Jane Hansen: Can We talk? My Shout!

Dear Jane Hansen,

As you know, I have long been critical of your reporting on the issues surrounding the subject of vaccination. I believed and still do believe that your attacks on those who hold a different opinion to your own are beyond the pale, unfair and in some cases, cruel and abusive.

Of course, I do understand where that attitude comes from. Most of those in mainstream media would see nothing wrong with your position and how you promote it. They would say that for the greater good, those like myself who question both the safety and effectiveness of vaccinations need to be silenced and if that means bullying them or calling them and their children names, so be it!

But I don’t believe this sort of behaviour is necessary. I think it is fear-based, ignorant and beneath the dignity of someone who calls herself a journalist.

So, I would like to ask you to meet with me here in the Northern Rivers for a meal and a chat – my shout. I know you are up here often but if you are no longer in this area, I will be happy to pay for your airfare.

What precipitated this offer?

Earlier this week, I received an email from a long-time AVN supporter. She had approached you regarding your attacks and was quite polite, I felt, in her language (please note: I have not changed or corrected any of the text in either her message or your responses). The original post from the AVN supporter is in blue and the responses from Jane Hansen are in red – just for ease of identification. My comments are in black.:

I read your article with disappointment about anti vaccers. There are many facts and studies about why people choose not to vaccinate their children. And yes there are cases on both sides where children have died. I believe good journalism provide both sides of the argument and allows people to think, questions and decide from an informed position…not the fear mongering we have ended up with in so many articles. Please take a look for yourself with I hope an open mind to discover why there are so many people who do not vaccinate their children. http://vaxxedthemovie.com/stream/

Your response to her was indicative of the problem with your reporting on this issue. You have conflated so many facts and shown a horrendous amount of ignorance for someone who has been writing about this subject for so many years!

Are you serious? You think this fraud of a film is correct? If it was true it would be on the front pages of papers around the world.

There are many truths that never make it to the front pages – or any pages – of newspapers. If that is your gauge of veracity, I’m afraid you are being naïve in the extreme!

The study got retracted because the African American children already had autism and were behind in their MMR vaccine..

Jane Hansen, I am unsure of which study you are referring to. I believe you may have confused the original 1990 Wakefield study, Ileal-lymphoid-nodular hyperplasia, non-specific colitis, and pervasive developmental disorder in children; THE LANCET • Vol 351 • February 28, 1998, with the 2004 Dr William Thompson study but f that’s the case, I have to tell you that neither of these studies says what you have claimed.

I would have thought since you have been calling Wakefield a fraud for nearly a decade, you would have at least read the study to know what you’re writing about. Apparently not.

Please read the study and view the documentary before commenting on them

There were no African-American children in Wakefield’s study since all of the subjects (12 of them) were British.

None of the children were “behind in their MMR vaccines”. They had consulted with Dr Wakefield and his 12 co-authors including Dr John Walker-Smith, the preeminent paediatric gastroenterologist practising at that time. Dr Walker-Smith had also been struck off by the GMC and he was able to take his case to the High Court in the UK to oppose that decision regarding the so-called Wakefield study. In case you were wondering, Dr Walker-Smith was cleared and the GMC were criticised by the court for the way they handled this case. No fraud was found.

I believe your statement was probably referring to the African-American children who were left out of the study co-authored by Dr William Thompson, the CDC Whistleblower. As you would know, if you had actually watched the documentary, VaxXed, (a video dealing with the cover-up of vital information linking vaccination with the current epidemic of autism, not, as you appear to believe, with Dr Wakefield’s 1998 Lancet study) Dr Thompson was ordered by his superiors in the CDC to destroy evidence demonstrating that African American boys were 380% more likely to develop autism following vaccination depending upon the age at which they were vaccinated. The CDC found backhanded ways to exclude this cohort from the trial and used other fraudulent methods to massage the data to make it look like this risk didn’t exist – but the actual data shows that the correlation was real and strong.

It was a requirement to access autism services to catch up their vaccines .. So of course all the kids in that group with autism has the MMR vaccine .. That’s why they were left out of the study.. Doh!!

Where do I start? Jane Hansen, I have no idea what you are referring to here? There is no study that I am aware of (certainly none that are discussed either as part of Dr Wakefield’s original case series or in the documentary, VaxXed) where children had to have vaccines to access autism services. Your use of the pejorative – Doh!! – to someone who approached you honestly and kindly, is uncalled for, don’t you agree? Especially when you are the one making an incorrect statement.

I don’t want to be rude but you insult all journalists believing this shit.

Handy hint, Jane Hansen. If you start out saying you don’t want to be rude, it’s not a good idea to finish by being rude.

Sorry you’ve been conned but you have. William Thompson never spoke to the vaxxed team who are not journalists .. He sought whistle blower status to avoid getting sacked for being a bad scientists..

I’m beginning to think you are making this up as you go along. Dr William Thompson spoke with Dr Brian Hooker for many years and Dr Brian Hooker is, most assuredly, one of the VaxXed team. Again, had you watched the documentary prior to commenting on it, you would have known that.

Dr Thompson sought whistleblower protection because the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), his employer and the organisation that had ordered him to commit fraud in a study he co-authored on vaccination and autism, was afraid that he would be arrested for speaking with Dr Hooker about this subject. You are the first (and only) person I have ever heard claim that Dr Thompson would be granted whistleblower protection because he was a bad scientist. Think about it. Bad science is not a reason for someone to become a whistleblower. It is, however, a reason to try and cover up results which the CDC has done and is still doing regarding this case.

The other scientist tried to put the confounding factor tram back in and his paper got thrown out too.. Not because it’s a conspiracy but because it was bad science. Now you do your research !

What scientist are you talking about Jane Hansen? And what confounding factor are you referring to? Honestly, my head is spinning here. You are moving seamlessly from 1998 when Wakefield publishing his original Lancet paper (with 12 other scientists, remember) to 2004 when Dr Thompson published his CDC Study to 2016 when VaxXed premiered. You are very unclear about what you’re referring to so a bit of clarity would be very helpful. What data, study and scientist are you referring to here?

