The last days of natural health in Australia?

Green PillsI’m writing this blog whilst sitting at my chiropractor’s office waiting for my appointment. The air is filled with the scent of lavender and soft music is playing in the background. It’s a lovely, relaxing environment. But thinking about the threats to chiropractic care – and all forms of natural therapies – is keeping me from feeling relaxed.

Those pseudo-skeptics who are reading this are thinking (and working towards the day) that chiropractic will no longer be allowed to exist in Australia. Only drug-based, toxic treatments are OK as far as they are concerned. There are two ways of doing things in their minds – their way or the wrong way. And anyone who doesn’t agree with them on health issues (or most anything else, come to think of it), should be forced to go along with their view of the world.

Bunch of schoolyard bullies, they are!

Normally, I would laugh at people like this. They are so pathetic; so immature; so wrong minded. But when they are backed by a multi-trillion dollar pharmaceutical industry that not only owns the government and the media, but backs them and gives them a platform to spew their hate speech, it’s no longer a laughing matter.

So, I sit in the chiropractor’s office, knowing that it may only be a matter of a few years before chiropractic is no longer able to be practiced openly in Australia. Chiropractic, naturopathic medicine, homeopathy, Bowen therapies, Chinese Herbal medicine…the list goes on. All of these treatments, some of which have been safely and effectively used for thousands of years, could be in their last days here in Australia.

All because people are choosing in their hundreds of thousands to turn their backs on Western medical doctors and opt for treatments that work and are, as close as any treatment can be, harmless. A claim which cannot be made for medical any ‘treatment’. Medical drugs, procedures and errors kill between 18,000 and 54,000 Australians EVERY YEAR! Doctors have not earned the right to be trusted or listened to without question – a right which the government and the medical organisations are demanding.

It’s all about money, power and control

Government control has gone completely bonkers. Not content with trying to ban natural therapies, our diets are also under threat.

Let’s not talk about the fact that labelling of foods containing genetically modified organisms is still not mandatory – despite survey after survey showing that 90% and more of Australians say they want this (who is the government working for again?)

Or the issue of additives, colourings and preservatives that have never been shown to be safe being used in the manufacture and packaging of the foods we eat. Thousands of these additives were approved by our government without any testing or proof of safety either singly or in combination (very much like vaccines, come to think of it). Guess they really DO take their responsibility to keep us safe seriously, eh?

And let’s not forget the herbicides, pesticides, pre-emergents and fungicides used in the growth, packaging and shipment of our foods. These products are not only unsafe for human and animal consumption, but they have destroyed our already depleted soils to the point where foods grown conventionally in Australia are virtually devoid of nutrition.

So our government, sworn to protect us and our rights, has worked full time to destroy our health and take away our rights. All the while, trying its hardest to remove the forms of healthcare that WE choose to use and even the way that WE choose to eat!

I am eating a modified Paleo/ketogenic diet and have been on this for about 2 1/2 months. It’s been amazing! Apart from losing weight (bonus!), I have felt really good and have been feeling increases of energy nearly every day.

This is a diet I chose after doing a lot of research and reading – especially because of its ability to help prevent cancer. I don’t have cancer, luckily, but at nearly 60 years old, I felt it was time to get serious about my health so I read a lot and have chosen to use my diet to help me get healthier. So far, so good.

But in this ‘democracy’ of Australia, doing things differently to corporate interest’s recommendations is a sure fire path to conflict.


Chef Pete Evans is one of the top Paleo experts in Australia. Now, he does not go out and grab people off the street and say, “Ve haf vays ov making you eat Paleo!” He simply offers information, recipes and stories about people who have changed their diet and the positive effects they’ve discovered.

But this is not allowed! If too many people eat Paleo, the food pyramid will be turned upside down! Companies like Kelloggs, Sanitarium and other grain and cereal manufacturers will show a decline to their bottom lines. We can’t have that!

So, their tame front group nutrition organisations (the same ones that still push margarine, genetically-modified oils and a crazy amount of grains with too little greens) have viciously attacked Chef Evans and people like myself who eat a Paleo diet.

