Does Malcolm Turnbull support censorship?

OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA
Patrick Stokes – vaccine-risk denialist

A very active and lively discussion has been taking place on the Prime Minister’s Facebook page regarding the No Jab, No Pay law.  I made several posts in response to Dr Patrick Stokes – a Senior Lecturer in Philosophy who supports censorship when it comes to vaccination as evidenced by his article on The Conversation entitled: No, You’re Not Entitled to Your Opinion.

Dr Stokes is an Australian academic who readily admits that he is not an authority on the this issue.  Furthermore, he openly states that he does not WANT to know about the science of vaccination, instead claiming that everyone should defer to doctors and health authorities because they are the only ones capable of understanding the subject. Please read his statement below:

Stokes Defers to Experts

Is the PM Censoring Debate?

Getting back to the Prime Minister’s Facebook page, as I said, I was having a lively debate with Mr Stokes about the issue of vaccination. I prepared a comment in response to his repetition of the fact that he does not know anything about vaccination and does not believe the issue should be publicly debated. When I tried to post my response, however, I got a warning that there was a problem and I should try later. This was yesterday afternoon and I have tried 4 times now and each time, I get the same warning.

Lucy TurnbullSince there are plenty of new comments on this page, including many casting aspersions on my honesty, integrity and intelligence, I can only assume that I have been blocked. Fair go, Malcolm or whoever you have delegated to moderate your page! Are you afraid that your wife’s profits at Prima BioMed (profits that jumped to AUD $5.5 million mere weeks after No Jab No Pay legislation was announced) might be affected if enough people start to question vaccination? Valid fear, that – but is that a reason to silence opponents of government policies? Do we live in a democracy or not, Mr Turnbull? Or are the Australian people no more than cash cows (cash vaccas, the origin of the word ‘vaccination’, appropriately enough?) to you and your government?

Think about it for a minute. NSW Premiere, Barry O’Farrell resigned over the gift of a bottle of wine; then Prime Minister, Paul Keating, scandalised the nation when it was discovered that he had profited from the sale of a piggery to Indonesia whilst undertaking trade negotiations with that country; and former Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd’s wife, Therese Rein, was forced to sell the Australian division of her international employment agency when her husband was elected due to contracts the company had with the Australian Government.

Australia has a long history of holding its elected representatives accountable when there is even a hint of corruption or profiteering – yet the current PM’s wife is Chairman of the Board of a company involved in vaccination and other pharmaceutical pursuits whose value has increased dramatically due – at least on the surface in my own opinion – to policies which her husband has helped push through Parliament. Did Mr Turnbull excuse himself during the debate on No Jab No Pay? Did he tell Parliament that he had a conflict of interest and excuse himself from the vote on this legislation? These are genuine questions – I don’t know the answer and my investigations so far have not been fruitful. Despite the apparent conflict of interest, not a word has been raised about this in the media or by the opposition.

I guess when it comes to vaccination, carte blanche is always given to those who support the procedure and a blind eye will be turned if there is any question of propriety or what is right for the nation.

But I digress.

Before I was unceremoniously booted from the PM’s Facebook page, I had issued a challenge to debate the benefits and risks of vaccination at a public venue. My challenge stands – if anyone from the medical industry, pharma or government believes that they can publicly support vaccine safety and effectiveness, I will gladly meet you in a fair debate with a neutral compere.

For those who would like to see my response to Patrick Stokes, here it is.

@Patrick Stokes – if I have no expertise on this subject (and by your own admission, you are neither qualified nor interested enough to learn about what you discuss when it comes to vaccination), then it should be simple to prove it. Not debating me or anyone else from the pro-information side of the issue is simply a ruse.

And here are just a few recent studies that HAVE been published on the ineffectiveness and risks of vaccination. Maybe you need to get someone more qualified to read them for you and tell you what they say?

BMJ. 2014 Jun 24;348:g3668. doi: 10.1136/bmj.g3668.

Whooping cough in school age children presenting with persistent cough in UK primary care after introduction of the preschool pertussis booster vaccination: prospective cohort study.

Objective To estimate the prevalence and clinical severity of whooping cough (pertussis) in school age children presenting with persistent cough in primary care since the introduction and implementation of the preschool pertussis booster vaccination.

Design Prospective cohort study (November 2010 to December 2012).

Setting General practices in Thames Valley, UK.

