable dogmas to answer such questions — except by attempting to subvert the right of all parents to make the health choices most appropriate for their children with the assistance of the most accurate information available on the subject and without undue pressure by industry or government.

Could you yourself possibly give a straightforward, informative, and accurately referenced answer to a question concerning a particular vaccination’s value to a particular child whose parents have noted that child’s familial or personal history of sensitivity to that vaccine or to a related one? If not, then on what possible basis could you justify overcoming that child’s parents’ better judgement and parental intuition using the force of financial penalties?

Undermining the set dogmas more broadly than do questions of safety in relation to a particular individual are some of the larger statistical studies that have demonstrated some vaccines’ surprising roles. Two of the better-known reasons for concerned citizens to question the universal truths of the dogma of vaccinations’ universal benefit to their recipients are (a) the evident role of pertussis vaccine (whole-cell in particular as opposed to acellular) in perpetuating cycles of pertussis and parapertussis epidemics, and (b) the evident role of the now highly discredited “swine flu” vaccines in increasing susceptibility to annual influenza. Could you yourself possibly offer the least evidence to contradict the studies that have elicited these relationships? If not, then on what possible basis could you justify using pressure of any kind to sway a parent’s better-informed decision?

Minister, these questions and many more like them deserve answers based on respect for truth and for the rights of the individual, not answers that come from the barrel of the handiest financial cannon.

The more readily the pharmaceutical industry and the Government turn to force in order to sell the unsellable to the unwilling, the stronger the Government makes the message that it has no recourse in terms of rational argument and evidence but must use irrelevant penalties — withholding of irrelevant tax payments — in order to enforce its opinions. Such irrational measures do less than nothing to inspire confidence in the ability of our ministers for health to understand evidence and argument and communicate it. Rather, they demonstrate the inadequacy of such ministers to their portfolio.

That parents manage to stand up to the already significant financial pressure of losing access to a relevant payment — the Maternity Immunisation Allowance (M.I.A.), through payment of which the Government tacitly admits a certain degree of risk to the child it pays on behalf of — says that some parents retain both a sense of higher vaccine risk than the Government acknowledges and stronger principles than the Government counts on in using the M.I.A. as blood money. Seeking deliberately to add to such conscientious parents’ burdens is the work not of good citizens and servants but of those who believe in their own power above all else. That your office, when I phoned, was punctilious in insisting that such deliberate privations neither force parents to vaccinate nor constitute, technically, penalties — is a clear indicator that you yourself are conscious both of the burden and of the force of that burden upon parents. I urge you to become equally aware of the existence of an entire library of careful research demonstrating that the dogmas underlying your Queensland colleague’s proposal have had their day in the court of scientific investigation and been found wanting in factual accuracy.

I look forward to your prompt, public assurance that you have forsworn committing the grave errors of judgement and disrespect for your electorate that your Queensland colleague would willingly lead you to commit. And I look forward to learning that you have led a movement toward a factual basis for government policy via research uncontaminated by unarguably vested interests.

Yours sincerely,

JH

* I use the word “questionable” here advisedly. A medical procedure whose value has become beyond question becomes impossible to subject to intelligent investigation. In the minds of those who think of science as a canon of established, unquestionable knowledge rather than a process of careful discernment, vaccination has already reached such a canonised state. It is truly remarkable, in the poisonous atmosphere that habitually attends the questioning of vaccination’s value, that any independent research in the field continues to be done. It nonetheless does occur. For a start in reading independent research on vaccination, you could do worse than to consult the writings of Dr Tom Jefferson, of the Cochrane Collaborative. I’d be happy to refer you to peer-reviewed work by him and other notables in such places as the British Medical Journal.

cc Shadow Minister for Health, the Hon. Catherine King <Catherine.King.MP@aph.gov.au>

cc A.C.T. Minister for Health, Katy Gallagher <gallagher@act.gov.au>

cc A.C.T. Shadow Minister for Health, Jeremy Hanson <hanson@parliament.act.gov.au>

Divider 1

Dear Minister Dutton

It has come to my attention that tomorrow a meeting will be held and one of the topics for discussion is the Family Tax Benefit A and the possible removal of the conscientious Objection as a qualifier for this payment. I truly hope you can see that doing so will be indirectly forcing parents to ignore their childs health needs in favour of receiving a cash reward. If you are going to pay families for vaccinating, you need to make the payment available to those who do not wish to vaccinate for what ever reason they may have. You may argue that only medical exemptions will be acceptable, but I put it to you that… there is no medical testing of children and infants prior to their vaccines to test for possible allergies or reactions. At present parents must subject their children and babies to vaccines on blind faith that everything will be ok. Often times it isn’t ok. Therefore the medical exemption is not good enough in my opinion, it is not going to prevent children from becoming vaccine damaged. Personally I believe this payment should be removed all together from both vaccinating and non vaccinating parents and redistribute it fairly back to families in another way or perhaps remove the link to vaccinations for this payment all together and just leave it as a family assistance payment. Health decisions must be made based on an individuals needs and should never be influenced by monetary gain or reward. If parents choose to vaccinate it should be based purely on their belief that it will benefit their child. As it is, most parents who choose not to vaccinate do so based on what they believe is most beneficial to their childs health.

Trusting you will remain unbiased and fair to all in your decisions.

Regards

MS

Divider 1

Dear Shadow Minister King,

I am writing to inform you of my personal opposition to remove parental rights to government entitlements based on my family’s vaccination decision. For the past fourteen years I have worked as a Special Education Teacher, both in government and non-government positions. During this time, I have observed the very rapid increase in children being diagnosed as developmentally delayed, more specifically autistic. When I first commenced in my career, it was apparent that a more widespread array of disabilities was evident in the classroom demographic. Nowadays, a proportionately high number of the classroom demographic consists of autistic children, many classed as severely autistic on the spectrum.

Parents have personally attested to the fact, they believe their child’s autism was a direct result of vaccination. One parent asked me whether I had my own children. At the time I hadn’t, and the mother said to me, do your research. She was well versed on the topic and I still remember her very vividly today. I have also counselled many parents in person or over the phone who have just stepped out of the Paediatrician’s office to be told their child is autistic. I cannot describe to you the devastation and emotional state of these poor, helpless parents. It broke my heart.

I started to observe consistencies in parents stories; about how their child was developing atypically, then suddenly they stopped speaking, giving eye contact, ceased interacting with peers and siblings etc. etc. All children mentioned here where fully vaccinated according to the schedule.

In 2006 I had my own adverse reaction to the DPT vaccine. I had to undergo a minor procedure at a medical centre after I sustained a small fragment of glass in my fifth finger. Having being asked by the medical staff when my last tetanus shot was, I couldn’t recall, so was then vaccinated with what I thought was a ‘tetanus’ vaccine. I later learned that the tetanus vaccine is a three in one shot and includes Diphtheria and Pertussis. Tetanus cannot be given in isolation. A resulting adverse reaction became immediate following the vaccination and lasted 3-4 days.

Due to my personal experiences, I began a course of research and read material from both sides of the vaccination debate . Countless hours where spent conducting this research and consequently an INFOMED decision not to vaccinate my own children resulted. For me, vaccination is a medial procedure I simply did not want for my children. The potential risks simply outweighed the apparent benefits.

Nobody should be FORCED to have their child vaccinated.

We live in Australia, a democratic society, which for me, means freedom of choice. By denying a parent access to this government payment is discriminatory.

I strongly urge the government to act justly and fairly on this matter.

Yours Sincerely,

MF

Divider 1

Dear Peter Dutton & co-workers,

I understand that as politicians, you are under increasing pressure from pharmaceutical lobbyists and the higher powers that be at the Australian Medical Association to pass legislation that will take away the rights of hard-working and educated parents of non-vaccinated children to receive government assistance payments.

Before you consider enacting upon such a drastic and oppressive endeavour, I beg of you (and your colleagues) to please take the time to view the award winning and informative documentary, ‘The Greater Good'; http://www.greatergoodmovie.org/#!prettyPhoto I also encourage you and colleagues to educate yourselves about the specific ingredients in vaccines, rather than assume blindly that because a person with a white coat or esteemed medical title has assured you, that every word they utter is to be considered an unequivocal and eternal truth.

Please keep in mind also, that most parents who have chosen not to vaccinate, have not made this decision on a whim, but rather painstakingly – many after witnessing serious adverse reactions to vaccinations in their child or other loved ones. In fact, most parents (like myself) were previously PRO vaccination, blindly trusting in the authorities, and have only bothered to educate ourselves about the ingredients, manufacture and funding of vaccines after experiencing an adverse reaction in our families.

Pharmaceutical and other medical authorities whom benefit financially from these vaccines are disturbed and dare I say frightened, by this growing number of educated adults who are taking the time to do their own research. But enforcing draconian laws upon people, borne out of pride and anger is never a good recipe for a democratic society that wishes to look back in time without regret.

Australia is and should remain a free, democratic country, where the rights of all to access government assistance and the right to accept or decline medical drugs for our children should be respected. Our children are OUR responsibility… not the governments.

All scaremongering and drug-pushing aside, I can assure you that the growing number of non-vaccinated children out there are far healthier and arguably happier than their vaccinated counterparts. Rather than be injected with heavy metals, formaldehyde and other neurotoxins, they are nourished with pure, unadulterated healthy food, clean water, a good dose of fresh air and daily sunshine and are thriving! Sadly, this is not a reality which the pharmaceutical vaccine industry can benefit from. Please open your heart and mind and consider our plea…..

In freedom and truth,

JL

Divider 1

Dear Minister Gallagher/Shadow Minister Hanson,

We are forwarding this email to share our concerns about family tax payments that may be withdrawn from parents who have chosen not to immunise their children. Don’t punish those of us who thought we were doing the right thing but simply weren’t aware of the dangers that immunisations pose until we learnt the hard way.

Here in Australia we live in a democracy and that gives us the right to make choices and the right not to be discriminated against. We feel that what you’re doing is impinging on our right to make decisions. In this case, one that is researched and in the best interest of our children.

We can only speak for ourselves in this matter however we are very well educated and intelligent people. We did not make the decision not to immunise lightly; rather we made the decision to immunise too lightly!! We did not research how immunisation works & what the chemicals can do to the body, especially in one that is still developing, we just blindly trusted our doctor and the information disseminated to the general public. Our children are only partially immunised because after an immunisation at 2.5 years old, our eldest had a major gut/bowel reaction over a period of weeks. Our doctor & nurse did not believe it was a reaction & of course we were not encouraged to report it.

Both our sons now suffer multiple food/chemical/environmental intolerances & allergies; our eldest suffers from ADHD & asthma. Although we fully understand that our children have different dispositions etc., our youngest (who is only immunised to 6 months) does not suffer to the same extent or with the same issues as his older sibling. He suffers from far less infections etc. and also recovers from illness significantly quicker & more effectively than his older brother.

These are children that were both breastfed, eat wholefood organic diets and live in safe non-chemical environments. We insist on healthy practices with our children to ensure their health is the best it can be, however we can’t take back the immunisations they were given early in their lives.

As a result of our sons reaction, we have read books & information written by highly respected medical professionals and people who have carried out great deals of investigative research on the matter. They do not use scare tactics they simply present information & facts. We do not support fear mongering, discrimination or hatred by either side of this debate and hope that you might take note of this letter.

Yours sincerely,
M & A 10 April 2014 (out of fear of retribution, we not supply our full names)

Divider 1

Dear Mr Springborg,

As a parent of a child who has been vaccine damaged and diagnosed with Aspergers I have had to reassess my previous personal views on vaccines and their effects, function and success.

I am 41. I had very few vaccines as a child. I caught the mumps, measles as a young boy around 4 and 5 and chickenpox at 15. All were mild. I enjoyed the time off school as a teenager. I grew up in Perth. I travelled with my parents throughout Australia and the US and the UK at various times. I attended a normal State Primary School and a Private Highschool and I went to University and got a degree. I got married and became an MCSE – Microsoft Certified Systems Engineer. I’m a very normal Australian.

I was, in the past a person that didn’t think much about vaccines and trusted in the information I had been given. I was what you would call very pro-vaccinations however the irony of that position was that I had very very little knowledge of them other than that I had gleaned from documentaries on small pox and polio. After the adverse reaction my son experienced and some of my own personal experiences I’ve spent some significant time researching for myself and have come up with a far different conclusion to that which we are told in the nightly news and pro-vaccine documentaries, and at a standard GP or Paediatrician’s office – namely that they are safe and effective.

Although my son was fully vaccinated as per the Australian schedule he at 7 years of age in his Grade 1 class contracted Pertussis along with 8 others in his class – all of whom had been fulled vaccinated. So either the vaccine hadn’t worked or it had worn off. In other words it was ineffective.

In the past I had myself received two flu vaccinations, the second of which made my extremely ill.

This only furthered my drive to gain more understanding and after reading 7 books plus numerous websites and videos on the subject (from doctors, immunologists and neurologists) I have some key basic tenants I know hold to be true. I now call myself a vaccine-sceptic.

1. Vaccine induced antibodies do not necessarily grant immunity – even if they can be observed in sufficient numbers with a blood test http://www.greenmedinfo.com/blog/study-disproves-cdcs-primary-justification-vaccination

2. Vaccine induced antibodies wear off – thus the need for boosters

3. Most adults who have not received boosters are thus themselves in the same camp as an “anti-vaccer” – ie. NOT IMMUNE and therefore adding to the theory of herd immunity.

4. Many vaccines “shed” for up to 21 days (read the package insert)

5. The adjuvants used in vaccines to promote and ensure an immune response are toxic even in small doses when injected into muscle and veins – especially in the young and those who are susceptible

http://www.ff.ul.pt/FCT/PTDC/SAU-FAR/110871/2009/Aguilar2007.pdf

6. Vaccine injuries and adverse reactions are seriously under reported

7. Most outbreaks in the Western World occur in vaccinated groups

8. Those who are vaccinated still do carry many of the viruses they espouse they are now immune to. http://www.fhfn.org/why-vaccines-spread-disease-an-in-depth-analysis-of-flawed-vaccine-science/

9. Vaccine companies have been distorting their success and their efficacy http://www.vaccinationinformationnetwork.com/merck-scientis-claim-merck-forced-them-to-falsify-vaccine-efficacy-test/

10. Herd Immunity is an impossible lie http://www.vaccinationcouncil.org/2012/02/18/the-deadly-impossibility-of-herd-immunity-through-vaccination-by-dr-russell-blaylock/

11. Some vaccines work very very poorly. So poorly as to be almost worthless. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/mutations-explain-poor-showing-of-2012-flu-vaccine/

I know you are busy men, however I would ask you to read the articles below:

http://gianelloni.wordpress.com/2014/04/07/dear-parents-you-are-being-lied-to/

http://vaccineresistancemovement.org/?p=13481 – Measles Report

http://vaccineresistancemovement.org/?p=10185 – Autism Report

Although my wife and I may not have another child, the numbers of children with neurological disorders, diagnosed on the ASD spectrum and allergies is growing constantly, I believe that Vaccines have had some part to play in this rise and I cannot stand to see that total lack of honesty or openness surrounding any discussion on vaccines from the medical community or vaccine makers. I believe there is an epidemic of autism and allergies.

I oppose any moves to take away any rights to personal exemption from vaccines for anyone via any means of coercion, be it physical or financial (such as removing government entitlements) based on a vaccination decision.

Nobody should be FORCED to have themselves or their child be vaccinated. That is part of the worst possible totalitarian nightmare scenario of a “1984” like society.

As far as I am concerned it is my basic human right to choose not to vaccinate my child or myself and to choose to be fully informed regarding vaccines.

I understand you will be discussing removing government entitlements from those who do not vaccinate. I think this is wrong for all the reasons given above.

Kind regards

LB

Divider 1

To the Hon David Davis MLC

Regarding tomorrow’s deliberations on vaccinations and government benefits I have one simple request:

Do not use your voice at the table to support coercive implementation of the health department’s vaccine regimen.

Coercion has no place in this area when parents, like me, are solemnly issued with ultimate responsibility for our young children’s health decisions.

Do you know Grace White? She is my daughter, I know her well. I also know her four siblings better than you do because they are my children. Please use your position to support my right to parent my children in their best interest as I, their responsible guardian charged by God with their upbringing, see it.

I can’t imagine how a round-table bureaucratic discussion in sunny Queensland can determine once and for all that I have lost my parental rights on this issue.

Say yes to choice for parents on vaccination. Yes to a choice without punishment.

I will awake three or four times tonight to tend to my children. No matter how interventionist the nanny state becomes in this country, you won’t lullaby my kids to sleep when they are distressed, so please do not insinuate yourself into jabbing them without ever having met them.

Kindest regards
MW

Divider 1

My name is XXXXXn. I am a NSW and Federally registered voter in this country. I am 37years old, a teacher, daughter, sister, friend and recently a new mother. I pay taxes, drive a car, have 2 dogs, a partner, go to the beach on the weekend and go camping at Easter…my point with this seemingly irrelevant, and trivial information, is that I am what society might consider “normal”. However, I CONSCIOUSLY chose not to vaccinate my 7month old son. It was what I believe to be a very well researched choice and I am astounded at the vitriolic reaction from some people when I mention that he is not having/had his needles. I was born in 1977 in the same hospital as my son and my mother chose not vaccinate me or my 2 younger brothers. She meticulously raised us in good health; so that we as adults would have a true understanding of what health and living a healthy lifestyle means and we do. I went to primary school and high school like every other normal kid in the 70s and whether I was vaccinated, or not, never came up in conversation; people did not “talk” about it. But now, oh now, everyone has got an opinion about vaccination! It’s astounding! No longer is this a decision talked about only amongst my direct family and my GP- this has become public debate and my decision has become somewhat controversial and people are more than happy to tell me so. I don’t discuss with people when they had their last pap smear, prostate examination, blood test or flu shot so why is it that I have to discuss/justify my health decisions/choices with people? I believe that this is now such a hot topic because it involves money; a financial payment of “candy” if you are up to date with your child’s shots. But here is the problem with financial candy. It is public, and scientific, opinion that widespread vaccination will keep disease under control in this country. It is also public, and scientific, opinion that smoking is disastrous to your health. It is also public, and scientific, opinion that eating too much deep-fried food is bad for your long-term health and it is also public, and scientific, opinion that drinking too much alcohol over a long period of time can cause a variety of health problems. There is a lot of medical and scientific information proving that smoking, drinking and eating fried food is very bad for you. There is also a lot of information indicating there are benefits to you by vaccinating your child. These 2 statements are backed up by information from the health department. But why offer the money for getting the immunisations and penalise the people not doing it? Why the financial candy for sticking to the immunisation schedule set out by the government?? I don’t get a financial benefit for not smoking, not drinking too much alcohol or not frequenting fast food chains so why should a benefit exist for me to get my child vaccinated? If vaccinating was truly in the best interest for children in this country then why do the government have offer parents money to do it?? The government is already paying FOR the actual vaccines and then they also have the extra financial commitment of having to entice parents into sticking to the schedule. I don’t understand. I didn’t realise the government had enough spare cash to offer a financial reward for people to take medications that they (the gvmt) have just paid for. I also think that since I am not costing the government any money, as I have not used the immunisation service, could I please have what figure it would have cost to keep my son up to date with the immunisation schedule put into my bank account. Instead, you are attending a meeting tomorrow in Brisbane to discuss various issues, including the potential removal of my right to conscientiously object to the immunisation schedule and the removal of my financial candy…oh sorry…’benefit’ because I have used a loop-hole and not played by the correct rules! By the way this is a direct link to the Merck website and a 2013 Letter to Shareholders. http://www.merck.com/finance/proxy/letter-from-chairman.pdf In 2012 Merck had $5.1billion in sales of vaccines, that’s billion written there, not million…billion and $5.7billion in the sale of diabetes medication. Call me a conspiracy theorist if you like but I can’t help wondering if there is a connection between the Australian government bullying families into joining the non-compulsory vaccination schedule and companies like Merck being able to boast about a 5% increase in sales. The GlaxoSmithKline website was not user friendly at all and that finding an actual figure on their profits was very confusing (I can’t help but think that it’s designed to be that way that the staggering figure can’t be as easily known). http://www.gsk.com/content/dam/gsk/globals/documents/pdf/Investors/GSK%20publishes%20historical%20quarterly%20restated%20financial%20information.pdf And BAYER made a handy £20 million profit after costs but at least they made their statement easy to read and find. http://www.annualreport2013.bayer.com/en/income-statements.aspx At the meeting tomorrow I believe the clause of ‘Conscientious Objector’ is up for debate and there are moves to potentially cancel this as an option for parents to use to not vaccinate their child/ren. The removal of me having choice about the vaccination schedule for my child is not ok. It is undemocratic and very un-Australian. You were VOTED into your current office and it would do you well not to forget that. You are a Public Servant and I am member of the public so therefore you are my ‘servant’. I am asking you to ‘serve’ me and leave this clause right where it is. With respect, I don’t care whether you as a person agree with my decision, it is not your business as Health Ministers to decide what I do with my child. It is my business and I believe that I am the best person to be making decisions about his health and welfare and if I need advice I will seek it. I do not wish to have schedules imposed on me like I don’t know what I am doing or run the risk of financial penalty because I don’t fit into the mould. Should you wish to take the same amount of time that I have today and send me a reply then I would be happy to hear some of your thoughts as health ministers of my state (Jillian) and country (Peter and Catherine). I expect your reply to address my concerns and reassure me that you understand that I know best for my child and will continue to support me, as my public servants, in my journey of motherhood.

Yours sincerely
AN

Divider 1

I am writing to all of you, representatives, and public servants regarding this discussion that I believe you intend to have tomorrow regarding Vaccinations and penalising conscientious objectors to this most barabaric practice.

No One has the right to impose upon others their opinions regarding ones own body, and also the bodies of those entrusted by GOD to their care, ie parents, grandparents, etc as the case may be.

Vaccinations are proven to be dangerous. Your continued promotion of this barbaric pratice is abhorrent. But even if injecting foreign bodies, toxins, pathogens, dangerous chemicals into the body of another was not dangerous, it is still abhorrent.

NO ONE has the right to do that. I am disgusted that in Australia, which is supposed to be a DEMOCRACY, you are continuing to foster genocide against the will of the people.

I AM A PEOPLE. I am against this practise period.

But as regards this discussion that you will be having tomorrow I am against you even contemplating penalising those brave souls amongst us who are standing up for their bodies, and the bodies of their children by consciously objecting to this barbarous practice.

I support them, I applaud them, and as my public servants I expect you to do the same.

Conscientiously objecting to anything is a right that should be sacrosanct in a FREE and DEMOCRATIC society. You have an obligation to uphold DEMOCRACY.

Uphold IT.

It Is MY WILL that you Do NOT Even raise this issue tomorrow, or any other day. It is MY WILL that vaccinations be stopped. If Vaccinations continue against my will, then it is MY WILL that they are NEVER made compulsory.

Sincerely TMC

Divider 1

Mr Dutton,

As our Federal Health Minister I would urge you not to support moves that would discriminate against parents who have chosen not to vaccinate their children.

You would be aware that there is a large body of peer reviewed medical literature that clearly indicates that vaccines are not nearly as effective or safe as generally portrayed by the medical establishment. Indeed, vaccines can maim and they can kill.

By removing the “conscientious objector” clause with regard to the Family Tax Benefits, you would be effectively coercing parents into submitting their children to controversial medical procedures that could cause great harm.

Please be reminded that we elect people like you to support our rights, not to take them away.

Regards,

BB

Divider 1

Dear Mrs Miller,

I rang your office earlier today and was advised by Tracy that it was her understanding that you will not be attending the State Health Minister’s meeting with Minister Peter Dutton scheduled for tomorrow, Friday 11th April. However, I felt it was prudent to email you, just in case circumstances change.

I would like you to know that I vote, am a resident of Queensland and that I am strongly opposed to any move to remove my government entitlements based on my vaccination choice. Australia is supposed to be a democracy. It is my right to make my own health choices and most definitely NOT the government’s to strip me of them.

It is my will that all Conscientious Objectors are treated with respect.

Regards,
SK

Divider 1

Dear Minister for Health (The Hon Peter Dutton MP) and the Shadow Minister for Health (The Hon Catherine King) and; the QLD Minister of Health (The Hon Lawrence Springborg) and the QLD Shadow Minister for Health (Mrs Jo-Ann Miller),

I am writing to you regarding the article in today’s Courier Mail regarding your joint opinion to stop the the $726 Family Tax Benefit A payments to parents of unvaccinated children.

I am a mother of 3 healthy children and also a health practitioner residing in QLD.

Before I chose to become a conscientious objector I thoroughly researched the existing literature on the benefits and detrimental effects of vaccinations.

To my understanding and knowledge vaccinations do not confer guaranteed protection to the diseases that they are ‘protecting’ babies and children from. There are still cases of children who have been immunised getting sick from whooping cough, measles etc.