These companies are silent about conventional farming practices, adding all sorts of dangerous crap to the foods we and our children eat and the use of antibiotics and hormones in our food animals. But try to eat a diet that is close to nature and that makes you feel good – oh no! We can’t have that!

Big Pharma, Big Ag, Big Food – they are all the same. They are all one.

They have their tentacles throughout government and the media. They control what you read, hear, see and do in ways that you – if you are like most Australians – are completely unaware of.

But step outside the box; choose to think independently about diet, healthcare or education and you will find out quickly enough how narrow those confines actually are!

Want to drink raw milk like our ancestors did for generations? No way! Much better to drink pus-filled white stuff that has had all of the nutrition boiled out of it (to kill germs that are only there because of the way in which cows live and are treated on commercial farms). Drink or sell raw milk and you face fines and/or imprisonment.

Want to feed your children a vegan diet? Well, even though a large number of people in countries like China, India and Southeast Asia live on a vegan diet with no problem, you will not be allowed and could even face removal of your children!

No tolerance, no acceptance of any differences allowed in our Australia. You follow the party line or you suffer the consequences. And the party wants to control you from the second you wake up in the morning until the moment you close your eyes at night.

So…I sit here trying to relax before I get called in for my appointment, and wondering how many more appointments I will have before my chiropractor, and your naturopath, and your neighbour’s homeopath become a distant, illegal memory. And asking myself what it will take to finally get natural therapists to work together against the common enemy trying to shut them down for good.

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.

Anti-Chiropractic Gag Proposal by Oz Media

The following letter has been forwarded to me by one of our members and I felt it was important to share this with you. It was sent to the Sydney Morning Herald after an especially rabid article was published in that paper about a series of talks presented by Dr Tim O’Shea, author of many books and articles including Vaccination is not Immunization previously known as The Sanctity of Human Blood.

As we have seen so often, the journalist – a person whose livelihood depends upon the freedom to communicate – joined the call to suppress the rights of others to do the same.

These attempts to stifle scientific debate and to censor or even punish (in the words of Dr Steve Hambleton, head of the doctor’s union – the AMA) those whose research has led them to be critical of medical procedures is shocking and shameful. Please read this letter and remember that while most people get their information from mainstream media, most of the information found in that location has been corrupted by vested interests and should not be trusted. Feel free to share and reblog this letter.

On 9 March, there was an attack by Oz media against chiropractic in general and myself in particular. Just found out about it in my junk folder. My response:


Editor, Sydney Morning Herald
Legal, Sydney Morning Heraldvaccination-is-not-immunization-2012
Editor, Australian Doctor
Legal, Australian Doctor
CAA, Dr T. Shakespeare

RE: Ongoing anti-chiropractic campaign

Good morning all:

I am Dr Tim O’Shea, a US chiropractor and educator. Looks like I may have jumped into the middle of something, or maybe it’s just a slow news period all around.

I first became aware of this new media agenda on chiropractic a few weeks ago when I got a phone call on a Sunday afternoon from someone who said he was a writer for a ‘leading newspaper’ in Australia, and he was writing a piece about chiropractic. He’d got my name somehow, probably because I had given some seminars there about 6 months ago.

He told me he was writing an article about a proposal to gag DCs from talking about vaccines. I asked him had he read my book. No. Had he attended the seminar? No. Had he spoken to anyone who had? No. Had he read any of the numerous articles on immunology from my site? No. Was he interested in doing any of that footwork? No. When did he have to turn in the article? In 2 hours, he said.

That was pretty much my introduction to the calibre of Australian journalism, which has proven to be fairly consistent to this point. So this admitted dilettante was obviously just looking for a quirky, newsworthy quote to add to the hearsay he already had, in order to get his 1000 words. Anything besides actually doing the research, right?

At that point the call was disconnected. Next day I got an email from the same ‘journalist’ who apparently got an extension. But still not enough to do any background reading whatsoever.