Participants 279 children aged 5 to 15 years who presented in primary care with a persistent cough of two to eight weeks’ duration. Exclusion criteria were cough likely to be caused by a serious underlying medical condition, known immunodeficiency or immunocompromise, participation in another clinical research study, and preschool pertussis booster vaccination received less than one year previously.

Main outcome measures Evidence of recent pertussis infection based on an oral fluid anti-pertussis toxin IgG titre of at least 70 arbitrary units. Cough frequency was measured in six children with laboratory confirmed pertussis.

Results 56 (20%, 95% confidence interval 16% to 25%) children had evidence of recent pertussis infection, including 39 (18%, 13% to 24%) of 215 children who had been fully vaccinated. The risk of pertussis was more than three times higher (21/53; 40%, 26% to 54%) in children who had received the preschool pertussis booster vaccination seven years or more previously than in those who had received it less than seven years previously (20/171; 12%, 7% to 17%). The risk of pertussis was similar between children who received five and three component preschool pertussis booster vaccines (risk ratio for five component vaccine 1.14, 0.64 to 2.03). Four of six children in whom cough frequency was measured coughed more than 400 times in 24 hours.

Conclusions Pertussis can still be found in a fifth of school age children who present in primary care with persistent cough and can cause clinically significant cough in fully vaccinated children. These findings will help to inform consideration of the need for an adolescent pertussis booster vaccination in the United Kingdom.

Divider 1

Clin Infect Dis. (2012) doi: 10.1093/cid/cis287

Unexpectedly Limited Durability of Immunity Following Acellular Pertussis Vaccination in Pre-Adolescents in a North American Outbreak

Results We identified 171 cases of clinical pertussis; 132 in pediatric patients. There was a notable increase in cases in patients aged 8-12. The rate of testing peaked in infants, but remained relatively constant until age 12. The rate of positive tests was low for ages zero to six, and increased in preadolescents, peaking at age 12. Vaccination rates of PCR positive preadolescents were approximately equal to that of controls. Vaccine Effectiveness was 41%, 24%, 79%, for ages 2-7, 8-12, 13-18, respectively.

Conclusions Our data suggests that the current schedule of acellular pertussis vaccine doses is insufficient to prevent outbreaks of pertussis. We noted a markedly increased rate of disease from age 8 through 12, proportionate to the interval since the last scheduled vaccine. Stable rates of testing ruled out selection bias. The possibility of earlier or more numerous booster doses of acellular pertussis vaccine either as part of routine immunization or for outbreak control should be entertained.

Divider 1

This is not a peer-reviewed study, but it speaks to the fact that drug companies control the information governments rely upon to make policy decisions. It is written in plain English.

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/lawrence-solomon/merck-whistleblowers_b_5881914.html

Merck Has Some Explaining To Do Over Its MMR Vaccine Claims

Merck, the pharmaceutical giant, is facing a slew of controversies over its Measles-Mumps-Rubella (MMR) vaccine following numerous allegations of wrongdoing from different parties in the medical field, including two former Merck scientists-turned-whistleblowers. A third whistleblower, this one a scientist at the Centers for Disease Control, also promises to bring Merck grief following his confession of misconduct involving the same MMR vaccine.

The controversies will find Merck defending itself and its vaccine in at least two federal court cases after a U.S. District judge earlier this month threw out Merck’s attempts at dismissal. Merck now faces federal charges of fraud from the whistleblowers, a vaccine competitor and doctors in New Jersey and New York. Merck could also need to defend itself in Congress: The staff of representative Bill Posey (R-Fla) — a longstanding critic of the CDC interested in an alleged link between vaccines and autism — is now reviewing some 1,000 documents that the CDC whistleblower turned over to them.

The first court case, United States v. Merck & Co., stems from claims by two former Merck scientists that Merck “fraudulently misled the government and omitted, concealed, and adulterated material information regarding the efficacy of its mumps vaccine in violation of the FCA [False Claims Act].”