If you would understand the basics of a healthy immune system and quoting the words of Louis Pasteur ‘it is not the germ, rather it is the soil’.. meaning that the difference between a person that gets sick and one that is well, is based on a healthy immune response, rather than the supposed germs out there, then you may realise that there is probably no point to vaccinating at all. Furthermore, until a child is 2 years old, their B lymphocytes are not fully matured so they do not retain the antigenic memory of viruses which is why vaccines go through the alternate T cell route (and many top ups and boosters) in order to make them ‘stick’. In addition, many of these viruses can be managed (medically) if they do become complicated.

Unfortunately, in my view, the problem stems in (parents) poor dietary habits/practice (and lack of public education and awareness of how to stay well) and possibly lack of sufficient funds to be able to buy ‘health foods/supplements to maintain a good healthy immune system. Sadly it is probably the same types of parents that will probably suffer from the removal of the FTBA if they conscientiously chose to keep their children free from being vaccinated.

There are many medical arguments for both sides of the vaccination debate and I lean towards the side that promotes healthy living and informed choice.

I personally have seen in my practice what the effects of vaccination can do and prefer to keep innocent young babies and children who should be given a chance to live ‘normally’ in this world before they are injected with viruses and the like to let their own bodies adapt (and become resilient) to the world around them. Hence maybe the rise of so many allergies, atopic diseases (eczema, asthma), autism etc…

We do live in a democratic country, therefore I am enacting my right to be able to voice my opinion and concern for parents who may be affected by your potential decision to remove their welfare entitlement based on whether or not their child is vaccinated. How and why are the two linked anyway?

Thank you for your time and consideration of my letter.

Sincerely,
NS

Divider 1

Dear Minister Springborg,

As per my conversation with Aaron of your office earlier today, I would like to reiterate that I do vote, am a resident of Queensland and that I am strongly opposed to any move to remove my government entitlements based on my vaccination choice. Australia is supposed to be a democracy. It is my right to make my own health choices and most definitely NOT the government’s to strip me of them.

It is my will that all Conscientious Objectors are treated with respect.

SK

Divider 1

Hi there jo-ann.

a little ignorance goes a long way apparently, especially when it is backed by billions and billions in lobbying. and that’s a ‘B’.

from memory, and I might be out the odd billion, in 2001, US pharmaceutical companies alone spent in the order $9bill on free drug samples, and $16bill on marketing.

this link has later figures that are much higher and show that US drug companies spend approx double on marketing as they do on R&D.

http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pmed.0050001#s6

so plenty of money sloshing around for lobbying, misinformation campaigns, corruption, and worse.

the world-wide Big Pharma vaccination industry is a massive possibly trillion dollar industry (paid for by us by our Govts) – and a lobbying and disinformation effort and budget to fit that amount of money.

yet the real vaccination science going back decades does not support its effectiveness, and also shows the long term damage to individuals’ health (and deaths)

there are none so blind as those who will not see. or is it simply corruption bought and paid for by the pharmaceutical companies?

vaccination is not about your health or the health of your children (if only!): it is solely about MONEY. And how much more they can gouge out of our Govts and our taxes.

if vaccines actually worked as we are told (otherwise why get them?), why would anyone who had vaccine get the relevant disease?

only those unvaccinated would, and you could say ‘serve them right’.

so isn’t it funny that the people who get flu most are those that have been vaccinated?

and isn’t it funny (not) that those who have been vaccinated against whooping cough now get a more dangerous and deadly form of it?

billions and billions given to greedy and corrupt global corporations for something that not only doesn’t work, but makes things worse

the links below substantiate various facts, such as that vaccines don’t work, actually cause more disease, and massive health side effects.

http://www.vaclib.org/sites/debate/web2.html

http://www.vaclib.org/sites/debate/web1.html

http://www.soilandhealth.org/02/0201hyglibcat/020132sinclair/vaccinaion.htm

http://www.vaclib.org/sites/debate/web3.html

btw, have you noticed how much sicker and sicker and sicker our population is becoming? it seems these days the population spends half their time in a doctor’s surgery, not being made healthy, just being subscribed more and more drugs, incl vaccinations?

so why are people and children getting sicker, getting diseases, so much more often, so constantly and frequently, than in the past? (when, btw, in fact the vaccination rates for so many diseases and sicknesses have never been higher.)

there is an answer.

kind regards
DC

Divider 1

Dear Mr Dutton

I am concerned in regards to the meeting that you will have with the State Health Ministers tomorrow, discussing Conscientious Objection and plans to remove it.

As a loving mother of three children, I do everything that I can to do right by my children. I am well aware at how emotional the vaccination issue is in Australia. The decision whether to vaccinate or not should always be the decision of the parent as should all care of our children. It doesn’t matter if I agree with someone who wants to vaccinate or doesn’t, basic human right means that each parent should have the right to decide. Any parent who goes down the Conscientious Objection path must speak with a doctor and be counselled by them before the doctor will even sign the form, so they are fully informed and have made their decision having the information. I don’t believe that they should be penalised by having parenting payments removed or reduced. In a democratic society, freedom to choose should exist and parliamentarians, our representatives should uphold those rights.

Yours sincerely
MH

Divider 1

I am a voter in our Australian democracy. I am writing to have my opinion heard over conscientious objection.

I became a conscientious objector after changes in my son’s general health after vaccinations. I did my research in order to make this decision, and I continue to do extensive research on the contraindications of vaccinations.

I am aware that a meeting is taking place to discuss the removal of the conscientious objector clause to force all children/people to be vaccinated according to a schedule set by the government. Aside from the fact that it is impossible to legally enforce such a position, it is also contrary to the basic rights parents have to raise their own children by their own set of ethics and beliefs.

I 100% believe I have done the right thing by my son to protect him from further damage, including the Gardasil vaccination which is now being given to boys in Year 7. This vaccine has not been proven to prevent cervical cancer and it has killed or permanently injured 1000s of girls across the U.S. Many countries have now banned this vaccine or refused to put it on their schedule in the first place.

There is plenty of peer-reviewed research outlining the dark side of vaccination however it is actively suppressed. I seek out this information and circulate it. I have 15 years of research training behind me and I am very capable of identifying bogus research when I see it. Unfortunately most of the bogus research I read is paid for by the manufacturers of damaging vaccines and other chemicals to make their products falsely appear safe.

I strongly object to the mindset that any substance should be forcibly administered to any person against their will or that of their parent/guardian. It clearly cannot be enforced at law.

Yours sincerely,

GH, B.A. (Psych), PG Dip (Psych)

Divider 1

Dear Mr Dutton,

I am writing to you to express my concern at your intention to implement legislation to discriminate against parents and children who are not vaccinated.

I am a contentious objector to vaccines. However I did start out vaccinating my children, until a dangerous range of side effects (known to the vaccines AND listed on the vaccine insert) began to affect my children’s health. After much research and consideration, it was decided that it was best to no longer expose our children to the toxic load injected into them through vaccines in hope that their health will improve or at least not longer deteriorate.

It is a basic human right to make decisions about our own health. It cannot be denied that vaccines carry a huge amount of risk and a dangerous list of side effects. Should you implement mandatory vaccination, will you step up and take responsibility when these risk become a reality in the lives of your voters? Will you and government offer compensation to those unlucky ones who lives are adversely affected by following your legislation to inject foreign substances in the body of a young child? I would hope so.

Each Australian has a right to make decisions about their own life for what is best for them, without being discriminated or penalised against because those view or decisions differ from a politician’s.

I wonder why the sudden push to take people’s freedom? Is there money in it for you? Or are you trying to grab votes by appealing to one side? Whatever your motives, my vote counts too. And I will not be voting for you should you discriminate against people for making decisions about their own health.

Regards,
BT

Divider 1

In a modern democratic society, surely this right should be upheld.

As parents and grandparents of vaccinated children, we strongly feel that the right to free choice should remain with parents in this country.

In the matter of vaccination decisions, it has been noted that there is a high percentage of doctor’s unvaccinated children in affluent areas like Mosman in Sydney giving some credence to those questioning the safety of vaccination in it’s present form. In any case those listed as conscientious objectors, should clearly retain that right regardless of their socio-economic position in the Australian community.

Thank you for giving consideration to this simple, basic concept of what it means to live in a free society.

EF

Divider 1

To Gavin Jennings

I am a voter and a resident of your state Victoria. I have just called your office whom have advised me to send you an email to register my opposition to being penalised by not receiving family tax benefits for exercising my democratic right to choose whether or not to vaccinate my children. The removal of the Conscientious Objection Form Clause in this matter is a removal of my democratic right to choose what I believe is best for my children. I like most parents who have chosen not to vaccinate have actually taken the time to do the research to decide what was best for my children and find it appalling that we would be penalised for doing so. Living in a democratic nation as we apparently are means that we are not meant to be forced by any governing body to make decisions we believe are not in our and our family’s best interests, I hope this democratic right to Conscientious Objection is upheld and not taken away as that would really democratically speak for itself, wouldn’t it?

Kind Regards
RH

Divider 1

Dear Mr Dutton,

It has come to my attention that all State Health Ministers will be meeting with you tomorrow with regard to removing the Conscientious objection clause to vaccination. The removal of this clause will enable the Government to take away payments from parents who choose not to vaccinate.

I am urging you to please consider the many families whose children have been damaged by vaccines and give them the respect that they deserve. There is much more to this issue than just family payments. People have a right to protect their families, and the decision not to vaccinate does not come easily, a lot of research goes into this decision.

There are many books and scientific research articles showing that vaccines are not completely safe and for a Government to force them upon the Australian people (which is where this decision is heading) would be a sin and a grave moral injustice.

Please take the time to look much further into the issue of vaccinations, their production and their history, please look much further than what the Government Health sites have to offer. See what the rest of the world have decided on the issue of vaccinations and once again, please give the families of vaccine damaged children the respect that they deserve. They have no voice and have been completely disregarded and treated with contempt by both the medical profession and the media.

Many thanks for taking the time to read this email, I and many others appreciate it.

Sincerely yours,
HF

Divider 1

Dear Minister,

As a taxpayer resident of NSW, I wish to express grave concerns over todays Courier Mail newspaper article that mentions ministers are meeting tomorrow in Brisbane with Mr Dutton to discuss removing FTB A payments to conscientious objectors of vaccination.

I oppose any moves to take away rights to government entitlements based on a vaccination decision. To do so is discriminatory in my view.

Would this mean government will then take full responsibility for any adverse reactions of vaccination? Would it provide, as a standard, testing to see if natural immunity to a disease exists before vaccinating for it? Would it compensate for any adverse effects of vaccine adjuvants such as the newly recognized ASIA syndrome? (Autoimmune Syndrome induced by Adjuvants as presented by Professor Yehuda Schoenfeld)

I hope the proposed changes are rejected in full.

Regards,

FO

Divider 1

Dear Peter,

Do you have any concept / idea of the ramifications of your decision re vaccination ? Do you actually know what is contained within a jab? Vaccination will be recognised as the biggest con/scam ‘ever’ with devastating and lasting effects throughout the generations to come ,all of which are horrific! Please ,if you are a man of integrity, caring and have a real desire to do your best for humanity do your diligent research on this important topic. The overwhelming influence/ power and clever propaganda consistently pumped through the media has the majority blindly ‘following the heard’ and sadly believing that the injection of pure toxic poison into a defenceless baby can actually improve health and prevent disease when it is just the opposite! Simply take a look at the ingredience and you will not need to go any further ,other than to check out the ‘real’ stats which will tell you that sickness disease and death by disease and Western medicine policies is almost in plague proportion.

This process of blackmail must not be allowed to happen as it will only result in more illness disease and death. Big Pharma has got ‘most’ of the human race completely fooled and following in a heard like fashion like ‘lambs to the slaughter’ .

TS

Divider 1

Dear Federal Minister Dutton, State Health Ministers and Shadow Health Ministers,

I write with regard to tomorrows Ministers meeting in Brisbane, pertaining to a proposal by Minister Springborg to consider the abolishment of the Family Tax Benefit Part A, to parents that have a Conscientious Objection to vaccinating their children.

I note with concern: “Mr Dutton said he didn’t want to penalise forgetful parents but said a “sterner conversation” was needed with parents who were actively choosing not to vaccinate.”

Minister Dutton; realistically, that is quite threatening, intimidating and surely not in line with our Australian Democratic Westminster system; to which I might inconsequently add; am of 7th generation and my children 8th; with my parental Grandfather being a highly decorated and well literary published Senior Naval Officer.

So, Minister Dutton, the proposed idea is, to remove legitimate child directed payments from tax paying parents, whom by all accounts under recent media touting, are of an “upper class, highly educated and from wealthy suburbs”. If this were seen to be true, do you think the withdrawal of $726.00 is really going to impact upon their educated choice? I think not. I believe the likely outcome will be a rush from those driven by the dollar not education to line their children up for vaccination, so that the purchase of a new television is not impeded. But realistically, these individuals have already vaccinated their children and purchased their new TV! Parents that have duly educated themselves on the very real and possible dangers of vaccination are not swayed by this threat, but they will stand firm on their right to have a choice about their parenting without threat of punishment.

I have several major concerns with the proposed policy:

Firstly; vaccination in this country is not mandated by law;

Secondly; we have no established legal portal to manage vaccine injury and death in this country; currently the onus is on the (uninformed) parent;

Thirdly; this is in direct conflict of basic human rights and choice in this country;

Lastly; DISCRIMINATION. I need say no more; although, I am quite sure, as an educated, tax paying minority group that is being singled out for making choices for their children; I’m pretty sure that can be called DISCRIMINATION.

Minister Dutton, if your desire is to have a fully vaccinated child population; then my suggestion to you all is, to make vaccines unequivocally safe, provide proof of efficacy through double-blind placebo testing, provide a legal and financial safety-net for vaccine injuries, and perhaps, just perhaps, start telling everyone the truth!

Realistically, a traditionally unvaccinated child is going to be a potentially lesser burden on our health system; a majority of whom are free from diabetes, heart disease, eczema, neurological disorders, anaphylactic allergies – the list goes on. Does this entitle said taxpaying parents to a reduction in their Medicare levy?

Minister, have you considered the aspect of children that are unable to be vaccinated for health reasons? How would this be classified? Will every unvaccinated child be entitled to a free complete health examination by the child’s own Medical Practitioner; blood, stool and saliva testing, DNA and genetic testing to ensure that they are not at an increased risk of becoming vaccine damaged? I think the important part of this is classification, followed by clarification.

If it is the Government’s suggestion that a persons educated and informed health choices are now in the hands of elected officials; then perhaps non-vaccinating parents can share with you the expenses of raising said children, given that everyone’s choices about parenting are being rapidly removed. I am sure many would welcome your full contribution to their schooling, sports and general living expenses!

Whilst having this opportunity to communicate with you; I would request, that part of your meeting tomorrow address the need for a democratic ruling and implemented law, to ensure that all Practitioners that are licensed to vaccinate both children and adults, are mandated by law to provide full disclosure to the parent or patient to whom is being vaccinated. Yes, this would include a complete copy of the package inserts found in vaccines, a comprehensive discussion with patient or parent about the very real potential dangers, a complete listing of ingredients and Adjuvants and manufacturing processes, as well as advising the parties, that on accepting said information; they are in fact taking full responsibility for any adverse reactions. They should also be informed that there is no re-course for compensation or assistance for vaccine injury in this country, and any desire to do so, would be a costly and lengthy legal battle on their behalf.

In finality Ministers; this is very shaky ground indeed. If you insist on pursuing this discriminatory and undemocratic law; then, in all fairness to democracy, an implementation of the above proposal regarding disclosure and indemnity be implemented as well. I’m quite sure that, with this information provided directly from Practitioner to patient, that they surely would not sway away from vaccination – or would they?

AN

Divider 1

Dear Minister

REMOVING CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTION AND PAYMENTS

This is discrimination; it is disgusting what this Government is trying to do. Vaccination should be free choice. Is the Government planning on a Vaccine Injury scheme? Parents can then sue the government for ordering their child’s injury or death.

So parents that drink, smoke, and/or do drugs, abuse, feed them junk food, these people deserve these payments? You are saying these people are better parents than those who choose not to put toxins in their children’s delicate bodies. Just want to clarify that. But parents who have taken the time to check out all avenues of their child’s health, and have come to the decision that vaccination is not one of the avenues they will take because of it’s lack of testing and a history of worldwide adverse reactions; they are to be punished; these children (and some of them are actually siblings of vaccine injured children), these beautiful innocent children must suffer at the hands of bureaucratic power driven Government officials.

The financial ramifications of the Health Minister’s plan do not concern me personally, but the ethics behind his decision do. It is not the Health Minister, Government or Doctor who pay the price if a child is vaccine injured. It is the parents burden to carry, so the choice should be theirs, without coercion from draconian and discriminatory Government policies.

If I sound angry or like a crazy person, I feel I have a right too. I’m old, I’ve seen the diseases and I can tell you all this hype in the media is rubbish and obviously money driven.

This vaccination push has been going on for years and it is to the point where even the “big wig” researchers are afraid to say anything against vaccines for fear of being discredited. They have seen what happens when a scientist or researcher comes out against vaccines, it’s not pretty.

Have you even looked at the information available? And I don’t mean what you are fed by your advisors, get off your behind and Google reactions to Gardisal; at least four countries have now stopped it because of the injuries from the vaccine, in the thousands I might add. Reactions to MMR, DPT, Flu and all the rest.

Look up the package inserts for the vaccines, they will tell you about the reactions that have happened. It’s an interesting read. http://www.vaccinesafety.edu/package_inserts.htm

Then there is the historical data. These childhood diseases were almost gone through natural fruition before vaccines were even on the market. Once the vaccines were introduced, the usual occurrence was a rise in the disease. What does that tell you? I could give you a history lesson but it took me 20 years of research and reading (no Google back then) so I doubt one letter is going to be enough.

Basically, vaccines are toxic (thimerosal (mercury), aluminium, formaldehyde etc), contaminated (monkey DNA and viruses, aborted human foetal tissue, chicken viruses, pig viruses…it’s a long list) and ineffective. Check out the attached excipient table just as a sample. We still have outbreaks and it is the vaccinated that get the disease, very few un-vaccinated; what does that tell you? Not to mention that vaccinated individuals can shed the viruses they have been vaccinated with!

Think long and hard.
DM

Divider 1

Dear Ministers,

Re: Today’s health ministers’ meeting in Brisbane and agenda issue of VACCINATION

The purpose of this letter is primarily to give legal constructive notice with regard to the meeting in Brisbane today of federal and state health ministers, and the subject of vaccination that has been proposed by Mr Springborg and Mr Dutton to be to be included on the agenda.

Australian Immunisation Handbook

My friends, colleagues and I find it extraordinary that it appears that we need to refer some health ministers to directions that are, with substantial legal foundation, contained in the Commonwealth Government’s own Australian Immunisation Handbook (the latest (10th) edition, published 2013)(”Handbook”), in relation to vaccination, as of course is applicable equally to all medical procedures (other than in emergency situations):

“2.1.3 Valid Consent
… 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.”

Why does the Handbook contain these directions? It is because any form of meddling with a person’s body constitutes common law assault, unless there is fully informed (with the information fully understood), totally voluntary consent of the patient or their parent/carer.

Common Law

In Secretary, Department of Health and Community Services v JWB and SMB [1992] HCA 15, the Commentaries of Blackstone (9) 17th ed. (1830), vol 3, p 120 were accordingly quoted as follows:
“ ‘(T)he law cannot draw the line between different degrees of violence, and therefore totally prohibits the first and lowest stage of it; every man’s person being sacred, and no other having a right to meddle with it, in any the slightest manner’ “.

Hence, such meddling without fully informed consent would constitute assault regardless of whether or not any damage is occasioned, but:
a) the assault is especially serious when the meddling is invasive, and
b) the assault is more serious still when it is of a nature that to any degree is experimental in nature (which applies when there is any need for post-marketing surveillance), and
c) the assault is still more serious when it is fully acknowledged (by the Commonwealth Government itself), that it can occasion serious harm, even death itself.

All of these three circumstances, a), b) and c) obviously apply in the case of vaccination.

This is notwithstanding the seriously and obviously flawed “science” behind vaccination, which is the likely reason for the greater refusal rate amongst the more educated in the community (and amongst medical doctors themselves).

Existing Law is already in breach of common law and must be reversed

Even Commonwealth and state laws as they exist already today are in breach of the aforesaid criteria for valid consent, because in certain circumstances, parents who choose to exercise their God-given right not to vaccinate are required to have a conscientious objection form signed by a medical doctor. The doctor then becomes a potential obstacle to the parents’ exercise of their right to choose “in the absence of undue pressure, coercion or manipulation”.

Hence the legislation changes that have imposed this existing requirement ought, in fact, be reversed.

Instead we have a proposal for more serious breaches?

Instead, the Federal Health Minister, Mr Peter Dutton, and the Queensland Health Minister, Mr Lawrence Springborg, appear to be desirous of applying even further, and significant “undue pressure, coercion or manipulation”.

It is time that all ministers:
–          wake up and smell the law – the common law, and
–          remember that pursuant to the Preamble of our Federal Constitution and its stated reliance upon “the blessing of Almighty God”, “the supreme absolute and uncontrollable authority remains with the people”[1], so there is no provision therein for any “nanny” state nor worse, a “bully” state, and
–          remember that the ministers have accordingly been elected to serve electors, not to cause electors to be subjected to a “stern conversation” (these offensive words were purportedly spoken recently by Mr Dutton) on the basis of, despite being already placed under undue pressure, their courage to remain strong and exercise their God-given inalienable right to make the health choice they believe is best for their own children, and
–          be mindful that helping to preserve, instead of to destroy, the precious freedoms for which our forefathers died, may indeed also benefit their own descendants.

Yours sincerely

BH

Divider 1

Dear Mister Dutton,

Your move to withdraw family tax benefit to parents who have an ethical objection to vaccinations is in keeping with the usual modus operandi of right wing governments.

Firstly, let me remind you, you are an employee of the people, you are not an appointed authority to lord it over the people. Not only are you violating the fundamental precepts of democracy with such draconian discrimination, but you are acting with complete irrationality.

I am sure that pharmaceutical giants contribute hugely to your party’s funds and that you therefore feel you must act on their behalf to improve their profits, however, you seem to be under the impression that as an elected official you have the right to tell families that their young children must be injected with dangerous pharmaceuticals or they will fail to receive benefits that other families receive, when such benefits are garnered from all tax payer’s money.

Answer these questions: Why can’t a parent whose previously healthy child exhibits seizures, brain retardation and other severe maladies, or death, immediately after a vaccination event sue the pharmaceutical company that gave them the vaccination? Furthermore, if that family was forced to give their child such a vaccination against their will, as you would have it, why can’t that family sue your government for forcing them into such action? Putting the burden of proof on the family when such a catastrophe has an obvious source is the same defence as  tobacco giants making lung cancer sufferers prove the connection to cigarettes – fundamentally dishonest and reprehensible.

If you believe so firmly in vaccination, and claim that 90% of children are vaccinated, then why are you afraid of the other 10%? If children are vaccinated, then what threat is there to them from unvaccinated children? According to you vaccination makes those with it invulnerable. If this is not true, then why are you bullying families to use medicines that are faulty?

I have no children, but if I did I would not raise them in this country under a government like yours.

One can only wonder why anyone anywhere votes for right wing political parties. They discriminate against the elderly, the unemployed, rape health and education, and favor mega industries over the very people they have been hired to protect. It is a fact that under right wing governments everywhere the suicide rate within the general population increases.

