Experts in Ignorance

ignorance of expertsWe are told all the time that we are not qualified to make medical or healthcare decisions for ourselves or our children. Instead, we need to leave it up to the ‘experts’ – namely the doctors and medical specialists – whose training has supposedly made them better-qualified than any of our own research and knowledge possibly could.

This is despite the FACT that medical doctors learn very little (nothing, really) about vaccination, nutrition or most other aspects of staying healthy when they receive their medical school training. Once they leave school, much of their continuing education comes directly from the drug companies so really, I think they are not qualified to advise anyone about these topics. The only exception would be if they themselves have done research outside of their normal areas and, if they have done so and offer advice that goes against the status quo, they are threatened with deregistration or worse!

Most doctors are only qualified to advise patients about drugs, and even that qualification is not independent since, as I said earlier, their training, in large part, comes from the multinational pharmaceutical companies who test and market their own products.

Do doctors understand health?

If you feel that health does not come from a pill or a needle, I think there is very little that a doctor can offer you in the way of staying healthy.

Time and time again, doctors have demonstrated clearly that their knowledge of the basics of health and the immune system/infectious diseases is seriously lacking.

A recent example of this was the incident with Dr Richard Kidd, head of the Australian Medical Association in QLD. During a hearing into legislative changes in the QLD Parliament, Dr Kidd advised a sitting Member to ask her doctor to give her an MMR (measles, mumps and rubella) vaccine during her next pregnancy. This despite the fact that MMR is absolutely contraindicated during pregnancy because the rubella portion of the shot could possibly cause congenital rubella syndrome in an unborn child.

I filed an official complaint with the QLD Health Care Complaints about Dr Kidd’s dangerous advice and was told that because Dr Kidd had said this during a hearing, it was not official advice and therefore, was not covered by their legislation! Yet, if you’d said this to your neighbour over the back fence, you could be in trouble! Double standards once again.

In the last few days, another AMA official – this one, none other than the National President – has demonstrated an incredible ignorance of something so basic, most parents would be ashamed to have made this kind of error.

AMA and PolioLuckily, Dr Julie Leask (a social scientist – not a medical doctor) picked him up on his mistake, but the fact remains that not only is the President of the AMA displaying a shocking lack of knowledge about one of the main diseases we vaccinate against, but he is comparing those of us who are better informed and better qualified than himself on this subject (e.g., most educated parents and natural therapists/holistic GPs) to Islamic terrorists!

Now, I can’t follow the link to the BBC article the @amapresident was referring to because he removed his original tweet (what is it with health officials constantly trying to rewrite history in order to cover up their numerous errors?) but the implication is obvious: If you are sharing information about vaccination that the AMA does not agree with, you are the equivalent of a terrorist.

Responsible health choices

I believe that making decisions by ONLY seeking the advice of self-proclaimed experts who make such basic errors is irresponsible. I also believe that parents should be taking responsibility for the health of their children, and this means that in addition to speaking with their doctors, they should be seeking out information from a wide range of sources, including their own reading and research and sourcing data from organisations that are critical of government vaccination policies such as the Australian Vaccination Network and the National Vaccine Information Centre (for just two examples).

To show you that this sort of institutional ignorance is nothing new, here is an interview I did on Channel 7’s Sunrise Program in 2002 with Dr Trevor Mudge, then Vice President of the AMA. While I was able to cite data from peer-reviewed medical journal sources, Dr Mudge’s only comeback was to accuse me of being Anti-Vaccine and therefore, claim that everything I said was wrong whilst not being able to back up anything he said with source material.

He admitted that we did not test vaccines here in Australia; he admitted that he had no information on the known side effects and deaths from the vaccine in question (the then unlicensed meningococcal vaccine) and he admitted that the strain covered by the shot did not match the circulating strain of the majority of cases in Australia.

Despite these admissions and despite his lack of knowledge, he still urged people to get this shot because – SCIENCE!

There’s science – and then, there are vaccines…

Science means never having to say you haven’t studied anything thoroughly. Science means always questioning, always testing and never making any absolute statements because today’s science is tomorrow’s junk.

The ignorance being displayed by those who the government claims are the experts we should be listening to without question is disturbing. It is frightening and it should not be allowed to continue.

Doctors have done nothing to earn our trust or our respect, nor have their peak bodies. Indeed, the arrogance, the ignorance and the insistence on being trusted simply because they are doctors has only led to a great deal of suspicion from the majority of the thinking public.

Some doctors have even gone so far as to say that those who disagree with them should be punished, fined or jailed for their beliefs – even if those beliefs are backed by real science! The question that needs to be asked here is – is there more than one way to stay healthy? And if the answer to that question is yes, should any one segment of society – especially one responsible for a holocaust’s worth of pain, death and suffering worldwide each year – be allowed to dictate to others?

YOU as the parent and a thinking adult are and will always be the expert on your body and on the bodies of your children. YOU should ask your doctor for advice, but YOU should only consider taking that advice after seeking out a second (and perhaps a third) opinion, doing your own research and considering your options carefully.

Any doctor who does not respect that innate right; any industry body (like the AMA) who insists on your not being allowed to make these choices, deserves to be shut down; and any government that tries to force free citizens to make medical choices which they do not feel is in their family’s best interest deserves to be charged with crimes against humanity and replaced by a truly representative body.

Vaccination does not equal immunisation


Pinnochio womanIn part 3 of the AVN’s series critiquing the new booklet The Science of Immunisation, published by the Australian Academy of Science, Meryl Dorey takes a look at how this booklet incorrectly uses the words vaccination and immunisation as if they both meant the same thing
.

Medical ‘science’ uses the words ‘vaccination’ and ‘immunisation’ as though they described the same phenomenon and were interchangeable. They don’t and they aren’t. In science, an animal or human is immune when they are no longer susceptible to a disease. So, for instance, a child who develops measles naturally, even if exposed to the disease many times over its lifetime, will not develop symptoms again because that child is immune.

A child who receives a measles vaccine does not have the same benefit because vaccination cannot provide true lifetime protection in the same way that natural infection can. So that child can be fully vaccinated yet still get the disease. What’s worse, the vaccinated child may never be capable of developing natural immunity due to having received the vaccine and so, is prone to getting the illness over and over again – a situation which only started to occur after the development of mass vaccination against measles.

Despite the knowledge that vaccines don’t immunise and immunisation cannot be conveyed by the process of injecting vaccines into children, adults and animals, the recent booklet entitled The Science of Immunisation, issued by the Australian Academy of Science with financial backing from both the Australian Government and the Australian Medical Association, continues to peddle the myth that vaccinations and immunisations are equal.

Below is a quote from page 3 of the booklet:

What is immunisation?

The purpose of immunisation is to prevent people from acquiring infectious diseases and to protect them against the associated short- and longer-term complications. Immunisation describes the process whereby people are protected against an infection; vaccine refers to the material used for immunisation, while vaccination refers to the act of giving a vaccine to a person. Vaccines work by stimulating the body’s defence mechanisms (immune system) against an infection, helping the immune system detect and destroy the infection when it is encountered in the future without development of significant symptoms or complications.

Page 3, The Science of Immunisation

When those who present themselves as scientists repeatedly say something that is verifiably untrue – and has been known to be verifiably untrue not just for one or two years but for many decades, it is reasonable to question everything they say.

False in one thing…

There is a saying in the law, falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus (false in one thing, false in everything). In other words, once someone is shown to have made intentionally false statements about one thing, everything else they say is considered to be suspect until proven otherwise.

The words ‘immunisation’ and ‘vaccination’ are quite different and cannot and should not be used interchangeably. The fact that they are used that way in this booklet which is supposed to inform parents about how vaccines work, is quite sinister and I believe is meant to intentionally mislead and deceive Australians about the ability of vaccines to prevent diseases.

In fact, it is known that antibodies are not necessary in order to become immune (perhaps resistant might be a better term) to a disease and in fact, the presence of antibodies only means that you have been exposed to a virus or bacteria – not that you have developed immunity or resistance to it. [1],[2],[3][4]

The role of antibodies – peripheral to protection

The various layers of the human and animal defence systems are not well-understood, but there is knowledge that we have garnered over the last few hundred years about how and why diseases occur in some people whilst avoiding others. Apparently, antibodies have little or no role to play when determining whether or not a person will develop an illness. It is interesting to note that the language in this booklet admits as much.