I located the ‘journal’ he claimed to be employed by – a very homespun, backwoodsy sort of website, from which it was impossible to discern whether it was an actual printed magazine or just an online blog. Leading Australian newspaper? Hope not. I was particularly bemused by the piece on the front page implying that chiropractic was child abuse.

A casual perusal made it soon apparent what the requisite slant of this boilerplate publication was – denigration of anything natural or holistic, sanctification of all things pharmaceutical, with the mandatory condescending omniscience. Not exactly a novel approach.

So I gave the email the response it merited, along with a few referrals to some native Australian authorities in the area of vaccines in particular – Dr Archie Kalokerinos, Dr Viera Scheibner, Meryl Nass, etc. But again, no interest there – because that would mean researching into the actual subject matter itself, in an effort to understand what one is actually writing about, etc.

The next step in creating this smear campaign was to dream up a hook – Australian chiropractors being taught accredited courses against vaccines, etc. Here is where the editor had to come in, taxing his imagination and powers of innuendo, to give legs to something so wholly insubstantial, mundane, and un-newsworthy. Let slip the pups of war. This fact may be critical in any future discovery.

The result was true yellow journalism, in the worst muckraking tradition – the Herald article of 9 March [1] entitled “Anti-vaccination physicians training chiropractors” by an individual calling herself Amy Corderoy.

This copy and paste artist at least did exert a little more effort than just a phone call to get her 1000 words. But here we see the epitome of the basest fluff tabloid technique – slow news day, no news to report, so let’s create some news. What’s the editor’s hook to be – the angle, the catch phrase? “Anti-vaccination” and “chiropractors” both in the same headline. Magic. Then we’ll apply it to an ordinary, non-news event, and voila’! – we now have a story.

Freedom-of-Speech-Lost-by-Ahdieh-AshrafiDoesn’t matter if it’s true or not – 10 minutes on Wikipedia, a string of innuendo, out-of-context misquotes, start a conflagration of pure invention, and let’s run with it. We’ve got a deadline.

So, let’s look at Amy here. Was she present at the seminars she’s fantasizing about? No. Did she speak to anyone who was? Clearly, no. Has she ever read the textbook? Obviously not. Any evidence she spent more than 5 minutes on the enormous website? Certainly not. Does she contact me for an interview? Of course not. No time for that – that would mean actually going into the subject matter. So where is the data for this op-ed puff piece coming from? Baseless, inflammatory rhetoric. Any academic requirements beyond a high school diploma to be the “Health Editor”?

But this isn’t education here – no, this is selling newspapers, by pandering to the lowest common denominator of intelligence – speed readers of the SMH. Substance, facts, references, cognition… no need for any of that. We’re not in the business of reporting news; we create it.

Anti-vaccine? First off, anyone who has actually attended my seminars or has ever read the textbook knows that I am not anti-vaccine, as I unequivocally state. I am in favor of any vaccine that has been tested by independent studies and proven to be safe, effective, and necessary. Period. To twist my words otherwise is flagrant prevarication, not excusable just because it provides fodder for today’s dinner story. But without that hook, there is no story, is there?

It is undeniable fact that there is an enormous body of research and controversy surrounding vaccines, and has been for decades.

In my course work we look at both sides of the vaccine debate, showing their respective strengths and weaknesses. Anyone who has ever attended will know that. Am I to be paraphrased by some lurid tabloid who has never looked at any of my sourced material, as they invent their own version of it?

With her false and inflammatory assertions, Amy now seeks to create a media bonfire. She claims to have informed the AMA of her “discovery” and asked them to comment. Next she starts freely quoting Steve Hambleton, who also was not present, nor has ever bought the textbook, who now is going to hold forth about what does and does not happen at chiropractic CE seminars. Since he’s attended so many. And he knows this how? Hearsay from a local ‘health writer’? Please. This source apparently was worth interviewing, because his quotes support the contrived fantasy – that chiropractors are being taught to be anti-vaccine, etc

Amy’s invention next includes the out of context “quotes” from an unidentified ‘radio interview,’ mandatory in any sort of he-said she-said type hack job. My writing and course work are so extensive that I’m sure a case could be made that I support just about any political agenda one can dream up, by cutting and pasting phrases and stringing them together, with a running editorial agenda.