Sincerely,
CC

Divider 1

Dear Honourable Health Minister,
I am writing to express my opposition to the withdrawal of family tax payments to parents with an ethical objection to vaccinations. I consider myself to be an intelligent, logical and devoted parent. I have two university degrees in the fields of anatomy and the medical sciences. I researched this issue considerably and it came down to a risk/benefit analysis for me.
One of my jobs as a mum is to ensure my child is as healthy as possible. To this end, I do a number of things to achieve this. I’ve been lucky enough to fully breastfeed my child. He eats mostly organic produce. He has a probiotic daily to promote gastrointestinal health (important for appropriate immune responses). He has regular chiropractic adjustments to assist his motor and cognitive development. He attends his scheduled child health nurse/medical doctor visits. He plays outside in the dirt, with our pets and other kids to stimulate his immune system (among other things). I keep a clean but unsterile home..…. I could go on….
All of these things move him further toward health and further away from sickness on the health/sickness continuum. As a result and possibly with a little luck, he is, by far, the healthiest child I know. In his first 18 months, other than an initial reflux problem, he has had one runny nose lasting a couple of days. Period. That’s it. I’ve seen other children (all vaccinated or partially vaccinated) suffer with illness regularly. We know that disease effects those susceptible to it, not just those in the presence of infectious agents. We can agree that it therefore makes sense to make one less susceptible to disease. It is my belief that to make one less susceptible, one must be as healthy as possible, i.e. closer to health on the health/sickness continuum. Does it make sense to administer substances with known toxins inherent in their make up? This, it would seem, would bring one further from health, lowering one’s resistance to illness and making one more vulnerable (susceptible) to disease in the first place. Have you ever wondered why some vaccinated children still fall prey to the illnesses they have been vaccinated against? Yes, I understand some of these substances are required, to invoke the response considered desirable in a vaccine. But is this the best way?? There has been so much debate on this topic for a very long time. Much toing and froing. Many statistics quoted. Some credible, some downright fraudulent, on both sides of the debate. This is a complicated issue. There are many questions regarding risk. Many questions yet to be asked (some that won’t be asked) by those producing the supporting evidence, and many conflicts of interest. Researching the safety of vaccines must include the testing of all of the ingredients present in a vaccine, not just the active ingredients, to be deemed safe. It seems odd to me. From what I’ve seen, people on both sides of the debate decide on their stance, and then look for supporting evidence with a coloured view of the issue, instead of the other way round.
On the issue of benefit, for me, questions have also arisen. We constantly hear vaccination being hailed as the reason many of these diseases are not seen (much) anymore. Looking historically, can we really credit vaccination with this? Looking at the rate of decline before the introduction of vaccination, I would question this. Yes, there has been evidence to suggest vaccines are effective at promoting an immune response (which is very different from achieving immunity) and reducing the rates of these diseases. But evidence would also suggest that vaccines might only be a contributing factor in disease decline. Why does vaccination not always work? Is the vaccination status of children succumbing to these so-called vaccine preventable diseases acknowledged? The immune system is so very complicated. To assume we know exactly how it works is, at best, a tad arrogant. Are we causing damage in ways yet to be researched? How will future generations be effected? Is there a link or at least partial link between increased vaccination rates and the decreasing health in kids today? Not just the much debated behavioural problems, but asthma, allergy, obesity, auto immune conditions such as diabetes etc. And importantly, why has research into decreasing child health included a multitude of factors but excluded one of the most obvious factors? So many questions to ponder.
I would hope any parent would ask questions, source information and advice and come to a conclusion that works best for their family. In the end, we chose not to vaccinate. That does not mean we do nothing, or are neglectful. We simply chose another way. I am not opposed to those that do choose to vaccinate their children or themselves.
On a personal note, I have witnessed my husband experience serious adverse reactions to a number of vaccinations, particularly hepatitis B and more recently, the typhoid, polio and meningitis vaccines. Some of these adverse reactions are ongoing and debilitating. Why on earth would I take the risk and expose my child to these vaccines, knowing the effect they have on his father? Would you?
So, the idea of jumping the gun and making vaccination compulsory or withdrawing government entitlements to parents who object to vaccination, simply scares the hell out of me. Not just because of the immediate health implications for my family, and for that matter, the community at large, but for the dangerous precedent this move would set. Who decides what’s best for us? Who promoted them to such a task? Who makes sure these people remain accountable and free from bias? Who decided that we, as parents, are incapable of sourcing credible information and making intelligent decisions? Since when is this a country that tramples on our fundamental right to our own bodies? Will this lead to other rights being taken away in the future? What happened to self-determination and informed consent?
It is not only my right, but also my obligation to ask these questions. In the end, it is not so much the issue of vaccination, but of the coercive and unjust measures to ensure vaccination and the suppression of freedom of information, that has me so concerned. So in conclusion, I simply state that withdrawing government entitlements to parents who object to vaccination is a deal breaker for me. I cannot give my vote to any individual or party that supports such legislation.

Yours sincerely,
LB

 

Divider 1

To whom It may concerne;
I’m just writing to express my disappointment in the fact that you are trying to take away my right as a democratic voter by taking away my rights to receive government entitlements based upon my decision not to vaccinate my children.  I absolutely oppose this decision and as an  Australian paying taxes I should be entitled to make my own choice on how I bring my children up without being penalised.
Myself and my partner have not made this decision lightly, as we did our research and decided not to vaccinate my children, however our decision also included the fact that we be responsible for our children health by living a healthy lifestyle.  My children are rarely sick and if they are sick  they recover quicker than other children.  I spend a lot more money on keeping my children in a healthy lifestyle ie naturopathy, homeopathy, chiropractic , kinesiology rather than parents who do no research, feed their children rubbish, feed them Panadol and are constantly at the doctors putting a strain on our Medicare system.  However, you want to penalise me for living a healthier lifestyle which includes not vaccinating.
You want me to have faith in these vaccines, how can I when my daughter recently was admitted to hospital with a partially cut Achilles tendon, I allowed the doctors to give her the Tetnus injection (only because it was separate and not combined with other vaccines), however after they administered this injection they returned a short time later to inform me that the vaccine was 3 months out of date but don’t worry.  How can I not be!
At least we have done our research before making our difficult decision unlike those parents who have vaccinated their children because “they just do what they are told” or “just bury their heads in the sand”.  How is it that by living in a democratic society we cannot make a healthy decision without being penalised (or being bribed).  Absolutely shamefull!

Regards,
JS

Divider 1Dear Minister Dutton,

Thank you for taking time to read my letter. I appreciate the busy demands that are placed on Federal health ministry. In a recent Courier Mail article you are quoted that a “sterner conversation” was needed with parents who were actively choosing not to vaccinate. If I may, I would like to share with you some of my thoughts about Vaccine compliance to safe guard our children. I fully supported the concept of vaccination, having made sure my tetanus vaccination was up to date,  having the flu vaccination as I hate having the flu and having the hep B shot. Later I started to hear disturbing reports of one of a friends daughter who had a developed a high temperature and taken her first fit after her first MMR shots and continues to fit to this day. Later when I married my wife, she told the story of her Aunt who had been completely normal until the day she received her MMR vaccine. That night she started to have fits for the rest of her life until one of those fits ended her life early. When I had children I very spent many hours looking at this matter, wanting to do the right thing. I read many journal articles, the best was a compilation of over 500 studies, some showing there were no risks to vaccination, and some showing that there were. I also spoke to my physician about my concerns. Even United States FDA government documents from people who support or research vaccines have doubts as to the safety of Vaccines as the following document shows. (I have attached the document to this email.)

http://www.fda.gov/downloads/biologicsbloodvaccines/newsevents/workshopsmeetingsconferences/transcriptsminutes/ucm056219.pdf

“..Does anybody know if vaccines have been checked for foamy virus contamination”  Answer Maxine Linial PH.D “As far as I know, no.” Page 74

Ron Desrosiers Ph.D “I don’t worry so much about the agents that one can test for. I worry about the agents that you can’t test for, that you don’t know about’ Page 99

Dr Engler, walter reed army medical centre
“I just wanted to make a comment and ask a broad question to challenge the panel, speaking from the perspective of a clinician and an educator, trying to translate the contents of meetings like this and the recent Thimerosal meeting for regular folks whether it’s providers or the patients. And the complexity alone, and when people say.”I worry about the unknown agents,” we have to worry about foamy virus transmission, lentivirus insertion into herpes, and that all translates into, for the common man, woman, and child, is there a bad disease with chronic consequences that can result  from immunization…………An awful lot of what you all have discussed is very hard to translate, but what’s left is, “gee, I’m not sure that this is safe.” from your mouths….” page 102,103.

Then we have the disturbing report of a fatal case of pertussis infection in a child care center where all children were fully vaccinated and when this was investigated the conclusion was that Vaccinated children may be asymptomatic reservoirs for infection. (Emerging Infectious Diseases Vol 6, No 5, September-October 2000).  As you will recall the same thing happened in Australian Hospitals when fully vaccinated staff had whooping cough.

I have to confess that the more I look into this subject the more expansive it becomes. The simple message in the Media is that vaccination is safe and effective.  While this mantra is both loud and long, it does not convey the complexity of this issue. Some would have us believe there is no debate about Vaccines and that the science complete and over. If this is true then it is not science but a religious dogma. In science the debate is never over.

Reading congressional US meeting transcripts, of both those who support vaccination and those who do not,  shows to me, that this issue is not settled and is becoming very expensive to maintain. The US Vaccine compensation fund is not looking very good and is not without its problems as noted by pulitzer prize winning author John Hanchette, professor of journalism at St. Bonaventure university in his article http://www.niagarafallsreporter.com/hanchette53.html

There is much rhetoric usually from powerful industry groups/media that usually goes along the lines that science is overwhelmingly supportive of vaccinations. One only has to look at the H1N1 debacle and the harm caused to children with the CSL vaccine and the expensive Tamiflu antiviral which is now reported to be of little use according to.

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/antiviral-drug-stockpile-a-waste-of-money-says-study-20140410-zqt3i.html

When I look at the United States VAERS data base It is very evident that vaccination can carry significant risks including death, like a lot of medical interventions. Given this, it is clearly a matter of informed consent rather then the state forcing or quasi forcing a medical intervention that carries risks. If the state uses coercion then this also implies redress against the state in the case of harm. I believe the current practice of sending home children who are seen at risk in the even of and outbreak is the wisest and tested course. In addition, the history I have seen in several countries certainly does not support the notion that vaccinations saved the world or influenced the rapid decline of disease. The vaccine industry would like us to believe this, but they were mostly a Jonny-come-lately component. If someone does have overwhelming evidence (not opinion) I would be delighted if it could be forward it to me.

Where are the double-blind Placebo-controlled studies that prove the safety and effectiveness of vaccines?
Where are the scientific evidence that confirm the long-term safety and effectiveness of vaccines?
How can the safety and mechanism of vaccines in the human body are scientifically proven if their pharmacokinetics are never examined or analysed in a vaccine study?
Where are the studies showing the health benefits between those who have and have not been vaccinated?

The State needs to be very careful with powerful interest groups that want to force a particular paradigm or product in one direction which they directly or indirectly profit rather than letting people make informed decisions which is a long and established medical ethic.  It is also of concern if the state starts to either actively or passively discriminate against its citizens because they hold a different view after having studied the matter. History is littered with examples of minority groups who have different views contrary to the established science or religion of the day being persecuted. As a democratic society his was the whole point that the Australian Parliament was making in having people go to their local Doctor to have a Conscientious Objector form signed so they were aware of both the risks and benefits.

I would ask that you put this matter into perspective given that Iatrogenic injury is magnitudes larger in cost to the community and makes so called vaccine preventable injury infinitesimally small. Yet I don’t know anyone that wants to ban doctors. I would ask that you support people who make informed decisions about their children in line with the Australian Health Care Rights and the ethos of the medical community.

Thank you for your time and commitment in representing the people of Australia.

Respectfully
BH

Divider 1Dear Sir(s)

It has been brought to my attention that you are planning to vote on removing parental rights to be a conscientious objector when it comes to childhood vaccinations. Thereby affecting their entitlement to Family Tax Benefits.

I understand that we would all like to live in a world without disease. Our natural immune systems are designed to develop natural antibodies when we come into contact with viruses and bacteria, pathogens and toxins. Unfortunately vaccinations introduce us to man made replica viruses and bacteria, pathogens, toxic heavy metals, deceased animal and human tissue, unnatural hormones all of which can have (in some instances) catastrophic affects in the recipient leading to death, serious and permanent disability, cellular damage amongst many vaccine side effects. There are court cases in progress and completed whereby vaccine could be and has been proven to be the cause of devastating and life changing effects within the recipient(s) and their families.

For these reasons and a great many others, this decision MUST and SHOULD remain the choice of the parents. They do not make the decision lightly in whichever direction they choose. Educated parents take away the information given to them, research their options and discuss their concerns with family, friends and health care professionals.

Please take this into consideration when making your decision.

Kind regards

D

Divider 1
I am a voter in New South Wales, previously having lived in Kallangur, QLD.

I object strongly to any moves to remove access to Government entitlements based on our vaccination decision.

This is total discrimination. When the authorities compare the health of the vaccinated and unvaccinated, and do it according to valid scientific procedures, then there is room for proper debate. Until this happens, there is no way government should be contemplating penalising people based on their decisions. If proper evidence is not being looked at, then you will continue to hear more and more prejudice in the community, and such a lot of unnecessary hate.
Conscientious objectors are people who have made carefully thought out decisions. When you know that something has caused unwanted side effects, you have the right to reject that something, especially when it comes to health. Health decisions should be made carefully with information on the subject freely available, not under threat of punishment.
Government continues to ignore that some of us have suffered greatly from the effects of vaccines, some much more than others, but fail to make the necessary impartial investigations. Those who have lost loved ones should never have it explained away as coincidence, and be made to look simple minded.  Taking away benefits based on vaccination status, in many cases simply means further punishing victims of  vaccination.
We need to investigate just how strong those links between vaccines and sides effects really are and be sure people know these before accepting vaccines. It would seem obvious since labelling is important everywhere else. We should know if statistically there is evidence showing our children are more susceptible than others, eg if  Archie Kalikoneros’ work with Aboriginal children is still just as relevant today.
Autism keeps rearing its head in the debate, – again rigorous investigative work needs to be carried out. How much government funding is being taken up with this disorder?

To sum up, our decisions especially in the case of our health should be freely made by ourselves, with quality research by independent parties freely available and promoted and people’s concerns should never be put down. Punishment  and discrimination for making valid choices is not acceptable.
Further, I strongly object to the notion that forgetfulness is ok, but those who have made choices in life should be subject to sterner conversations. Sounds like Nazi Germany.

Please make your time in Parliament a time for democracy to shine through.
Yours faithfully,
SM

Divider 1Dear Ministers,

I write to voice in the strongest possible terms, my protest against the removal of Family Benefits for those families who choose not to vaccinate their children!
I have an Honours Degree in Pharmacy from Sydney University and a Postgraduate Diploma in Clinical Nutrition. I am a much-published author. In 2011 I received the Sydney University Pharmacy Alumni Award for Achievement for my work (over more than 30 years) to improve the health of both parents before they conceive a child. My goal in promoting preconception healthcare is to improve every aspect of reproductive health and the health of the unborn child, which includes strengthening the child’s immune system by natural means!

I know of many like myself, intelligent, informed and concerned individuals, involved in the delivery of true preventive healthcare, who feel as I do about the issue of vaccination.

What’s more, concerns about vaccination are now also voiced by those once convinced of its benefits. For example Tetyana Obukhanych, with a Ph.D. in IMMUNOLOGY recently stated …

“I know of many alternative health practitioners and even of a few pediatricians who have embraced the non-vaccination approach to health. However, I have yet to encounter one among my own kind: a scientist in the trenches of mainstream biomedical research who does not regard vaccines as the greatest invention of medicine.

I never imagined myself in this position, least so in the very beginning of my Ph.D. research training in immunology. In fact, at that time, I was very enthusiastic about the concept of vaccination, just like any typical immunologist. However, after years of doing research in immunology, observing scientific activities of my superiors, and analyzing vaccine issues, I realized that vaccination is one of the most deceptive inventions the science could ever convince the world to accept.”

Hardly an encouraging view on vaccination!

At a personal level, I am 66 years old and attribute my robust good health throughout my entire life, to the fact that my mother had the great wisdom not to vaccinate me. I have two sons – aged 24 and 28 – also totally unvaccinated. In their combined 52 years on this planet, they have together seen a doctor 6 times (the average number of visits for a newborn in the first YEAR of life). My 9 week old grandson will follow in the family footsteps.

I am therefore shocked that in this democracy, the payments that should flow to his parents, and to the many other couples who follow my recommendations, all of whom have spent much time, effort and money on true health-promoting measures, may stop!

I await your early response

Yours faithfully
JR

Divider 1

Posted in Vaccination | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments

Tamiflu drug ‘largely ineffective’ in reducing hospitalisation: study

TamifluAntiviral drugs are largely ineffective for reducing hospital admissions and complications from influenza, and come with serious side-effects, according to a research review published by the Cochrane Collaboration today.

The drugs were stockpiled by governments across the world, including Australia’s, in response to the 2009 swine flu pandemic.

Cochrane, along with the British Medical Journal, is asking governments to consider whether they would choose to stockpile well-known antiviral Tamiflu in light of these findings, arguing the original evidence leading to the stockpiling was incomplete.

A spokeswoman for the Federal Department of Health said antivirals were part of the National Medical Stockpile currently valued at A$192 million, but refused to provide further details “due to security and commercial sensitivities”.

Tamiflu drug ‘largely ineffective’ in reducing hospitalisation: study.

Posted in Accountability, Daily Updates, Influenza | Tagged , , , , , , | 1 Comment

The Great Vaccination Non-Debate?

by Meryl Dorey

One sided debateThere is one side of the vaccination issue supported by those who believe parents should be able to access a broad range of information from many different sources. This side is not afraid of scrutiny and in fact, has been asking for better, more transparent research for decades. That side is represented by the Australian Vaccination-skeptics Network (AVN) and the other pro-information, pro-choice groups in Australia and overseas.

In opposition to this open and democratic viewpoint on scientific issues, there are organisations and individuals whose raison d’étre seems to be to prevent parents from accessing information freely and to threaten, harass and abuse anyone whose viewpoint on medical issues is not in accord with their own beliefs. That side is represented by the pro-vaccine lobby: the Australian Skeptics, Stop the AVN, certain members of both State and Federal Parliaments and some sections of the medical community.

Healthy Lifestyles Expo

In May of this year, I am going to be speaking at an event on the Sunshine Coast called the Healthy Lifestyles Expo.

The organisers originally contacted me in October last year to see if I would be interested in participating in a live debate on the subject of vaccination. Both sides would be presented and the moderator would ensure that equal time was given to each speaker with ample time allowed for questions from the audience.

Since this is something that both the AVN and I have been wanting to facilitate for some time, I was quick to agree.

The organisers were having a very hard time finding someone from the medical community to debate me, however.

They contacted Queensland Health, their Medical Local, a large number of doctors and even Stop the AVN and the Australian Skeptics. None of them would agree to defend vaccinations publicly.

The reasons given for the refusal to participate in a debate were:

a. There is no debate – there is only one side to this issue.
b. If people have questions, they should see their GP.
c. Fliers would be provided so a debate was unnecessary.

After a few weeks of trying, the debate was called off and instead, the AVN booked a stall at the Expo. As stall-holders, we were entitled to present a seminar which we were happy to do though we still would have preferred a debate.

At this point, the organisers posted an advertisement for my talk on their website at this page.

Almost immediately after this information was posted, the Expo’s website was attacked – twice. The organiser’s were signed up for many pornographic email lists (something that regularly happens to my own email address) and they found themselves targeted by a stream of hate messages on social media from people using the tag #stopavn.

They also received an angry post from Matthew Berryman, an SAVN member who works at the University of Wollongong.

Here is what one of the organisers of this event stated on their blog about Mr Berryman and the whole campaign to stop this debate from taking place:

“…the first comment by Matthew Berryman who has [a] PhD in complex systems modelling and analysis, yet tends to resort to name calling if he is rebutted, a very grown up response.

Mr Berryman sent the organisers of this event a letter accusing them of paying me to speak (in 20 years of public speaking on this issue, I have never taken payment for any of my talks though that is usually offered) and saying that the event was ‘unbalanced’ because they didn’t have a speaker from the anti-choice side!

The organisers offered Mr Berryman the opportunity to either debate me or, if he preferred, to get a stall and speak on the stage himself, just as the AVN was doing. He declined, stating that he was not qualified to speak on this issue.

Where we stand today

At this point in time, there is a possibility that Dr Rachael Dunlop from Stop the AVN and the NSW Skeptics may be debating me (please note – I have just heard from the organisers this morning. Dr Dunlop has said she will not debate me). For those who don’t know her, here is one of the Twitter posts she wrote about myself and others who have made an informed choice not to vaccinate:

Rachie Twitter

The organisers have stated that, regretfully, if someone from the other side does not come forward by the 9th of May, the debate will be cancelled and we will go back to just me speaking on the issue with no opposing viewpoint which would be a shame.

We need a conversation and a debate

The AVN wants parents everywhere to be able to hear both sides of this issue. We want them to be able to ask questions, discuss this subject openly without fear or favour and, in the end, to make the choices they think are best for their family. Without the participation of the pro-vaccine lobbyists – those same people who have been trying for years to make vaccination compulsory – it becomes almost impossible to provide parents with that balance.

We ask anyone who is reading this – whether they be a medical doctor, specialist, health official or from another area of the field of science – who would like to debate the subject in a respectful manner, to contact the Expo organisers via their website contact page.

We also ask that those who believe in free choice on health issues write a quick note to Wayne and Annie, the Expo organisers, to thank them for their strength and commitment to freedom of speech and scientific debate.

I’d love to see you at the Expo!

If you are going to be on the Sunshine Coast on the 24th to the 25th of May, 2014, I would love to see you at the Expo. Please do drop by the AVN’s stand and say hi.

ExhibitorBadge250

One last note:

QLD Health has been given a free table next to the AVN stand on which to display flyers and other information about vaccination. When asked if they would also be sending someone who would be able to answer questions or discuss this issue with the parents in attendance, they said they would not and that anyone who had questions should be contacting their GP.

It is this sort of unresponsive behaviour; this running away from those whom they are supposed to be serving, that has many QLD parents questioning the commitment of their health authorities to the protection of the children of that State.

The AVN will always be there to support our members and to answer their questions. We will always be there to help members who are being discriminated against or harassed in some way because of their vaccination decision. We believe strongly in everyone’s right to make informed choices and wish that our elected representatives would take their responsibility seriously in regards to this issue as well. Citizens and residents of a democratic nation should not be living in fear that their government will take away their inalienable rights to read, discuss and decide about health issues as they see best.

Please note: Blog posts are opinion pieces which represent the views of the authors. They do not necessarily represent the viewpoints of the AVN National Committee. The AVN is a forum, support and information organisation and outlet for discussion about the relative benefits and risks of vaccinations in particular – and medical procedures in general. We do not provide medical advice but believe that everyone has the opportunity and the obligation to do their own research before making decisions for their families. The information we provide (including your personal review of the references we cite) should be taken in conjunction with a range of other data, including that obtained from government, your health care provider and/or other medical source material to assist you in developing the knowledge required to make informed health choices.

Posted in Accountability, Health rights, Medical Bully-Boys, Seminars / Webinars | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 14 Comments

Apparently our acronym is now misleading?

by AVN President,
Greg Beattie

Oppression

If you have been following our saga during the past year you will know the prequel to this post. For those who missed it, we were directed last year to change our name – after 16 years – because our opponents complained that it was misleading. After exhausting our avenues of appeal, it turned out the Minister for Fair Trading had the power to enforce this. In fact, he introduced a new regulation just so that he could see this through!

So we changed our name. We are now “Australian Vaccination-skeptics Network Inc”. The new name was accepted by our members, as well as by NSW Fair Trading.

Now we have a new threat. Director of Investigations, Compliance and Enforcement Division, Mr David Byrne, phoned last Friday to say he requires us to change all instances of the abbreviation “AVN” to “AVSN”. And he has threatened to commence action without further notice to shut us down and remove our domain from the internet.

This was quite a surprise! Before the call there had been no mention of this intention, as you will see from the letters below

We believe this latest move suggests the aim, from the beginning, has been to force our organisation to close its doors. While the Minister successfully convinced the court that someone, somewhere might think the name Australian Vaccination Network is misleading, no similar argument has been made about the abbreviation, AVN

Greg

Below is the latest letter from Greg Beattie to Rod Stowe, Commissioner, NSW Fair Trading, 23 March, 2014. This afternoon, we received an interim response stating that the,  “issues raised are under consideration”.

Dear Mr Stowe,

We received correspondence on March 20, 2014, from David A. Byrne (Director, Investigations, Compliance and Enforcement Division, NSW Fair Trading). I responded on the same day. Both letters are enclosed for your reference. Mr Byrne then phoned me on the following day.

You will see from the correspondence that Mr Byrne requested we ensure all instances of our old name were changed to our new name, in all official documents and web publications. As indicated in my response, this has been done.

However, when Mr Byrne phoned me the following day he explained that he required us to also change all instances of the abbreviation “AVN” to “AVSN”, regardless of whether the documents in which they appear already bear our full name. I asked Mr Byrne to submit this request in writing, stating the reasons for it, and I would take it to the committee. He indicated he was not prepared to do so as it was something the ‘court’ had already ordered, and he felt his letter had already covered it. He further indicated he would commence action against us on the basis of non-compliance. He said the action, and the timeline for such, would be those outlined in his letter.

I write today to ask you to clarify whether Mr Byrne’s threat via phone represents the official position of your office. If it does, we ask for this request to be put unambiguously in writing, stating that it is now the abbreviation you take issue with. We also ask that you quote the legislation which empowers you to direct an organisation to change an informal abbreviation it uses within documents which already bear its full official name.

On the other hand, if Mr Byrne’s threat does not represent the official position of your office I ask
that you ensure he is made aware of that.