Rather than saying that vaccines will prevent a person from getting a disease they have been vaccinated against, it simply states that vaccination will “… destroy the infection … without development of significant symptoms or complications.”

This is quite different from what most parents are told by their doctors, the majority of whom also use the words ‘immunisation’ and ‘vaccination’ interchangeably.

Parents in Australia and around the world are told that if they get their child vaccinated against a certain disease – whooping cough for example – their child will be protected against the illness.

How differently might parents look at this issue if they were told that the vaccine isn’t actually intended to prevent infection with whooping cough but simply to “… destroy the infection … without development of significant symptoms or complications …”? In other words, vaccinated people can and do still get whooping cough but supposedly, their symptoms will be less than the symptoms in an unvaccinated person.

What does this admission do to the medical community’s long-held belief in ‘herd immunity’? If vaccination is not actually meant to prevent infection but simply to reduce morbidity (the severity of symptoms), then herd immunity is as much a myth as antibody-induced immunity – the only sort that vaccination is meant to produce in the person or animal vaccinated!

I think most parents would be less likely to subject their children to the risk of vaccines – especially once they knew that there are no clinical studies showing that those who are vaccinated are less likely to develop “significant symptoms or complications”. In fact, due to the alternations in immune function which often follow administration of vaccines, (immune-suppression, autoimmunity, etc.) one could argue that those who are vaccinated may be more likely to have severe symptoms than those who are unvaccinated.

The one study that will set parents’ minds at ease…

Without studies comparing the overall health of the fully vaccinated with the fully unvaccinated – studies which the Australian Vaccination Network has been urging the government to undertake for many years and which they consistently refuse to conduct – we will never know the truth.

So when this booklet claims that vaccines will reduce a vaccinated person’s risk of developing “significant symptoms or complications” from the disease despite a lack of robust scientific data backing up those assertions, it is being both deceptive and misleading. Those who published it must be challenged to show us the science.


[1] Antibodies Are Not Required for Immunity Against Some Viruses; http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/03/120301143426.htm
A new study turns the well established theory that antibodies are required for antiviral immunity upside down and reveals that an unexpected partnership between the specific and non-specific divisions of the immune system is critical for fighting some types of viral infections. The research, published online on March 1st in the journal Immunity by Cell Press, may lead to a new understanding of the best way to help protect those exposed to potentially lethal viruses, such as the rabies virus.

[2] Correlates of Vaccine-Induced Immunity; http://cid.oxfordjournals.org/content/47/3/401.full

The immune system is redundant, and B and T cells collaborate. However, almost all current vaccines work through induction of antibodies in serum or on mucosa that block infection or interfere with microbial invasion of the bloodstream. To protect, antibodies must be functional in the sense of neutralization or opsonophagocytosis. Correlates of protection after vaccination are sometimes absolute quantities but often are relative, such that most infections are prevented at a particular level of response but some will occur above that level because of a large challenge dose or deficient host factors. There may be >1 correlate of protection for a disease, which we term “cocorrelates.” Either effector or central memory may correlate with protection. Cell-mediated immunity also may operate as a correlate or cocorrelate of protection against disease, rather than against infection. In situations where the true correlate of protection is unknown or difficult to measure, surrogate tests (usually antibody measurements) must suffice as predictors of protection by vaccines. Examples of each circumstance are given.

[3] Vaccine Immunology; http://www.who.int/immunization/documents/Elsevier_Vaccine_immunology.pdf

To generate vaccine-mediated protection is a complex challenge. Currently available vaccines have largely been developed empirically, with little or no understanding on how they activate the immune system. Their early protective efficacy is primarily conferred by the induction of antigen-specific antibodies (Box 2–1). However, there is more to antibody-mediated protection than the peak of vaccine-induced antibody titers. The quality of such antibody responses, e.g., their avidity, has been identified as a determining factor of efficacy. In addition, long-term protection requires the persistence of vaccine antibodies and/or the generation of immune memory cells capable of rapid and effective reactivation upon subsequent microbial exposure. The determinants of immune memory induction, as well as the relative contribution of persisting antibodies and of immune memory to protection against specific diseases, are thus essential parameters of long-term vaccine efficacy. The predominant role of B cells in the efficacy of current vaccines should not shadow the importance of T cell responses: T cells are essential to the induction of high-affinity antibodies and immune memory, and novel vaccine targets have been identified against which T cells are likely to be the prime effectors. New methods have emerged allowing us to assess a growing number of vaccine-associated immune parameters, including in humans. This development raises new questions relative to the optimal markers to assess and their correlation with vaccine-induced protection. The identification of immune correlates— or at least surrogates—of vaccine efficacy is a major asset for the development of new vaccines or the optimization of immunization strategies using available vaccines. Thus, their determination generates a considerable amount of interest at all levels, from the immunologist working at the bench to the physician wishing to optimize a vaccine schedule for a specific patient. The tailoring of vaccine strategies for specific vulnerable populations, being the very young, the elderly or the immunosuppressed, is also largely relying on a better understanding of what supports or limits vaccine efficacy under special circumstances. Last, the exponential development of new vaccines raises many questions that are not limited to the targeted diseases and the potential impacts of their prevention, but address the specific and non-specific impacts of such vaccines on the immune system, and thus on health in general. These immune-related concerns have largely spread into the population and questions related to the immunological safety of vaccines, i.e., to their capacity of triggering non-antigen specific responses possibly leading to conditions such as allergy, autoimmunity or even premature death are being raised. The objective of this chapter is to extract from the complex and rapidly evolving fi eld of immunology the main concepts that are useful to better address these important questions.

[4] The kind of research which led to this a broader perspective on the body’s immunological mechanisms included a mid-century British investigation on the relationship of the incidence of diphtheria to the presence of antibodies. The study concluded that there was no observable correlation between the antibody count and the incidence of the disease.” “The researchers found people who were highly resistant with extremely low antibody count, and people who developed the disease who had high antibody counts.35 (According to Don de Savingy of IDRC, the significance of the role of multiple immunological factors and mechanisms has gained wide recognition in scientific thinking. [For example, it is now generally held that vaccines operate by stimulating non-humeral mechanisms, with antibody serving only as an indicator that a vaccine was given, or that a person was exposed to a particular infectious agent.])”

http://alternative-doctor.com/vaccination/obomsawin.html – Obomsawin’s reference:

35 James, W., Immunization–The Reality Behind The Myth, Bergin & Garvey Publishers Inc., S. Hadley, Massachussetts, 1988, p. 64, refers to original source reference: Report No. 272, British Medical Council, London, England, May, 1950

[1] Antibodies Are Not Required for Immunity Against Some Viruses; http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/03/120301143426.htm
A new study turns the well established theory that antibodies are required for antiviral immunity upside down and reveals that an unexpected partnership between the specific and non-specific divisions of the immune system is critical for fighting some types of viral infections. The research, published online on March 1st in the journal Immunity by Cell Press, may lead to a new understanding of the best way to help protect those exposed to potentially lethal viruses, such as the rabies virus.

[1] Correlates of Vaccine-Induced Immunity; http://cid.oxfordjournals.org/content/47/3/401.full

The immune system is redundant, and B and T cells collaborate. However, almost all current vaccines work through induction of antibodies in serum or on mucosa that block infection or interfere with microbial invasion of the bloodstream. To protect, antibodies must be functional in the sense of neutralization or opsonophagocytosis. Correlates of protection after vaccination are sometimes absolute quantities but often are relative, such that most infections are prevented at a particular level of response but some will occur above that level because of a large challenge dose or deficient host factors. There may be >1 correlate of protection for a disease, which we term “cocorrelates.” Either effector or central memory may correlate with protection. Cell-mediated immunity also may operate as a correlate or cocorrelate of protection against disease, rather than against infection. In situations where the true correlate of protection is unknown or difficult to measure, surrogate tests (usually antibody measurements) must suffice as predictors of protection by vaccines. Examples of each circumstance are given.