According to the whistleblowers’ court documents, Merck’s misconduct was far-ranging: It “failed to disclose that its mumps vaccine was not as effective as Merck represented, (ii) used improper testing techniques, (iii) manipulated testing methodology, (iv) abandoned undesirable test results, (v) falsified test data, (vi) failed to adequately investigate and report the diminished efficacy of its mumps vaccine, (vii) falsely verified that each manufacturing lot of mumps vaccine would be as effective as identified in the labeling, (viii) falsely certified the accuracy of applications filed with the FDA, (ix) falsely certified compliance with the terms of the CDC purchase contract, (x) engaged in the fraud and concealment describe herein for the purpose of illegally monopolizing the U.S. market for mumps vaccine, (xi) mislabeled, misbranded, and falsely certified its mumps vaccine, and (xii) engaged in the other acts described herein to conceal the diminished efficacy of the vaccine the government was purchasing.” (Click the above link to read the rest of this article).

Divider 1

And here, a release from that rabidly anti-vaccine body, the American College of Pediatrics:

http://www.acpeds.org/the-college-speaks/position-statements/health-issues/new-concerns-about-the-human-papillomavirus-vaccine

New Concerns about the Human Papillomavirus Vaccine

American College of Pediatricians – January 2016

The American College of Pediatricians (The College) is committed to the health and well-being of children, including prevention of disease by vaccines. It has recently come to the attention of the College that one of the recommended vaccines could possibly be associated with the very rare but serious condition of premature ovarian failure (POF), also known as premature menopause. There have been two case report series (3 cases each) published since 2013 in which post-menarcheal adolescent girls developed laboratory documented POF within weeks to several years of receiving Gardasil, a four-strain human papillomavirus vaccine (HPV4).1,2 Adverse events that occur after vaccines are frequently not caused by the vaccine and there has not been a noticeable rise in POF cases in the last 9 years since HPV4 vaccine has been widely used.

Nevertheless there are legitimate concerns that should be addressed: (1) long-term ovarian function was not assessed in either the original rat safety studies3,4 or in the human vaccine trials, (2) most primary care physicians are probably unaware of a possible association between HPV4 and POF and may not consider reporting POF cases or prolonged amenorrhea (missing menstrual periods) to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), (3) potential mechanisms of action have been postulated based on autoimmune associations with the aluminum adjuvant used1 and previously documented ovarian toxicity in rats from another component, polysorbate 80,2 and (4) since licensure of Gardasil® in 2006, there have been about 213 VAERS reports (per the publicly available CDC WONDER VAERS database) involving amenorrhea, POF or premature menopause, 88% of which have been associated with Gardasil®.5 The two-strain HPV2, CervarixTM, was licensed late in 2009 and accounts for 4.7 % of VAERS amenorrhea reports since 2006, and 8.5% of those reports from February 2010 through May 2015. This compares to the pre-HPV vaccine period from 1990 to 2006 during which no cases of POF or premature menopause and 32 cases of amenorrhea were reported to VAERS.

Many adolescent females are vaccinated with influenza, meningococcal, and tetanus vaccines without getting Gardasil®, and yet only 5.6% of reports related to ovarian dysfunction since 2006 are associated with such vaccines in the absence of simultaneous Gardasil® administration. The overwhelming majority (76%) of VAERS reports since 2006 with ovarian failure, premature menopause, and/or amenorrhea are associated solely with Gardasil®. When VAERS reports since 2006 are restricted to cases in which amenorrhea occurred for at least 4 months and is not associated with other known causes like polycystic ovary syndrome or pregnancy, 86/89 cases are associated with Gardasil®, 3/89 with CervarixTM, and 0/89 with other vaccines administered independently of an HPV vaccine.5 Using the same criteria, there are only 7 reports of amenorrhea from 1990 through 2005 and no more than 2 of those associated with any one vaccine type.

Few other vaccines besides Gardasil® that are administered in adolescence contain polysorbate 80.6 Pre-licensure safety trials for Gardasil® used placebo that contained polysorbate 80 as well as aluminum adjuvant.2,7 Therefore, if such ingredients could cause ovarian dysfunction, an increase in amenorrhea probably would not have been detected in the placebo controlled trials. Furthermore, a large number of girls in the original trials were taking hormonal contraceptives which can mask ovarian dysfunction including amenorrhea and ovarian failure.2 Thus a causal relationship between human papillomavirus vaccines (if not Gardasil® specifically) and ovarian dysfunction cannot be ruled out at this time.

Numerous Gardasil safety studies, including one released recently,8 have looked at demyelinating and autoimmune diseases and have not found any significant problems. Unfortunately, none of them except clinical safety pre-licensure studies totaling 11,778 vaccinees9 specifically addressed post-vaccination ovarian dysfunction. While data from those studies do not indicate an increased rate of amenorrhea after vaccination, the essential lack of saline placebos and the majority of participants taking hormonal contraceptives in those studies preclude meaningful data to rule out an effect on ovarian function.