Given the nature of the threat I ask that you clarify this issue as a matter of urgency.

In the interim, I submit the following:

  • Our full legal name (the new one) is prominently displayed at the top of all stationary and other documents. It is clearly displayed on all banners, footers, and other relevant text for all our web pages.
  • “AVN” is not an official name. It is an informal abbreviation, and was not the subject of our ADT hearing last year. The ADT did not even consider its use.
  • “AVN” is not used to replace our full name. It is only used in documents which already bear our full official name. In such cases it is an informal abbreviation intended to avoid repetition. We have used this shorthand for more than 16 years.
  • It is acceptable for any entity to refer to itself in abbreviated format, informally, within documents that bear its full legal name. In fact, it is routine to do so. Most, if not all, organisations and businesses do this. The abbreviations they choose are a matter for their discretion.
  • Given that our full name “Australian Vaccination-skeptics Network Inc.” contains a hyphen, we consider “AVN” a reasonable abbreviation.
  • After searching the Act we are unable to find reference to any power permitting you to direct an organisation to change the way it informally refers to itself.

I look forward to your clarifying this for us.
Yours sincerely
Greg Beattie
President
Australian Vaccination-skeptics Network Inc.

Letter from David Byrne, 20 March, 2014

Letter from Greg Beattie to David Byrne, 20 March, 2014

 

Posted in AVN, Health rights, Medical Bully-Boys | Tagged , , , , , , , , | 16 Comments

AVN’s Charity Licence – The REAL story

by Greg Beattie,
AVN President

23640487_sThere is so much misinformation getting around, it’s bewildering. We expect misinformation from a group calling itself “Stop the AVN” – that’s what they do with their spare time. But throw in a couple of mischievous journalists and politicians and you have a recipe for a fantasy blockbuster.

By now you may have heard we have shed our charitable fundraising licence. This is true. And it’s something we’re still popping the corks over. It’s one of the best things that has happened to the AVN for a long time. We have been trying to get rid of that licence for many years, but, for so long, we couldn’t. However, a few recent changes allowed us to tackle several issues in one move. The licence was one of them. Let me explain.

You’re probably wondering what a charitable fundraising licence is, why we had one, and why we wanted to get rid of it. Moreover, why we couldn’t do so for so long. Sit back for a moment and I’ll explain. It’s important that you understand this issue and how it relates to your organisation.

When the AVN was formed in 1997 it took over the reins from an existing entity – one which was in the process of folding – called the Australian Council for Immunisation Information (ACII). Although the committee were not aware at the time, one of the things we inherited was a charitable fundraising status and licence. ACII had been set up with this capacity and it literally landed in our lap. It meant AVN could conduct fundraising as a charity. In other words, just like the various cancer, homelessness, mental health, and other appeals, AVN could go door-to-door, or run a telethon, or whatever, presenting itself to the public as a bona fide ‘charity’, and ask for money.

What’s a charity? 9005670_s

Now you might be thinking “But all organisations raise funds, don’t they?” The answer is yes. They charge membership fees, hold cake stalls and other events, and accept donations from anyone who chooses to give. The difference lies in what they do with those funds. If they build a new clubhouse, upgrade equipment, pay workers or contractors, run courses for members, or a host of other things, they’re fine. They don’t need a charitable fundraising licence, because those activities are not ‘charitable’.

So which activities are charitable? Well the definition is slightly different depending on which jurisdiction you operate in but, basically, if the money is raised to provide relief for people in distress – such as food, shelter, clothing, or education – then you are engaging in charity.

So where does the AVN fit into this? Well it doesn’t. And that’s the point. We are not a charity, and never have been. But here we were holding this charity licence. Each year the management committee would go through the ropes tending to the various requirements for this licence, but we were getting no benefit from having it. I guess the committee thought it might come in useful someday, but that day was never really discussed. Until then, it was nothing but a mild drain on our resources.

Let the groaning begin

Then came the birth of ‘Stop the AVN’. Quite apart from their well-known abuse and harassment, this group made it their business to lodge complaints about us to every regulatory body they could think of. They figured that by doing this they could completely tie us up responding to them all, and no one would have any time left to talk (or write) about vaccination. For those who aren’t familiar with this side of life, every complaint requires at least ten times the effort in defence.

One of the bodies they started complaining to was – you guessed it – the office that administers charities in NSW. It’s called the Office of Liquor, Gaming, and Racing (OLGR). In fact they lodged a multitude of them there. The complainants argued our licence should be revoked because, in their opinion, we were a danger to public health.

The OLGR required us to defend ourselves or lose our licence. Well… this was a licence we didn’t even use. We certainly didn’t need it so we asked if we could just surrender it. And this was where the battle over our charity licence began – back in 2009.

We were informed that if the licence was surrendered we would not be allowed to raise funds any more. The reason… because we were considered to be pursuing a charitable purpose. And why was that, given we weren’t engaged in any charitable activities? Apparently, the answer lay in our ‘constitution’. The wording of our objectives indicated we did in fact pursue a charitable purpose. So we were stuck with it. And that meant responding to all the inquisitions (and there were quite a few).

Fast forward to 2014…1016131_s

We finally have a new constitution! One which outlines exactly what we do. One which demonstrates clearly that we do not pursue a charitable purpose. Now we can raise funds without the licence… just like every other organisation. As soon as our constitution was changed we wrote to the OLGR and surrendered the licence. We were finally free.

But boy are the folk at SAVN upset? They are seething. One of their major avenues of complaint has just dried up, and they had no idea it was happening. So now they’re trying to put their own spin on the story, telling everyone that they had a major win. But make no mistake – this is the best thing that’s happened in a long time, and those in the wheelhouse of AVN are breathing a long sigh of relief.

Why did it take so long?

Well, to be honest, the constitution was changed, but not for this purpose. Other reasons drove that. The decision to change our constitution was made early last year, during the appeal process for our name-change. Our barrister complained that our objects were far too broad. They made his job difficult. According to the objects, we were to be all things to all people. (I guess it’s no wonder the OLGR saw us as a charity.) We decided to wait and see whether our name had to be changed, and process both together. Since both required a special resolution to be passed by 75% majority at a general meeting, there was no point going to the trouble of doing it all twice.

While we waited, we sat down and drafted new objects, describing as accurately as we could just how we saw the AVN. At the end of that process we looked at each other, and said “Hey, that’s definitely not a charity.” This revelation prompted us to search further to determine how charitable purposes were defined. Boy was that difficult. It turns out they’re different, depending on the jurisdiction you’re in. In our case (NSW) the definition was quite broad. It used three words – benevolent, philanthropic, and patriotic. If you came under one of these you were a charity. We didn’t.

It’s easy now to look back and see what the problem was, but for quite a long time the committee found it difficult to understand why the AVN was seen as a charity, and why we seemed to be stuck with this label forever.

We had already been subjected to many inquisitions by the OLGR, including one audit in 2009 where two of their staff spent two days in our office, going through everything financial. On another occasion we had our fundraising licence suspended because the Health Care Complaints Commission (HCCC) issued a public warning against us. This warning was later found to be unlawful by the NSW Supreme Court and our licence was handed back to us. The orchestrated complaints seemed to stream constantly for years, and the OLGR were obliged to act on them.

The latest

There was in fact another ‘show cause’ sent to us in January, just as we were going through the change of constitution process. Two professors provided affidavits to OLGR swearing that, in their opinion, we provided misleading information.

This time, we gave a short response outlining the fact that we were in the process of changing our constitution to better reflect our purpose and activities and we would no longer be needing the licence. Oh, and also that the two complainants were known opponents of the AVN and were also financially conflicted.

We must say, however, that the OLGR itself has been particularly pleasant to deal with over the years. The staff were helpful and always had time for us. Still… we’re glad it has come to an end.

[Note: Throughout this article I have used the term ‘we’ when referring to those who carried out all the work. I wish to stress, however, that I have only been a part of the committee for a little over a year, so the vast majority of compliance work associated with this licence was carried out by others.]

Posted in AVN, HCCC, Medical Bully-Boys | Tagged , , , , , , , | 11 Comments

Biased reporting: a vaccination case study

Media Biasby Prof Brian Martin

On Tuesday 28 January 2014, The Australian newspaper published a news story by journalist Rick Morton titled “University paid for anti-vaccine student to attend conference.” It provides an illuminating example of how to construct an article that is misleading in several different ways.

Here, I offer a critique of Morton’s story, pointing out a number of its shortcomings and biases. I first give some context about journalistic codes and practices, and my own involvement. After providing some background about the vaccination debate, I go through Morton’s text, presenting information to highlight how it is misleading. In the conclusion, I summarise the types of bias involved and comment on how readily they can be detected.

PLEASE CLICK TO READ ARTICLE
Biased reporting: a vaccination case study.

Please note: Blog posts are opinion pieces which represent the views of the authors. They do not necessarily represent the viewpoints of the AVN National Committee. The AVN is a forum, support and information organisation and outlet for discussion about the relative benefits and risks of vaccinations in particular – and medical procedures in general. We do not provide medical advice but believe that everyone has the opportunity and the obligation to do their own research before making decisions for their families. The information we provide (including your personal review of the references we cite) should be taken in conjunction with a range of other data, including that obtained from government, your health care provider and/or other medical source material to assist you in developing the knowledge required to make informed health choices.

Posted in Censorship, Vaccination | Tagged , , , | 4 Comments

The AVN – our finances are an open book

by Meryl Dorey9710598_s

Yesterday, the AVN was contacted by Amy Corderoy who is the Health Editor of the Sydney Morning Herald. She had been contacted by members of Stop the AVN – the organisation that has been set up to harass, abuse and threaten our members in order to force our group to close down. Due to their complaints about the AVN, Amy Corderoy wanted to let us know that she had asked an independent accountant to look over the AVN’s financial records over the last 7 years and that they had ‘concerns’ about what we have spent our money on for the year 2010. I will have more to say about 2010’s financial report later in this blog. According to SAVN’s accusations however, none of our money has been spent for a charitable purpose and therefore, they felt that we should be investigated.

Let’s see – in the 2 years since we won our case against an illegal investigation carried out by the NSW Health Care Complaints Commission, we have been investigated by 6 federal and state departments (Charity Departments in WA, VIC and NSW, The Department of Fair Trading in NSW, The Australian Tax Office, The Health Care Complaints Commission) a dozen times. And every single one of these investigations was in response to complaints by Stop the AVN. Now, we have journalists carrying out an investigation at the behest of this organised hate group whose founder publicly stated that he would be the cause of my demise. Perhaps instead of responding to Amy Corderoy’s email,  I should be telling her that if she wants to investigate the AVN, she will need to take a number and wait in line?

The last straw

I am writing this on behalf of the Australian Vaccination-skeptics Network, Inc. (formerly the Australian Vaccination Network, Inc.) and also on my own behalf – as the founding member of this organisation, its public officer and, until very recently, it’s President.

For more than 5 years, members of Stop the AVN, some sectors of the government and the media have been slandering and defaming both myself and the AVN, claiming, amongst other things, that there have been financial improprieties with our group.  They have claimed that every cent the AVN took in went straight into my pocket and that I am ‘living the high life’ on the back of our members’ support.

Ironically, when the Sydney Morning Herald sent a couple of reporters out to my home a couple of years ago to allow me to tell ‘my side’ of a story (what a joke that was!), they described my house as being ramshackle – perhaps because we haven’t had the money to paint or landscape it since I have let my volunteer-work for the AVN take priority over paid employment?

Below are links to our financial reports which have always been available should people request them. As opposed to the accusations being spread by SAVN:

  1. Our financial records have been audited every year since 1998 when we became a charity authority holder. This is one of the requirements of holding that license, as opposed to simple incorporated associations who do not have the same level of scrutiny.
  2. Our financial records are overseen by both the Department of Fair Trading and the Office of Liquor Gaming and Racing. This happens every year.
  3. In fact, in 2009, due to the vexatious complaints of Ken McLeod of SAVN, the AVN was audited by the Office of Liquor Gaming and Racing whose representatives spent 2 days here going over our books and many weeks studying our financial records. Though they found some minor errors and one larger mistake that had been made by the organisation, they specifically stated that there was no evidence of fraud or other illegal activities and that these were the sorts of errors they would expect to see with any small, understaffed volunteer-run organisation.
  4. All AVN Committee members are and always have been volunteers. Both myself and Greg Beattie, our President, work full time quite often, sometimes more than full time, on jobs for the AVN without receiving any payment.
  5. For a few years, I was paid for my role as the Editor of Living Wisdom magazine. That was the only time in the over 20 years I have been involved with this organisation when I was paid. I was not paid for my role on the committee but rather for my role as Editor. Amy Corderoy’s email contains the following statement (quoted verbatim):

    They [the accountant consulted by the Herald] have also highlighted the editor payments for Living Wisdom

    2007 Total $ 15,840 4 issues published. Editor fee per issue: $3,960
    2008 Total $ 17,490 3 issues published. Editor fee per issue: $5,830

The implication appears to be that I was making the princely some of nearly $16,000 for one year and nearly $17,500 for another so, ipso facto, I was getting rich from my work with the AVN. In actuality, I was earning between $1,250 and $2,400 a month for between 120 to 150 hours of work. This is far less than what the average wage earner would be making.

2010 – the year from hell

The one year when our financial report really does have some serious deficiencies is the year ending on the 31st of December, 2010. Let me set the scene. At this point, we had been under attack for nearly 18 months from Ken McLeod and the other members of the Australian Skeptics and SAVN. These attacks had been very public and had included death threats, the mailing and emailing of pornography and a string of very public false accusations. We were involved in a court battle where our solicitor and barrister had both appealed to the court to suppress their names because they were afraid of becoming targets of these hate groups and the court itself had to have security guards present because members of SAVN had indicated they would be present at the hearings. We were unable to find a forensic accountant to write a report for the court, because they told us they were too scared to work with us. Can you imagine it? These professionals – who regularly work with organised crime gangs and the like – were too scared to work with us.

We were also unable to find an auditor to prepare our end of year financials for the same reason. I had personally contacted dozens of them and all declined after finding out that it was our organisation calling. Many of them were on side on this issue but they all said that they feared SAVN and the Australian Skeptics and did not want to go on record as having prepared our end-of year report.

The Department of Fair Trading was threatening to deregister us if we didn’t provide them with our financials and we were desperate when we found a local auditor who said he would take on the job. This person had – from memory – over 6 months to do so. He was given an absolute deadline as to when this needed to be submitted along with our form A12 and he agreed to finalise his report before then.

In the end, despite all of my cooperation; despite being provided with boxes and boxes of our financial records and me sitting in his office for hours to go over everything and his off-sider coming to our office for the purpose of due diligence, he did not finish the job until 3 days after it was due. In fact, I feel confident in saying that he did not START the job until that time since every time I called and asked how the audit was progressing, I was told he would be looking at our work ‘soon’.

You might presume that he was doing this for free because he cared about our group when in fact, he charged more than any other auditor had up until that point. Since our return was going to be past the deadline, he called me in to sign it so he could send it off to the Department of Fair Trading straight away. I signed it there on the spot without going through it in detail to avoid further delays.

It wasn’t until getting home with my copy that I noticed that he had pre-dated the paperwork to 3 days earlier. In fact he had been so careless, he had put another company’s name and address at the end of the document rather than ours! By then, the damage had been done and SAVN have made as much of this poor return and the errors in it as they could.

I contacted our solicitor to ask about suing this accountant and was advised not to do so because even though this was a truly terrible job, it would cost us more to pursue a lawsuit than it was worth and we simply didn’t have the funds to do this and fight fight all the other battles we faced.

At this time, our committee is considering paying another auditor to redo 2010’s books, but we wish that stress that any implications that improper uses were made of funds during that year are without basis and only due to the malicious intent of SAVN.

16553570_sReal News or Smokescreen?

Yet journalists are being lobbied by members of the SAVN who seem to think that the irregularities in our 2010 statement is news. Perhaps some journalists might feel that Australians really care about the measly remuneration I received for the work I put in as Editor of the AVN’s magazine. Perhaps they would be correct in that assumption.

But I think they need to know that intelligent Australians can see through these smokescreens. What they care deeply about are the real crimes being committed by drug companies and health authorities in Australia every single day (for example, how the Health Care Complaints Commission did nothing to stop Graeme Reeves, the Butcher of Bega, from maiming more than 500 women).

The AVN’s payment to staff is not really news, but the following stories are and strangely enough, they don’t seem to have found their way onto the pages of the Sydney Morning Herald (or most other newspapers in Australia):

  1. Dr Brian Hooker fought for years to get the Centres for Disease Control to release data they had suppressed on the link between thiomeral – the mercury-based preservative which used to be in childhood vaccines – and the development of Autistic Spectrum Disorders (ASDs). Dr Hooker was finally able to get these details under Freedom of Information. It showed that there was a 7.6 times increased risk of ASDs in children who received mercury-containing vaccines.
  2. Neuroscientist Chris Shaw and Biochemist Dr Lucija Tomljenovic published research indicating that HPV (so-called cervical cancer) vaccines “may trigger fatal autoimmune or neurological events in some cases”. A search of the entire Sydney Morning Herald database showed nothing for these well-published researchers, but there was plenty of drug-company sponsored ‘research’ saying how great this vaccine is and how every man, woman and child in Australia should be getting it.
  3. Speaking of the HPV vaccine, while Australia was expanding the use of this vaccine from girls and women to boys and men, Japan stopped recommending it because of the high number of serious reactions and deaths following the shot. Did the Herald request the services of a specialist investigator to look into this situation and report back with the truth so they could report that back to their readers? Sadly, the answer is no.
  4. Multinational pharmaceutical company, Johnson and Johnson, was fined US $2.4 billion for the fraudulent off-label marketing of its anti-psychotic medications to vulnerable children, the elderly and the disabled. Did the Sydney Morning Herald get up in arms about those who were killed and permanently injured by Big Pharma for profit? No – they were too busy pursuing the AVN and trying to smear me personally for making the princely sum of $600 for 60 hours work back in 2009.

These attacks against our organisation and the individuals who support it are nothing more than a blatant effort to intimidate those who speak publicly on this issue. Just as Dr Andrew Wakefield and his research was used to warn any doctor of what would happen to them if they dared listen to parents of vaccine-damaged autistic children. The AVN, our committee and our members are being used to set an example of what will happen to anyone who speaks out in support of informed choice and the example isn’t very nice at all.

We have nothing to hide

The AVN Committee invites you to examine our financial records – and make up your own mind about how our ‘millions of dollars’ have been spent and whether you feel that this is a legitimate news story or simply another arm of a witch hunt targeting a group of parents who care so much about the rights of Australian families, they are willing to put themselves through this abuse without any hope of personal profit or advancement. We do this simply because we are passionate about making a stand for what we feel is true and just.

Meryl Dorey,
AVN Public Officer

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

Please note: Blog posts are opinion pieces which represent the views of the authors. They do not necessarily represent the viewpoints of the AVN National Committee. The AVN is a forum, support and information organisation and outlet for discussion about the relative benefits and risks of vaccinations in particular – and medical procedures in general. We do not provide medical advice but believe that everyone has the opportunity and the obligation to do their own research before making decisions for their families. The information we provide (including your personal review of the references we cite) should be taken in conjunction with a range of other data, including that obtained from government, your health care provider and/or other medical source material to assist you in developing the knowledge required to make informed health choices.

Posted in Accountability, AVN, Medical Bully-Boys | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments

Yet another HCCC complaint filed against the AVN

13820759_sNot content with having fought and lost a costly battle in the NSW Supreme Court, only to have been found to have acted illegally in investigating the AVN, the Health Care Complaints Commission (HCCC) is back at it again. Please click here to read about this incredible waste of time and taxpayer dollars once again being perpetrated by a government body meant to protect Australians from dangerous doctors, but who, instead, seem more interested in preventing people from discussing politically sensitive issues such as the risks and ineffectiveness of vaccination.

We would like to ask everyone reading this to help us publicise this issue in any way possible – by email, letters to the editor, via social media or on your own blogs and websites.

Posted in AVN, Health rights, Medical Bully-Boys, Vaccination | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | 3 Comments

Compulsory Vaccination Killed More Than Smallpox

ChoiceThis is an article that was originally published in the Launceston Tasmania Examiner on Friday, the 14th of November, 1930. It was at a time when vaccination against smallpox was compulsory in Victoria and there was great opposition to these laws. If you have time, it is a great idea to go to www.trove.nla.gov.au to search for these historical articles on vaccination, diseases and other health issues. This resource is part of the National Library of Australia and it contains a searchable database of historical articles from many Australian newspapers going back to the early 1800’s in some cases.

You will find that the media of the 1800’s and the early part of the twentieth century was much more honest and independent than the Murdoch-Packer. corporate-interest driven, monopololised press we see today.

COMPULSORY VACCINATION “KILLED MORE THAN SMALL POX”

MELBOURNE, Thursday.

Commenting on objections made to a proposal in the Health Bill now before the Legislative Council to abandon compulsory vaccination in Victoria, the Minister for Health (Mr. Beckett) declared to-day that it had been decided by the Ministry to abandon the provision because, owing to the operation of a clause which enables a person claiming conscientious objection to vaccination to avoid its provisions, the law in Victoria had been futile for many years. Personally, he considered that vaccination and inoculation had killed far more people than smallpox had. Methods of medical treatment were constantly changing, and it might not be long before practitioners laughed at the present day preventive treatment by vaccination and inoculation. (ed note – Emphasis added)

 

Posted in Health rights, Smallpox | Tagged , , , , , , | 3 Comments

Vaccination Risks: Predictable or a Game of Chance?

by Wynne Corben

Medical authorities consistently assert that vaccination has been, and continues to be, responsible for saving millions of lives, and that the benefits of vaccination far outweigh any risks from the procedure.  Further, they claim the risks posed by the procedure are predictable, well documented, and usually minor and of short duration – serious, long-term side effects are so rare as to be almost irrelevant.  Predicated on these reassurances – that the risks are predictable and negligible – well-meaning parents are more than willing to consent to vaccination on behalf of their children.  Consent is relegated to a simple administrative process – the attitude of nurses and doctors cavalier.  The gravity of consenting to a medical procedure to be performed on a healthy person, as opposed to a sick or injured one, whilst a necessary distinction, is one that is routinely ignored in this consent process.

Are the risks arising from vaccination as measureable and as predictable as the medical authorities would have us believe, or is the reality quite different?  Are vaccination providers obtaining legally informed consent or merely administrative consent?  Based on recent evidence from Australia the answer to both of these questions is resoundingly in the negative.

Many of you would already be familiar with the tragic cases of Saba Button, Lachlan Neylan, and Ashley Epapara, all of whom suffered devastating side-effects from the vaccines they received.  Both Saba Button and Lachlan Neylan suffered major brain injuries resulting in severe and permanent disability, and regretfully, Ashley Epapara died.  In the case of Ashley Epapara, the coroner was unable to identify a cause of death on autopsy, but did not rule out vaccination as being causative in her death.  You can read about Saba, Lachlan, and Ashley at the following links.

http://www.perthnow.com.au/news/western-australia/saba-button-the-girl-who-is-never-alone/story-e6frg13u-1226035296706

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/nsw/toddler-who-was-given-an-adult-flu-shot-is-left-severely-brain-damaged-and-unable-to-walk-or-talk/story-fni0cx12-1226756398505

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2010-09-10/flu-vaccine-cant-be-ruled-out-in-toddlers-death/2256142

I recently became aware of another case of an extremely serious vaccine injury in an otherwise healthy child which, like the cases cited above, could not have been predicted based on the information provided by  the manufacturer of the vaccine.  At around 18 months of age, Izzy received a Diphtheria, Tetanus, acellular Pertussis (DTaP) vaccination, and as a result, developed a serious condition called Stevens-Johnson Syndrome.  Izzy’s mother, Edwina, has kindly agreed to share Izzy’s heart-wrenching story below.  As most people reading this would be aware, there is no scheme for vaccine compensation in operation in Australia at this time, so Edwina has launched a fundraising campaign to build a sensory garden for her daughter, who is now legally blind.  I urge everyone to could get behind this campaign.  All donations, however small, will be gratefully received by the family.  Donations can be made at following link using credit card, debit card or Paypal.

http://www.indiegogo.com/projects/help-build-izzy-a-safe-sensory-play-space

Izzy’s Story

Izzy 1

My daughter’s reaction to the DTaP vaccine

By Edwina Olesen

Izzy was born a healthy beautiful little girl who was always happy and very fun loving.

Izzy 2I remember when Izzy got sick like it was yesterday. She was 18 months old at the time. Our day care centre had flooded that week with heavy rain and was closed for the remainder of the week, so I decided to use this opportunity to get her immunizations up-to-date.  Everything seemed fine, but 2 days later Izzy’s eyes started to look swollen and red spots started to appear, so I took her to our local doctor who diagnosed foot and mouth and conjunctivitis.