[1] Vaccine Immunology; http://www.who.int/immunization/documents/Elsevier_Vaccine_immunology.pdf

To generate vaccine-mediated protection is a complex challenge. Currently available vaccines have largely been developed empirically, with little or no understanding on how they activate the immune system. Their early protective efficacy is primarily conferred by the induction of antigen-specific antibodies (Box 2–1). However, there is more to antibody-mediated protection than the peak of vaccine-induced antibody titers. The quality of such antibody responses, e.g., their avidity, has been identified as a determining factor of efficacy. In addition, long-term protection requires the persistence of vaccine antibodies and/or the generation of immune memory cells capable of rapid and effective reactivation upon subsequent microbial exposure. The determinants of immune memory induction, as well as the relative contribution of persisting antibodies and of immune memory to protection against specific diseases, are thus essential parameters of long-term vaccine efficacy. The predominant role of B cells in the efficacy of current vaccines should not shadow the importance of T cell responses: T cells are essential to the induction of high-affinity antibodies and immune memory, and novel vaccine targets have been identified against which T cells are likely to be the prime effectors. New methods have emerged allowing us to assess a growing number of vaccine-associated immune parameters, including in humans. This development raises new questions relative to the optimal markers to assess and their correlation with vaccine-induced protection. The identification of immune correlates— or at least surrogates—of vaccine efficacy is a major asset for the development of new vaccines or the optimization of immunization strategies using available vaccines. Thus, their determination generates a considerable amount of interest at all levels, from the immunologist working at the bench to the physician wishing to optimize a vaccine schedule for a specific patient. The tailoring of vaccine strategies for specific vulnerable populations, being the very young, the elderly or the immunosuppressed, is also largely relying on a better understanding of what supports or limits vaccine efficacy under special circumstances. Last, the exponential development of new vaccines raises many questions that are not limited to the targeted diseases and the potential impacts of their prevention, but address the specific and non-specific impacts of such vaccines on the immune system, and thus on health in general. These immune-related concerns have largely spread into the population and questions related to the immunological safety of vaccines, i.e., to their capacity of triggering non-antigen specific responses possibly leading to conditions such as allergy, autoimmunity or even premature death are being raised. The objective of this chapter is to extract from the complex and rapidly evolving fi eld of immunology the main concepts that are useful to better address these important questions.

[1] The kind of research which led to this a broader perspective on the body’s immunological mechanisms included a mid-century British investigation on the relationship of the incidence of diphtheria to the presence of antibodies. The study concluded that there was no observable correlation between the antibody count and the incidence of the disease.” “The researchers found people who were highly resistant with extremely low antibody count, and people who developed the disease who had high antibody counts.35 (According to Don de Savingy of IDRC, the significance of the role of multiple immunological factors and mechanisms has gained wide recognition in scientific thinking. [For example, it is now generally held that vaccines operate by stimulating non-humeral mechanisms, with antibody serving only as an indicator that a vaccine was given, or that a person was exposed to a particular infectious agent.])”

http://alternative-doctor.com/vaccination/obomsawin.html – Obomsawin’s reference:

35 James, W., Immunization–The Reality Behind The Myth, Bergin & Garvey Publishers Inc., S. Hadley, Massachussetts, 1988, p. 64, refers to original source reference: Report No. 272, British Medical Council, London, England, May, 1950

Mark & David versus Goliath…

Mark & David versus Goliath….

The turn-around is well and truly started. First, the AVN won its case against the Health Care Complaints Commission’s (HCCC’s) decision to both investigate our organisation and to issue a warning against us. Both of those were ruled to be Ultra vires (outside of their jurisdiction and illegal) by the NSW Supreme Court.

Then, Professor John Walker-Smith, a co-author with Dr Andrew Wakefield of the 1998 case series published in the Lancet which posed the hypothetical question – can the MMR vaccine be associated with some cases of gut disease and autism – won his case against the General Medical Council (GMC) and had his license reinstated.

Now, we see that Dr Andrew Wakefield is taking Brian Deer, Dr Fiona Godlee of the British Medical Journal and the British Medical Journal itself to court in Texas (where he now lives) on charges of defamation and the defendants have already been caught it lies – they are obviously quite shaken because they felt they were untouchable – being supported by big pharma’s nearly bottomless pockets – yet now they are finding that they are not above the law after all. What a rude awakening!

In this article from Tim Bolen, we read about 2 other doctors who have been attacked by pharma-thugs and the worldwide pseudo-skeptic movement of which both The Australian Skeptics and Stop the AVN (SAVN) are a part.

Drs Mark and David Geier – a father and son medical team – have published many scientific research papers in peer-reviewed journals on the problems with vaccination and especially on the link between the vaccine-adjuvant / preservative, thiomersal which is 49.5% mercury.

As a result of this research, they have been subjected to an incredible barrage of complaints and Mark Geier has even had his license to practice medicine suspended by a medical community that is fearful of those who don’t toe the party line. The complaints against him were not from any of the patients he was treating. Just as with Andrew Wakefield, Dr Geier’s patients and their families supported him 100%. The complaints came from within the medical board who were simply neutralising a threat to themselves by getting rid of ‘competition’.

The Geiers have not taken these attacks lying down and in fact, they are winning the war against those who would try and suppress information critical of vaccine safety and effectiveness.

I believe we are currently on the cusp of some very major victories in this area and the attacks will only get worse in the near future as a result. But what we are seeing is the last gasp of a dying industry which can see quite clearly that, while they have won the battle to purchase the hearts and minds of those in government and the media – the general public are no longer for sale and have decided to shop elsewhere.

Why is Australia in the midst of a whooping cough epidemic

Following is the transcript of an interview on Gary Hardgrave’s Drive programme on 4BC (Brisbane), yesterday afternoon, the 18th of January. This is in regards to the current record levels of whooping cough in Australia (and worldwide) and the vilification by the government and medical community who blame the unvaccinated for the outbreak whilst ignoring the evidence that the vaccine is not working and may itself, be the source of the epidemic.

GH: Doctors are fearing a rise in whooping cough, yet we’ve been immunising people for ages. Just what is going on here? I thought immunising against whooping cough was supposed to prevent it and there’s been a mini epidemic in far north Queensland. I don’t know much more details than that. I’m wondering if it’s within indigenous communities or possibly within newly arrived migrants. I don’t know, but others are saying no, it’s a pretty broad cross section of our community that have been called out of that. We’ll talk about that in some detail in a moment.

We return with this apparent mini epidemic of whooping cough. I had a touch of whooping cough when I was a young tacker and I as far as I know was immunised. It is not a nice thing. Australia’s gone from having only 332 cases of whooping cough per year in 1991 to having something like 38,000 cases in 2011. That’s the claim. 10,000% increase. I thought we were immunising people against this.

The Australian Vaccination Network’s Meryl Dorey joins us, Meryl I know you’re not a big fan of vaccination, but something’s wrong here.

MD: Well something is definitely wrong here. It’s not that I’m a fan or not a fan of vaccinations, but I am a fan of using scientific information to say that what we’re doing works and it’s not a mini epidemic that’s happening for whooping cough. We’re actually starting the fifth year of a record-breaking number of cases of whooping cough. When the vaccine was introduced in 1953 we had about 180 cases of whooping cough per 100,000 population in Australia and right now, with our vaccination rate going from 0 to 95%, we have 180 cases per 100,000 head of population. So we’ve actually seen no improvement in the incidence of whooping cough and what’s occurring in Australia is what is occurring around the world. Any place that the vaccine is being used we’re seeing this huge increase, an absolutely enormous increase in incidence, 10,000% in the last 20 years in Australia and the vaccine may very well be responsible for it. What the medical community is saying is that in the same way that antibiotics can lead to antibiotic resistant bacteria, well over use of the whooping cough vaccine has actually caused a mutation in the bacteria that causes whooping cough and it’s no longer in the vaccine.

GH: Yeah so what you’re saying really is we need a bit more science to check out what we’re actually vaccinating against?

MD: Absolutely. And right now the medical community and the government are using this outbreak of whooping cough to try and get people to vaccinate more but we are vaccinating more than we’ve ever vaccinated before and it’s not having any effect. Like you said – you thought, I thought, everyone thought – that when they vaccinated against whooping cough, it meant that they were protected. But now, even the medical community is saying, “No, you’re not protected. It may just mean that you get the disease milder.” and I have to tell you that from my research, there isn’t any evidence that that’s the case either. We are getting more cases of whooping cough than we’ve had in decades and it’s despite a 24% increase in the vaccination rate against whooping cough in Australia in the last 20 years.