But it’s the next paragraph about vaccine courses that tips their hand: “Still more are taught by chiropractors associated with the Australian Vaccination Network….” Even if that were true, what now becomes clear is that this article is part of Australia media’s ongoing attack aimed at chiropractors.

The pervasive illusion this article strives for is that chiropractors are the sole source of opposition to today’s vaccine policy. If only we can get rid of chiropractors talking about vaccines, – or better yet – get rid of chiropractors, then everything will be fine, and no one will criticize global vaccine policy any more….

Nothing could be farther from the truth.

The issue that Amy’s handlers desperately try to hide is something called Global Dialogue. For the past century, there has been a worldwide debate surrounding the safety and efficacy of vaccines. It is gaining momentum everywhere, especially in the past 5 years. Americans are asking why mandated vaccines have tripled since the 1980s and yet our children have the worst health of any industrialized nation on earth, with exponential increases in degenerative and infectious diseases. This too is undisputed fact.

But the ongoing dialogue is global, and it’s definitely not coming from the chiropractic or even the alternative medicine community. This is the thesis of my entire course work on immunology – that the questioning of today’s vaccine policy is coming almost exclusively from medical doctors, mainstream science, and mainstream law. My vaccine textbook is unassailable, because every fact I state, every statistic I offer is documented by one of the 350 references in the back. How many of them are chiropractic sources? Virtually none.

So why are chiropractors being attacked?

My seminars have been accredited not just for doctors of chiropractic, but for dentists, nurses, acupuncturists, and naturopaths as well. And many MDs will attend. Because they’re all interested in the global nature of the course material.iStock_000009433175XSmall.jpg

Most of the endorsements for my textbook are from medical doctors. Thousands of medical doctors today are opting out of vaccines for their own children, unless the vaccines are proven safe, effective and necessary. Most cannot speak out. But they are part of the global dialogue on vaccines.

The majority of my references are from scientists and manufacturers of vaccines, and primary researchers in the field of childhood immunology. Not chiropractors. The fact that I am a chiropractor is irrelevant to the discussion. I could be a shepherd and the validity of the textbook argument would be unchanged. [Kiwis would likely prefer that.] I’m simply a lit searcher, citing the best science available.

Here are some undisputed facts being pondered in today’s global debate on vaccines:

The FDA estimates that less than 10% of actual vaccine injuries are ever reported

Manufacturers don’t risk their own capital in researching new vaccines; they receive NIH grants

If a vaccine is approved, the manufacturer gets the patent and reaps profits of $1 billion/year or more

No manufacturer is liable for vaccine deaths or injuries

The approval body – The FDA Advisory Committee – ACIP – is made up entirely of vax industry personnel

Vaccine manufacturers do not have to disclose all ingredients

There are over 300 new vaccines in development

There has never been a clinical trial with an unvaccinated control group

What do these facts have to do with chiropractic? Nothing. This is not a chiropractic gauntlet. Most chiropractors I know vaccinate. If all chiropractors on earth were vaporized tomorrow, the global debate on the value of today’s vaccines would continue, completely unaffected.

In this case, the objective of Oz media is to end the dialogue. The issue isn’t whether you are pro-vaccine or anti-vaccine. It’s between Pro-dialogue and Anti-dialogue.

Who will be allowed to participate in the vaccine dialogue? Everyone except chiropractors, apparently. So let’s be clear about this – a doctor of chiropractic, who by law has academically equivalent hours in the basic sciences to an MD, is now going to be gagged from discussing a subject that anyone else may freely discuss? Is that the size of it?

They actually passed such a draconian law in Canada a few years ago that did just that : gagged DCs from discussing vaccines. Anyone else could talk about them unfettered: food clerks, felons, circus performers, illegals, lawyers, health editors – anyone besides chiropractors. Canadian courts proved a little more sophisticated, however and eventually reversed the decision, with the help of people like Dr Steven Silk. I would urge anyone considering the folly of pursuing such a Josef Goebbels-type agenda in Oz to consider your long term liability. Look at the Canadian story.