Oh, and the producer got struck off the medical register for chafing dates on vax, performing lumber punctures on children without permission, accepted millions from the lawyers to ‘find a causal factor’ and was developing his own vaccine !!!

Jane Hansen, I studied journalism for a time at University and one thing I clearly remember learning, though it was so many years ago, was to research before writing. That was drummed into my head – research, research, research! It is obvious that you’ve forgotten this lesson. You see, the producer of the documentary, VaxXed, is Del Bigtree. Del, though he was a producer on the television show, The Doctors, for many years, has never been a doctor himself. Therefore, he never was, nor could he ever be, struck off of any medical register. I believe you are referring to Dr Andrew Wakefield who directed VaxXed but was not the producer (details do matter). And Dr Wakefield was a gastroenterologist. He referred children for endoscopies – not lumbar punctures. Ethical permission for both publication and testing was properly obtained and as far as I know, this was never in question. 

Please note – I have received a correction to the above statement (the one that has been struck out) and until it has been confirmed by Dr Wakefield, I will insert the correction below. I will update this when and if I have more information:

Could someone who knows Meryl please tell her she has got this bit below wrong? He did not refer children for endoscopies, he suggested parents get referrals from their doctors to go to the hospital, (so was found guilty by GMC of interferring with referrals), he was found guilty of organising tests including both endoscopies and lumbar punctures when it was not his job at the hospital (his defense was he had only an administrative role in planning the tests), and most importantly, not having ethical permission for the testing (according to them) was the main thrust of the charges against him, so was certainly in question.

“And Dr Wakefield was a gastroenterologist. He referred children for endoscopies – not lumbar punctures. Ethical permission for both publication and testing was properly obtained and as far as I know, this was never in question.”

A better response to Hanson’s lumbar punctures claim would be W didn’t treat children, the hospital’s doctor did, and he didn’t need permission.

Dr Wakefield was never paid ‘millions from lawyers’ to find a causal factor. He was retained by a legal team preparing a compensation case in the UK and both his involvement in this case and his fees (which totalled in the thousands – not the millions) were public knowledge at the time the Lancet article was published. The Lancet editors were perfectly well-aware of this as were the other doctors at the Royal Free Hospital in London.

You also claim that he (again, I’m assuming you mean Dr Wakefield though you are referring to the producer of VaxXed) was developing his own vaccine. Again, this is incorrect. Dr Wakefield was working on something called transfer factor to help prevent inflammatory bowel disease (this was never designed to be a vaccine) as well as a diagnostic test for determining the presence of measles virus in the body. It is time for you to stop getting all of your information from the so-called Skeptics and do some reading yourself, Jane.

Now there is corruption .. That is the story ! Now goodbye.

I will rephrase that to make it more accurate. Now THERE is ignorance. Now THERE are rumours. Now THERE is a made-up story.

Please don’t say good-bye. Take me up on my offer. We can have a good meal, a good chat, and I can hopefully encourage you to become a bit better informed and (I have to say it) a bit kinder to those whose knowledge about the subject of vaccines differs from your own.

What do you say, Jane? I’ll even buy you a glass of chardonnay – though I don’t drink it myself.

Be Afraid. Be Very Afraid

46496240 - businessman balancing hourglass on edge of wooden plank, with sun sky cityscape background.
What is there to be afraid of? Quite a bit, unfortunately.

The whole thing about vaccination is – it’s supposed to keep you safe.

If you’re vaccinated against measles, you shouldn’t get measles. If you are vaccinated against whooping cough, you should be protected from whooping cough.

That’s the ‘promise’ of vaccines. It’s why doctors and government officials refer to them as immunisations. Because the people who are vaccinated are the last ones who should be getting those diseases.

But the fact is, the vaccinated ARE getting sick with the very things they’ve been vaccinated against.

That used to be called vaccine failure; or breakthrough disease.

Now, it’s called exposure to the unvaccinated.

Pharma may be evil – but you can never say it’s stupid.

Turn a weakness into a strength and you have the beginning of a great marketing campaign. And that’s what we’re seeing right now.

Vaccines not working? No problem! We just need more of them and we need more people to take them. That’ll do it. And, if it doesn’t work, well, the fact that we were able to convince you lot that if 1 wasn’t good, 2, 3, 4 or 8 are better, means you will believe anything we say – no matter how unscientific or idiotic it is.

Because government vaccination policies aren’t based on science – far from it! They are based on emotion; on a religious, some might even say fundamentalist belief that vaccines are the only answer to infectious diseases. Even if the diseases we are trying to prevent rarely, if ever kill and may even be beneficial (measles, mumps, rubella and chicken pox come to mind); even if the diseases are easily prevented with clean water and breastfeeding (rotavirus and polio), vaccines will always be the best answer. Even when the vaccines don’t work.

And when they don’t work, the pat answer is – it wasn’t the fault of the vaccine. Oh no! It was the fault of some unknown, unnamed faceless child whose parents were so irresponsible as to not vaccinate them.

Think about that for a minute. We vaccinate to protect our children, but when the vaccines haven’t protected them, we’re told it’s because some outside force has broken through their protection.

Does that make sense to you? If it does, I have some desert land in central Australia that I’m developing into a theme park and I think you’re just the kind of investor we need!

All Theory-All the Time

The theory behind vaccination is – you inject a tiny bit of a chemically-altered (attenuated) virus or bacteria into a person’s body and the body creates antibodies that will stay there forever so that when you are naturally exposed to that virus or bacteria down the track, those antibodies are ready, willing and able to protect you without you developing symptoms.

Sounds good, right?

But we KNOW (don’t think, opine or conjecture – but KNOW) that those antibodies aren’t protective. In fact, they may be counter-productive.

All antibodies indicate is that you have been exposed to an antigen. It’s a sign that either naturally or by other means, your body has come into contact with virus A or bacteria C.

Natural exposure will not always cause the production of antibodies. And true immunity (not to be confused with the production of antibodies) can occur without developing any symptoms whatsoever (called a sub-clinical infection).

The whole basis for the theory of vaccination was disproved decades ago in the 1940s, when Dr Merrill Chase proved that antibodies do not, on their own, protect against disease.