GH: But I was vaccinated when I was a kid because I’ve been born 1953, I was born on January 5th in 1953 if anyone wants to write that down for my 60th birthday, my point being that I had a mild form of whooping cough when I was a kid, it terrified my parents, it was an aweful time they reckon.

MD: Well that’s it. And from the statistics we’ve gotten from the government, it appears that something close to 80% of all cases of whooping cough are occurring in fully vaccinated people so you know, we have a situation where we’re getting a huge incidence of disease and we’re being told that the only answer is to get more vaccinations, more vaccinations, but we already have so many people vaccinated and the disease is not declining – it’s actually increasing. And what the AVN says is that we have about a 95% vaccination rate against whooping cough right now. If the government wants to increase that even higher, and that’s a pretty high vaccination rate, a lot of parents that we speak with are very concerned about whether or not giving their children vaccines is going to keep them healthy. And we have been asking, organisations like the AVN around the world have been asking for decades now, for the governments to do the one study that will actually make parents feel more comfortable about giving their children these vaccines and that is a study comparing the overall health of children who are fully vaccinated with children who are completely unvaccinated but that’s never been done.

GH: All right, SOMETHING is out there, I appreciate your time.

MD: Thank you.

GH: We’ll talk to you again.

M: Thanks a lot.

GH: Meryl Dorey, President of the Australian Vaccination Network. They say parents have the right to choose. And I am a great believer in vaccination but I get the point that she’s making that I’m very, very interested in because whether or not we’re vaccinating against exactly the same thing, or the right thing, that we should be vaccinating against.

Doctor Richard Kidd, President of the Australian Medical Association joins us. Vaccinations do make sense but are we getting the vaccination right?

RK: Hi Gary. Yes, I think we are using the right vaccines. The tricky thing here is that people like you and me who got vaccinated as young children, the vaccines that we used then are different to the ones now.

R: So they keep updating the vaccine, that’s what you’re saying?

K: they do, and improving them. And whooping cough is still not one of the ones where we’ve got a vaccine that gives life-long protection. If you’re vaccinated against, Hepatitis B for example, we now have pretty good evidence that you can, if it’s demonstrated that you become immune through a blood test, that immunity will probably last you the rest of your life. Unfortunately, that’s not the case with whooping cough so people like you and me who got vaccinated as children are losing that immunity now so we need to be revaccinated, especially if we’re going to be in contact with babies. The problem with whooping cough is that children under the age of 6 months who contract whooping cough, one in about 200 die from pneumonia or brain damage and the reason that we have a series of vaccinations given through the time that someone’s a baby and then to early childhood is that we know that while the immune system is immune, a single vaccine isn’t going to be enough to generate proper immunity. Well that’s why these poor kids go through the vaccinations at 2 months, 4 months, 6 months, 12 months, 18 months and in the case of whooping cough they have them a number of times. So practically no baby will have protective immunity at the age of 6 months or younger against whooping cough so the reason society has to pull together to try to minimise the chance of exposing new born babies to whooping cough.

GH: So, I mean the point made by the Australian Vaccination Network, and I know the Queensland government has feared, that we shouldn’t be taking their side of it, we should be taking other things but we want to have a debate here though. The point they’re making is, I think possibly very timely in that you were sort of making the same point from a different starting position and that is that the vaccine we thought that would work for us may need to be updated. We in fact need, as grown-ups now, to reconsider whether or not we’re properly vaccinated against whooping cough.

RK: That’s right, a number of the, well just about all the vaccines that we have as children, we know now did protect us to some degree and no vaccine will guarantee that someone won’t get a disease but if you’ve been vaccinated and your immune system has actually worked then if you get exposed to it, like for example chicken pox. There’s a lot of evidence that a kid who’s had a chicken pox vaccine, but then might actually catch chicken pox later on and most of them don’t, but the ones who do will only get a few blisters rather than getting covered from head to foot and maybe getting a chicken pox pneumonia or something else so as with your experience, the whooping cough vaccine probably worked for you in that you only got a mild disease.

GH: Well, it was pretty awful though. I do remember it, having the lamps burning in the middle of the night, all sorts of stuff; it was all old technology I suppose.

RK: Yeah, at least you’re alive.

GH: Well all true! And it’s a god awful thing because the kids literally shake their brain loose from coughing and so forth.

RK: Yeah, you know 1 in 200 will die under the age of 6 months.

GH: Okay, so what should we be doing? As grown-ups, and you say those of us who might be seeing babies, we should perhaps be talking to our doctor and saying I want to update my vaccine? Is that what we should be doing?

RK; Absolutely, and the government is supporting young adults, well adults who are expecting to have a baby so people who are expecting to have a baby, mum and dad can go along and get that vaccine for free. The rest of us have to cough up and pay for the vaccine so you know, the grandparents, the uncles, the aunts, the friends who know that they’re going to go and visit someone who’s had a baby, all of us should be getting our whooping cough vaccines.

GH: All right well my family if you’re listening to that because we’ve got one due in the next couple of weeks so I think we’ll be going getting a jab by the sounds of it. Good to talk to you, thanks for your time.

RK: you too

GH: Doctor Richard Kidd, I mean this is some pretty big numbers here, 745 confirmed cases the number of whooping cough cases in far north Queensland, a 400% increase in 2011, I mean this is serious. What you thought you were vaccinated for you may not be now. I think that’s the point, the common point, from both of those contributors.

Magic water? The effectiveness of homeopathy


The AMA and most mainstream medical groups have a name for homeopathic remedies – they call them magic water. In their efforts to force the government to restrict access to these remedies which have never caused anyone harm and which have been used safely in both hospital and home settings for well over 200 years, these industry lobby groups have used this term to try and denigrate not only homeopathy itself – but those who administer and use these treatments.

I am not a homeopath and am not qualified to give a professional opinion on this issue. I have, however, used homeopathy myself and on both my children and my pets without any ill effects and have seen this modality work quickly on illnesses which ‘modern’ medicine has no treatment for such as whooping cough, gastroenteritis and (in my dogs) paralysis ticks. I have also read large-scale studies on the use of homeopathic remedies which have often shown them to be safer and more effective than drug-based treatments.

This was brought home to me just yesterday when I spoke with a friend whose husband has been ill and in and out of hospital for the last couple of years. This gentleman has had ongoing health issues for decades and his wife – a trained nurse who has personally used homoeopathy for years (due to her efforts to help her own family when allopathic medicine had failed them) has worked hard to keep him as healthy as possible – a job that has become much more difficult through his precipitous decline in health of late.

Recently, he was once again admitted to hospital. He expected to be back home within a short period of time but this last visit ended up lasting for 6 months! At the time of admission, he was taking one medication. As his condition deteriorated during this period, however, he went from 1 to 22 different drugs a day! With the addition of each one, his health worsened, resulting in an extremely long hospitalisation by anyone’s standards. His wife said that most of the doctors and nurses were extremely caring but none could see or accept that this man’s deteriorating health was because of his treatment, not in spite of it. After all, he was receiving the best treatment our taxes could buy.

And while this woman had tried to advise her husband to have a care and try to reduce the number drugs he was taking, like many who are trapped in the hospital system and fearful of disobeying doctors’ orders, he continued to take the ever-increased number of medications prescribed for him.

I believe it would be correct to say that there would not be any studies in the medical literature on the use of these 22 medications when administered together as to their synergistic or cumulative effects – but that lack of evidence seems to not stop doctors from using drugs in this way.

Eventually this man, unable to leave his bed and exercise appropriately, developed a hospital-acquired pneumonia. These pneumonias are tricky to treat and frequently lead to death because the bacteria associated with them are usually resistant to most, if not all antibiotics. Six weeks of oxygen and numerous oral and intravenous antibiotics did not help. Instead, this man deteriorated even further. Scans and xrays showed that his pneumonia had progressed to a plural effusion (a collection of fluid in the chest cavity around the lung) that had completely collapsed one lung and  partially collapsed the other. A needle was inserted into his chest several times to try and suck out some of the fluid but it was too thick. The radiographer reported that the effusion now appeared to be an empyema (a collection of pus around a lung). As you can imagine, this man was now very sick. He was wheezing loudly as he breathed and even though on oxygen, was still gasping for air. He was also becoming confused at times and imagining people were there when they weren’t.  Surgery was scheduled for 3 days later when an appropriate surgeon would be available. the gunk was to be removed from inside his chest and replaced with an irritant that would cause the inside of the chest wall and the outside of the lung to become inflamed and eventually stick together with scar tissue so that the lung couldn’t collapse again.