A Vaccine Safety Datalink POF study is planned to address an association between these vaccines and POF, but it may be years before results will be determined. Plus, POF within a few years of vaccination could be the tip of the iceberg since ovarian dysfunction manifested by months of amenorrhea may later progress to POF. Meanwhile, the author of this statement has contacted the maker of Gardasil, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP), and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to make known the above concerns and request that (1) more rat studies be done to look at long-term ovarian function after HPV4 injections, (2) the 89 VAERS reports identified with at least 4 months amenorrhea be reviewed by the CDC for further clarification since the publicly available WONDER VAERS database only contains initial reports, and (3) primary care providers be notified of a possible association between HPV and amenorrhea. A U.S. Government Representative responded that they “will continue to conduct studies and monitor the safety of HPV vaccines. Should the weight of the evidence from VAERS or VSD and other sources indicate a likely causal association between POF and HPV vaccines, appropriate action will be taken in terms of communication and public health response.”

The College is posting this statement so that individuals considering the use of human papillomavirus vaccines could be made aware of these concerns pending further action by the regulatory agencies and manufacturers. While there is no strong evidence of a causal relationship between HPV4 and ovarian dysfunction, this information should be public knowledge for physicians and patients considering these vaccines.

Primary author: Scott S. Field, MD

January 2016

The American College of Pediatricians is a national medical association of licensed physicians and healthcare professionals who specialize in the care of infants, children, and adolescents. The mission of the College is to enable all children to reach their optimal, physical and emotional health and well-being.

Divider 1

This handful of studies represents but the tip of the vaccine iceberg, but hopefully you get the idea, Patrick. You say that nothing has been published on the risks and ineffectiveness of vaccines. I say you are wrong and I’ve proved it. Will the fact that I’ve provided you with evidence to back up my claims make you look again at this issue? I doubt it. You are a true believer and your ‘religion’ leaves no room for questioning. You function on faith – not knowledge, evidence or information. I feel sorry for you, but those I feel the sorriest for are your students.

by Meryl Dorey

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

Did NSW Fair Trading Illegally Leak Private AVN Information?

28886672_s

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

——————————————————–

May 15, 2014

The Commissioner,
NSW Fair Trading

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

Dear Commissioner,

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

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

In summary:

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

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

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

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

Divider 1

Is the NSW Office of Fair Trading leaking privileged information?

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

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

The second instance occurred in December of 2013.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sandra_Harvey of Ocean Shores wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dear Ms Gowland

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

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

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

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

Ms Gowland responded on the same day as follows:

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

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

Dear Ms Gowland

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

I look forward to your response.

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

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

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

Divider 1

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

Dear Mr Beattie

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

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

Regards,
XXXXXXXX
Office of the Commissioner | NSW Fair Trading

Divider 1

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

Dear Mr Beattie

I write again to further acknowledge your latest correspondence.

The reference number for this matter is FTMIN14/1376.

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

Regards,
XXXXXXXX
Office of the Commissioner | NSW Fair Trading

Divider 1

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

Dear XXXXXXXX

Your ref: FTMIN14/1376

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

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

Kind regards

Greg Beattie
President
Australian Vaccination-skeptics Network Inc.

Divider 1

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

Dear Mr Beattie

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

Regards,
Office of the Commissioner | NSW Fair Trading

Divider 1

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

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

Divider 1

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

Dear Mr Beattie

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

Timeline to a Tragedy:Part 3 – Lessons go Unlearned

Monday, April 19, 2010

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

Divider 1

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

Divider 1

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

Divider 1

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

 Divider 1

Michael Rutherford from QLD Health, emailed Kerry White:

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

Kerry White responded:

 

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

 

To which, Michael Rutherford replied:

Dear Mr Swine Flu,

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

 

Kerry White, then responded with:

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

Tuesday, April 20, 2010

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

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

Divider 1

CIC stops using both Fluvax and Fluvax Junior.

Divider 1

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

Divider 1

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

Wednesday, April 21, 2010

Triage nurses assigned to collect data on reactions at RGH.

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

 

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

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

Thursday, April 22, 2010

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

Divider 1

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

Divider 1

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

Divider 1

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

Divider 1

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Friday, April 23, 2010

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

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

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

Divider 1

PMH sends 5 more reaction reports to the TGA.