Of course, by then, medicine was already on a course of no return when it comes to vaccination. They could see the dollar signs in their future. They could also see the risks to lucrative treatments if they came out and admitted that the cornerstone of Western medicine had just collapsed.

So, like all good profit-based businesses, medicine just ignored what Dr Chase said and kept on doing the same old, same old. It’s easy to claim that vaccines work if you set the bar so low. All vaccines have to do is induce the production of antibodies and, since vaccines expose you to viruses and bacteria and being exposed will usually cause antibodies, vaccines became a huge success story. Insert shot – antibodies! Nearly every time. And for those who don’t develop antibodies, well, we make up this theory called herd immunity. It’s great! You see, for those few unlucky souls whose bodies, for whatever reason, don’t ‘do the right thing’ and make antibodies, they will be protected by the those around them who have those wonderful things circulating in their bloodstreams.

Great system! Not based in science. Not backed by any proof or evidence whatsoever. But hey, we fooled you once, didn’t we?

So the people who are vaccinated and develop antibodies are protected from disease by their antibodies. And the ones who are vaccinated, but didn’t develop antibodies are protected from disease by the people with antibodies (are you still with me?). But neither the ones with antibodies or the ones who are vaccinated, but didn’t get the mojo from the shot will be protected if an unvaccinated person comes near them.

I see. Makes perfect sense.

But, you ask, what about those people who are vaccinated and develop antibodies, but whose antibodies wear off 6 months to 3 years down the track? What about them?

For them, we have boosters! Or, should I say BOO$TER$! (The worldwide vaccine market is predicted to total $77.5 billion by 2024 – more than double its current value due to mandatory vaccination and the introduction of potentially dozens of new vaccines.)

More money in pharma’s pocket. More expensive visits to GPs. Win/win!

And all of this is because 2 generations have been trained in the most Pavlovian of ways, to be afraid of viruses, bacteria and ALL diseases-more afraid than the are of poisons. Think of the chemicals in those toxic hand sanitisers that are so pervasive today; or the poisons in household cleaners that are far more toxic than most germs you would come into contact with in your home; or the toxins in vaccines and pharmaceutical medications that are responsible for tens of thousands of deaths each year.

So fearful, they are no longer able to think logically or sensibly about these topics.

They say that there is nothing to fear but fear itself, but I disagree. There is a lot to fear.

Be afraid – and be active

I fear the medical/pharmaceutical cartel that wants to take away our right to say no to poison;

I fear the government and media who are doing the bidding of the medical/pharmaceutical cartel without any care whatsoever for the citizens who elected them or those who buy their newspapers or watch and listen to their programmes;

I fear a population that has become so controlled, it will attack and condemn law-abiding citizens who make medical choices they disagree with;

most of all, I fear that we are quickly approaching the point of no return where so many of our children will be so damaged by vaccines and pharmaceutical medicines (1 in 6 is now learning disabled, 1 in 50 is autistic and 1 in 2 is suffering from at least one chronic illness) and you will see that our current generation of adults may well be the last one that will be able to think, act or decide for themselves about anything at all.

God help the human race as it travels down this path. May it find the courage and fortitude to fight for its rights – indeed, for its very soul – before it is too late.

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.


Does Malcolm Turnbull support censorship?

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.


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:


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.

Urgent update on Submissions to Senate Committee “No Jab, No Pay”

by Meryl Dorey

 I just got off the phone with the Secretariat of the Senate Commitee that is considering submissions on the No Jab, No Pay legislation. For those who have not been aware of what is happening with this, you can click here and here to read more.

The Secretariat told me some very important information so whether you have already sent in your submission or you were planning on doing so today, you MUST read this first because today is the deadline for all submissions and your voice counts! Submissions have to be received by 5 PM AEST – there is a 1 hour grace period but no more.

1- If you have not included your contact details (Name, Address, Phone number), your submission will not be accepted. Please note – it has been brought to my attention that submissions made via the committee’s web form will always collect this information so only if you mailed, emailed or FAXed your forms will this be a concern.

2- If your submission does not touch on the Bill at all, your submission will be taken as correspondence and will not be counted. If you say somewhere either in the body of your submission or, should you be sending it as email, in the introduction, that this is your submission, then it will be considered as a submission. One wording that I’ve seen on several submissions is: Attached please find my submission to the Senate Enquiry on the abovementioned Amendment Bill.” This is good wording should you wish to ‘borrow’ it.

3 – I was told that there were so many submissions that it is possible they may not all be dealt with prior to the time that the Committee needs to report back to the Senate on the 9th of November. This is not acceptable!  I just received information that over 1,000 submissions have been counted so far and it is expected that over 2,000 will have been received by the deadline this afternoon. I’m not sure if this is a record for any public inquiry by the Senate but it’s got to be close. It is so obvious that even Blind Freddy can see it, that this issue deserves time and serious consideration – not lip service and rushed decisions.

4- I was told that no promises will be made, but the Committee is considering holding a public hearing. We MUST put pressure on them to do this. We are voiceless without the opportunity to ask and answer questions in person as well as in writing.

Here is what I am asking everyone to do and it is vital that you do the first part today – the second can wait until next week if you’re pressed for time:

1- Check your submissions. If you feel that there is ANY chance that it will not be acceptable as a submission, edite it, add the wording about this being a submission, and resubmit it. Everyone one of us needs to be counted. Remember to do this before 6 PM this afternoon AEST.

2- Send an email to the Committee Secretariat demanding that they ask for an extension of time to properly consider the information they have received and also, that a public hearing be held to allow us to air our views before the senators. You can send this correspondence to the following email address – community.affairs.sen@aph.gov.au.

Again, with ALL submissions and correspondence, include your full name, address and phone contact. You can certainly ask them to withhold this information when they publish your submission on the website and they will do so but they won’t accept submissions without these details.