Aside from the normal risks of this or any surgical procedure (hospital-borne infection, medical error, a slip of the knife…), his wife knew that once her husband had this surgery, his body and the way it functioned would be permanently altered. 

She talked with her husband and strongly suggested he drop some of the unnecessary medicines, something he had been too anxious to do up to that point, and at the same time allow her to contact their family’s homeopath who had been treating him regularly prior to his hospital admission. He agreed. She then spoke to his doctor and asked if  the surgery could be deferred for a short period so the benefit of the homeopathic remedy could be assessed. The doctor (a respiratory specialist) said that surgery could not be deferred – his lung was so bad that it was unavoidable and that nothing short of surgery would be able to reinflate it – that they had already tried everything they could. 

This was on a Tuesday and the surgery was scheduled for Friday.

Against doctor’s orders, his wife started homeopathic treatment on Tuesday evening – with just one dose of the indicated homeopathic remedy. When she phoned to check on her husband the following morning, he told her that for the first time in ages, he had slept through the night (up until then he was mainly awake at night and sleepy throughout the day). In addition, he thought that maybe, just maybe, he was breathing a little easier. At least she couldn’t hear him wheezing as he spoke – and it seemed to her that he was gasping less and  thinking more clearly. She advised him to repeat the dose of his remedy/medicine through that day as improvement stalled or when he started to feel worse again. By Wednesday evening, his breathing had improved significantly so that he felt that he no longer needed the oxygen. By Thursday morning he decided to throw the mask away.

This couple began to ask for a second scan in the hopes of deferring the next day’s scheduled surgery. Initially, the doctors said it would be pointless and that with the state of his lungs, it was most important that the surgery go ahead. The husband persisted with his request however, saying that he was feeling much better. As the day progressed and the husband was obviously improving, the respiratory specialist, on doing his rounds, was still insistant that the surgery should take place as it was impossible for the lung to improve enough to avoid it but, because the husband was so reluctant and kept pointing out how much better he was doing, he ordered an x-ray. No long after, he was back in the room – there had been remarkable improvement and he had cancelled the surgery. 

The husband insisted and finally, one of the doctors decided to humour him and sent him for a lung scan.

As soon as the results came back, the specialist called the man and his wife and said he was cancelling the surgery because  there had been a remarkable improvment (there was still a little fluid left and they wanted to see if he could recover himself and if not, they would do the operation the following Friday. In fact, improvement continued over the next week at which time, he left the hospital. (They left against medical advice as the staff wanted to continue treatment with the other specialists – but this couple said no because they felt that the medications they kept giving him would eventually kill him)

The surgeon called the wife to ask what remedies she had given her husband and to find out what information she had on how they work. Up until this point, he had never asked to speak with her on her own – only when she happened to be in the hospital when he was visiting. She didn’t talk with him but instead, with one of his junior doctors. When she pointed out that the homeopathy had been given, they couldn’t seem to bring themselves to say the ‘h’ word or discuss it even. All they could say to her was that, yes, there had been a remarkable recovery.

The man checked out of hospital and came home, against the wishes of his doctors, and removed most of the remaining medications and replaced them with natural alternatives and homeopathy – and he is now doing better and better in spite of some serious problems that will remain and probably lead to his death in the future. In hospital, with the ‘best of care’ he just got worse and worse. He and his wife had to fight to stop the treatment and get him back home and were seen as highly irresponsible and ‘non-compliant’. There is much more to tell – this is just a small part of what happened – but it demonstates the power of the appropriate remedy. And one of the junior doctors was kind enough to place the before and after scans and xrays on a disc for them when I asked so they could be referred to in future if required.

So is it magic water or effective medicine? You decide.

Does the doctor really know best?

Please note: I have been informed that the name of this show was actually Father Knows Best – not Doctor Knows Best – my apologies for the error.

When I was growing up in the 1960s, I remember a show on television called Doctor Knows Best. Starring a slightly greying but still very handsome Robert Young, it portrayed the life of a doctor who seemed able to cure just about any ill he was confronted with and be kind, caring and generous at the same time. You could not possible show this person a disease he hadn’t already seen or read about and he always knew exactly what to do. Life was so much simpler back then! And doctor shows were and still are good watching. Marcus Welby, MD; Dr Kildare (my first movie star crush!) and when I moved to Australia, I became hooked on the ABC programme, GP.

Good viewing, good entertainment, but not really true to life. Because doctors are not the superhuman individuals they have been portrayed as on television. They aren’t even the jokers that we’ve seen on such shows as Scrubs. They are people – just like you and me. Able to make mistakes, get angry, do things out of spite and just plain be bastards – just like you and me. They are also able to be incredibly intelligent, kind, compassionate and resourceful – just like you and me.

The problem is that they are held up as the paragons of humanity – as people who are so intelligent and knowledgable, mere humans can’t and should not question anything they say. The Pope is considered to be God’s messenger on Earth. Doctors, on the other hand, are considered to be Gods.

Why do I bring this up? Well, I’m about to crash a golden idol that was set on his pedestal by none other than Tracey Spicer from Sydney radio station, 2UE. Tracey has tried several times to get her head around the whole vaccination issue and has failed miserably. She has not allowed a debate to take place on her show but has discussed it several times and even once started to interview me. After about 30 seconds, she hung up the phone and then went off onto a rampage about how dangerous I am and how everything I say is wrong. Not good journalism. Not even good radio.

But I digress.

Below is the transcript of a programme Tracey Spicer presented a few days ago along with her co-host Prue (I’m not sure what her last name is). Please read through it – my comments are interspersed amongst the transcript of the talk. (I apologise if I am not attributing the right statements to the right presenter – I had trouble distinguishing between Tracey and Prue at times)

 