Intriguing was Hambleton’s alleged remark about “unscientific treatments. Each profession will be judged by its weakest link, and that’s why we had concerns about adding potentially unscientific professions….”

I couldn’t agree more. That is precisely the focus of the global dialogue on vaccines: the definition of scientific. There is a growing concern in many countries today that economic and political decisions are eclipsing strictly scientific issues in the formulation, approval, and administration of vaccines. Again, these misgivings are not coming from the chiropractic profession, but from mainstream doctors, formulators, and scientists. Do we really want to put a gag on who is allowed to take part in the global discussion?

True science is always evolving, always inviting the next question, always describing its own limitations. If vaccines are going to deserve the mantle of ‘scientific,’ they are going to have to stand up to the full scrutiny of evaluation from any legitimate quarter. We are injecting some 68 of them into our children at this time. It is not something to be cavalier about or use as a pawn on the chessboard of interprofessional chicken fights. Either something is scientific or it isn’t. Let’s not bandy the word about carelessly, pretending any of us has a monopoly on its use.

Looking at Amy’s article again, we see that she herself claims the right that Regulators would deny chiropractors: the right to discuss vaccines: “Immunisation has saved hundreds of millions of lives.” She cites no source for that figure – that is her opinion. A phrase like “according to the CDC” does not follow. Why isn’t this practicing medicine without a license – giving medical advice without a license? What are her credentials? A high school graduate can make public pronouncements on vaccines but a doctor of chiropractic cannot.

How far do we want to take this? Whom else are we going to muzzle– acupuncturists, osteopaths, dentists, massage therapists, estheticians, homeopaths, naturopaths, optometrists, podiatrists, personal trainers, coaches…? Are we going to pass individual laws gagging each one of these professions? Or are we just going to single out chiropractors? If so, now we’re talking about profiling, professional bigotry, persecution, and legal repercussions.

Or maybe we’ll just decide to gag anyone who doesn’t vaccinate. Statistically, 15% of the general population will not vaccinate. Will we now pass laws for all those exempting their children, forbidding them from the public discussion of vaccines?

Or better yet, why not silence anyone who isn’t involved directly in the sales and administration of vaccines from even mentioning the word vaccines. Science as religion? What will be the definition of Informed Consent when parents can get information about vaccines only from those selling vaccines? Is this not the precise intent of the current Oz media campaign? Or the AMA?

Do you see where this logic is heading, once we pretend that Regulators can arbitrarily single out certain targeted groups to lose Freedom of Speech on certain topics? It’s a slippery slope indeed, from which there is no return.

If vaccines are so wonderful, why do we suddenly now have to pass laws to keep people from talking about them? What is it that we’re hiding? Any truly valuable medicines will be voluntarily sought after by the public. With $12 billion annual advertising, the number of people opting out of vaccines is inexorably rising, even with the new agenda to put an end to philosophical exemptions. So now we want to force people to get vaccines, and at the same time we’re going to pass laws to prevent people from even talking about vaccines?

I thought Australians were smarter that Americans.

This isn’t Nazi Germany. Yet. A free society, any democratic republic, is predicated upon the principle of free exchange of ideas – free speech. Which side wants to muzzle the other side here – those selling vaccines or those questioning vaccines? Be docile, don’t question us, and trust us. It’s for your own good. Now please board the train…

Do they really think this is going to fly in 2013, the age of Facebook and the iphone, where everything one says is instantly broadcast to the world?

Everybody knows why this non-story chiropractors/vaccines fiction came to life. We all know who is media’s #1 advertiser: medicine. In deciding to print any article, the criteria your invisible editor must use are those who buy the most ads. Not rocket science here.

Next, let’s look at the one sided nature of this smear piece on chiropractic. No defense of the chiropractic position in this controversy was presented, except for the two truncated, out of context comments at the very end. No one quoted defends chiropractic. This seems for some like an opportunity to trot out all the old anti chiropractic skeletons and turn back the clock 50 years.