Izzy 3
The next morning I woke up to her crying and frothing at the mouth and her face was covered in a red rash.

Izzy 4

I raced her to the Royal Children’s Hospital’s emergency room and by the end of the day, she was admitted onto an empty wing in case whatever she had might be contagious.  At 11.00pm the doctor phoned our room from his home.  He had been researching all day and informed us that Izzy was having a severe allergic reaction to her vaccination which was causing Stevens-Johnson Syndrome.  I can remember our conversation so clearly!  He just kept saying how sorry he was.  I had never heard of SJS and was not sure why he was so sorry, but it was freaking me out. I got onto my iPad and looked it up. As soon as I saw the mortality rate, I turned it off.

Stevens-Johnson Syndrome is a rare, serious disorder in which one’s skin and mucous membranes react severely to a medication or infection. SJS is most often from medicine containing Ibuprofen such as Nurofen, or from sulphur-based treatments, from many antibiotics, or from anti-seizure medicine, and more rarely from vaccinations as in Izzy’s case, whose reaction was to the DTaP vaccine.  What is unnerving is that one can have these medications for years without any problems and then for some unknown reason one’s body will react in this way due to having been hyper-sensitised, this irrespective of one’s age.   Stevens-Johnson Syndrome often begins with flu-like symptoms, followed by a painful red or purplish rash that spreads and blisters, eventually causing the top layer of one’s skin to die and shed.  My daughter was basically burning from the inside out and her skin came off.  She had to be intubated and placed in an induced coma to ensure her oesophagus didn’t close up, as with burn patients.

Izzy 5

Izzy spent the next two weeks in the ICU at the RCH in Melbourne while they worked on saving her life.

Izzy 6

One night they called and told me to come straight in as they didn’t think she would make it through the night.  I have never felt so sick with fear.  I stayed by her side, pleading to the heavens to let her live, even if that meant that I had to be willing to sacrifice her eye sight in exchange for her life.

It was like my prayers were heard and accepted.  She was eventually moved to the burns ward for the next 3 months and nursed back to health.  She had to learn to walk and to eat again.  Thankfully, her skin grew back with minimal scarring. Her corneas were however stuck as if glued to her eyelids.
Izzy 7

They required an intensive operation at the Eye and Ear Hospital to separate the eye from the lid without piercing the cornea.  Amazingly, the corneal specialists managed to do this successfully.

Two months later she accidentally poked her glasses into her eye and perforated it. This required an emergency corneal transplant.  I cried throughout the day for Izzy and also because the cornea was donated by a little child who had died that day.  That a suffering family in their time of despair had the generosity to give such a gift to someone to someone was so beautiful.  I think of them often and wish they knew that a part of their child was making such a great difference to my little girl.

Izzy has however sustained irreversible scarring to the corneas and as such is now blind and can only see high-contrast colour and movement.  She wears protective glasses 24/7 so as not to damage her eye again.

Izzy 8

Her right eye is still stuck down to the eyelid and she won’t have any vision from it until operated on, sometime in the near future.  The operations won’t be without risk, as operating on the eye could inflame the left eye and take what little sight she does have.  Essentially, we are between a rock and a hard place with this one.

Izzy is on daily immune suppression medication for her transplant.  She has had so many operations I have lost count, but she continues to be a brave, smiley and happy girl.  In addition to all of this she suffers from photophobia (intolerance to light) and Dry-Eye Syndrome which requires constant ointment and drops in her eyes for the rest of her life. She is in constant pain as her eyes feel gritty, as if she had sand in them all the time.

It has been a real struggle dealing with this and just getting through each day, but I stop feeling sorry for myself when I see how amazing Izzy is and how she just gets out there and tries everything, wanting to be just like her older sister.

Izzy 9

Izzy’s Garden Campaign

I am currently using Indiegogo to increase awareness of Stevens-Johnson Syndrome and raise enough funds to build Izzy a sensory garden which is also a safe play space.  Donations can be made at the following link.

http://www.indiegogo.com/projects/help-build-izzy-a-safe-sensory-play-space

Your support would be wonderful and is much appreciated!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iQJUCKxT3Rk

Posted in DPT - DPaT, Vaccination, Vaccine-related conditions | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | 3 Comments

Dangerous information

15744035_s

by Meryl Dorey

Just about every government authority in Australia and overseas is trying to describe those who question the wisdom of mass vaccination as being a danger to society. In fact, they are working hard to frame the entire debate as being dangerous – as though just discussing, researching and considering whether or not vaccination is in your or your child’s best interest is somehow spreading deadly diseases in the community.

A US business writer recently responded to a balanced presentation on the HPV vaccine by television journalist Katie Couric by saying, “Merely to ask questions is to validate them.

And an article published on The Conversation website by an industry front-group conducting a public campaign called I Immunise”, claimed that the decision about whether or not one should vaccinate one’s children is an ethical issue – not a matter for scientific debate. The article stated that people who question vaccination are suffering from something called “competitive crunchiness” which basically leads them to reject many of the ‘benefits’ of the modern scientific world and breastfeed, choose organic foods, cloth nappies and reject vaccines.

According to the article:

“I Immunise” does what other Australian campaigns have not: it leads with values rather than facts.”

Perhaps they are rejecting facts because those same facts might show that there is a legitimate area of concern when it comes to vaccination and values don’t even get a look-in when parents are trying to care for their precious children – unless they mean the value we each place on the life, health and happiness of our family?

Where does the real danger lie?

So is it more dangerous to ask questions about medical procedures or to take at face value the information given to us by the medical profession and the government?

Allopathic medicine and government bureaucracies have a long and chequered history of deadly errors, mistakes and outright lies told for the purpose of self-protection, profit and increasing one’s own personal prestige. Trusting them without asking questions would be like buying a used car without checking under the bonnet first, or jumping off a cliff before seeing if there was a deep pool below you. It could be dangerous, possibly expensive and foolhardy in the extreme.

The real danger to the public is not in the dissemination of information – even if that information is wrong. We have to trust that people are intelligent enough to sort the wheat from the chaff. We don’t need to tell people what they can and cannot know – we simply need to give them a broad range of information and let them decide for themselves.

The only people placed at risk by open, transparent and public debate on health issues are those who will lose out – financially and reputation-wise – by the discovery that vaccine and medical ‘science’ may be more guesswork and corruption than fact.

When we see academics, politicians, scientists and government officials telling us that it is dangerous to question them or to listen to those who do – we must see that the real danger lies with believing what they say.

Please note: Blog posts are opinion pieces that represent the views of the authors. They do not necessarily represent the viewpoints of the AVN National Committee. The AVN is a forum, support and information organisation and outlet for discussion about the relative benefits and risks of vaccinations in particular – and medical procedures in general. We do not provide medical advice but believe that everyone should have the opportunity and the obligation to do their own research before making decisions for their families. The information we provide (including your personal review of the references we cite) should be taken in conjunction with a range of other data, including that obtained from government, your health care provider and/or other medical source material to assist you in developing the knowledge required to make informed health choices.

Posted in Health rights, Medical Bully-Boys, Vaccination | Tagged , , , , , , | 26 Comments

Anti-vaccination storm brewing at UOW – ABC News Australian Broadcasting Corporation

vax needle“In a university environment we uphold the principle of academic freedom for staff and students,” he said.”Just because something is controversial doesn’t mean that a student shouldn’t present her viewpoint.”

…”But the Australian Medical Association has criticised the University of Wollongong for supporting a PhD student with anti vaccination views.

“AMA President Dr Steve Hambleton says while everyone is entitled to their opinion universities have a higher responsibility.

“People should be able to do anything they want to do and I agree with that, but when we have funds contributed does that undermine the university’s reputation for being a scientific institution or not?” he said.

via Anti-vaccination storm brewing at UOW – ABC News Australian Broadcasting Corporation.

Posted in Health rights, Medical Bully-Boys | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Israel to pay $6 million compensation to anthrax vaccine trial subjects — RT News

Israeli SoldiersYet another reason why those who the government considers to be ‘experts’ and whom we are told to trust, can’t necessarily be trusted:

“A government statement said that administering scientists “did not expect any dangerous side effects,” and that “the vaccine used in the research contains materials that exist in many vaccines given to babies on a regular basis, such as for tetanus and hepatitis.”

Israel to pay $6 million compensation to anthrax vaccine trial subjects — RT News.

Posted in adjuvants, Medical Error, Vaccine-related conditions | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

Another Doctor Testifies: ‘HPV Vaccine Does Not Protect Against Cancer’ | Truthstream Media

HPV Doesn't ProtectHPV is different from all other vaccines. It is not a vaccination against cervical cancer but against a virus that in some cases causes a premalignant condition, and in a small number of cases, a malignancy. In a year in Israel, there are 180 cases of cervical cancer, and half [of those with the disease] die of it. [This] is a rate of five per 100,000 residents – the lowest rate of cervical cancer in the world. One would have thus have to vaccinate 20,000 girls to prevent one case.” [emphasis added]

Another Doctor Testifies: ‘HPV Vaccine Does Not Protect Against Cancer’ | Truthstream Media.

Posted in Cervical cancer - HPV, Fraudulent Research | 1 Comment

Why the Press Shouldn’t Dismiss Vaccine Skeptics | Lawrence Solomon

iStock_000011256677XSmallThis is the most important mainstream article on vaccination in years! Please read – please share – and please remember that those who are trying to silence the vaccination debate are no friends of either health or science.

Why the Press Shouldn’t Dismiss Vaccine Skeptics | Lawrence Solomon.

This wholesale demeaning of vaccine skeptics defies explanation. Granted, kooks and quacks exist in the vaccination field, just as they exist elsewhere. But why taint the skeptics as a whole, and fail to respectfully report dissenting views? No journalist would have had any difficulty finding dozens of distinguished skeptical scientists for the very few “rogue” scientists that the press has vilified.

Click link above to read the complete article

Posted in Censorship, Health rights, Medical Bully-Boys | Tagged , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

UK Government Laments Tamiflu Secrets | The Scientist Magazine®

tamiflu fullNow let me get this straight…The UK Government spent more than $700 million purchasing and recommending Tamiflu to all of its citizens and now, they are complaining that the drug companies withheld information from them so they didn’t know about the safety or effectiveness of the drug prior to buying it. I don’t know about you, but if our governments spend our money on drugs and vaccines BEFORE knowing this information, they should be put in jail for stealing at the very least – gross negligence as well. This is why the AVN has been saying that governments need to do their own testing of all vaccines and drugs prior to licensure. It is the necessary due diligence and without that, we have a situation that we currently see where adverse reactions to drugs and vaccines is now close to the number one cause of death in just about every developed country in the world.

“Despite the UK government stockpiling £424 million ($694.3 million) worth of the antiviral medication Tamiflu, doctors and researchers are unable tp make informed decisions about its use because of a lack of public data on the drug’s safety and efficacy, according to the Public Accounts Committee of Parliament.

“Committee member Richard Bacon, who is a member of parliament, told the BBC: “The full results of clinical trials are being routinely and legally withheld from doctors and researchers by the manufacturers of medicines.” On top of that, the committee had “extreme concern” that positive trial results were more likely to be published than negative ones, Bacon said.”

Click the link below to read the full story.

UK Government Laments Tamiflu Secrets | The Scientist Magazine®.

Posted in Accountability, Fraudulent Research, Influenza | Tagged , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

BBC News – Lack of drug data ‘extreme concern’

Lack of evidenceThe lack of data on the effectiveness of medicines available to doctors and researchers is “of extreme concern” say a group of MPs.

The Public Accounts Committee is calling for all data on drugs being prescribed in the UK to be made available.

It also says the government spent £424m stockpiling the antiviral Tamiflu despite a lack of agreement on how effective the drug is.

Campaigners called for “urgent action”.

BBC News – Lack of drug data ‘extreme concern’.

Posted in Fraudulent Research, Medical ethics | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Patient Committed Suicide After His Doctor Was Hounded By Dr Ben Goldacre’s Badscience Forum Internet Bullies – Perpetrator’s Mild Two Year Cautionary Sentence Only Just Ended December 2013 | ________________Child Health Safety_________________

iStock_000017403892XSmallStop-the-AVN-type cyberbullying causes an ill man to commit suicide. Perpetrators given a 2-year caution.

These deaths and this misery will not stop until the authorities and the government take these criminals seriously. Bullying should not be tolerated! It doesn’t matter if you disagree with our science – you have no right to treat human beings this way. If you agree, please say so in the comments section.

Patient Committed Suicide After His Doctor Was Hounded By Dr Ben Goldacre’s Badscience Forum Internet Bullies – Perpetrator’s Mild Two Year Cautionary Sentence Only Just Ended December 2013 | ________________Child Health Safety_________________.

Posted in Medical Bully-Boys, Psychiatry and Drugs | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments

Vaccines to prevent influenza in healthy adults | Cochrane Summaries

Flu ShotWhy are governments around the world still recommending influenza vaccinations across the board when the largest retrospective study of the vaccine found that:

“100 people need to be vaccinated to avoid one set of influenza symptoms. Vaccine use did not affect the number of people hospitalised or working days lost but caused one case of Guillian-Barré syndrome (a major neurological condition leading to paralysis) for every one million vaccinations. Fifteen of the 36 trials were funded by vaccine companies and four had no funding declaration. Our results may be an optimistic estimate because company-sponsored influenza vaccines trials tend to produce results favorable to their products and some of the evidence comes from trials carried out in ideal viral circulation and matching conditions and because the harms evidence base is limited..”

How many billions of dollars need to be wasted? How many innocent lives must be lost or ruined before governments decide that their health policies regarding this vaccine are not based on science?

Vaccines to prevent influenza in healthy adults | Cochrane Summaries.

Posted in Accountability, Fraudulent Research, Influenza | Tagged , , , , | 13 Comments

Top 10 Retractions of 2013 | The Scientist Magazine®

17971851_sEvery year, hundreds of articles are retracted from peer-reviewed scientific journals due to fraud or error. Most of them don’t get the media attention that the Wakefield et al article from 1998 garnered (though that was not a fraudulent article. It was a fraudulent attempt by the General Medical Council in the UK to stifle the vaccination debate), but they really should. Because a significant percentage of all medical and scientific research will eventually be proven wrong – or fraudulent. Yet when this happens, it is rare for government to change their policies or doctors to change their practices. Just one more reason why the expression caveat emptor – or let the buyer beware – applies to medicine and science.

It’s been difficult to keep up with all of the retractions in the scientific literature this year, as it has been since we started our blog Retraction Watch in 2010. At the time of this writing, with a few weeks to go in 2013, there have been 511, according to Thomson Scientific’s Web of Knowledge. Here is our top 10 list for the year, in no particular order, based on the response of our readers and other “scientific” factors, such as whether we liked the story:

Top 10 Retractions of 2013 | The Scientist Magazine®.

Posted in Accountability, Fraudulent Research | Tagged , , , , , , | 1 Comment

The HCCC, the Law and Morality

by Meryl Dorey, AVN Public Officer

iStock_000012457766XSmallAs many of you would know, both the AVN and I were under investigation by the Health Care Complaints Commission (HCCC) in 2009/2010. This investigation was brought about due to two complaints. One was filed by Mr Ken McLeod, a founding member of the hate group Stop the AVN (SAVN). The other complaint was filed by Toni and David McCaffery, parents of Dana McCaffery, a baby who tragically died in 2009.

The entire investigation process was most irregular (to say the least – you can read the complaints and the AVN’s responses by clicking this link) and it was clear from the start that the HCCC was acting outside of their jurisdiction. This was confirmed when our tiny, unfunded organisation prevailed against this government body with the deepest of deep pockets in the Supreme Court in 2011.

The decision of the court was that the HCCC did not have jurisdiction to either cite or warn against our group – a common-sense outcome which most people in the community who believe in freedom of speech applauded because, no matter what your opinion on the vaccination issue, the majority of thinking Australians would never want to silence debate or discussion on any matter of science.

Does the HCCC have the right to stifle political speech?

Recently, one of our members sent me an article from a scholarly publication called the Journal of Law and Medicine. In 2012, this journal published an article entitled, Civil Liberties and the Critics of Safe Vaccination: Australian Vaccination Network, Inc v Health Care Complaints Commission (2012) NSWSC 110. 

This was an article written by someone who wore his strongly pro-vaccination opinion on his sleeve for all to see. Despite this, his conclusion was very interesting and, in retrospect, ironic. What he advised the government not to do is exactly what they ended up doing. The government of NSW went ahead and introduced changes to legislation which specifically target the AVN and anyone who wishes to freely access or discuss both sides of scientific and medical issues.

Here is a quote from this article which I wanted to share with you. In my opinion, it speaks to the heart of the matter and why the actions of the current NSW government are dangerous and in direct opposition to the welfare and needs of the people of this State.

… Alternatively, Parliament could amend the Act to broaden the definition of “clinical” or “care” or to allow the HCCC to investigate complaints under s 7(1)(b) where there is a mere tendency for the conduct to affect a client. The court even suggested language for such a reform.

However, the current authors do not support legislative reform of the HCCC in the manner proposed above or by the court. In a free society, the views and opinions expressed by Ms Dorey and the AVN should be protected against government interference. Arguments against public immunisation programs are not simply debates over health policy; they are also political discussion. As such, the AVN’s website, and Ms Dorey’s statements, are to be protected from interference by Parliament or the Executive by the implied constitutional right of political communication.

Moreover, freedom of expression is an essential human right, protected under international and domestic human rights instruments, and should not be abridged except in the most limited of circumstances, such as a major pandemic. It would be inappropriate for a government agency to be given a standing mandate to censor debate or force an individual to include a statement on their website with which they do not agree. If the misleading information of the AVN is to be challenged, then it should be through the better dissemination of accurate information and the proper management of rare adverse events following immunisation.”

This is a common sense approach and one that the AVN has been suggesting for years. We have asked for an open and transparent debate in plain view of the public on the relative risks and benefits of vaccination. We have asked the government to remove the hate rhetoric and pressure currently being applied to this issue and bring the conversation back to the realm of scientific evidence and proof. We believe strongly that if the pro-vaccine lobby actually had the evidence on their side, they would be using it to do this. The fact is that both they and the government have permitted and, in some instances, encouraged the same tactics as the hate group, Stop the AVN – of name calling, threats and intimidation. This might indicate that they might be more concerned with suppressing information then they are with enabling the public to examine this issue and make up their own minds – such a basic right in any democratic society!

HCCC power-grab and your obligation to speak out

Not long after the AVN won their case in the highest court in the State, the government did exactly what this paper – written by legal experts who believe strongly in the benefits of vaccination and disagree with the information provided by the AVN – advised against. They passed legislation giving the HCCC an obscene amount of power to investigate and cite nearly anyone they choose. And of course, they chose us.

These powers were not enough for the HCCC however and the Parliamentary Committee for the Health Care Complaints Commission is now considering passing legislation which will make everyone in the community – especially those who practice and use natural therapies, liable to government sanctions for merely DISCUSSING any issues which are not to  mainstream medicine’s liking publicly.

The committee are seeking submissions from the public about this. The AVN has made a submission on behalf of our membership, but it would be incredibly helpful if everyone reading this would also write a short (2-3 paragraphs is enough and you can read the terms of reference at the Commission link above) submission of your own. The original closing date for this Inquiry was November 30th, 2013 but that has now been extended until February 7th, 2014. This is a rare opportunity to have your say on this vital issue and whether you live in NSW or elsewhere, your opinion will make a difference.

What’s it got to do with you?

Why should you care about this issue? Why should even those who are opposed to the AVN give a damn about laws that are proposed to target our organisation?

Imagine the joy of some politicians or anyone else with an axe to grind who, in passing restrictive or unpopular legislation, can point to this precedent and say – nobody is allowed to criticise X-Y-Z policy because it is against the public interest and therefore, you will be gagged if you speak out against it.

This is the power the government has given to the HCCC. And you should be aware of this. And you should be afraid of allowing it to stand.

It is time for the silent majority – those Australians who support freedom and oppose invasive and oppressive government policies, to speak up by writing a submission – it need only be short – to the HCCC Committee.

Today, vaccination sceptics are the target. Tomorrow it may be the government targeting families that home school; or those who feed their children organic food.

We must all stand together for freedom and for our inalienable human rights. No government should ever be allowed to take them away for us.

Please note: Blog posts are opinion pieces which represent the views of the authors. They do not necessarily represent the viewpoints of the AVN National Committee. The AVN is a forum, support and information organisation and outlet for discussion about the relative benefits and risks of vaccinations in particular – and medical procedures in general. We do not provide medical advice but believe that everyone has the opportunity and the obligation to do their own research before making decisions for their families. The information we provide (including your personal review of the references we cite) should be taken in conjunction with a range of other data, including that obtained from government, your health care provider and/or other medical source material to assist you in developing the knowledge required to make informed health choices.

Posted in Vaccination | 2 Comments

Silencing the opposition

iStock_000011256677XSmallThis last week has been a time of tough decisions. A time when I had to make a choice between pursuing justice in the courts or cutting my losses and pulling out of what I saw as a totally biased system where the cards are stacked against me – not because of a lack of evidence but simply because of a perceived bias against my stance on a political and scientific issue.

I chose to withdraw my Apprehended Personal Violence Order (APVO) appeal against Peter Bowditch and, true to form, the skeptics and SAVN have been making false statements about my reason for doing so to members of the media – statements which I believe require a response.

Let me preface this by saying that these cases were initiated by me personally. They are not AVN matters, though I believe it is my involvement with the AVN which has influenced the courts against me, causing them to be decided on the personal preconceived opinions of the magistrates involved, rather than on the merits and the evidence presented.

A bit of history

Last year, at the suggestion of police in two NSW jurisdictions, I filed three separate APVOs: against Daniel Raffaele, founder of Stop the AVN (SAVN), Peter Bowditch, committee member of the Australian Skeptics and Dan Buzzard, WA member of SAVN.

I could have filed APVOs against many more SAVN members. So many have threatened and harassed me, as well as inciting others to do me harm, but these were the three whom I considered to be the ‘ringleaders’ – whose abuse and harassment were unremitting. My reasons for taking this action were two-fold

1-    To stop them from continuing their criminal campaign of abuse, harassment and threats against me; and

2-    To send a warning to others that the justice system would protect someone who was being openly abused, harassed and threatened.

My family and I were living in great fear that one of these individuals would either harm us or would incite someone else in the community to do so. I had no funds for legal advice but I was told by the police that applying for an APVO would be straightforward and simple, so I proceeded to make the application. At no time did they inform me that they themselves could have applied for the APVO. Had they done so, I would have insisted that they do it and a whole lot of time, heartache and expense could have been saved.

Simple and Straightforward

At the time I first applied, I had no idea that the ensuing process would be incredibly slow, outrageously expensive to me – the victim of this abuse – and a total waste of time.

I admit I have become jaded over the years regarding the expectation of fair treatment from our bureaucracy. However I still believed it was possible to get justice from the courts, and that magistrates would pass judgment without allowing their personal preconceived biases to interfere. I was a babe in the woods in that regard.

It is my firmly held belief, based on the evidence from both cases that actually went to trial, that my losses had nothing to do with the evidence presented to the courts. Based on that evidence alone – APVOs should have been granted without question. But both magistrates showed a strong disapproval for the work that I have done for the last 20 years with the AVN and I feel that they were unable to separate Meryl Dorey the mother, woman and victim of institutionalised and long-running abuse, from Meryl Dorey, ex-President of the AVN and vaccine rights advocate.

Just a clarifying note at this point for those who are unaware of my case against Daniel Raffaele: the APVO against him was granted without his making any admissions of wrongdoing even though threatening calls to my home were made from his house in the middle of the night. I was advised to accept these terms rather than going to trial. In retrospect, I think I made the right choice since even with the damning evidence against him, I am unsure that the courts would have granted my application had Raffaele opposed it.

SAVN Untruths and a complicit media

To make matters worse, however, SAVN and the Australian Skeptics are now using my withdrawal from the case against Peter Bowditch as an admission that I only took these actions in order to silence my critics.

Their excuse for saying this is based on a lie and they know it is based on a lie yet they continue to state it anyway.

When I went to the courthouse last year to make the initial applications, I selected several of the standard orders from the list available (orders which limited the perpetrator’s ability to come near me or enter my property or threaten me). I also asked that they not be allowed to mention me in any online forum in a derogatory manner. At the initial mention in Ballina Courthouse almost a year ago, the magistrate said that he did not have the power to grant the latter order and I agreed to withdraw it. All I was asking the court to do was to prevent them from coming near me or physically threatening me. None of that would in any way ‘silence’ them.

Having since spoken with a solicitor about this, I have been told that there was no problem with my asking for these latter orders because my intention was to stop them from inciting others to commit violence against me or to join in harassing, abusing or stalking me as they and their cohorts had done for some time. My wording was the only issue and this became a moot point since that order was removed before either hearing.