One last thing, I have tried to send an acknowledgement to everyone who has forwarded their submissions to me but I have been sick over this last week and was unable to do so. Please take it as read that I LOVE what you are doing, appreciate each and every one of you and will try very hard to get back to you over the coming days. Keep copying me in on your submissions – I get a little thrill every time I read one 🙂

URGENT – Action Plan to Protect Your Rights

UrgentYesterday afternoon, the No Jab, No Pay legislation was introduced in Federal Parliament. Please note – it was introduced – not passed.

You can (and should) read the Bill here:

Social Services Legislation Amendment (No Jab, No Pay) Bill 2015

If we do nothing, this bill will pass. If we wait for someone else to take the actions needed, this bill will pass. If we think that once this Bill passes we can somehow get it rescinded, we are living in a fool’s paradise.

We need to act – and we need to act NOW!


Thanks to the excellent work of a delegation of individuals that included representatives from the AVN. The Senate will be convening an inquiry looking into No Jab No Pay. I have no terms of reference for this inquiry as of yet but will find this information shortly. In addition to sending the letters to your State and Federal representatives, everyone needs to put together a short submission, explaining why you are opposed to this legislation and it needs to be received by the committee no later than October 16th so time is very short! I will be putting some talking points and details up about this over the weekend but be prepared to do some writing in the very near future. We need hundreds of submissions in order to show the Senators that there is a real grass-roots interest in health freedom. Be ready!

Here are 5 things you can do today to help ensure that this bill will never be enacted:

1- Send out the My Will letter to your local MP and State Senators should you have them.

2- Do the same for your federal pollies.

3- Write to Malcolm Turnbull and tell him why you oppose No Jab No Pay. Use the info from the My Will letter or use your own words. If you have a vaccine injured child – send him a picture. Make sure you use the words – “it is my will” in there somewhere so a reply will be required.

4- Join the AVN. Honestly, this is a no-brainer. For $25 a year, you will be supporting an organisation that is supporting you. Now that I am no longer President or on the Committee, I can say this – if you are not a member of the AVN, you are really not looking to the future. If you really can’t afford the $25, I believe there is a way to get a sponsored membership (but only do this if there is a real need). Contact the AVN and ask them about it. Whatever you do, join the AVN today!

5- Share this information with everyone you know – your children’s and grandchildren’s future may very well depend on what you do today. So be strong – be forthright – and be vocal. 271 new vaccines are in the pipeline. You and your family are the targets. So step forward and own your decisions. You are not alone. You are loved, supported and part of a growing community of freedom-loving men and women – speak your truth.

That’s it – a handful of steps you can take to help your family and your country. Will you please do this today?

Love to you all,


AVN Membership – Well Educated and Well Informed

AVN Report CoverThe Australian Vaccination Network (AVN) conducted an on-line membership survey at the end of 2012, with 640 members replying.  Eighty percent of these members were female and most had children.  Their overall education level was high – over 80% had a post school qualification and 56% had a bachelor degree or higher.  More than half worked in professional occupations.

Almost all had a negative attitude to childhood vaccination, with 85% being able to recall a time when they had become less positive to vaccination than previously.  The major reasons that prompted them to research vaccination and change their attitude were a concern to do the best for their families, and having witnessed adverse reactions to vaccination or the resulting long term effects.  Almost all had accessed a wide range of sources of information on vaccination, including the medical literature.  Notably, the AVN did not play a big role in initiating a change in attitudes, although it did serve as a source of information and support once people had decided to research the issue.

These parents have increasingly rejected vaccination in recent years.  Of 348 children represented in the survey aged five years or less, only two percent were fully vaccinated and eight percent were only partially vaccinated.  Thirty-three percent of these members said that at least one family member had suffered adverse reactions to a vaccine.  And thirty percent said that at least one family member had suffered long term effects from vaccines.  Allergies, including food intolerance, were mentioned 41 times.  Asthma was mentioned 34 times, along with a host of behavioural disorders, including autism which was mentioned 23 times.  Sixty felt that at least one family member had behavioural problems as a result of vaccines.

Ninety percent of these members agreed with the statement – “On average, non-vaccinated children tend to be healthier than those that have been vaccinated.”  If nothing else, the survey results indicate that there is an urgent need for medical authorities to initiate studies to compare the long-term physical and psychological health of vaccinated and unvaccinated children.

This recent survey was a follow up to a similar membership survey in 1998.  A copy of the report of the earlier survey can be accessed by clicking this link – A Profile of the Vaccination Awareness Movement in Australia.

For further information or to arrange for an interview with the AVN’s President, Mr Greg Beattie, please email info@avn.org.au.

URGENT – NSW Parliament Legislation on Compulsory Vaccination to be Debated This Thursday

NSW Parliament to Legalise Discrimination  and ban unvaccinated children from childcare and preschool!

7945839_sDetails are still a bit sketchy, but the news has just been released that changes to the Public Health Act have just been approved by cabinet and these changes have been approved by both the Liberals and Labour.

This does not mean that the law has passed and indeed, despite calling the Premier’s office for the last two days, the AVN has been unable to get a copy of the actual legislation. We have been told that it will be introduced for debate on Thursday this week (30th May, 2013).

It does mean that if you have been sitting back waiting for someone else to write a letter or call or (preferably) visit your State Member of Parliament, you need to do it tomorrow or the next day at the latest!

Here is what little we know – more information will be released as we find it:

  • The anti-discrimination act will need to be amended in order to legalise discrimination against unvaccinated children.
  • This is a bit contradictory because, the Public Health Act is being amended to ‘allow’ preschools and childcare centres to ban or exclude unvaccinated children, but…
  • The reports then go on to say that centres will be fined $4,000 for allowing unvaccinated children in.
  • Parents with a “genuine objection” to vaccination can apply for exemptions but “genuine objections will require proof from a GP that vaccines will be likely to harm the child so your chances of obtaining one of these forms are slim to nil.
  • Religious exemptions will be available but the Premier has said that he is hoping that  parents won’t think about forming their own religion to get around the new rules. There was no mention of Christian Scientists but the Federal Legislation does specifically leave an out for members of that church. Perhaps they will soon see a huge increase in congregants?

This is all the information currently available. The AVN will be contacting Parliament tomorrow morning and will update you on what we find out.