In the US, the AMA has no regulatory jurisdiction over chiropractic. Presuming the same is true in Oz, what possible reason would their media decide to interview the AMA, if not to create a fluff news story of out innuendo and hearsay, to see what inflammatory quotes might thus be evoked? The chiropractic profession exists in most states and countries only after years of legislative and regulatory decisions, none of which requires the permission of the AMA or any other voluntary professional association. Need we be reminded of the Wilk vs. AMA case of the 1980s, the anti-trust suit wherein the AMA was found guilty of trying systematically to destroy chiropractic in the US? Which they lost after spending over $10 million in the defense.

What was that lesson about ignoring history again…?

Is it time for a refresher course on the difference between libel and slander?

Despite what organized medicine would like to pretend, vaccines are not mandatory, in any country. If they were, none of this discussion would exist, because we would all be required by law to be vaccinated. At the present time however, anyone can get an exemption from vaccines, if that is their inclination.

Since that is so, the concept of the informed decision then becomes paramount. Thousands of parents opt out of vaccines for their children all over the world, not because they are hoodwinked by chiropractors, but because they have done considerable research, that is available everywhere. So now those vested in the sale of vaccines want to decree that information about vaccines be disseminated only by those who are in the business of vaccine sales? How are they going to do that?

We must be very careful when we see this phrase ‘informed decision.’ It has only one true significance: familiarizing oneself with the best data on both sides of the debate. And the best data is not rhetoric, slogans, mantras, or threats. No, the best data is referenced, thoroughly and meticulously, so that the reader need not believe what the speaker is saying, but may look up the primary sources first-hand.

Beware of those who would redefine the Informed Decision as one that has been reached only by consulting the sellers of vaccines. Let’s never pretend that their issue isn’t first and last an economic one.

I’m not trying to keep vaccines from anyone who wants them. I believe everyone should be able to get all the vaccines they want. And forced to get none. If the staff of the SMH wants to get twice the recommended vaccines, that’s fine – it’s their choice. But when it comes to forcing that choice on everybody else, that’s where we have to draw the line. That’s where Medical Freedom comes in.

One of the most basic rights of parents anywhere is the right to protect their own children by making the best decisions for them. Especially in the area of health. If the sources of information available to parents becomes censored and controlled only by vested interests – the sellers of medicines – what must inevitably follow is the end of Medical Freedom.

I am certainly not anti medicine. It has saved my life on more than one occasion. Nor am I anti-vaccine, for the last time. I am pro science, in the classical sense of the word. But mostly I am pro dialogue, and as such I do not see the value in excluding any legitimate data from the discussion just because it offends the sensibilities of people who made up their minds on everything 25 years ago. Or those who have a vested interest in relegating this decision to a black and white template.

This issue is too critical to the genetics of our children to let arrogance and personal hubris supervene the discussion. It’s no longer supportable to say either all vaccines are good or all vaccines are bad. This is an exponentially expanding area of inquiry at this point in time.

So. There it is. The twin agenda of Oz media is crystal clear in this instance: Anti-chiropractic, and Anti- dialogue. They will certainly never be accused of cleverness, or subtlety. Anyone who would give credence to such a poorly-crafted chimera as these provincial media have conjured up, and see it as anything other than a salacious, self-serving attempt to create news out of events that never existed – well, they’d best be prepared to suffer the consequences of being so ill-informed.

Fairly confident that neither of these publications will print this response. Because I have committed the Unspoken Forbidden here – I have gone into the actual subject matter. Mea culpa. Fortunately, by 2013 we no longer need to rely on their declining readership in order to expose this outright assault against both Medical Freedom and Academic Freedom in Australia.

The word is out.