Divider 1

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

Divider 1

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

Divider 1

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

Divider 1

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

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

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

 

Saturday, April 24, 2010

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

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

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

Dr Young replied to Naomi Ford as follows:

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

Naomi Ford provided Dr Young with the following information:

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

Are you aware of this? Please advise.

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

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

Monday, April 26, 2010

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

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

Tuesday, April 27, 2010

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

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

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

Thursday, April 29, 2010

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

Tuesday, May 18, 2010

Email from Naomi Ford to Dr Jeannette Young:

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

Going Underground

During World War II, in the occupied territories of France, the Netherlands and many other countries that had been taken over by the Nazis, an underground movement grew which opposed the dictators and fought to bring back their elected governments. Working from the shadows, they found ways to circumvent the fascist dictatorship that ruled their countries. In the end, their efforts were an instrumental part of assisting the allied forces to claim victory in Europe.

Over it’s almost 225 year history, many Australians have fought and died in wars which were supposedly to protect freedom – whether the freedom of Australians or of our allies. Yet, I believe our government today is guilty of taking away or abridging many of the essential freedoms our fathers and grandfathers lived and died to preserve.

Though Australia is nominally a democracy, as I have explained in past blogs and articles, its law-enforcement and government bodies have chosen to turn a blind eye and ignore tort law in regards to the obvious bullying and interference with commerce and contractual relationships which have been perpetrated so openly by members of the Australian Skeptics and their splinter organisation, Stop the AVN. These organisations, science’s Brownshirts, are blatant in their opposition to freedom of speech and freedom of communication.

They want to take away our voice, burn our books and destroy our right to choose.  Just as the original Brownshirts wanted to blame the Jews for the institutional failures of Nazi Germany, these organisations want to blame complementary medicine and the unvaccinated for their own failure to promote health or prevent disease. As a result, they are losing the faith of Western society as evidenced by the fact that, though their treatments are free while others are costly, people are refusing to ‘drink their kool-aid’ because they know more about the risks and ineffectiveness then ever before.

Many of the members of these organisations are working hard to ensure that our right to choose natural therapies (see the activities of Friends of Science in Medicine for one example of these efforts) or to say no to vaccines or dangerous and potentially unnecessary medical treatments for our children is taken away.

As anyone who has been reading this list for any time at all would be aware, these bullies have also targeted the venues and locations where the AVN and other health freedom activists have been scheduled to hold seminars or public talks by:

1-    Contacting the venues and telling them lies about the organisation and people involved in an effort to get the venue to cancel contracts.

2-    Putting ads in local papers in opposition to these seminars or appearances.

3-    Targeting the event even if the vaccine safety group is not the organiser but simply the participant to try to get them to cancel the appearance (as evidenced by the recent Woodfordia Festival kerfuffle).

4-    Spending massive amounts of money (from where?) setting up stunts such as hiring an airplane to circle the venue towing banners.

5-    Intimidating attendees in advance by stating they will be there to ‘set the record straight’, implying a confrontation between themselves and the people who are coming to hear the speaker.

None of this should be allowed in a democracy but of course, when it comes to the issue of vaccination choice, government authorities and regulators seem more than willing to not only turn a blind eye towards these breaches of our laws, but in fact, can often be seen openly participating in them.

Another activist in the area of vaccination has also been copping flack from these abusive bullies at the Australian Skeptics and Stop the AVN. She is a woman who lost a child to vaccination. After close to 30 years of research and participation in the health freedom movement, she is now sharing her knowledge and experiences locally at small seminars she has set up herself.

Being aware of the targeting of these events, she has worked out a way to counter these pseudo-skeptical abusers – she has gone underground. At her latest talk yesterday, where 60 people were in attendance, she was able to exclude the trouble-makers by taking the following steps:

1. There were no tickets sales at the door.

2. All tickets were sold on-line or by credit card prior to the event.

3. No location was revealed until the night before the seminar – the only details were that it was held within a certain number of kilometers of a central location.

3. Mobile phone-numbers were required at the time of booking.

4. The venue location was notified by SMS the night prior to event.

In this way, she was able to keep not only herself, but those who came along to hear her speak, safe from the threats posed by these two groups.

Going underground is a valid and intelligent way to deal with those who break the law with the full cooperation of those who are meant to uphold it.