In the meantime, if you rely on:

  • Childcare
  • Preschool
  • Day Care or Long Day Care

If you don’t vaccinate your child, you MUST take action now.

And if you run one of these facilities and don’t want to be forced to discriminate against perfectly healthy unvaccinated children or have to close down because the majority of your clients can no longer send their children to you, it is up to you to become active as well.

The ONLY reason this is happening now is because more and more parents are deciding that vaccinations are neither safe enough nor effective enough for their children. It is our right to make these decisions and the government has NO right to discriminate against its citizens. Get up, get active, get angry and get moving!

The AVN would like to recommend that everyone write to all NSW Parliamentarians (Attached is a file with all email addresses) – whether you live in NSW or not. Below is a small selection of the many letters which members have written since last night. We need hundreds of you to write and if you live in NSW, to make an urgent appointment to either visit or call your local member and tell them your feelings on this subject. Get out of your comfort zone if you find this intimidating – it will be a lot more intimidating to have to vaccinate your children against your wishes! Thanks to all who have written already and who are soon to write or call and take part in this action.


Dear Minister/To Whom It May Concern,

I am an Australian father of three children living in Italy. I was shocked recently to learn that the NSW and Australian Government might consider further moves towards mandating paediatric vaccinations. This is particularly disturbing due to the risks and dangers associated with vaccinations, especially paediatric vaccinations. These dangers are creating huge financial costs, but more so, terrible human costs. There is a level of suffering and distrust associated with vaccinations that is becoming increasingly irrefutable. I work with and have spoken to parents who have had their child permanently injured by vaccinations. Anybody advocating compulsory vaccination is surely unaware of the current state of affairs and the dangers and risks associated with vaccinations as they stand at present, as well as the known fact that safety standards concerning vaccinations are severely inadequate. This was recently brought to light not far from where I am living by judges in Rimini, north-east Italy, who awarded a family Euros174,000 after the Italian Health Ministry conceded the MMR vaccine caused autism in their nine-year-old son Valentino.


Any intelligent person understands quite quickly that the current paediatric vaccination schedule in Australia (and Italy) is more about business than health. Insisting on compulsory paediatric vaccinations as they are currently administered is probably the least effective health policy imaginable, especially knowing what we do today about the risks and inefficiency of the current vaccinations in use.

What’s just as dangerous though, is the vilification of intelligent people who have experienced these risks first hand. The measures to discriminate against healthy unvaccinated children currently underway in Australia is deeply concerning, to say the least. Mandating vaccinations makes little sense from any point of view and imposes all sorts of unnecessary dangers and costs, and as far as I can see, also violates basic human rights as well as the Hippocratic Oath.

I am in full support of a vital amendment needing to be added into the draft Human Rights and Anti-Discrimination Bill 2012 that is currently before the Senate Inquiry.

The Council of Europe’s Convention on Human Rights and Biomedicine adopted the following principle in 1997 concerning any medical intervention. I would also like to request that the following statement is added to the draft Human Rights and Anti-Discrimination Bill 2012.

‘An intervention in the health field may only be carried out after the person concerned has given free and informed consent to it’.

I hope you will consider this request seriously and in full consciousness.

I look forward to your earliest reply.

Yours Faithfully,



Dear Parliamentarians,

I ask you to please consider saying NO to the discrimination of unvaccinated children. Vaccines are not a one size fits all, parents must retain their rights to choose health choices for their families.

Forcing vaccines on children may put them at risk of vaccine damage, who will be held accountable for this? Court cases are being tried and won in many countries, with millions in compensation being paid out to vaccine damaged children. If my healthy child were to suffer from fever, seizures, encephalitis, neurological damage, ADHD, ADD, Autism, and possibly even death, at any stage following vaccines, long or short term, will you be taking responsibility for them?

If you believe vaccines work, then vaccinated children should supposedly be protected, what threat can unvaccinated children possibly pose to them?

Will you be taking blood samples from all vaccinated children to ensure their vaccines have worked, as it is known that a portion of those vaccinated don’t develop immunity, therefore these children still pose as much threat as unvaccinated children.

If vaccines were indeed as safe and effective as claimed, there would be no need to force vaccines onto people. The fact is they are not 100% safe, they are not 100% effective and the minority should not have to sacrifice the health of their children to benefit the majority, this is not democratic and it is discrimination.

Where is the study comparing the fully unvaccinated to the vaccinated in terms of health, long and short term? How can you say that vaccines are truly of benefit if you do not do this study!

If you are giving childcare and preschool centres a right to deny the unvaccinated, I expect you should also give them the choice to accept unvaccinated children if they so choose, without any ramifications or penalties.

They should also be given the right to deny entry of vaccinated children if they so choose. I’m sure there are many who would love to see vaccine free centres and schools.

Will we soon see the discrimination of certain racial and cultural groups too?

What will you do if an outbreak occurs in a childcare centre or school that has a 100% vaccine rate? This would surely prove that it is not the unvaccinated at  fault as you would have us all believe.

So please, stand up for human rights and say No to the discrimination of the unvaccinated.



Wednesday 30th May 2013

RE: Public Health Amendment Bills 2013 re vaccination of children in childcare centres

To NSW Parliamentarians,

I am deeply concerned that these Bills are on your agenda. What sort of backwards society are we living in? It’s not the Dark Ages, you know. You’re looking to cross the boundaries called Democracy and Freedom.

Just because someone is vaccinated does not mean that they cannot spread or contract an illness/disease. A vaccination is not a one-stop shop that will prevent 100% of all diseases. Being vaccinated does not mean you won’t contract a disease and not being vaccinated doesn’t mean you will contract a disease!

Funnily enough, immunity to a disease is based not on vaccination, but on your immune system (which is governed by your nervous system, the entity that controls everything in your entire body). Whether or not you have been vaccinated is irrelevant. If your body has not recognised the disease and created antibodies after a vaccination, then you’re just as susceptible as the next person. In fact, between 5% and 35% of all vaccinated people don’t seroconvert, so potentially vaccinations only work in 65-95% of cases anyway. And even if they do work, there’s no guarantee that they’re going to stop you getting ill your whole life, or dying from a ‘preventable’ illness. With some vaccinations, I would think that the risks from vaccinations are worse than the actual illness.