Tracey: Well you would know one of my hobby horses is this dreadful organisation, the so called Australian Vaccination Network which is actually an anti-vaccination network. They keep propagating this myth that the measles, mumps, rubella vaccine brings on autism. It’s a link that has been roundly and convincingly discredited. The British Medical Council found Doctor Andrew Wakefield guilty of dishonesty and fraud and yet Meryl Dorey, this head of this Australian Vaccination Network, keeps getting publicity. As I mentioned before, her latest appearance will be at the famous Woodford Folk Festival next week in an area where there’s an epidemic of whooping cough because people will not vaccinate their children. And her appearance is being funded by both the local council and the state government.
What Tracey obviously doesn’t realise is that Australia’s rate of whooping cough (pertussis) vaccination is at an all time high of over 95%. She is also unaware that this epidemic of pertussis is occurring around the world – wherever mass vaccination against whooping cough exists. The reasons being given for the outbreak are lack of effectiveness of the vaccine (which lasts – at most – for 3 years) and mutations in the pertussis bacteria – possibly induced by the vaccination – leading to a far more virulent strain. In other words – vaccination levels have nothing to do with the outbreak but lack of effective vaccines may.
Prue: Totally illogical, isn’t it? Now, i know a lot of listeners will want to join the argument on this because some people have religious and cultural issues to contend with, but the fact remains we’re now seeing more and more measles even polio I heard about and of course people who are coming from other countries, some of these countries that are not used to vaccinations are bringing in some diseases that we thought Australia wasn’t going to ever face before. So I know that’s slightly separate, you know I absolutely support the idea of vaccinating your children but maybe we need to extend it as well to those newcomers to the country.
Onya Prue! It’s those dirty furreners who are bringing in diseases from their dirty, stinking furren countries. Let’s keep them out! Australia for Australians, right?
Of course, there has only been one case of polio in Australia between 1991 and 2011 and that was a case in someone who was fully vaccinated against polio – but never let the truth get in the way of a good story. And most developing countries vaccinate against polio at least as much as Australia does – maybe even more. For instance, in India, they seem to give the polio vaccine every time a child opens his or her mouth to yawn or take food. Despite that, they still have paralytic disease. And if those in foreign countries can infect us just by coming here and breathing on us even though we are vaccinated – do we blame the foreigners or do we start to ask why those vaccines aren’t protecting us? Hmmmmmm. I wonder…
Tracey: Well the thing is the government is trying programs to get people to vaccinate their children, they’ve just announced a carrot and stick approach, families refusing vaccinations might lose thousands of dollars in benefits for each child and children must be immunised for parents to get the part A end of year supplement of the family tax benefit. But the problem is, even under this regime, parents can turn around and say they are conscientious objectors and therefore they don’t have to be bound by this, it’s just absolute rubbish. Joining us now is the Queensland president of the AMA, Doctor Richard Kid. Richard, what are your thoughts on all this?
Right. So even though it’s legal in Australia to choose not to vaccinate and even though there is no evidence that the healthy unvaccinated are able to infect the fully vaccinated (think about this for a minute – go ahead – I’ll give you time), Tracey and Prue are pissed off because there is a loophole for parents who have done their research and decided that for their own families, the risks of vaccination outweigh any potential benefits. That doesn’t sound too logical to me, to be honest.
Richard: Hi, I think you put it better than I can. Vaccination is a really excellent way to protect children, and adults for that matter, against a range of diseases that kill and maim and generally they’re very, very safe.
Prue: It seems amazing to me that we are seeing diseases that we really, in my lifetime and I’m a hundred years old, you know I thought were eradicated. you must be seeing this and be having it reported to you Doctor.
Richard: Yes, we are. You are quite right. And it’s tragic because the people who at least choose not to vaccinate their children are playing Russian roulette with their children and everybody else’s children.
Again, if you are vaccinated and I am not, how can that possibly affect you unless the vaccines don’t work? And if the vaccines don’t work, why are we having this conversation in the first place?
Tracey: Richard, how bad are the outbreaks at the moment of, say, whooping cough in the hot spot areas around Australia.
Richard: Well it’s very sad, there’s been one or two babies who have died, so that’s just tragic.
The babies who died (and there are more than two of them in the last 2 years) were either partially vaccinated or too young to be vaccinated. Our vaccination rate has gone from about 71% in 1991 to over 95% in 2008 and in fact, in 2005, we introduced an adult vaccine which never even existed before. Despite this huge increase in the vaccination rate, we have had a greater than 10,000% increase in the incidence of the disease. And they are blaming the unvaccinated? Something here does not compute.
In fact, from the last time the Australian government bothered to look (it was actually the state government in SA), 87% of those who got whooping cough for whom vaccination status was available were fully and appropriately vaccinated. Yet most times, when a case of ‘vaccine-preventable’ diseases is reported, there is no inquiry as to whether or not the person was vaccinated – it is just blamed on the unvaccinated. Why? Because they can?
Any child’s death is tragic, but pointing the finger of blame for the deaths of these babies at the unvaccinated when the vaccinated can both get whooping cough and transmit it even if they don’t have symptoms is a bit like medical vilification, don’t you think?
Prue: And what other illnesses or diseases are we now looking at?
Richard: well we’re seeing the measles every now and again. There was one little girl that sort of traipsed through the outback of Queensland delivering measles here, there and everywhere.
Great mental image there, Richard. Picture Shirley Temple, dressed in a postie’s uniform, ringing your doorbell and delivering a package with fine white powder only instead of anthrax, it contains measles. Again, our vaccination rate against measles is very high – well above the level required for what the medical community likes to refer to as ‘herd immunity’. So when the doorbell rang and the little girl showed up, you should have been able to say thanks, but no thanks. But of course, since the vaccinated can get measles just like the unvaccinated can, you were definitely welcoming her inside to ‘traipse’ through your home and possessions.
And we are talking about measles here! Not typhoid. Not cholera. Not tetanus. Measles! The same disease which a medical encyclopaedia in the early 1980s described as an acute infection, the only long-term side effects of which were life-long immunity to further infection. Anyone who is over 45 years of age will know what I’m talking about, right?
We’re also seeing, I’ve just gone blank, there’s measles there’s been a bit of an increase in the hepititis B and certainly, as you’ve said, we have heard of one or two cases of polio.
Now there goes polio raising its ugly head again. As I said, according to the NNDSS, there has been a grand total of 1 case of polio in Australia in the last 20 years. So when Richard says that there have been one or two cases of polio, is he inferring that this was in Australia or somewhere else?
And Heptatis B? Remember, this is the head of the AMA in Queensland – a man with a powerful job and access to all of the latest information on health. So when he says that “there’s been a bit of an increase in the hepatitis B”, you would think he wouldn’t make that statement unless he had the evidence to back it up.
Perhaps he does? Perhaps he knows more than the National Notifiable Diseases Surveillance System whose latest table on Hep B shows that there has been no increase in reports in Australia. In fact, we currently have the lowest number of cases reported – 167 new cases Australia – wide – since the first year we started keeping recording with the NNDSS. So perhaps that increase in Hep B took place in the same country where that other case of polio was reported? I wish he would have told us the name of that country – some people might have cancelled their travel plans?
Richard: I’ve heard of one case of tetanus in a older person about 8 months ago. The thing is these are all entirely, well, very much preventable by having vaccination.
Indeed. The majority of those in Australia who get tetanus infections are elderly. Most of them are vaccinated. Many of them are diabetics (who lose sensation in their extremities due to the disease and do not care for wounds because they don’t feel them and end up getting tetanus or even gangrene as a result.) Just because someone got tetanus doesn’t mean that this is due to lack of vaccination – especially when many of them, as I said, would have been vaccinated. At least Richard moderated his statement that these were entirely preventable because of course, they are not.
Tracey: This is it. Does it frustrate you that in the case of the Woodford Folk Festival, both the local council of the Morton Shire and the Queensland State Government are funding this festival where they are advertising this anti-vaccination advocate as saying, you know, she lifts the cover on vaccinations and the dangers that they can cause. I mean, that’s incredibly frustrating.
Firstly, the sponsors are sponsoring the Festival – they are not sponsoring the AVN nor are they sponsoring me. Secondly, I have not made that statement that was attributed to me. But this was a good excuse for a diatribe, I guess. And yes, it IS incredibly frustrating Tracey!
Richard: It’s very frustrating. in general practice we have the immunisation schedule handbook that outlines exactly the range of adverse effects that people can experience with vaccinations which generally are very, very mild. You know, a slight fever, maybe a little bit off your food for a day or two.
I don’t want to repeat myself, but this is the head of the QLD AMA for goodness sake! He is saying that the handbook (which is called the Australian Childhood Immunisation Handbook – he couldn’t seem to get that part right) outlines EXACTLY (and he emphasised that word) the range of adverse effects that people can experience. Well, that is not true. And this is why doctors are sometimes so ill-informed about vaccine safety and why sometimes, doctors don’t actually know best.
Below is the list of side effects associated with the Gardasil (HPV) vaccine according to the Australian Childhood Immunisation Handbook:

infection site reaction (pain, swelling, erythema)

Immediately following this comprehensive list of 3 (count ’em, THREE) reactions, it states:

Variations from product information

None.
As you will see in a moment, this is a great big pork pie!
Because when you look at the manufacturer’s information for Gardasil (and remember, neither our government nor our medical community have investigated or studied this vaccine – only the manufacturer has), here is the list of reactions you will see:
  • Abdominal pain, upper
  • Acute disseminated encephalomyelitis
  • Arthralgia
  • Asthenia
  • Chills
  • Cough
  • Diarrhoea
  • Dizziness
  • Fatigue
  • Fever
  • GI upset
  • Guillain-barre syndrome
  • Headache
  • Hypersensitivity including anaphylactoid reactions, Bronchospasm and urticaria
  • Injection site reaction (pain, swelling, erythema, pruritus)
  • Idiopathic thrombocytopenic purpura
  • Lymphadenopathy
  • Malaise
  • Myalgia
  • Nausea
  • Pain in extremity
  • Pyrexia
  • Syncope tonic clonic movement
  • Toothache
  • Upper respiratory tract infection
  • Vomiting


The American package insert for Gardasil – same vaccine, same manufacturer – has even more reactions listed. But obviously – and this is only one shot – when Dr Kidd said that the Immunisation Handbook which doctors rely upon for complete information on vaccination told exactly the range of adverse reactions to vaccines, he was very, very wrong.