Dan Buzzard and Peter Bowditch are perfectly aware that this is the case – but they have continued to mislead the media – and the media have continued to print whatever they are told about me – stating that I only took out these APVOs in order to silence my opposition.

In fact, during the time when these cases were still before the courts, sub judice reports were appearing in the media to the effect that taking away my opposition’s right to free speech was the only reason I made these applications.

In addition to this and in a move that can only be called bizarre, Greens Senator Richard Di Natale stood up in Federal Parliament and stated that these applications were only being made to silence my opposition and he thanked two of the three perpetrators by name for their ‘work’ in this regard!

Decisions based on fact or bias

It is my belief that the magistrate in my case against Dan Buzzard may have used this misinformation in his decision since he did refer to media reports when making his summation. In fact, he criticised me openly many times during the hearing to the point where I was relieved to only have to pay $11,000 in court costs – at one point, I had the distinct impression that I was going to be sent to gaol. I do not remember him sanctioning Dan Buzzard even once despite his admissions to having asked people to send me violent pornography.

I am currently awaiting delivery of the transcripts from these cases and when I have received them, I will be updating everyone with exactly what occurred and why I feel that there were grave errors not only in law but also in fact which led to these adverse decisions.

Freedom of speech

If by silencing my opposition, SAVN and the Australian Skeptics mean that I wanted to stop them threatening, harassing and stalking me as they have done for so long and prevent them from inciting others to do the same, then I admit that’s what I was trying to do.

If however, they mean that I want to take away their freedom of speech – their ability to engage in respectful and non-threatening debate on this or any other issue, I’m afraid they are completely wrong.

Because I welcome that debate. I have asked for it publicly – over and over again. I support freedom of speech 100% and in fact, have been lobbying to have an Australian Bill of Rights introduced to codify this right and the right to other freedoms which most democratic nations take for granted but which, shamefully, do not exist in Australia.

This is not a matter for question – it is and has been my stance in public and in private for 20 years now.

It is SAVN and their members – including Daniel Raffaele, Dan Buzzard and Peter Bowditch, who are the ones trying to silence their opposition. And they do it over and over again.

  1. In the initial complaint to the Health Care Complaints Commission (HCCC), SAVN member Ken McLeod asked that the HCCC issue a Prohibition Order against me using their powers under the Health Care Complaints Act 1993. He asked that this order be used to stop both myself and the AVN from publicly discussing the issues surrounding vaccination.
  2. The purpose and reason why Stop the AVN exists is to silence the AVN, our members and anyone who openly asks scientific and legitimate questions about this medical procedure. It is their goal to take away our freedom of speech and to remove our inalienable rights to both question and make informed choices on this subject.
  3. SAVN Supporter and head of the Australian Medical Association, Dr Steve Hambleton, stood on the steps of NSW Parliament not long ago stating that any individual or group who criticises vaccination should be subject to punishment.
  4. Greens Senator, SAVN supporter and doctor Richard di Natale proposed and passed a motion in Federal Parliament stating that the AVN should be disbanded simply because he disagreed with our viewpoint on the issue of vaccination.
  5. SAVN members, including Dan Buzzard, Daniel Raffaele and Peter Bowditch have written to venues where I was booked to present seminars, requesting that they stop me from speaking there. They have also contacted media outlets asking them not to interview me, and filed complaints against those who have allowed me the right to comment on vaccine-related issues.

These people are truly guilty of using bureaucracy and the media to silence their opposition.

All I asked was that the courts protect me from these abusers who had openly threatened and harassed me. This is a protection that should be available to all Australian citizens and residents – indeed – to everyone in every country around the world. It is a basic human right which, thanks to what I consider to be the bias of the courts, was denied me in these cases.

Please note: I have sent a copy of this blog post to Jane Hansen of the Daily Telegraph and the Murdoch media. She had contacted me because she plans on writing a story for Sunday’s paper about my APVO applications. I hope that, having set the record straight, her article will cover this issue fairly and truthfully.

Posted in Censorship, Medical Bully-Boys | Tagged , , , , , , | 28 Comments

Greens confirm anti-choice stance

LATE BREAKING NEWS FOLLOWING YESTERDAY’S POST

http://nocompulsoryvaccination.com/2013/09/04/the-greens-deceiving-voters-or-just-playing-dumb/

Greens confirm they will remove parents’ choice

- Greg Beattie

A letter written by a staffer from Greens Senator Richard Di Natale’s office has confirmed the party’s intention to pursue the removal of parental choice from vaccination:

 “The Greens do not support compulsory vaccination. We do however support the government’s recently announced amendments to Family Tax Benefit system… Parents will still be able to decide not to vaccinate their children, but this choice will have a financial impact.”

iStock_000013256542XSmallThis can be taken to mean: “The Greens do not support hunting, holding down, and vaccinating children by force”. (And that’s just as well because it would mean the violation of just about every human right in existence.) “We do however support penalties for those who won’t submit peacefully.” Gotcha.

The letter was received by an AVN supporter just yesterday, a full nine weeks after her request for clarification was received by his office! We can now be certain Di Natale’s recent repeated announcements that the party does not support compulsion was nothing but a deceptive ploy to avoid losing disapproving voters on the eve of tomorrow’s election.

We can also be certain, from its recent actions, that the Greens are now the most anti-choice political force in the land. In NSW Parliament this year they argued vigorously to have all parental choice removed from the ‘No jab, no play’ legislation. They introduced two separate amendments. The first was a blanket attempt to remove all conscientious and religious exemptions. That was voted down. The second was a ‘Plan-B’ attempt to sneak around opposition by suggesting pre-schools could ‘choose’ whether they wanted to accept the children of conscientious and religious objectors. That was also voted down.

It was not long after that Di Natale delivered his error-laden and mischievous address to Federal Parliament, calling for the disbanding of AVN. Was this a burst of frustration?

One thing is clear: a vote for the Greens tomorrow is a vote for medical fundamentalism. If they are given political power we can kiss goodbye our freedom of choice with vaccines. And once this happens it will be virtually impossible to reverse.

The party that once stood for integrity, social justice, and the environment, has just tacked mass-medication onto the list. And like an aggressive cancer it has the potential to kill the host if not removed. It has already paralysed its leaders.

If you value what the Greens once stood for please don’t vote for them tomorrow. Instead send them a clear message that you will not tolerate voter deception being condoned to cover up the party’s intentions. And you will certainly not tolerate your cherished party being infiltrated by industry.

Posted in Accountability, Health rights, Vaccination | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | 8 Comments

The Greens: Deceiving voters or just playing dumb?

Mistakes, traps, ethics, and integrity

- Greg Beattie

The federal election falls at the end of this week. While the economy, asylum seekers, and education have dominated the airwaves, something else has been brewing…

iStock_000014317717XSmallThe Australian Greens don’t want you to know it, but they are spearheading the push for compulsory vaccination in Australia. They believe there should be no parental choice. They argued vigorously in NSW parliament to have all conscientious exemptions and religious exemptions removed. Fortunately they were defeated (read Hansard here). Shortly after that, their health spokesperson, Senator Richard Di Natale, made his now infamous speech in Federal Parliament calling for the disbanding of the AVN.  Read the speech here.

Surprised? I think most people are. In fact, disbelief is the reaction from many who have traditionally supported the Greens. But it gets worse. In a bizarre recent move, Di Natale confused things by issuing a statement saying neither he nor the Greens supported compulsory vaccination. Has the party changed its stance? Or is he playing a semantic game with the word ‘compulsory’? We have been trying to find out but despite being pressed, neither he nor party leaders, will answer the question. Click here and here to read Di Natale’s statement and letters we have sent asking for clarification.

Love them or hate them one thing is clear: when it comes to vaccination, the Greens are currently the most vehemently and vocally anti-choice political force in Australia. Ironically, it’s a stance they are unwilling to articulate to voters on the eve of this election.

But first a bit of history for those who have not followed the saga. It has now been more than two months since I last attempted to communicate with Senator Christine Milne, leader of the Greens, concerning Di Natale’s outburst in parliament. Two phone calls and three emails to her and not one breath of response! So I contacted deputy leader Adam Bandt three weeks ago and, again, no response. Click here to read all of the emails.

Obviously the issue is something they don’t want anything to do with. Why might that be?

Mistakes

Delete "MISTAKE"We all make mistakes. Just over two months ago Di Natale made a pile of them in parliament. Unfortunately, he didn’t check his story before opening his mouth. I won’t go over all the mistakes but I will mention a few.

He said the AVN claims “… the MMR vaccine causes autism, a claim they know has been thoroughly and comprehensively debunked”. The truth is the AVN says that evidence of a link has been published. And that’s a fact. In fact, since the original ‘Wakefield’ report, more than 80 studies have been published supporting this proposition. And numerous court cases for damages have found in favour of it after considering the competing evidence. Clearly it is a mistake to claim it has been “thoroughly and comprehensively debunked”.

There were a few more in relation to the actual vaccine debate, but the really worrying examples were the ones where he attempted to slander at a personal level.

He said “[former president] Ms Dorey is alleged to have called Chris Kokogei, whose child died of chickenpox, and said that his child died because his child was weak”. The truth is Ms Dorey doesn’t know this man at all and has never had any contact with him whatsoever.

He went further, claiming grieving families have endured “months of harassment from the AVN“. However there is absolutely no evidence of this. The AVN has certainly never harassed any grieving family, and never will.

He also said “To silence critics they take out apprehended violence orders”. Now that’s some imagination. Here’s the truth. Our former president, Ms Dorey, has an AVO against a man because of a series of depraved and threatening phone calls made in the middle of the night to her home. You can read more about this and listen to the calls by clicking here. The calls were traced by police to the man’s home. You may find this difficult to believe, but Di Natale actually named the man and thanked him:

“I am grateful to people like Daniel Raffaele…”

Yes, this all occurred in the same speech. It was obviously a mistake; one of gargantuan proportions. Surely he didn’t mean to do it, but being so ill-informed, he didn’t even know what the AVO was about, and that the man he was thanking was the subject of it. Again you can listen to the phone calls by clicking the link above.

As I said, we all make mistakes. Perhaps we don’t often make this many in one go, and perhaps we rarely let our carelessness extend so deep, especially when speaking from such a prominent platform. But we’re all different. The question is why did he get so much wrong when he had so much time to prepare his speech?

Traps

He had obviously been lobbied. It’s no secret there is an organised group (calling itself “Stop the AVN”) that formed for this purpose. Its members regularly use smear tactics in an attempt to turn people against the AVN. They’ve been doing it for years. They lobby whoever will listen. Enter Di Natale, who swallowed the stories, hook, line, and sinker. He then made his first mistake. He neglected to contact us.

But that’s part of what ‘hook, line, and sinker’ means, isn’t it? A person falls so completely for a trap that they make not just one but a succession of mistakes. Would you believe he has never contacted the AVN about these stories ever? Still he decided to give parliament a rundown on the organisation, based entirely on the stories.

So question number one is why did he not seek a response first?

The AVN has been a legally constituted consumer organisation and a registered charity for the past 16 years. We promote discussion and support consumers in their quest for information. We also strive to ensure that their right to make free and informed choices is never taken away. We’re publicly available via mail, email, fax and phone. Contact from members of parliament is always welcome: in fact, encouraged.

Ethics

A lesson I learnt in childhood was “whenever you make a mess in life, clean it up before moving on”. Isn’t it true that we’re all judged ultimately, not by the mistakes we make, but by the way we clean up? There are always two options: clean up and move on, or just move on and hope no one saw.

When the Greens were made aware of their mistakes (again please read the emails) they had a choice: clean up the mess, or simply ignore and hope no one saw it happen. They took the latter option and that was the biggest mistake of all.

People historically see the party as ethical. Even those who disagree with Greens policies tend to think of its key players as possessing integrity. According to former leader Bob Brown, the party used the guiding principle of placing one’s self in the shoes of a person 100 years from now and asking, “Will this person thank me for my actions today?”

Graffiti wall with choice, street backgroundI think the Greens were relevant to many for these reasons, but what about the current crop of players? I can’t comment on them all but Di Natale certainly fell short. He knows by now he left a big mess and, in the process, impugned the character of many decent people. He was careless and used his position of influence in an irresponsible way. But, again, that’s a mistake. The real issue is that when it was brought to his attention, and an invitation was extended, he chose to run from his mess.

Christine Milne knows what happened, and rather than face the problem, and manage the clean up, she chose to ignore it. Her party has, via a monumental error of both fact and judgement by its spokesperson, publicly condemned an organisation of decent caring people. And when approached by the organisation’s president to discuss this, she has shunned the opportunity to manage a clean-up. Deputy Adam Bandt has now joined her. This type of behaviour is inexcusable from any political party, but from the Greens it is particularly disappointing.

Fast forward

Whatever damage has been done to their reputation through this is something for the longer term to address. It’s time to get back to the title of this article. Our federal election takes place at the end of this week. What the Greens need to do now, if they wish to salvage any integrity with pro-choice voters, is clarify where they stand regarding compulsion. And they need to do it quickly.

Do they still want to remove all parental choice, as they made clear in the ‘No jab, no play’ debate in NSW parliament? Or have they changed? Do they now support and  respect the right of parents to make choices on this controversial issue, without fear or favour? It’s time to come clean. Voters are waiting…

[This article is a follow-up from earlier posts:]
http://nocompulsoryvaccination.com/2013/06/28/are-greens-showing-their-true-colours/
http://nocompulsoryvaccination.com/2013/07/05/whatever-was-senator-di-natale-thinking/
http://nocompulsoryvaccination.com/2013/07/08/letters-from-avn-members-to-the-greens/

Posted in Health rights, Medical Bully-Boys | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | 12 Comments

A Grave Injustice has been done – A Request for help from Meryl Dorey

I grew up believing in the rule of law; knowing that might did not make right and that justice would always go to those who deserved it while those who did the wrong thing would be punished for their misdeeds.

Unfortunately, my experience with The Australian Skeptics and Stop the AVN over the last few years has shown me that the opposite is actually true – those who harm, threaten and abuse others will always prevail – at least if the abusers are supporting an entrenched status quo that is funded by billions of dollars in pharmaceutical profits.

Meryl Head ShotMy name is Meryl Dorey. I am the mother of 4 children – one of whom was seriously injured by vaccines in 1989 and again in 1990. In 1994, I founded and until recently, was the President of the Australian Vaccination Network (AVN). Our group is dedicated to the idea that saying yes or no to any medical procedure must always remain a matter of free and informed choice. We believe that medical research must be independent of pharmaceutical influence and that the government and the medical community have an absolute duty of care to provide unbiased information and then, to allow us to make the final decision for our families. These views have seen us facing constant attacks from within the government and industry front-groups.

A Long History of Threats, Harassment and Abusive Behaviour

In the year 2009, an organisation was set up by the Australian Skeptics called Stop the Australian Vaccination Network (SAVN). SAVN’s sole reason for being is to stop our organisation from operating in any way they can. They targeted our members, our supporters and anyone who stated that they believe in informed choice. But most of all, they targeted me.

For over four years now, I have been the victim of death threats, daily harassment and abusive messages. I have been sent violent snuff pornography both online and – even worse – to my home. Dr Brian Martin of Whistleblower’s Australia has written about these attacks (see foot note), and stated that in his 35 years of experience, they are the worst he has seen against any small community group.

Extremely threatening phone calls were made in the middle of the night to my home from the home phone number of Daniel Raffaele, the founder of SAVN. This person had publicly stated that “If the demise of the AVN brings with it the demise of Meryl Dorey herself, she only has herself to blame for that.” Despite all the evidence, the police declined to charge him.

Another SAVN member, Dan Buzzard, has publicly advertised the AVN’s address on his Twitter account and asked people to send violent pornographic images through the post. Shortly thereafter, I did receive violent pornography. In addition, this person participates in a hacker’s forum and posted an intimidating letter to me which he claims he found on that forum. He even uploaded a photo of the letter to his blog along with a picture of an envelope addressed to me. A short time later, I received a frightening email from a person who was also a hacker and had corresponded with Mr Buzzard, telling me that he was ‘sharpening the knives’ for me.

As a result of this and at the suggestion of the police, I filed an AVO (Apprehended Violence Order) against this SAVN member in the local court. The application took a long time to be heard, but on August 22nd, I finally had my day in court.

Court Orders Me To Pay Costs

From the beginning, it appeared to me that the magistrate might have already made his decision before we entered the court. The first thing he said to my barrister was that the loser would have to pay costs. It is my understanding that this is not the normal procedure.

The rest of the hearing was no better and though I was able to show that this person had indeed asked people to send me pornography and had posted intimidating mail to me, the magistrate found against me.

It was hard enough to lose the protection of the courts – a protection I have had for the last 10 months via an interim AVO, during which time the defendant had been far more circumspect in his activities. But against all convention in these matters, the judge awarded full costs – over $11,000 – against me, leaving me to pay the legal fees of the person who, I feel, had abused and harassed me.

That legal bill will need to be paid before the 21st of September. As a full-time volunteer for over 20 years, I have virtually no income nor do I have any way to raise these funds. For 20 years, through my involvement with the AVN, I have worked tirelessly to support and inform those who came to me for help. Our organisation was responsible for the introduction of the Conscientious Objection clause which allows families who don’t vaccinate or who vaccinate selectively to access all government entitlements.

Now, it is my turn to ask for your assistance. If you believe in justice, support informed choice and are able to give any amount – no matter how small – to my legal fund to help pay the costs the court has required me to pay, I would be very grateful indeed.

If you would like more information about any of this, please write to me at tuppermama@gmail.com. Otherwise, donations can be made by PayPal  by sending funds to (tuppermama@gmail.com) or by direct deposit to my Westpac account:

Meryl Dorey
BSB – 732591
Account – 613872

Or send a cheque or money order to Meryl Dorey, PO Box 88, BANGALOW NSW 2479.

Be sure to send me an email or a note if you make a donation at the bank so I can acknowledge and thank you. I will be able to acknowledge paypal payments without a separate email.

foot note

(1) Debating Vaccination

(2) Online onslaught: Internet-based methods for attacking and defending citizens’ organisations

(3) Public mobbing: a phenomenon and its features

Please note: Blog posts are opinion pieces which represent the views of the authors. They do not necessarily represent the viewpoints of the AVN National Committee. The AVN is a forum, support and information organisation and outlet for discussion about the relative benefits and risks of vaccinations in particular – and medical procedures in general. We do not provide medical advice but believe that everyone has the opportunity and the obligation to do their own research before making decisions for their families. The information we provide (including your personal review of the references we cite) should be taken in conjunction with a range of other data, including that obtained from government, your health care provider and/or other medical source material to assist you in developing the knowledge required to make informed health choices.

Posted in AVN, Medical Bully-Boys | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | 30 Comments

We shall be heard…

Today’s post was written by Tasha David, one of the AVN’s committee members, who has had to endure the grief of having several children injured by vaccines – followed by two extremely healthy unvaccinated children. Her greatest regret is that she did not learn about the risks of vaccination in time to protect her older kids, and she wants to spare families from having to deal with the same grief her family struggles with every day.

The promises from both major parties and the Australian Greens to penalise families like her own for making an informed choice about what medical interventions their children should or should not have, have motivated her to write this post.  This is a ‘call to arms’ to help motivate the silent majority in Australia who believe that parents should ultimately be able to decide what is best for their own families and who would never force others to submit to a medical procedure which could cause harm or even death to susceptible children. 

16397861_s

As I am sure you are all aware by now, Prime Minister Rudd announced that if he gets re-elected, he would be taking the Family Tax Benefit A Supplementary Payment away from families who are conscientious objectors to vaccination followed by removal of the Childcare Rebate.  When I heard this, the unfairness of it hit me particularly hard!  I felt really deflated and I couldn’t understand why after all we have been through, that this news story could get to me so?

After all, we made it through the time when the NSW Government tried to take away our children’s right to attend preschool and the “No Jab, No Play” hate campaign run by News Ltd.’s the Daily Telegraph. We survived Greens Senator Richard Di Natale’s vehement attack on the AVN and his support of those who have used harassment, violent pornography and death threats to attack our former President, Meryl Dorey.

Really, these kind of discriminatory statements have been thrown around so often by our politicians and in the media that it has become almost commonplace.  So why did this one bring me to the verge of tears?

It was certainly not about the money, even though this payment was created for the specific purpose of helping low income families with the costs of raising children – not the costs of raising vaccination rates.

So if it wasn’t that, what was it about then?

We Have No Voice

That’s when it dawned on me.  Our Government couldn’t care less about why 77,000 Australian families including mine, did not feel the recommended childhood vaccination schedule was in the best interests of their children!  They were willing to take away our children’s rights to the government entitlements that are offered to every other eligible Australian family, without even bothering to hear what we have to say.  The very people who are directly affected by this proposed legislation would have absolutely no input into it whatsoever.  Even criminals get a chance to present their side of the story before a judge passes sentence, yet we as law abiding citizens of this historically freedom-fighting nation of ours, are not even allowed to present our side.  I mean, you could expect this from a country that was living under some tyrannical regime, but from a democratic, first-world nation like Australia – surely not?

The other part of Prime Minister Rudd’s speech that cut me to the core, was when he said that he wanted to make sure that all Mums and Dads could feel confident that their children would be surrounded by vaccinated kids when they go to school.   I couldn’t help but think about the parents whose children are injured or killed by these vaccines. How are they supposed to feel?

Should we ask little Saba Button’s family if they feel comforted knowing that their child’s ultimate sacrifice made the parents of vaccinated children feel more confident? (1) I mean, isn’t that why people who believe in vaccination get their children vaccinated in the first place – to feel confident that their children are protected?  But now that’s not enough anymore, and our politicians are trying to coerce us into buying into their belief system as well.

481354-saba-button

Educated Families Making Informed Choices

Let’s look at this objectively. A family who chooses to vaccinate selectively or not at all, tends to have spent countless hours of research on vaccination and their own family’s medical history before they arrive at that decision. But still, they are forced by government departments to go to a GP (if they can find one that is even willing to do it) for counselling on the pros and cons of vaccination (usually 99% on the pros and 1% on the cons) in order to get a conscientious objection form signed so that their children can get family and childcare benefits and the education that any other eligible Australian family would normally get.

Compare this to a family that makes the decision to vaccinate – whether they research a lot, a little or not at all. They are not forced to get counselling or get exemptions; they don’t even have to be excluded from school when their children have received live vaccines and their viral shedding can infect others.  They get to make their choice without fear of punishment or ridicule – without any accountability whatsoever.

Somehow, we have moved into a system where our Prime Minister has no problem putting the ever-rising levels of the ‘theoretical model’ of herd immunity above the wellbeing of the children who are sacrificed to preserve it. (2)

Prime Minister Rudd did not even mention or worry about these children once. But then, he and the other people pushing this agenda against pro-choice parents don’t really believe that these children – our children – even exist.

I don’t think I can fully express how it feels to know that my Prime Minister doesn’t even acknowledge that vaccine injured children like mine live in Australia; to know that he wants to punish families for wanting to protect their children from the same fate.

How could he forget little Saba Button who was permanently brain damaged or Ashley Epapara who died, and the over 250 other children who were rushed to hospital because of the flu vaccine in Western Australia? How could he forget the tens of thousands infected during the recent whooping cough epidemic, most of whom were fully vaccinated, who still caught – and theoretically spread it despite the vaccine? (3)

There is a risk whether you vaccinate or not, and there is no way to predict which risk will be greater for your individual child. So making an informed choice is the only responsible option we parents have.  How could politicians who are charged with protecting the people of this great nation want to take this option away from us?  How could they possibly believe that discrimination and persecution against loving and caring parents is a reasonable option?

The whole situation was beginning to weigh heavily on my soul and I was beginning to feel very dejected and overwhelmed, until my big brother sat me down and reminded me of some very important facts:

    Persecution has always followed those who stand for what is right; it is a rite of passage, a trial by fire. It is the adversity that builds character and shows you how weak or strong your resolve truly is.

The pro-choice families in rural Australia who are feeling isolated and alone and the families in suburban and metropolitan areas who are being browbeaten by GP’s as they desperately try to find a doctor willing to sign their conscientious objection forms, need to know that no matter what happens, there are organisations like the AVN in their corner giving them the support they need and fighting for their rights.  Even those who may decide further down the line that the ever-increasing recommended childhood vaccination schedule is just too much too soon for their precious little ones, need to know that there is someone who is trying to fight for their rights as well.

My brother reminded me that we can take heart from all those in history who have been mercilessly persecuted and never gave up; Martin Luther King Jr, Malcolm X, Mahatma Ghandi. Their principles and values burned within their hearts and gave them the strength to stand against overwhelming odds, and those same principles burn within you, the AVN and your supporters.  The strength of these principles and your commitment to them will cause the opposition – in its many forms – to pass over you, incapable of weakening your spirit but instead, firing you up and motivating you to be able to overcome anything.