If we can’t rely on the police or the government to protect us from persecution, we have to take matters into our own hands and find ways to work around the institutional abuse apparently approved at the highest levels of our society.

The Appeal of Prof John Walker-Smith Against the United Kingdom General Medical Council (Wakefield Case) – AGE OF AUTISM

LONDON, ENGLAND - JANUARY 28:  Dr Andrew Wakef...
Image by Getty Images via @daylife

On Monday the appeal begins of Prof John Walker-Smith against the decisions of the GMC as one of the three doctors in the Wakefield case. It should be stressed that Prof Walker-Smith’s appeal is purely on his
own behalf and that Andrew Wakefield was forced to withdraw from the appeal due to cost. A third doctor, Prof Simon Murch, was permitted by the GMC to return to work on the basis that he was only Prof
Walker-Smith’s junior at the time.

A key issue at the GMC hearing was the prosecution claim that the Wakefield 1998 Lancet paper was in reality a study that had been commissioned by the UK Legal Aid Board relating to pending litigation over the MMR. The three doctors, on the other hand, contended that the projected LAB study was never performed, and that Lancet paper was “an early report” of cases seen on the basis of clinical need, as indeed it had stated. Paradoxically, the GMC panel also found the doctors to be guilty of breaching the terms of the LAB protocol in virtually every respect, instead of accepting the plausible evidence of the doctors that it was simply not the same paper. The panel found:

“The Panel has heard that ethical approval had been sought and granted for other trials and it has been specifically suggested that Project 172-96 was never undertaken and that in fact, the Lancet 12 children’s investigations were clinically indicated and the research parts of those clinically justified investigations were covered by Project 162-95. In the light of all the available evidence, the Panel rejected this proposition.”

The Appeal of Prof John Walker-Smith Against the United Kingdom General Medical Council (Wakefield Case) – AGE OF AUTISM.

Enhanced by Zemanta

TGA – Government Watchdog or Drug Company Slave?

What follows is the introduction to the lead story in the current Inside Edition, the official newsletter of the Australian Vaccination Network. To subscribe to this bi-monthly online newsletter  for only $25 and to read the full story including the included action alert, please click here:

The Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) is a government body that has been given a mandate to oversee research into both the safety and the effectiveness of all drugs, medical procedures and vaccines licensed in Australia. It has many divisions and departments (including ADRAC – the Adverse Drug Reactions Advisory Committee), which are part of that oversight process.

Many times, when the safety of drugs, vaccines or any medical procedures are questioned, the first response is – the government wouldn’t have allowed this to be licensed if it weren’t first shown to be safe.

While one would like to think that this is the case, the question must be asked – how independent can the TGA possibly be when they are funded through a process known as ‘Cost Recovery’, meaning that drug company licensing fees provide all of the TGA’s licensing expenses? This could lead one to believe that the TGA – a body which is supposed to be ensuring the safety of the Australian population – is nothing more than a slave to their true masters – the pharmaceutical companies of the world.

Most people might be under the impression that the TGA is a government-funded body that provides independent testing of drugs and vaccines and only approves them when they have been shown by rigorous and objective double-blind clinical trials to be both safe and effective.

In actuality, the TGA is not funded to do this sort of testing. If anything, the TGA may test to ensure that the ingredients that are listed on the manufacturer’s package insert are actually in the product, but they do not perform their own clinical trials for safety or effectiveness.

When it comes to safety and effectiveness, the TGA simply reviews and assesses the information provided to them by the drug company that will be distributing and profiting from this product.

Fantastic background piece on Julie “pay me more, sweetie” Gerberding

lifehealthchoices

Wow… Congratulations Julie! Who would have guessed that you would be the one person in the whole world  that Merck would want to head their vaccine division?

Oh… that is right… we did.

Julie’s years of “looking and looking” for a vaccine/autism connection with the firm resolve of OJ Simpson looking for the real killers, asinine statements on autism in the press and denialism of an epidemic happening in front of everyone’s eyes has finally paid off big for her.

Here is what we do know now… that the head of vaccines for Merck is a liar.  And one who tells absurd lies and thinks that people will swallow them.  In the age of vaccine skepticism, Merck was so concerned with winning the public trust that they hired the woman who was the at the helm of the autism epidemic for the last eight years.

Brilliant.

But I am guessing that deal with the devil was made long ago.