And Jillian Skinner, contrary to your comment “Forget the scaremongering – there is nothing to fear from vaccination” from http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/vaccinate-your-children-or-declare-why-not-parents-told-20130528-2n8wp.html#ixzz2UaxWxUkf, there are actually dangers associated with having a foreign substance injected straight into your bloodstream! Perhaps you should do your research before uttering blatant lies to the public. If I were to say such things to my patients, I would expect to be hauled before the HCCC for intentionally lying to my patients. However, being a Doctor of Chiropractic, it is not my place to advise a patient on whether or not they should vaccinate (their child). I am a member of the Chiropractors’ Association of Australia and I stand by their policy that Chiropractors should encourage their patients to make informed health care decisions and to consult their GP in relation to the risks and benefits of vaccination. If the politicians of Australia would act more like health professionals and consider that there are risks and not only benefits from vaccination before making public comments, then things would be better – and more truthful – for everyone.

With respect to the potential non-seroconversions, will there be mandatory blood tests done on all children going to childcare to see who’s actually got antibodies and who doesn’t? And then will the ‘good’ parents, who got their child vaccinated, be turned away with their non-seroconverted child because they have an immune system that rejected the vaccine? Will giving the child another one, two or even three vaccinations do the trick? I think not, given the immune system didn’t take to it the first time around! It will only add more toxins and other non-necessary chemicals that are in many of the vaccinations to their immune system and will then risk further adverse reactions. Which, in the worst case scenario, could prevent the child from going to childcare at all because they could be dead by then.

Stopping children from entering childcare who are not vaccinated is a stupid idea. There has never been a documented case of an outbreak of infectious diseases proven to have started with an unvaccinated child. But there have been outbreaks documented to have started with fully vaccinated children and adults. Rather ironic, don’t you think?

And will teachers and other preschool and childcare staff be required to get boosters (because ‘natural’ immunity is lifelong, compared to ‘fake’ vaccination which usually has a limited shelf life immunologically). What if these workers object or are susceptible to adverse reactions? Will they lose their jobs at best? And at worst, will the NSW State Government set up a fund to compensate those who are vaccine-injured or killed as a result of this new policy? And where will the money come from for such a fund and how will it be administered? There are a lot of things the NSW State Government needs to think about before even considering passing these ridiculous Bills.

I am wondering though, if you are aware of the following (Commonwealth) statistical data?

These graphs clearly show that vaccinations were not responsible for the decline in deaths from infectious diseases over the last century, so I must wonder why the Governments of Australia are pushing so very hard for vaccinations. I would hate to think that it’s because the pharmaceutical companies that make these vaccinations are secretly whispering in the ears of NSW politicians, possibly for lucrative financial deals, with complete disregard for the truth, a person’s health or a person’s rights.

My husband and I have chosen to not vaccinate our daughter. We researched well and made our decision jointly upon this. She is vibrant and healthy and developing beautifully. Am I to consider that if we ever wanted to send her to childcare, perhaps for socialisation more than anything, that she would be subjected to a mandatory blood test to see if she had any antibodies to diseases before her application would even be viewed? This sounds scarily like the movie ‘Gattaca’ to me! Will we be required to home-school her as well, perhaps have her live in a little bubble away from the rest of the state all because we chose not to vaccinate her? Where will this nonsense end?

Stop trying to force all the people of NSW to do what right-wing policy makers want them to do. Forcing people to do anything is completely undemocratic and goes against everything that Australia stands for. When the government is trying to enforce vaccination, a physical act, on

a child (of all people!), and especially when the government does not seem to understand the scientific mechanism by which it works, then it tells me that the government is not thinking clearly, that the government is highly misinformed, that the government is making a huge mistake and that based on all this reckless behaviour, the government should be stood down. I don’t think you have been voted in to act like this and I certainly didn’t vote for this!

I am extremely unimpressed that taxpayers’ money is being wasted on such impertinent ideas as these Bills, and if passed, it will be a black day indeed for all NSW people. If you, NSW Parliamentarians, do not understand how vaccination truly works, then you should not be voting at all – for or against – these Bills. In fact, these Bills should not have even made it to the Legislative Assembly!

I am fed-up reading about how vaccinations are always safe and that everyone should have them and that it’s all about the herd immunity and other such things. Everything has side-effects, even Chiropractic! To not inform people of the side-effects of vaccination, to lie blatantly to the public and to then enforce it on small, defenceless children, who have no legal voice of their own is downright dishonesty at best and deeply criminal behaviour at worst. Please think before you act, please have a heart: don’t pass this Bill in any shape or form whatsoever.

Yours in truthfulness,


Dear Sir/madam

I am really concerned about the legislation due to be debated this week in parliament.

What concerns me is that the sort of discriminative policies I have read about will cause parents to make medical & health decisions for their children based on finances & employment necessity, rather than what is in the best interests of their individual child’s health needs. This will most certainly effect the parenting decisions of poorer people more than those of more wealthy people and is completely unjust.

Your parent constituents are intelligent enough to make these difficult & carefully considered decisions when given appropriate information & respect. Backing them into a corner where they are forced to do what is convenient rather than what is best is ridiculous and downright dangerous.

Yours Sincerely



Were you aware of the following Australian Government data?

Fig6_tetanusallages Fig4_scarletmeasles Fig3_whoop Fig2_diphtheria

These graphs using Australian Govt data clearly show that vaccinations were not responsible for the decline in deaths from infectious diseases over the last century. Any person with a shred of intelligence can see the phenomenal decline before vaccination was sold to the Govt.

If you were not aware of this, you need to ask why you’ve been lied to.

If you were aware of this, we need to ask why you have lied to us.

We have had a near fatal incident at the birth of our first child which was caused by anaphylactic shock due to vaccination and as such have now spent years researching and finding data supporting our decision to postpone any further vaccinations

Please be very, very certain that you were not elected to discriminate against any Australian citizens or residents but were put into office to protect all of your constituents and I expect you to protect me and my children or neither you nor anyone else from your party will receive my support at the next election.