 

Richard: in the case of the chickenpox virus you can actually get a few little blisters that are very weak and because that’s the live vaccine but we also have there the effects of the diseases and how many children per thousand die and how many end up with terrible brain damage and terrible lung damage and losing arms and legs.
OK – perhaps he was confusing chicken pox with septicaemia, pneumonia or encephalitis – which you don’t generally get from chicken pox? It’s an easy mistake to make. Any doctor could do it.
Richard: You know, people who are just pushing anti-vaccination are ignoring all of the evidence and the experience of people.
Doctor Kidd, do you mean the experience of people who say that their children have been killed or injured by vaccines? Do you mean the experiences that your brethren refer to as anecdotal? I believe that if there is any ignoring going on, the medical fraternity is the one that’s doing it.
Richard: You know these diseases we know they kill and they maim and they just turn a blind eye to that and do other really insane things. You’ve probably heard about the poxed lollipops where they get some kids with chickenpox to lick these lollipops and then they mail them interstate and to other countries supposedly to give kids chickenpox and somehow they think that’s safer than giving them a vaccination.
Now the AVN is not involved in this activity – not on our Facebook page – not anywhere. We never have been and we never will be. So why does he bring this up? Is it just to try and make people think that our organisation is filled with crazy people who want to make their children sick? Hey! I think that might be it! Got it in one! But of course, that sort of tactic doesn’t work and in fact, it demonstrates only how desperate the medical community can be to regain their ascendancy and infallibility in the eyes of the public. Sorry doc – it’s not working.
Tracey: What?
Richard: it’s crazy!
Prue: Who is doing this, Doctor?
Richard: it’s in America. So these kids with chickenpox supposedly lick these lollipops and through facebook you can order these poxed pops and give them to your kids. but of course those poxed pops are probably got other things on them like hepatitis B, Rotavirus, Norovirus, a whole lot of other really horrible diseases. Where the vaccine is purified, is safe, you know exactly what you’re giving to a person. There are some crazy things happening out in the community.
Where do I begin? Hepatitis B is found in very low levels in human saliva. In fact, despite French kissing, CPR, sharing toothbrushes (except where there is gum disease which involves blood) and other methods of sharing spit, there has never been ONE verified case of transmission of Hepatitis B via the oral route.
Next, notice the mention of norovirus? Ever heard of it before? Don’t be ashamed to admit you hadn’t because most people have never heard of it. It used to be called Norwalk virus but that name wasn’t sexy enough so it consulted with its publicists and decided that a change in profile was required. Viruses can’t have nose jobs, so this must be the next best thing.
Norovirus is the next vaccine to come out of the puppy mill. Norovirus kills nobody – not in Australia anyway (though it is stated that it may kill the frail elderly…a bad cold can also kill the frail elderly). It has been associated with gastro symptoms such as vomiting and diarrhoea but it is not deadly (neither is Rotavirus which we currently vaccinate against – though the government claims that ‘up to’ one child a year will die from it. Up to one. What is less than up to one?). But it’s pretty slick the way that word got slipped in there, you have to admit.
As for the vaccine being “purified and safe” and you knowing exactly what you’re giving to a person, uh-uh, I’m afraid that’s not true either.
Vaccines are filled with carcinogens, toxins, bacterial and viral contaminants, heavy metals, substances which can affect fertility and your ability to fight off disease. They are far from “purified and safe” unless you think that mercury, aluminium, animal and human viral contaminants and formaldehyde (to name just a few) are safe? Please click here to read a bit more about vaccine ingredients and remember that there are loopholes which allow drug companies to leave certain ingredients off of the package inserts so even this information may not be complete.
Tracey: Now Doctor, you mentioned some of the side effects when you are immunised. Now there are some people who are no doubt listening to us who are going to say “well look, you know my experience is that my child got very, very ill” or in fact in some cases and I’ve actually seen this on you know, A Current Affair or Today Tonight, you know instances where children who have been vaccinated suddenly have a terrible intolerance to it and in fact have been paralysed or had some really radical health issue as a result. What do you say to those people?
Richard: Most children who get a reaction, it’s very, very mild. The serious reactions are very rare and are much, much, much more rare than the terrible things that the diseases do so, you know, these diseases kill and maim as I said. The serious reactions do happen very rarely and when they do happen very, very, very rarely they can be disastrous just like someone who’s got a peanut allergy, that can be disastrous or someone who’s got a strawberry allergy, that can be disastrous. Unfortunately, some people do develop these really bad allergic reactions and there isn’t often a way of picking who that’s going to be. But, you know, unfortunately everything we do in life has risks. Every time you cross the road there’s a risk, so you know if you follow the traffic lights you minimise the risk but some crazy person might still come through and break your legs or kill you and the vaccinations are greatly outweighed by the benefits. So many children are protected from these terrible diseases.
At least he is admitting that there is a risk. But what about the information that only about 1% of adverse reactions to drugs and vaccines are ever reported? If we had full reporting – or even only 50% reporting – would that change the benefits:risks ratio? We may never know. But it seems strange to be so confident about vaccine safety when our information is so incomplete.
Tracey: Doctor Richard Kidd, thank you so much for your wise words.
Richard: Thank you
Tracey: The AMA Queensland President there looked at the disparity it’s absurd, Prue. I’m just looking at some advertisements for the Woodford Folk Festival. It says this woman, Meryl Dorey, is Australia’s leading expert in vaccination and offers her unbiased views and yet the New South Wales Health Care Complaints Commission has said “The vaccination network’s failure to include a notice on its website of the nature recommended by the commission may result in members of the public making improperly informed decisions about whether or not to vaccinate and poses a risk to public health and safety. So I ask the question, why the government supporting this?
Sorry Tracey, you are reading this directly off of the Skeptics or Stop the AVN’s website or one of their blogs and what you are reading is not true. The advertisement for the Woodford Folk Festival says:
Investigate before you vaccinate is the motto of the AVN. Having collected reports of thousands of Australian families whose children have been killed or injured by these shots, Meryl knows that the benefits of vaccines don’t always outweigh the risks. Her information is sourced from medical data and is necessary for anyone who has a family or is thinking about being vaccinated.
There you go – nothing about being an expert. And remember I already told you, Tracey (well, I would have if you would speak with me and not hang up when I said hello….) – the government is not supporting me or the AVN – they are supporting the Woodford Folk Festival which consists of more than 400 performers and over 130,000 visitors. But thanks for the free publicity for my talk. Much appreciated!
Prue: Well it’s craziness. But we’d like to ask you, do you believe in vaccinations? Have you vaccinated your children? Or are you worried about this slight issue of Russian roulette with their health? But of course, the implications are that if you don’t vaccinate then there’s a very, very strong chance of that they could contract something that could be very damaging to their long term health.
I’m continually told that, not being a doctor myself, I am not fit to comment on or discuss the issue of vaccination. In fact, Tracey was one of the people who has said that. Often. And she has also called me a fear monger because I want people to know both sides of this issue.
Yet here she is, virtually saying that if you make a decision not to vaccinate, your child is going to be very sick, implying that they may even die. What is she basing this upon? And how did the human race ever survive before vaccines were introduced?
Of course, much of what I’ve written here is very much tongue in cheek. I felt that there needed to be a little bit of humour when it is really so sad that someone in such an exalted position as the Head of the AMA QLD can make so many incorrect statements and when someone who claims to be a journalist can be so blind to the bias that she displays every time she opens her mouth on this subject.
Oh, and speaking of bias, here is a transcript for a short update to her interview which followed the next day:
Tracey: I just want to follow up on a story we did yesterday about a prominent anti-vaccination campaigner spreading her lies at a folk festival. A folk festival which is being sponsored and supported by the Queensland government and the Morton Bay regional council.
Now, the council yesterday said they were very upset about our story. They wouldn’t go on air but they complained on the phone and they’ve just issued a press release saying “The council is a committed supporter of the Immunise Australia program. We’ve immunised 13,000 people against a host of preventable diseases, free of charge.”, and the press release explicitly says, “The council is not a sponsor of Meryl Dorey, as claimed on Sydney radio, and is not associated in any way with this festival”. But I got onto the festival’s website and I’m looking at a list of sponsors in front of me and there it is, the Morton Bay regional council, so all I can say is “liar, liar pants on fire”.
Did she really say liar, liar pants on fire? That would be cute if she were 12, but at her age…
Prue: Yeah, I mean we just don’t cop it. they’re all running for cover, they’ve made a big mistake and they need to really, I think, front up and accept that they have.
Tracey: That’s right but what’s even worse is that Queensland Health which we called for a comment, do you know what they said? They said put the questions in writing, we’ll get back to you in three or four days time. I thought we lived in a democracy – obviously not.
The irony here is just too sweet, too rich. I just want to sit back and enjoy it for a few minutes. You keep on reading, OK?
Tracey: Well, we know how competent the Queensland Health Department is when they couldn’t even trace how many 16 million dollars that went missing. So, you know, we take them with a grain of salt.
And there you have it. I hope you’ve enjoyed today’s comic interlude. And the next time someone says that Australia is a democracy, you can answer them in two words:

PROVE IT!