Treating Infants With Whooping Cough. ~ Suzanne Humphries, MD | International Medical Council on Vaccination

With our current high level of whooping cough infection despite (or because of) record high levels of vaccination, it is important to know that there ARE ways to treat and help infants if they contract the illness during those vulnerable first few months. Dr Suzanne Humphries discusses one way. Of course, there are many other options from homeopathy, naturopathy, Chinese herbal medicine, etc. It is good to be aware of your options in case you or someone close to you finds themselves in this situation.

Treating Infants With Whooping Cough. ~ Suzanne Humphries, MD | International Medical Council on Vaccination.

Do you want to choose your healthcare or have it chosen for you?

There is an organisation in Australia which hates every natural therapy. They hate the healthcare practitioners and they hate the healthcare consumers who ‘turn their backs’ on Western medicine in favour of a range of other modalities which put no money in their pockets and take away their prestige. Worst of all, they hate anyone who chooses not to use  vaccines! That is the ultimate heresy, as far as they are concerned.

But it’s OK – because they have a plan and they have the money and media backing, they think, to bring this plan to fruition.

This group, the Australian Skeptics, has been instrumental in setting up the organisation, Stop the AVN.

Now, they are working on a new initiative – and this one is more ambitious then just stopping a small, parent-run community support group. Now, their goal is to stop anyone in Australia (today Australia – tomorrow the world as far as this bunch of ratbags is concerned) from learning about or using natural therapies. Their mad campaign is getting plenty of publicity too!

They have just set up a new front group called Friends of Science in Medicine (FSM) which is behind the new effort to outlaw the teaching of any natural medicine course in University. This organisation ultimately wants to shut down homeopathy, chiropractic, acupuncture, naturopathy, herbalism, ayurvedic therapies and on and on. In their unspeakable arrogance, they claim that there is no evidence for therapies which have been used safely and effectively, in many cases, for thousands of years. Instead, they say, we should all be forced to exclusively rely on mainstream medicine with its dreadful record of poor safety and effectiveness!

If you, like me, use natural therapists – either as your first port of call for treating and maintaining your family’s health, or as an adjunct to more mainstream therapies, I hope you will throw your support behind the natural therapy organisations such as the ATMS, ACNEM, CAA, AHA, COCA and others who must be working hard behind the scenes to protect not only their member practitioners, but the health consumers of Australia. It is going to take a concerted effort on all our parts to prevent these organisations from destroying such a necessary sector of Australia’s healthcare industry.

As a healthcare consumer, I will be fighting for my rights to choose my own healthcare. I hope you will join me in this fight and also, that you will contact the industry bodies for the modality or modalities you frequent to ask them to join you in preserving the rights of their practitioners as well as your ability to choose the treatments that work for you. We should also be contacting the ACCC to complain against the anti-competitive behaviour of those who are trying to say that drug-based medicine is the only answer for all health problems and should have a monopoly in Australia.

Please read the information below from the Alliance for Health Freedom Australia.

Dear AHFA Subscriber,

There has been a recent push in Australia to peel back the initiatives made with regards to Complimentary and Alternative Medicine (CAM). This push is coming from a group called the Australian Skeptics. Some of these Skeptics have links to pharmaceutical and drug company interests. One of the more prominent members of the Skeptics is Dick Smith. Professor John Dwyer is affiliated with them also. The Sceptics have a modus operandi – they manage to have a media release in a major paper like the Sydney Morning Herald pushing their point of view, followed by or in parallel with a letter writing campaign by individual Skeptics aimed at politicians or government organisations such as the Australia Consumer Complaint Tribunal (ACCC), Health Care Complaints Commission or the Therapeutic Goods Administration. The Skeptics are very adapt at manipulating opinion in a way that makes organisations or governments think the general public are more involved than what they in fact are.

The most recent initiative by the Australian Skeptics is to try to close down all university courses in Australia with regards to CAM. This includes Chinese medicine and Naturopathy. They are also trying to close down the Chiropractic courses. This push by the Skeptics is also aimed at undermining the new hospital being built in Chatswood, of which the University of Western Sydney will be a research partner. This hospital will incorporate western orthodox medicine along with Chinese medicine as it is utalised in China. This is a wonderful service for the public but unfortunately the Skeptics and their pharmaceutical industry ties do not want to see this happen.