  • If you don’t believe you already have enough data regarding this issue just you try and find a documented case of an outbreak of infectious disease proven to have started with an unvaccinated child. You won’t find it. What you will find is that the HAVE been outbreaks documented to have started with fully vaccinated children and adults.


  • Vaccinations cannot prevent a person from spreading or contracting illnesses – even if they themselves are not infected. And a few questions for you…..


  • Are the preschools and childcare centres going to draw blood from the fully vaccinated children prior to allowing them entry? Since this policy is supposedly being put into place to protect these children and between 5 and 35% of all vaccinated people don’t seroconvert, shouldn’t they also be identified and excluded for the protection of the others at the facility?


  • Will teachers and other preschool and childcare staff also be required to get boosters? What if they object or are susceptible to adverse reactions?


  • Will the NSW State Government set up a fund to compensate those who are vaccine-injured or killed as a result of this new policy? Where will the money come from for such a fund and how will it be administered?


  • Australia seriously needs level thinking, laterally minded and forward planning parliamentarians who do not succumb to the pressures of big pharma with hidden agendas. There are no hidden agendas with freedom- of- choice advocates except that we want to see our children flourish with the least amount of risk to their health. And there is no doubt that vaccines can damage health. And the adage I’ve been taught is “when in doubt, leave it out”


  • Please do your own research and see what you come up with. Would you put your child’s hand up for a brand new, just- released new vaccine? Come on, think about it. You wouldn’t. So don’t change the law so that the rest of us have to do this with the 34+ vaccines already out there.




Dear Members of Parliament,

In relation to the amendments proposed to alter the Public Health Act to ban unvaccinated children from child care and pre-schools, I implore you to please vote against these amendments as they are undemocratic and discriminatory against parents who have decided to raise healthy unvaccinated children. The level of toxins in current vaccines is immense, and simply unethical to inject infants with these. They damage the immune system of the child, and the flip side to this is, the implementation of such vaccines make the corporate provider a lot of money. Parents who have identified this travesty in the health system have decided to not vaccine their children, and some have decided to vaccinate through safer alternative means, such as homeopathy.

Please stand against any amendments to this Act that seems designed to punish parents who are wise enough to make their own decisions. The freedom to make decisions for our own children are our basic rights, and must be upheld.





I am sending this e mail to voice my deep concern at the bill which will allow discrimination against unvaccinated children refusing them entry to child-care centres and preschools.

I am a mother of two healthy boys who are unvaccinated. I have a Bachelor of Science degree and a Masters degree in Chiropractic and health is a passion and top priority in my life.

I have specifically researched and read many books on vaccination over the last ten years plus. I feel very confident in my choice not to vaccinate, and believe they only harm our children, not enhance their health.

Many people, and very educated people, agree with me.

They day the government decides it can force me to inject vaccines into my children which contain harmful ingredients including formaldehyde and aluminium, or to discriminate against my children for not being vaccinated, is the day in which basic human rights have been violated in this country.

Whether you believe vaccination to be of benefit to children or not, there is no circumstance in which coercive measures, discrimination or mandating of vaccination, which is a medical procedure, is acceptable.

Please do not support the changes that have been proposed to the Public Health Act.




Dear NSW Member,

I note with alarm and shock that the NSW Parliament is introducing for debate this Thursday 30th May, 2013 changes to the Public Health Act that will allow for the legal discrimination of unvaccinated children in child care centres and preschools!

These changes must not be allowed as not only will they have far reaching repercussions throughout all of Australia – not just NSW – but it is abhorrent to legalise ANY kind of discrimination.

Australian have fought hard for strong anti-discrimination laws and to allow these changes will fundamentally change the whole fabric of these laws and open the door for further discrimination in the future.

Minority groups should not be victimised or treated as if they have no voice. Despite what many people may think, “the majority rules” is not the basis of strong government and fair laws.

History has shown that the majority are often wrong or the information they have is wildly inaccurate and it is only through the courage and persistence of minorities that the world changes for the better, i.e. The earth was thought to be flat; electricity would never work; man weren’t meant to fly; “women belong in the kitchen and not the polling booth”; giving Thalidomide to pregnant women was a really neat idea. These are but a few of the many times where the majority “got it wrong.”

Under no circumstances should a person be forced to undertake a medical procedure against their will.

As parents, we are the ones whose right it is to make these choices for our children – NOT the government and most certainly NOT other parents.

To make these changes will be wrong on so many levels and quite frankly, Un-Australian.

I urge you to very carefully consider what it is that these changes will ultimately make if they are legalised.

Yours highly concerned,


Anti-Chiropractic Gag Proposal by Oz Media

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

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

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

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


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

RE: Ongoing anti-chiropractic campaign

Good morning all:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nothing could be farther from the truth.

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

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

So why are chiropractors being attacked?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

No manufacturer is liable for vaccine deaths or injuries

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

Vaccine manufacturers do not have to disclose all ingredients

There are over 300 new vaccines in development

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I thought Australians were smarter that Americans.

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

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

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

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

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

What was that lesson about ignoring history again…?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The word is out.

With the greatest of disrespect

We are constantly being told that the AVN is anti-vaccine and the we somehow try to prevent parents from hearing about the ‘benefits’ of vaccination (information about which is available through 99% of media reports and virtually 100% of doctor’s offices / hospitals / council clinics) whilst forcing them to listen to our information on the dangers and ineffectiveness of this medical procedure.

Yet in reality, we are the ones who tell people to see their doctors before making a decision about whether or not to vaccinate their children. We are the ones who include links to many mainstream medical sources on our website. And we are the ones who always try to include vaccine ‘experts’ in our seminars when they occur.

Next week, I will be speaking at two seminars on the Far North Coast of NSW – in Byron Bay on the 19th of June and in Lismore on the 20th.

Before I had even confirmed both venues, I invited Dr Chris Ingall, one of the most outspoken proponents of mass vaccination in this area, to be a speaker. Below is the letter I sent him on the 24th of May:

Dear Dr Ingall,

I hope this letter finds you in good health.