Do doctors have to sign Conscientious Objector forms?

Questions and Answers signpostNew information has just come to light on this question, which I wanted to share with you because it is very important and will have implications for all parents who are filing as a conscientious objector to vaccination. It is also quite different from my previous understanding of this issue.

From the very beginning of the policy that required parents who were not vaccinating to see an immunisation provider in order to get their conscientious objector form signed (in order to get the Maternity Immunisation Allowance and the Childcare Benefit), the AVN has had a steady stream of parents approach them because GPs were refusing to sign the form.

We were told by the AMA that there was no requirement for doctors to actually sign this form – leading to parents seeing up to 20 or more doctors before finding one who would agree to sign. One wonders if the AMA were lying or simply ignorant. Either way, it is not a great recommendation for their integrity.

This made no sense to us because the requirement was for a doctor to ‘counsel’ the parent on the benefits and risks of vaccination and then, sign the form to say they had counselled – not that they agreed or disagreed with the decision of the parent.

Despite this, as I said above, it has been common for doctors to refuse to sign these forms leading to great stress on the part of parents who have felt bullied, intimidated and even abused by some less than ethical medicos.

Now however, I have been given a copy of an article from the Australian Doctor Weekly.

Written by Dr Craig Lilienthal, a practising GP, medicolegal consultant and a member of Avant’s Medical Advisory Council, it appears that there is a legal requirement for doctors to sign these forms. This is information parents need to be aware of and, if doctors do refuse to sign, it looks as though parents would be well within their rights to file an official complaint with the healthcare complaints commission in their State or Territory.

From the article:

Case one:

A young mother asks you to provide her with a medical certificate stating she is a conscientious objector to her children being immunised. She needs the certificate so they can attend school and she can receive Family Assistance payments (please note – this information is incorrect since the conscientious objector has nothing to do with school entry or Family Assistance payments – only the two payments noted above).

You are personally opposed to her views and believe her thinking – about the risks of vaccinations and the benefits of immunity through healthy eating – is unrealistic.

You advise her accordingly and state that you are a conscientious objector to providing the requested documentation.

Options:

You can decline to provide her with the requested document because:

A – Her views fly in the face of accepted medical knowledge.

B – You are opposed to her views and believe she is putting her children at risk.

C – The legislation allows you to decline the request.

D – None of the above

Answer A may be supported by the great bulk of your professional colleagues, but does not constitute grounds for declining her request. Answer B represents your personal views and we know and accept that we cannot impose our personal opinions on our patients. Answer C is not correct either. The Family Assistance Act imposes a legal duty of care on doctors to sign the forms after discussing the pros and cons of the situation with parents. Your refusal to sign a form or provide a certificate amounts to a disregard of the legally recognised right of every person to refuse medical treatment. The correct answer, therefore, is D, none of the above.

Please share this information widely since the best way for parents to defend their rights is to be aware of them and we all need to be aware of this requirement on the part of doctors.

Also, remember that the Health Insurance Commission regularly ‘loses’ the Conscientious Objector Forms that have been submitted by parents. Therefore, be sure to keep a copy and to send your form in by registered mail.

Can children be considered collateral damage

How many children are we willing to sacrifice before the altar of vaccination in order to ‘protect’ society? Is even one child an acceptable cost and if you answer yes to that question – acceptable to whom?

Saba Button’s future was forfeit to a vaccine experiment gone horribly wrong. That isn’t anything new – it happens all the time. We just don’t hear about it because usually, these ‘studies’ are generally run in developing countries where annoying things like ethics committees don’t cause unnecessary bother with all of their nasty rules and regulations.

Enter Western Australia – testing ground of choice for this part of the world, thanks in part to the aggressive commercialisation activities of the Telethon Institute in Perth. The head of this Institute and a former Australian of the Year, Prof Fiona Stanley, was quoted in a recent media interview as saying:

“But there’s been a really good  we’ve had a very good relationship with big pharma, some of which has just been, ‘Here’s the money. We’re interested in anything you produce.’ That’s a very good relation that Pat Holt has had with GlaxoSmithKline.

“We’ve had a lot of funding from the big pharmaceutical companies that make vaccines  we’ve had about, oh, probably 80 vaccine trials since the 1990s, where we’ve done everything from the evaluation of new vaccines to looking at whether the vaccines can be given together, to look at novel ways of delivery of vaccine. We’re doing trials on HPV as well as bird flu  you know, it’s huge. Peter Richmond heads up a lot of that, but we always try to add some scientific questions to our vaccine trials.”

Saba Button was part of a flu vaccine trial – but her parents had no idea that their little girl was being used as a guinea pig. They were kept in the dark about the experimental nature of this vaccine just as the other 240 parents whose children were admitted to hospital in WA had no idea. And these were only the reactions we know about. Since only between 1 and 10% are reported, chances are the number of children in WA who were injured by this shot is far higher.

Last week, in response to the government’s push to introduce mass vaccination of all children 6 months of age and older against influenza despite last year’s disaster, Saba’s parents went public for the first time about their experience. The AVN issued a media release afterwards and it was picked up by several outlets – amongst them, Howard Sattler from radio 6PR in Perth.

Howard has interviewed me before and has always made his stance on this issue very clear – he is pro-vaccination but believes wholeheartedly in the right to freedom of speech in a democracy. He also trusts his fellow Australians to be able to listen to both points of view on issues and then, make up their own mind.

Below, with the kind permission of 6PR, I have included audio files of my interview with Mr Sattler followed by his interview with David Mountain, head of the Australian Medical Association of WA.

Your comments are welcome.

[buzzsprout episode=”23351″ player=”true”]

[buzzsprout episode=”23353″ player=”true”]

 

Debate heats up over vaccination

AUSTRALIAN Vaccination Network (AVN) spokesperson Meryl Dorey has challenged to publicly debate the benefits and risks of vaccination with Australian Medical Association’s vice-president, Dr Steve Hambleton.

Recently the Health Care Complaints Commission (HCCC) decided the Bangalow-based AVN put lives at risk by providing ‘misleading, inaccurate and deceptive information’.

The AVN rejects the HCCC’s findings and believes that the HCCC overstepped its mandate when it initiated an investigation of a citizens’ group that provides a point of view on a controversial public issue.

The AVN feels that it is important for parents to make the best possible decision for their own families in regards to vaccination and all other health issues and that doctors are not providing enough information to allow them to do so.

“Let Dr Hambleton choose three statements the AVN makes which he feels are either misleading inaccurate or deceptive, gather his information and provide it in a public venue at which parents and other health professionals can attend,” Ms Dorey said.

“By allowing the Australian public an opportunity to hear both sides and judge this issue for themselves, we can advance not only the right to free and informed health choice, but the ability of families to decide for themselves about whether vaccination is right for their children.”

A date is yet to be set for the debate.

http://www.northernstar.com.au/story/2010/08/04/debate-heats-over-vaccination/

AMA – Hypocrisy defined

Photo

AMA meeting: No flu shot mandate for doctors; hand sanitizer pushed

The AMA will study if there’s any benefit from requiring all health professionals to receive influenza vaccine.

The AMA House of Delegates rejected a proposal to mandate vaccinations for health care professionals but approved other policy to prevent the spread of seasonal flu and influenza A(H1N1).

A resolution by the Infectious Diseases Society of America said the AMA should back universal seasonal and H1N1 flu immunizations unless health professionals have medical contraindications or religious objections. In October, New York state announced that it was requiring all health professionals to get the H1N1 immunization, but the mandate was suspended later that month due to vaccine shortages.