Please read the article below and become familiar with this issue.

Best regards

The AHFA Team

This morning, Fran Kelly on ABC Radio National, interviewed Prof Dwyer from the Skeptics and Friends of Science in Medicine as well as Dr Kerryn Phelps, former head of the Australian Medical Association, now working in an integrative medical practice. The subject was – should universities in Australia be allowed to continue providing courses in natural therapies – courses in subjects which Prof Dwyer calls quackery but which Dr Phelps considers to be evidence based and helpful in cases where drug-based treatment may not be appropriate.

Please have a listen to this interview (Dwyer-Phelps below) and tell me what you think. It seemed to me that Prof Dwyer was illogical, rabid and overly emotional while Dr Phelps was calm and well-informed. Even Fran Kelly who, from past experience, is no friend to natural medicine, was getting a bit fed up with Prof Dwyer’s constant vitriol. Dwyer also appeared to be quite ill-informed on the subject of natural medicine. He tried to insinuate that homeopathy is taught as a degree course in universities when it isn’t. He then complained that CAMs get government funding. A bit rich when Western medicine is virtually 100% government subsidised – paid for by you and me – while the 50% of Australians who choose to use CAMs have to pay for it out of their own pockets!


Lastly, here is a letter I received today from a long-time member and recently retired natural healthcare practitioner. This person had received the letter from the AHFA (quoted above) and their experience with these efforts goes way back. As they said, it was a close call last time and the opposition were not nearly as well-organised or funded then as they are now.

Hi Meryl

I’m sure you are aware of this , but just in case it went under your radar I thought I’d forward it to you. I see it’s the same mob who have been harrassing you so badly . I see Ian Fraser is amongst the skeptics. How does he keep his creditability with the amount of damage his vaccine has perpetrated on our young population? There are enough complaints on the net to label him quack.

I do hope AVN has a positive outcome [in our court case on the 22nd of February]. Whatever is happening to our ‘freedom’, those who ‘think ‘ they know better are trying to make sure we are not allowed to be in charge of our own bodies. I’m afraid I’m cynical. I ‘m sure it isn’t to ensure public safety but more about their investments both monetary and educational, I think Natural Medicine is coming into it’s own and becoming a serious threat to the Medical Sickness Industry’s profits.

Many years ago in the late eighties – early nineties, the government tried to get it through parliament to put all vitamins and herbs on doctor’s prescription. I was a practicing medical herbalist (just retired) at the time. We fought tooth and nail. We were lucky there was a federal election looming. It was close and we managed to get the Australian Democrats on side  with promises to support them at the polls. Well the outcome was: the proposals were dropped. I don’t know what the political situation is this time. What I do know is that the Austaralian Health Services cannot cope now, and it certainly would fail the Australian people miserably if CAM (Complementary and Alternative Medicine) disappeared overnight.

I have a huge extended family and we all use natural medicine for everything, though concede in case of accident, we would require medical services. For my own part, I am in my 70’s and have seen a medical doctor I think twice in the last 25 years, and one of those visits was to get a form signed that know one else could sign. I thought that was a bad enough imposition on my freedom of choice.

If there are any petitions started please let me know.

Again best of luck with your case my prayers are with you.


Please take the time to write to the following bodies. Tell them that you support their right to practice, and be sure to include information about the fact that you use natural therapies yourself and you would like to know what they will do to ensure that these treatments will still be available to you and to their members. Contact your local practitioners as well and ask if they have heard about these activities and whether or not they have contacted their industry bodies if they have. If you can cc me with your letters, that would be great at

Chiropractor’s Association of Australia (CAA) –

Chiropractic and Osteopathic College of Australia (COCA) –

Australian Homeopathic Association (AHA) –

Australian Traditional Medicine Society (ATMS) –

Australian Natural Therapists Association (ANTA) – Contact Form

If you know of an association that I have not mentioned which should be contacted (I know there are plenty more), please let me know and I will update this blog post with their details.