In these words from my elder and much wiser brother, I found my resolve and I hope you can find yours too.

Our detractors think that we can be cowed; that they can wear us down with their insults and persecution; that our principles are only worth a couple of thousand dollars.  They don’t realise that they are, in actual fact, waking the sleeping giant; catching a very angry tiger by the tail. That they are lighting the very fires that they seek to put out!

Use that fire, that righteous indignation – and take control of your own destiny! Do not let the persecutors dictate how we raise our children.  If your member of parliament doesn’t want to represent your views in parliament, find a candidate who will and make sure that they know that you will no longer tolerate the unjustified attacks on your liberties – and especially on the liberties of your children.  Write, ring or even better go and see them. The ball is well and truly in your court – now go out there and play hard.

    “You may encounter many defeats, but you must not be defeated. In fact, it may be necessary to encounter the defeats, so you can know who you are, what you can rise from, how you can still come out of it.”

    ― Maya Angelou

“Remind thyself, in the darkest moments, that every failure is only a step toward success, every detection of what is false directs you toward what is true, every trial exhausts some tempting form of error, and every adversity will only hide, for a time, your path to peace and fulfillment. ”

    ― Og Mandino

(1) http://www.perthnow.com.au/news/western-australia/saba-button-the-girl-who-is-never-alone/story-e6frg13u-1226035296706

(2) http://www.vaccinationdecisions.net/resources/Questioning%20Herd%20Immunity%20Created%20by%20Vaccination.pdf

(3) http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/whooping-cough-strain-now-immune-to-vaccine/story-e6freuy9-1225828959714

http://newsroom.unsw.edu.au/news/health/sharp-rise-cases-new-strain-whooping-cough

 

Posted in AVN, Health rights, Medical Bully-Boys | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 29 Comments

Is the Ministry of Truth (AKA – the CDC) Rewriting History?

The hero in Orwell’s novel, 1984, was Winston Smith who worked for what was euphemistically referred to as  the Ministry of Truth. His job was to rewrite history. In those halcyon pre-computer days, Orwell pictured Smith as literally cutting and pasting passages out of books to make events of the past conform with the desires of the tyrannical, all-knowing, all-seeing government of the land known as Oceania. Whenever an idea or an individual dropped out of favour, their names and deeds were  literally erased from the history books.

Today, we see many parallels between what is happening in so-called democratic nations and the events described in this prophetic book. None more so, perhaps, than the efforts to erase the harm caused by medical drugs and vaccination.

Who at the CDC authorised removal of vital information?

Two days ago, aiStock_000006224863XSmalln article was published on the page of the Vaccination Liberation Army (VLA) entitled CDC Admits as Many as 30 Million Americans Could be at Risk for Cancer Due to Polio Vaccine. 

This piece described how in 2003, a CDC investigation determined that as many as 98 million Americans could have received vaccines contaminated with SV40 – a monkey virus which many prominent researchers believe can cause certain human and animal cancers such as mesothelioma, neuroblastoma and some formerly rare bone cancers as well. According to the VLA, up to 30 million Americans could have developed cancer as a result. Of course, the vaccine-safety community has known this information for a very long time. In the mid to late 1950s, Dr Bernice Eddy, a virologist working for the National Institutes of Health, discovered that the polio vaccine had not been properly inactivated and was causing paralysis in laboratory animals first – and then human children. This event – called the Cutter Incident – was hushed up at the time because it was felt that vaccine programmes needed protection. Just as we see today, protecting government policy seems to take precedence over protecting the health of our nation’s children.

Then, in the late 1950s, the same Bernice Eddy discovered that polio vaccines were contaminated with a potentially cancer-causing virus – SV40 (so-called because it was the 40th of 60 monkey or simian viruses known to contaminate the vaccine). She told her superiors about this contamination and instead of thanking her, they warned her not to say anything. She went against their wishes and revealed all at a medical conference, leading to the withdrawal of these contaminated vaccines (which were not thrown away – that would have been wasteful! Instead, they were sold to countries like Australia and NZ where they continued to be administered for years after). Her ‘thanks’ for doing her civic duty was a demotion and loss of her lab facilities. God bless the whistleblowers of this world!

Which brings us back to the CDC and their rewriting of history. Within a matter of hours of the Vaccine Liberation Army’s article being uploaded and mirrored on websites, Facebook pages and Twitter sites around the world, the CDC removed their page on the hearings regarding contamination of polio vaccines with SV40. This page had been on their site since at least 2007.

Is this a coincidence? Was it a blatant attempt to cover-up the US government’s involvement in and prior knowledge of the harm this virus has caused to tens of millions of Americans and countless others in the nations that used this contaminated vaccine?

But wait…there’s more!

The kicker to this whole story – and an important bit of information which rarely if ever gets mentioned – is that the current polio vaccines we use today are probably STILL contaminated with cancer-causing SV40 virus (along with a host of other, unknown and potentially dangerous animal viruses). According to US Lawyer, Stanley Kops, though a different monkey’s cells are now used for the production of our present-day vaccine – a monkey which supposedly does not carry the SV40 virus – the original seed stock which was contaminated is still used today.

Stanley Kops represented the Horwin family. Their little baby, Alexander, was diagnosed with a rare form of brain cancer and genetic testing found that the cancer contained the SV40 virus. Both of Alexander’s parents tested negative to the virus which made Mr Kops wonder where it could have come from. His investigation involved years of research and the publication of a peer-reviewed article on the contamination of ALL polio vaccines. It was determined that the most likely source for Alexander’s cancer and his subsequent death was SV40 from the polio vaccine – a vaccine which was withdrawn decades before his birth! You can read more about this issue by clicking here.

Here is a pdf download of the CDC’s page on SV40 and cancer from the Internet Archive (AKA the Wayback Machine). You can find more information about this page removal on the website of the Vermont Coalition for Vaccine Choice which contains a lot of background information.

For further details, I recommend reading the following:

The ‘Unknown’ About Polio Vaccine: SV40 and Cancer

The Virus and the Vaccine

Dr Mary’s Monkey

by: Meryl Dorey

Please note: Blog posts are opinion pieces which represent the views of the authors. They do not necessarily represent the viewpoints of the AVN National Committee. The AVN is a forum, support and information organisation and outlet for discussion about the relative benefits and risks of vaccinations in particular – and medical procedures in general. We do not provide medical advice but believe that everyone has the opportunity and the obligation to do their own research before making decisions for their families. The information we provide (including your personal review of the references we cite) should be taken in conjunction with a range of other data, including that obtained from government, your healthcare provider and/or other medical source material to assist you in developing the knowledge required to make informed health choices.

Posted in Censorship, Medical ethics, Vaccination | Tagged , , , , , | 7 Comments

Daniel Raffaele, Founder of the Hate Group SAVN, Doesn’t want you to know this

On Tuesday, July 9th, I uploaded a post to the AVN’s Facebook Page regarding a statement the AVN’s President, Mr Greg Beattie, had made on the programme Today Tonight that evening. Part of Greg’s statement which concerned threatening phone calls from the home of SAVN’s founder to myself was censored despite assurances from the show that there would be no editing. I will paste the expanded version of the Facebook text below for you to read in its entirety in addition to a link to the programme itself.

Sometime on Tuesday night or Wednesday morning , Facebook removed the post below due to its being reported by members of Stop the AVN including Mr Daniel Raffaele. The message was reposted by one of our page administrators (since I was unaware of its removal until late last night) and was immediately removed again! Apparently, SAVN members strongly support freedom of speech – as long as it’s their right to abuse others they are protecting.

I, Meryl Dorey, currently have an apprehended violence order (AVO) against the founder of Stop the AVN (SAVN), Mr Daniel Raffaele, because 6 phone calls were made from his home to mine in August last years between approximately 2:30 AM and 3:30 AM. The NSW police positively confirmed that the calls originated from his house and the AVO was taken out at their suggestion. Despite this and despite the then 3-year history of almost daily abuse from this man, the police declined to charge him with a crime. Even though he did not admit to making these 6 calls, two of which consisted of threats against myself (Die in a Fire, and Just burn), it is my personal belief that Mr Raffaele was the perpetrator in this case. He had both the motive – his often professed overwhelming hatred of me – and the opportunity (he lives with his mother in the house where the calls originated from and has not offered any alternative explanation as to who else would have been there in the middle of the night using his phone to call me) and it would stretch credulity past breaking, in my opinion, to think that these calls came from any person other than Daniel Raffaele.

Today Tonight – 9 July, 2013

Greg-TT

On the 9th of July, 2013, Today, Tonight interviewed Mr Greg Beattie, President of the AVN and Senator Richard Di Natale, health spokesman for the Australian Greens. Two weeks ago, Senator Di Natale put forward a resolution in the Federal Senate to demand that the AVN be disbanded.

Today, Tonight offered Senator Di Natale and Mr Beattie an opportunity to make a statement on this issue. They were told that they would each have exactly 60 seconds and that there would be absolutely no editing of their words. Unfortunately, Greg’s statement was edited. The following line was cut from the final recording (click the image above to view the entire show) – you can see the cut during Greg’s talk when the screen suddenly gets much brighter.

”The calls were recorded, and traced by the police. Di Natale named and thanked the man who made the calls, and criticised our founder for taking out an AVO. Work that out!”

“This concerned the fact that Senator Di Natale congratulated Daniel Raffaele for his ‘work’ in trying to force our group to close, and crticised the use of the Apprehended Violence Order. The Senator was either unaware of or unconcerned about the threatening and abusive calls to the AVN’s Public Officer, Meryl Dorey. These calls were traced by the police and confirmed to have originated from Raffaele’s home.”

Do we really want someone in Parliament who shakes hands with abusers and attacks their victims?

Everything Di Natale said about the AVN and those who represent our organisation was untrue. His association with a hate group should be a grave concern to anyone who cares about human rights and freedom of speech.

If you haven’t already done so, please write a letter to Senator Christine Milne, Leader of the Australian Greens, to ask her whether her party really does support silencing and abusing a volunteer-run parent’s support group? If you would like to read some of the letters which have already been sent, you can view them on our blog here.

Posted in AVN, Medical Bully-Boys | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Whatever was Senator Di Natale thinking?

Free speech is meaningless unless it involves the
freedom to make statements that others think are false.
The argument for free speech is that open discussion is
the best system for reaching the truth. Viewpoints can be
strengthened by being challenged.

Dr Brian Martin, Debating Vaccination

In 1997, representatives of the Australian Vaccination Network became aware that Federal Parliament was going to be amending Childcare Payments legislation in a way that would make it very difficult for parents who hadn’t vaccinated fully or at all to access government entitlements.

At very short notice and without a whole lot of knowledge of the processes involved, the AVN sent a delegation to Canberra to lobby Senators and MPs to add in a clause allowing parents to become conscientious objectors to vaccination and still receive the same benefits as those who vaccinated.

220px-Bob_Brown_profileOne of the most helpful people during that visit was Senator Bob Brown, leader of the Australian Greens. Senator Brown was a medical doctor who knew a great deal about the issues surrounding vaccination. He understood our concerns and fully supported the right to freedom of choice and information. Not only did he allow our delegation to use his office for the nearly 2 weeks we were at Parliament (which included helping us to get appointments with parliamentarians and using the telephones and photocopying facility as well), but Senator Brown was one of the people who asked questions on notice and also helped us to introduce the amendments which eventually codified the right for parents to register as Conscientious Objectors to vaccination. Thanks must also go to Senator Dee Margetts, (Australian Greens) and Senators Bartlett and Lees (Democrats) and Harradine (Independent) as well as Senator Crowley (Labor) who did everything they could to assist three legislative neophytes.

The cast of characters has changed – but the discrimination remains the same

Then Federal Minister for Health, Dr Michael Wooldridge, believed that all parents desired vaccination for their children, but that some simply forgot, or were too busy to get it done. So the stated intention for the vaccination requirement was to make sure that these supposedly careless, absent-minded parents would receive a reminder about vaccines.

Senator Brown was not having a bar of that argument however. He saw this as a discriminatory move by the government and fully supported changing the legislation to protect Australian families.

During the committee debate, he stated that:

Looking ahead to amendments coming down the line, we are intending to move that the conscientious objector does not have to first be counselled by an immunisation provider or such person, which would indicate that a conscientious objector at least has to have medical grounds for objecting.

Let us assume this amendment gets passed. If the person simply writes to say that they have a conscientious objection and we have dropped the requirement that they be counselled by an immunisation provider about the benefits and contraindications of immunisation, does the government’s interpretation remain the same—that a letter of conscientious objection, notwithstanding the grounds for that conscientious objection, will suffice to ensure that they do not have their payments terminated?

This was not passed into the final bill because, according to Senator Herron (Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs at the time), forcing parents to see a doctor and be counselled on the issue of vaccination,

gives a person the opportunity to realise the benefits of immunisation and also to discuss the reasons why they are objecting to the immunisation so that it is not done flippantly.”

Evidently, the government of the day felt that parents could be flippant about their children’s health as well as careless and absent-minded.

In response to Senator Herron’s claims, Senator Brown – and remember, he is a medical doctor – said:

I would put it that if people who have an objection to immunisation should be counselled so should everybody else. In fact, there are very strong reasons for counselling those people who are going to have their infants immunised so that they adequately and thoroughly understand at least what is written on the slip that comes with the vaccination from the manufacturers—that is, the warnings that are involved and so on.

…  I cannot accept what the minister says at all. The fact is that there is very much contradictory evidence and debate, even in scientific and medical circles, about vaccination. As a general practitioner, in the past I have been in the position of having to help inform people about vaccination. When you do get to the little wrappers that come with the little bottles of vaccine and read the small print, the alarm bells start ringing.

Vaccination is the application of a vaccine. That can be taken into account for oral doses as well. The problem with immunisation is that that is the result of a reaction to vaccination. It does not always occur. Immunisation may or may not result from vaccination. The word `vaccination’ is the better one to use.

Was Bob Brown anti-vaccination? No, he was not. But he understood the science behind the process of vaccination, accepted that some people would be harmed by vaccines and stated correctly that being vaccinated was not the same as being immune. Senator Brown supported the right of all Australians to make personal decisions regarding this issue in line with Greens policy which, to the best of our knowledge, remains the same today as it was all those years ago.

Are the Greens still Greens?

The Greens party has always stood for social justice, respect for our fellow human beings and our planet. It’s understandable however that some people may be concerned about whether this stance is still the same considering statements made by some members of the Greens regarding both vaccination and anti-discrimination laws in the last few weeks.

In NSW Parliament during the recent debate to require parents to show Conscientious Objector forms before their children would be admitted to either preschool or childcare, a Greens Member argued against allowing the children of either religious or conscientious objectors to be allowed to attend these facilities. Instead, he claimed that the only exemption that should be available is the medical exemption and even for that, parents would need a final approval from a GP – something which would be very difficult to nearly impossible to obtain since most GPs don’t acknowledge reactions even when they occur right in front of them! He also said that there are no religions which preclude use of vaccination as part of their tenets. However, we have it on good authority that Christian Scientists do not vaccinate (nor do they use any Western medicine). In addition, we have also heard that there are several other religions such as Seventh Day Adventists, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Mormons, Orthodox Jews, Muslims and Catholics who either refuse to use certain vaccines or have policies that object to some vaccine ingredients.

The fact that Greens parliamentarians are apparently at the forefront of efforts to discriminate against caring parents who are making what they feel is the best possible decision for their own children is shocking to people who were previously Greens supporters. Many of these people have written to us to express their concern. We will publish those letters in the next blog so you can see how articulate, respectful and well-informed AVN members and supporters are.

Did Senator Di Natale try to get the AVN’s viewpoint before attacking the AVN in the Senate?

The most undemocratic example of these attacks on human rights however, has to be that of Senator Richard Di Natale. As we said in a recent blog, Senator Di Natale proposed a motion that the AVN immediately disband. How did he arrive at this decision? Why would a senator take such an action against a group simply because he disagrees with their message – a message that has been debated by some of the world’s most eminent scientists for over 200 years?

A couple of days before the motion was proposed, the following message appeared on the Facebook page of the hate group, Stop the AVN. Since this message was never posted to the Senator’s own Facebook page (or if it was, the post was later deleted), one must assume that Senator Di Natale was in direct contact with the organisation that has pledged to shut down the AVN in any way possible – including through the use of threats, abuse, harassment and vexatious government complaints. At no time did the Senator attempt to contact the AVN to get our side or to understand why Australian parents question vaccination.

De-Natale-SAVN-post-24_6_13-1By clicking here, you can read the full text of the Senator’s speech from his parliamentary website. Here, we will examine just a few of the many untrue statements and errors and inaccuracies. If Senator Di Natale has the support of the Greens party, this party should be made to explain exactly what evidence they had available to them to back-up the statements which he made under the protection of parliamentary privilege.

Senator (Dr) Di Natale is apparently unaware that Australia is in the midst of a whooping cough epidemic.

When reciting the litany of all that Australians can be grateful for when it comes to vaccination, Senator Di Natale says that,

“We are spared the horror of watching a child with whooping cough turn blue and suffer a seizure from a coughing fit.”

One would think that as a doctor, he should be aware of the fact that Australia is in the midst of a now 6-year long whooping cough epidemic. At its height, this epidemic had more per-capita cases of whooping cough reported than at any time since the introduction of mass vaccination in 1953. In fact, medical journals around the world have been publishing peer-reviewed articles since the early 1990s which indicate that the whooping cough vaccine may be responsible for this upsurge in both cases and deaths.

Senator Di Natale knows nothing about the AVN – and it shows

When discussing the AVN, Senator Di Natale claims that:

In fact, their [the AVN’s] mission is to deter parents from getting their children vaccinated. They accomplish their mission by sowing fear and doubt in the minds of parents who have young kids, and by dressing it up in the language of science. They pretend to be neutral providers of information to allow parents to make a choice, but in reality they are fiercely anti vaccine.”

What does the Senator base this statement upon? Where is his evidence? Even the Health Care Complaints Commission (HCCC), which illegally investigated the AVN in 2009/2010, stated that they had found no evidence that we had ever told anyone not to vaccinate nor had we discouraged anyone from making that choice. One would think that a Senator standing up in Parliament to make such strong statements would do everything in his or her power to ensure the truth of what they were saying. But as we noted earlier, Senator Di Natale did not contact the AVN with his concerns nor did he offer us an opportunity to discuss these issues with him.

Senator Di Natale refers to ‘debunked science’ as proof that the AVN is wrong.

“They [the AVN] say that the MMR vaccine causes autism, a claim they know has been thoroughly and comprehensively debunked.”

Senator Di Natale is obviously referring to the study by Dr Andrew Wakefield et al, published in the Lancet in 1998. This study was the subject of the longest medical investigation in British history by the General Medical Council (GMC) who determined that 3 of the 13 researchers involved had committed fraud in relation to some of the tests performed. They never debunked the results of the study (which wasn’t really a study at all – it was simply a case series reporting on 12 children this team had treated). Last year, one of the three investigators won a high court challenge against the findings of the GMC and there is a great deal of pressure being brought to bear from within the scientific community to reinstate the article in the Lancet.

Since the original Lancet study was published, there have been dozens of peer-reviewed articles which have verified the original findings of the 1998 Wakefield case series. Is Dr Di Natale unaware of this fact?

In addition, the studies to which he refers – the ones which supposedly ‘debunk’ the link between autism and vaccination – have themselves been discredited. Poul Thorsen, a man who is now one of America’s 10 most wanted criminals, was either the lead researcher or worked on 22 out of 24 of these studies. He is now awaiting extradition to stand trial in the US for fraud and embezzlement of between 1 and 2 million dollars from the Centers for Disease Control.

Senator Di Natale greatly exaggerates the risk to children from measles

In the 20 years prior to the introduction of the measles vaccine in 1970, the death rate from measles ranged from between 0.1 and 0.2 per 100,000 per year. In fact, in the early 1980s when the MMR (measles, mumps and rubella) vaccine was first used in the UK, a medical encyclopedia edited by the then-editor of the British Medical Journal stated that the only long-term side effects from measles virus was life-long immunity to measles infection.

Yet here is how Senator Di Natale describes this common and formerly benign disease of childhood:

“It is a virus that damages the human body and has the potential for serious and sometimes fatal complications. In 2001 the World Health Organization estimated 158,000 deaths from this disease. It is one of the leading causes of preventable death worldwide. To suggest that a parent should deliberately expose their child to this disease is reckless. Measles is dangerous and it can be fatal.”

To suggest, as Senator Di Natale does, that Australian children are at high risk of permanent disability or death from measles infection and that measles vaccine will reduce that risk is both unscientific and reckless. And estimates provided by the World Health Organisation are just that – estimates. They are determined by computer modelling which has never been confirmed by actual on-the-ground statistical information. This issue is covered in great detail on our sister blog, the Real Australian Sceptics.

Senator Di Natale thanks abusers and harassers

“I am grateful to people like Daniel Raffaele, Peter Bowditch, Ken McLeod and others who have endured the harassment of Ms Dorey and her followers, but they do it in order to save other parents the unending pain and heartache that they themselves have had to endure.”

This is one of the most shocking statements that Senator Di Natale made. Daniel Raffaele is neither a parent nor someone who has ever shown any sympathy to parents who have had to endure his harassment. He has publicly stated that he would see the demise of ex-AVN President, Meryl Dorey, and late-night phone calls, confirmed by the NSW Police to have originated from his home, were made to Ms Dorey’s house asking her to ‘Die in a Fire’ and ‘Just burn’ (click the links to listen to recordings of these calls). In fact, Ms Dorey currently has an Apprehended Violence Order (AVO) against Mr Raffaele which stops him from coming within 100 metres of her.

Peter Bowditch is one of the most abusive individuals involved in this issue. He regularly asks the parents of vaccine injured children – and even those whose children have died as a result of vaccination – how many dead babies it takes to give them an orgasm. He has asked Ms Dorey who has a vaccine-injured child herself, this very question several times and continued to send her harassing emails long after she asked him to stop.

Yet these are people Senator Di Natale says he is grateful to.

Senator Di Natale claims:

. To silence critics they [the AVN and Ms Dorey, its ex-President] take out apprehended violence orders.”

The AVN feels that this is a very dangerous statement since it puts the government squarely on the side of those who threaten and harass others and also has the potential to prejudice cases which are currently before the courts. Ms Dorey has endured over 4 years of daily abuse and harassment from the very individuals whom the Senator holds up as paragons of society. In fact, this abuse was so unprecedented, Dr Brian Martin, Professor of Social Sciences at the University of Wollongong, said (in relation to the attacks against the AVN and Ms Dorey):

“In over 30 years studying scientific controversies, I have never come across such a sustained attack on a citizens’ group involved primarily in presenting information to the public.”

His article, Debating Vaccination, is a study of these attacks which Senator Di Natale may find informative were he to take the time to read it.

Ms Dorey filed three AVOs – two of which are yet to be finalised – and one of which has been awarded as stated above. The AVOs were filed at the suggestion of the NSW Police and were a last-ditch attempt by Ms Dorey to gain the protection of the courts against individuals whom she rightly feared.

Senator Di Natale’s statements are not factual

Under the protection of parliamentary privilege, Senator Di Natale makes the following claim:

“Ms Dorey is alleged to have called Chris Kokogei, whose child died of chickenpox, and said that his child died because his child was weak.”

This ‘allegation’ is completely false. Ms Dorey has never contacted any parent who had lost a child as a result of either vaccination or illness and for Senator Di Natale to tell such untruths without any evidence whatsoever, is completely immoral. For over 20 years, Ms Dorey has regularly helped, supported and comforted parents whose children have either died or been permanently injured by vaccines. At all times, she has provided both sympathy and assistance to these families. At no time has she or would she ever have behaved in such a callous manner.

A poor example of a parliamentarian

We invite you now to read the full text of Senator Di Natale’s speech. If you are a member or supporter of the Greens, we invite you to respectfully express your feelings about the Senator to Senator Christine Milne, Greens leader. We also ask you to consider carefully where you will put both your financial support and your vote in the up-coming election. Will you vote for a party that supports human rights or will you vote for a party that appears to oppose this most basic of issues?

Posted in Accountability, AVN, Health rights, Vaccination | Tagged , , , , , , , | 5 Comments

AVN Membership – Well Educated and Well Informed

AVN Report CoverThe Australian Vaccination Network (AVN) conducted an on-line membership survey at the end of 2012, with 640 members replying.  Eighty percent of these members were female and most had children.  Their overall education level was high – over 80% had a post school qualification and 56% had a bachelor degree or higher.  More than half worked in professional occupations.