I am writing to inform you that the Australian Vaccination Network (AVN), Inc will be hosting two seminars on the issue of vaccination in the Lismore and Byron Bay area next month. I would like to ask if you would be prepared to be one of the speakers so that those in attendance will be able to get a balanced view of this most important issue.

You will be given 1/2 an hour for your talk and I would be very happy for you to be there to answer questions at the end of the seminar as well.

If you would feel more comfortable, I am happy for you to suggest a moderator for the evening who will be fair and unbiased.

The date for Lismore is locked in at the 20th of June and the seminar starts at 7 PM and will go (with question time) until approximately 10 PM

Byron Bay is not yet confirmed, but it will either be the day before – the 19th of June or the day after – the 21st of June.

I would appreciate it if you could let me know as soon as possible if you are available for either or both of these events so I can try to arrange an alternate speaker should these dates not fit with your schedule.

Kind regards,
Meryl Dorey

I had to resend the invitation to him on the 28th because I hadn’t received an answer, but on the 29th, he wrote back to me as follows (an email which I felt was very cordial):

Dear Meryl,
Thank you for your kind invitation to speak at your upcoming Seminars. Unfortunately I am unavailable to talk on those evenings. I am sure you will find someone of equal or greater interest to fill my spot.
Kind Regards,
Chris Ingall

I responded by thanking him for getting back to me and I asked if he would be able to suggest anyone else who might possibly be interested in speaking at these events but he did not reply.

On the 30th of May, I sent the same letter (with the addition of confirmed details for the Byron Bay event) to Mr Vahid Saberi, CEO of the North Coast Medicare Local. I also sent it to Mr Paul Corben, Director of Mid North Coast Public Health and called his office and spoke with his assistant, Colleen, regarding this event. I tried to call Marianne Trent who is the immunisation coordinator at the North Coast Public Health Unit, but she will not speak with me, return my calls, emails, faxes or letters. She is a public servant who does not believe it is her role to serve all of the public – only those who are not associated with the AVN.

I never received a response from Vahid Saberi and it was only after 3 calls to Paul Corben’s office, the most recent being yesterday when I once again spoke with his assistant, Colleen, that I finally received a response from the man himself:

So while it seems that the mainstream medical authorities like to talk a big game about supporting choice on health issues and wanting to ensure that everyone is fully-informed (since that their requirement according to the National Health and Medical Research Council), when it comes down to it, their actions speak far louder than their words. They are anti-choice and will do everything in their power to keep the parents of Australia from learning about the other side of the vaccination debate – a debate they refuse to participate in.

Celebrating ignorance-Mia Freedman says ’embrace your inner moron’

A story that hit this weekend’s Murdoch newspapers (Herald Sun, Courier Mail, etc) seems destined to leave most intelligent people asking – is this an early April Fool’s day piece?

Entitled, Become an expert is just a mouse click away  (I guess subeditors on the weekend papers are not au fait with the rules of grammar?), this opinion piece, written by Mia Freedman, former Features Editor of Cleo magazine and Editor of Cosmpolitan (both hotbeds of scientific debate!) and current doyenne of the hip parenting site mamamia, explains why parents are just not smart enough to make informed decisions about health issues. Instead, they should just do what their doctors tell them and vaccinate for goodness sake!

In what must be one of the most glaring unintentional contradictions of this incredibly contradictory piece, Freedman says, “I’M not suggesting we become a flock of sheep or suspend critical thought.” followed immediately by, “But I don’t need to “do my research” before I vaccinate.”

Well duh! If you don’t do your research first Mia, may I suggest you open wide and say baaaaaaaaaa!

Because not researching what is done to you or to your minor children is worse than stupid – it’s irresponsible. Take it from someone who did NOT research this issue first (me) and whose child is still suffering as a result of that more than 20 years later. Researching first is the better and smarter choice.

Freedman is confused about why parents would ever think of questioning vaccination. She says, “I’m baffled by this growing sense that everyone has the right – indeed the obligation – to challenge facts that have been established scientifically, independently and repeatedly over years, even decades.” As if when it comes to a scientific issue, we have no right to ask questions. What Mia obviously doesn’t understand is that science is all ABOUT asking questions!

Where would we be if people did NOT question and research? Thalidomide wasn’t withdrawn for use in pregnant women because the medical community all of a sudden decided that maybe it was causing harm. No, it took many reports of serious birth defects and one very ethical researcher (who later paid for his moral decision to openly question this drug through persecution and loss of his license) who actually listened to the parents before government and the medical community finally did something – too late for thousands of children around the world who were born armless, legless and with other serious disabilities.

The same with mercury in over the counter medications and vaccines; Vioxx, Avandia and so many other dangerous drugs which, were health consumers to follow your advice and just do as their doctors told them, would still be harming and killing people today.

In trying to dissuade parents from looking at the benefits and risks of vaccination (Risks? What risks?), Freedman comes out with the following bit of brilliance:

While publicly pedalling its anti-vaccination message, the AVN cleverly makes it sound like there are “two sides” to the vaccination debate.

In fact, there aren’t two sides and there is no debate.

On one hand there is science and there is no other hand.

We were given brains for a reason and it is up to every parent to use their intelligence to make informed choices for their children.

I feel sorry for you Mia but more then that, I feel sorry for the children of parents who will read your piece and follow your advice.

For me, I will continue to research health decisions and speak with my doctor, chiropractor, naturopath or homeopath (depending on the situation) to get their point of view as part of a package of information I will use to make my final choice.

I’d rather be a lion then a lamb any day.

Oh, and I am not saying that parents who vaccinate are morons – parents who research this issue first and decide to vaccinate are every bit as intelligent as those who, doing the same research, make a different choice. But anyone who makes a health decision without knowing the benefits and risks from all aspects of the debate don’t just need the recommended treatments – they need to have their heads examined.

Letters to the Herald Sun can be sent to hsletters@heraldsun.com.au

To the Courier Mail – use the online form at http://www.couriermail.com.au/help/contactus

And if this article appeared in your local newspaper, please write to them and if possible, copy all letters to me at meryl@avn.org.au

Enhanced by Zemanta