Almost all had a negative attitude to childhood vaccination, with 85% being able to recall a time when they had become less positive to vaccination than previously.  The major reasons that prompted them to research vaccination and change their attitude were a concern to do the best for their families, and having witnessed adverse reactions to vaccination or the resulting long term effects.  Almost all had accessed a wide range of sources of information on vaccination, including the medical literature.  Notably, the AVN did not play a big role in initiating a change in attitudes, although it did serve as a source of information and support once people had decided to research the issue.

These parents have increasingly rejected vaccination in recent years.  Of 348 children represented in the survey aged five years or less, only two percent were fully vaccinated and eight percent were only partially vaccinated.  Thirty-three percent of these members said that at least one family member had suffered adverse reactions to a vaccine.  And thirty percent said that at least one family member had suffered long term effects from vaccines.  Allergies, including food intolerance, were mentioned 41 times.  Asthma was mentioned 34 times, along with a host of behavioural disorders, including autism which was mentioned 23 times.  Sixty felt that at least one family member had behavioural problems as a result of vaccines.

Ninety percent of these members agreed with the statement – “On average, non-vaccinated children tend to be healthier than those that have been vaccinated.”  If nothing else, the survey results indicate that there is an urgent need for medical authorities to initiate studies to compare the long-term physical and psychological health of vaccinated and unvaccinated children.

This recent survey was a follow up to a similar membership survey in 1998.  A copy of the report of the earlier survey can be accessed by clicking this link – A Profile of the Vaccination Awareness Movement in Australia.

For further information or to arrange for an interview with the AVN’s President, Mr Greg Beattie, please email info@avn.org.au.

Posted in AVN, Vaccination, Vaccine-related conditions | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , | 10 Comments

Guest Post: The Vaccine Debate – a Matter of Trust

An open letter to the open-minded

by Dr Isaac Golden

There are many difficult conversations in healthcare – how to best assist people dying in pain, policies regarding foetal termination, the ethics of spending a million dollars on a procedure to help one person rather than using that money to assist hundreds of others, and so on. But the conversation that attracts the most venomous disagreement relates to something where all sides have already agreed on the final goal – maximising the health of community members, especially children.

13437422_sThe decision of whether to vaccinate against potentially serious diseases is one of the most difficult that many thousands of parents will face when raising their children. Most allow the decision to be made for them and vaccinate according to Government recommendations. But a growing number of parents question whether vaccination is the best option for their child based on their assessment of potential benefits and risks.

Ignoring the evidence

Given the overwhelming level of support for vaccination, one must ask why there is any doubt about this issue at all. The answer for many is that they have lost trust in orthodox advice. There are real reasons why this has happened, reasons which Health Department literature and shows like “Jabbed” which recently aired on SBS have all failed to address.

There are tens of thousands of parents in Australia, and countless more internationally, who have witnessed what they believe is damage caused to their children by vaccines. Yet their genuine concerns are typically dismissed by orthodox clinicians as being “just coincidence”, “hysteria”, “ignorance”, and so on. Yet these parents live with real consequences every day of their lives, and view such conclusions as being arrogant and dismissive of their genuine concerns.

They are told that vaccines are proven to be safe, yet parents know that vaccine manufactures only operate because they are indemnified from prosecution by Government legislation. They see the huge Government payouts made in vaccine damage compensation schemes in other countries (America has now passed the $2.5 billion mark) proving that some adverse events do occur. They look up Government sites like the VAERS database of adverse events from vaccination containing hundreds of thousands of entries, so they know that there is too much here to be simple “coincidence”.

The more informed ask a simple question – where are the long-term studies examining the full health (intellectual, emotional and physical) of age-appropriate, fully vaccinated and completely unvaccinated children? They don’t find such studies. Instead they find a relatively few studies which claim to prove the long-term safety of vaccination, but either these studies don’t consider the holistic health of participants, or don’t look at age-appropriate cohorts, or don’t compare fully vaccinated and unvaccinated cohorts  – the combination of which is necessary to conclusively demonstrate long-term safety. And even the studies cited are imperfect – for example, the very large “Danish studies” published in 2002 and 2003, credited with proving that autism is not related to thimerosal and MMR, are weakened by significant confounders and researcher fraud.

So based on careful research, some intelligent and reasonable people ask a second question – we are told repeatedly that the risks from vaccines are less than the risks from the diseases they prevent, but if the long-term risks are not fully quantified, how can such a statement be scientifically credible? That question has yet to be answered other than by returning to the less than adequate studies already cited.

Homeopathic disease prevention (homeoprophylaxis)

Finally, some of these parents continue their research and find that there is a middle path – immunising their child homeopathically, a practice which was first used in 1798 (vaccines were first used in 1796). They are told by orthodox authorities that homeopathically prepared substances have nothing in them, so they can’t work, and also that there is no evidence of effectiveness. All agree that “nothing” cannot be toxic, so the real question then becomes – is there evidence of effectiveness?

It is here that I must describe my personal experience involving the collection of evidence. This experience shows that any statement that “there is no evidence” is simply a denial of reality. Of course the evidence may be contested and the results argued over, but the fact that evidence exists to support claims regarding the effectiveness of homeopathic immunisation is undeniable.

The Cuban Experience

11940799_sI was first invited to visit Cuba in December 2008 to present at an international conference hosted by the Finlay Institute, which is a W.H.O. accredited vaccine manufacturer. The Cubans described their use of homeopathic immunisation (HI) to control an outbreak of leptospirosis (a potentially fatal, water-borne bacterial disease) in 2007 among the residents of the three Eastern provinces which were most severely damaged by a major hurricane – over 2.2 million people. 2008 was an even worse year involving three hurricanes, and the country’s food production was only just recovering at the time of the conference. The HI program had been repeated in 2008, but data was not available at the conference regarding that intervention.

The 2008 result proved to be remarkable, and could only be explained by the effectiveness of the HI intervention. Whilst the three hurricanes caused immense damage throughout the country it was again worse in the east, yet the three homoeopathically immunised (eastern) provinces experienced a negligible increase in cases whilst the rest of the country showed significant increases until the dry season in January 2009.

I revisited Cuba in 2010 and 2012, each time to work with the leader of the HI interventions, Dr Bracho, to analyse the data available from this and other HI interventions, including the HI of 9.8million people against Swine Flu in 2009/10. Dr Bracho is not a homeopath; he is a published and internationally recognised expert in the manufacture of vaccine adjuvants. He worked in Australia at Flinders University during 2004 with a team trying to develop an anti-malarial vaccine.

In 2012 we accessed the raw leptospirosis surveillance data, comprising weekly reports from 15 provinces over 9 years (2000 to 2008) reporting 21 variables. This yielded a matrix with 147,420 possible entries. This included data concerning possible confounders, such as vaccination and chemoprophylaxis, which allowed a careful evaluation of possible distorting effects. We accessed the raw HI data. With the permission of the Cubans, I brought this data back to Australia and it is being examined by mathematicians at an Australian university to see what other information can be extracted. Clearly, there is objective data supporting claims regarding the effectiveness of HI.

This is but one example – there are many more. It is cited to show that there is significant data available, and the HI interventions have been driven, in the Cuban case, by orthodox scientists and doctors. Many people internationally now know this, so once again claims by orthodox authorities that there is no evidence merely serve to show that either the authorities are making uninformed/unscientific statements, or that they are aware but are intentionally withholding information. Either way, trust is destroyed and leads to groups of people questioning what they are told.

It is contended that what now seems to be an endless and repetitive battle between pro and anti-vaccination groups would be unnecessary if the Government made three decisions:

  1. Ensure that the parents of vaccine-damaged children and the children themselves are appropriately supported, and that these people and other parents genuinely concerned about the possibility of vaccine damage are not attacked as being irresponsible and a danger to the community.

  2. Support those parents who would otherwise not vaccinate their children to use homeopathic immunisation. This in turn would lead to an increase in herd immunity. It would also allow coverage against diseases such as meningococcal meningitis type B, and dengue fever for which there are no vaccines. It would not require Government endorsement of the method, just appropriate paperwork to identify which type of immunisation was being used – vaccination or HI.

  3. Establish a Government sponsored study of long-term vaccine safety examining the holistic health of age-appropriate, fully vaccinated and unvaccinated children, and publish the full results.

I would also suggest that given the legislative protection and Government financial support provided to multinational vaccine manufacturers, that our Government evaluate the possibility of having vaccines used in Australia made in Australia by a not-for-profit manufacturer. If a small country like Cuba can do this, then so can we. We should not have to bear the costs of a near-mandatory procedure without sharing the benefits, but this is the existing situation with vaccination.

This divisive issue has caused our society to become a less tolerant place, where free-speech is prevented through selective media bans and the discussion of ideas and options is attacked by academics and scientists who should be the champions of open and objective dialogue. We need to return to evidence – not just selected and convenient results but all the evidence from all sides of this issue. The orthodox response is that all the evidence has been considered and there is no more to discuss. But too many people know that this is not true, and until a fully open conversation is held this issue will never be resolved, and trust will not be restored. And it needs to be – for the benefit of all citizens.

Posted in Accountability, Health rights, Natural Therapies | Tagged , , , | 2 Comments

Crisis Alert – Parents continue to make informed health choices – Australian Senate says they must be stopped

Dateline: June 28, 2013

10737080_sOn Tuesday this week, the Australian Senate, at the behest of medical doctor and Australian Greens Party Health Spokesperson, Senator Richard Di Natale, passed a motion regarding the consumer-run support group the Australian Vaccination Network (AVN). The Senate feels that parents who make informed choices about vaccination and other health issues pose a great threat to those in the community who are doing the ‘right thing’ and just listening to their doctors without question when it comes to vaccination. The Senate has called for the end of knowledge; the end of informed choice; and the end of the AVN.

Senator Di Natale: To move – That the Senate –

(a) notes:

(i) the low vaccination rates in certain parts of Australia. and the threat this poses to the health of Australian children, and

(ii) the irresponsible campaign run by the Australian Vaccination Network (AVN), which is spreading misinformation about the risks of vaccination and discouraging parents from vaccinating their children; and

(b) calls on the AVN to immediately disband and cease their harmful and unscientific scare campaign against vaccines.

The REAL health crisis

The fact is that there IS a health crisis in Australia – but it is being caused by the government and their lack of care for the children and families of Australia. The crisis is that:

  • More than 40% of our children are currently suffering from and being treated for at least one chronic condition – in many cases, more then one.
  • The rates of autism have skyrocketed from less than 1 in 10,000 20 years ago to more than 1 in 50 today. Tens of thousands of parents say that their children were healthy and developing normally but quickly regressed following administration of vaccines. Instead of taking these parents seriously and investigating this TRUE health emergency, the government is now saying that anyone who states that vaccines could be associated with autism (claims that have been upheld in court cases around the world) should be gagged.
  • This generation of children – our children – will be the first generation in recorded history to have a shorter lifespan then the generation before. Thanks to the ‘miracle’ of modern medicine, we are dying younger and living sicker. Our health budget is strangling the nation and yet, the same people responsible for this disaster are the ones saying that those who criticise their policies should be stopped because – we criticise their policies. They even pass legislation specifically to stop us!
  • As few as 18,000 and as many as 54,000 Australians are killed every year by adverse reactions to properly prescribed medications, medical error and negligence, hospital-borne infections and gross medical negligence. The government knows this because this data is extrapolated from their own studies. With upwards of 1,000 Australians dying every week because of government-approved medicines and the doctors who administer them, we are still hearing that it is negligent for Australian citizens to band together to share information and support that is freely available in medical journals and on the internet.

The list could go on and on, but the fact is that the government actively ignores and suppresses this information and the sycophantic media does the same. Australians are living and dying young in complete ignorance of the real risks of these medical procedures they have been informed are ‘for their own good’. And the one organisation which is publicly calling for their rights to research, inform themselves and then, make free choices for their own health is being censored by what purports to be a democratic government.

It isn’t about vaccination-it’s about personal choice and YOUR human rights!

The AVN wants to inform every thinking Australian that this is NOT a vaccination issue. This is not even a health issue. This is an issue of basic human rights. Rights that are inalienable. No government can or should threaten to take them away and if an elected government or party does make these threats, they should be quickly and soundly deposed in a truly democratic manner – at the polls.

If you have not yet gotten involved with the AVN and chosen to support us with your membership and / or donation, now is a great time to do so. We have plans to challenge legislation which will virtually require vaccination of children that is currently being introduced in just about every state and territory of Australia. We plan on striking a blow for freedom, but your assistance is needed to bring these plans to fruition.

At the present time, we would like to urge everyone to join the AVN – it is only $25 / year and a large and active membership will prove to the government that many Australians from all walks of life are concerned about losing their freedom to speak, research and act in their own and their children’s best interests. If possible, make a donation as well. Apart from the links already included which will take you to our web shop where you can both join and donate to the AVN (as well as purchasing back issues of our magazines and books, videos and DVDs), you are welcome to pay for memberships or donations by any of the following methods:

FAX us your credit card details as well as all contact information (so we can send you back a receipt) to 02 6678 0894.

Direct deposit into our Westpac Bank Account. Please ensure that you leave your name as identification and email advice of your payment to info@avn.org.au so your payment can be credited correctly. The account details are below.

Account Name – AVN Inc. Trading As Living Wisdom
BSB – 032591
Account number – 188215
Bank – Westpac
Branch – Ballina

Extra help urgently needed

In addition, we would like anyone who can help with the following to contact us urgently by email or phone – info@avn.org.au or 02 6687 1699:

1-    Legal support (Barristers, QCs, Solicitors)

2-    Political support (lobbyists, those who know how to draft legislation)

3-    Legwork support (letter writers, organisers, fundraisers)

4-    Buddies to support parents trying to get their conscientious objection forms signed.

If you can help with any of the above, please step forward now by sending through an email and nominating which of these important jobs you would like to assist us with.

And if you need help with a vaccine-related issue or if you or your child has been discriminated against because of their vaccination status or suffered a reaction to a vaccine, do not be silent. Report this to the AVN today!

Report a reaction by clicking this link. All reactions are reported to the proper Australian Authorities to be added to the official statistics kept by our government though rarely ever investigated further. It is vital that all reactions are reported.

Meryl Dorey,

AVN Public Officer

Posted in AVN, Health rights, Medical Bully-Boys | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | 10 Comments

Are Greens showing their true colours?

Ibeing Greenn what can only be described as a torrent of ignorance, health spokesperson for the Greens, Senator Richard Di Natale, put a motion to the Senate on Tuesday, June 25th, calling for the AVN to “immediately disband and cease their harmful and unscientific scare campaign against vaccines”.

Senator DI NATALE (Victoria) (15:47): I move:

That the Senate—

(a) notes:

(i) the low vaccination rates in certain parts of Australia, and the threat this poses to the health of Australian children, and

(ii) the irresponsible campaign run by the Australian Vaccination Network (AVN), which is spreading misinformation about the risks of vaccination and discouraging parents from vaccinating their children; and

(b) calls on the AVN to immediately disband and cease their harmful and unscientific scare campaign against vaccines.

I use the term ‘ignorance’ because, as president, I immediately phoned Senator Di Natale to ask why he had chosen to do this. His response was the usual: you are a dangerous organisation, you cause the death of children… etc. When I asked how he had formed such an opinion he had virtually nothing to offer. His stock standard recurring answers were “I’ve heard enough to know” and “your public statements are misleading”.

I asked for something specific that had led him to his conclusion, and he gave two words: “marvelous measles”. It turned out he was referring to the book “Melanie’s Marvelous Measles” (a children’s book which discusses the benefits some believe flow from going through certain childhood illnesses). He was under the impression it had been written by AVN founder and public officer, Meryl Dorey. I pointed out that this was wrong.  The book’s author was not even a member of AVN. He quickly responded with “but you promote the book”. I pointed out that we sell many books in our bookstore. He replied with “well that’s my point”.

Now, I probably don’t have to draw the attention of readers to this but let’s pause for a moment to consider the wisdom. Let’s close down every bookshop in the land, because they probably all sell a book that someone doesn’t agree with. Then close the public libraries. Free speech? Forget it. Yes, this is Australia. And yes, we are talking about the Greens! But don’t expect to wake up. You already are.

Back to the conversation

My suspicion that he was ill-informed had been well and truly aroused, so I asked what else he ‘knew’ about our organisation that was concerning him. And, sad to say, he had nothing. Absolutely nothing! He asked me whether the AVN was for or against vaccines. I explained that the AVN was a discussion forum and didn’t have a ‘view’. He then wanted to know what my personal view was. So I told him I was unconvinced of their value. At that point I think he felt he had scored a hole in one. When I pointed out that I was not the AVN he asked me what the view of the membership was. I explained that I didn’t know because we didn’t ask them. He then insisted I take a “punt” on everyone’s view. I asked why? He said he wanted me to be more honest. Somewhere, somehow, he’d come to the conclusion I wasn’t honest about something.

That was it. That was the extent of Senator Di Natale’s justification.

I explained very briefly what the AVN was about and asked him if he would like to know more about what we do. He finally accused me of screaming at him and hung up on me. Now this was not as perplexing as it might normally have been because he had punctuated the conversation earlier with claims that I was angry and, toward the end, kept asking me to calm down. And each time he did this I had no idea why.  I wasn’t angry and certainly not screaming. A little frustrated at times because he was talking over me. In fact, I recorded my side of the conversation, so if you would like to satisfy yourself of my behaviour, feel free to listen at the link below:

Conversation between Greg Beattie and Richard Di Natale

[Bear in mind it is a one sided recording. It’s probably unlawful in most instances to record another party without first obtaining their permission. So my software records my side only. It’s helpful for situations where you get misquoted or, as in this case, accused of something. Bear in mind also that I was speaking with someone who has just recklessly used the Australian Senate to condemn our organisation, for no reason other than hearsay: just what you have read above.]

A Green by any other name

Senator Di Natale was not the only one I contacted. I phoned Greens leader Senator Christine Milne (both her Hobart and Canberra offices). I also sent two emails directly to her. In the second phone call I explained to a staffer that the two emails remained unanswered and that we would be releasing information to our members and supporters about this on the following day. I was informed that Senator Milne was extremely busy but that someone would contact me before close of business Wednesday. That didn’t happen.

I was determined to hold off before writing about this. The Greens have historically had a positive relationship with AVN. Former leader, Bob Brown, advocated for us extensively in parliament, and was instrumental in introducing the conscientious objection clause in the Childcare Payments Bill 1997 (the same clause the Greens in NSW are now trying to have removed). So what has changed? Certainly not the AVN. Is this a new look Greens party? Or is it simply the work of one ill-informed senator on a personal crusade?

We wait to hear. One thing’s for sure. There are many AVN members and supporters who have long considered themselves ideologically aligned with the Greens, and they are now waiting for some official word on what has become of the party. Several have already attempted to contact the party and register their concern.

The AVN calls on Greens leader, Senator Milne, to clarify whether Senator Di Natale represents the views of a new-look Australian Greens, or whether he will be sanctioned. We also invite her, and any other party members, to come over for a chat and find out what we are really about, instead of relying on ill-informed hearsay and media smear campaigns.

While we wait, you may like to make contact with the senators yourself. Here are the relevant links:

Senator Christine Milne

http://christine-milne.greensmps.org.au/contact

Senator Richard Di Natale

http://richard-di-natale.greensmps.org.au/contact

Greg Beattie

President

Posted in Health rights, Medical Bully-Boys, Vaccination | Tagged , , , , , , , | 14 Comments

While Health Ministers Fiddle, Australians Are Harmed

MadnessTwo months after initiating a campaign to vaccinate school girls against the Human Papillomavirus, the Japanese Government has suspended the active promotion of both Gardasil and Cervarix vaccines. Japanese health authorities have found these shots to be associated with rates of serious reactions which are more than twice that of other vaccines introduced at the same time.

Gardasil and Cervarix are currently administered to Australian women, girls and more recently, boys – to purportedly prevent cervical and other cancers thought to be associated with the Human Papillomavirus (HPV).

The Japanese experience mimics that of Australia where, after the introduction of the Gardasil vaccine, Australia experienced an 85% increase in the rate of reported reactions – a situation noted by the Commonwealth Department of Health in their Annual Report (CDI Vol 32 No 4 2008). In contrast to Japan however, whose government has acted quickly and responsibly to protect the health of its citizens, Australian health authorities have not taken any action to ensure the safety of its young people in regards to these vaccines.

Why is it that Japan will suspend promotion of a vaccination which has been shown to be harmful while Australia will ignore this evidence and push ahead with its attempts to force, coerce, threaten and penalise those who would like the freedom to choose what is best for their children? When will our health ministers realise that they are there to safeguard the health of Australians – not the health of our vaccination programme?

The AVN would like to call on the government to investigate how the Gardasil and Cervarix vaccines were approved by the TGA without the basic tests necessary to confirm or refute the contents of the shot, their safety profiles or any evidence that HPV vaccination would reduce the risk of cervical or other cancers in humans.

In addition, we would like the Australian government to demonstrate that it takes its duty of care seriously by following the example of Japan and immediately suspending the use of both Gardasil and Cervarix until the necessary safety and effectiveness studies are performed.

Japanese References:

Cervix vaccine issues trigger health notice

Japan not to promote cervical cancer vaccination

Other nations suspend HPV vaccines:

India Suspends Gardasil Program After Four Deaths and Complications in 120 Girls

Spain suspends batch of Gardasil following illness

Experts question HPV vaccination:

Experts cast doubt on claim for ‘wonder’ cancer jabs

Call to review cancer vaccine after Germany demands more medical proof

HPV Vaccine Questions Cannot Be Answered Without Further Research

Websites for further research

SaneVax, Inc

Canadian Gardasil Awareness Group

Let’s Talk About Gardasil

Vaccination Decisions

Posted in Accountability, Cervical cancer - HPV, Health rights, Medical Error, Vaccination | Tagged , , , , | 7 Comments

CDC caught in billion-dollar scheme to to sell vaccines

nocompulsoryvaccination:

“…when CDC whistleblower William Thompson emerged from the shadows on August 27 and admitted he’d participated in research fraud, thereby giving the dangerous MMR vaccine a free pass by claiming it had no causal connection to autism…

he was illustrating a primary mission of his employer, the CDC: spread propaganda assuring the public that vaccines are safe.

Science? Are you kidding? The “research” effort of the CDC is just another way to do PR.”

Originally posted on Jon Rappoport's Blog:

CDC caught in billion-dollar scheme to sell vaccines

by Jon Rappoport

September 5, 2014

www.nomorefakenews.com

If someone told you…

a public relations agency promoting the benefits of refined sugar was also doing scientific studies on the effects of sugar…

you’d laugh.

You’d naturally know the studies were worthless. You’d understand the “researchers” were slanting data, cooking data, burying data—whatever was necessary to support their prime directive: hype sugar as a wonderful product.

These “scientists” would never say, “Well, we found that refined sugar is quite unhealthy.”

This is precisely the state of affairs at the Centers for Disease Control. The agency is, first and foremost, a PR machine. It promotes products. For example: vaccines.

So when CDC whistleblower William Thompson emerged from the shadows on August 27 and admitted he’d participated in research fraud, thereby giving the dangerous MMR vaccine a free pass by claiming it had no causal…

View original 1,128 more words

Posted in Vaccination | Leave a comment

Vaccine Autism cover-up?

A whistle-blower seems to have come out about The Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) conducting scientific fraud and cover-up over the relationship between vaccines and autism. It states that risk factors for association between the MMR vaccineand autism are being under 3 years old, being a boy, and being of African descent.

MMR coverup

Will this report turn out to be true? If so I wonder why our health authorities in Australia haven’t been active in ensuring that the link hasn’t been ruled out? Time will tell.

News Epoch Times, Green Med Info, Natural News. Original research article link.

Posted in Accountability, Autism, Fraudulent Research, Medical ethics, MMR vaccine, Vaccination, Vaccine-related conditions | 1 Comment

Over Half of Americans Don’t Trust Government & Doctors On Vaccination

nocompulsoryvaccination:

No matter how much the government and the media want to convince people that those who don’t trust vaccines are in the minority, the truth is that more and more parents are fully informed about the risks of vaccines and the attempts to cover up any information about those risks.

Originally posted on ________________Child Health Safety_________________:

CLICK IMAGE TO READ LETTER IN NEW WINDOW

CLICK IMAGE TO READ LETTER IN NEW WINDOW

A research letter published in the Journal of the American Medical Association “Internal Medicine” this month reveals that over half of Americans either believe doctors and the government still want to vaccinate children even though they know these vaccines cause autism and other psychological disorders or are undecided on the question.  69% of the 1361 participants had heard of this issue before. 20% believe it, 36% were undecided [neither agreed nor disagreed] and 44% disagreed.

If the letter were written in the early 1950s, before it was established smoking causes lung cancer, the authors of this letter would have dismissed that claim as a conspiracy theory, but it was later shown to be true.

The authors of the letter dismiss these beliefs as “conspiracism” and identify them as:

markers for greater use of alternative medicine and the avoidance of traditional…

View original 1,084 more words

Posted in Vaccination | Leave a comment