Show us the evidence

10502323 - magnified illustration with the word facts on white background.
Where is the evidence that vaccines are either safe, effective, or necessary?

Evidence-based medicine has been the buzz-word of the last 10 years. It makes people feel confident about seeing their doctor and taking the treatments on offer if they are thought to be ‘evidence-based’. After all – medical drugs (and vaccines are a drug) are supposed to be ‘evidence-based’, right? They’ve been through all the standard tests, have been studied for years before being released and have stood the test of time to prove they are both safe and effective.

Only they haven’t. Estimates that pharmaceutical products have any benefit range from a low of 15% to a high of only 50% (Ioannidis JPA (2005) Why Most Published Research Findings Are False. PLoS MED 2 (8)) – a pretty sorry situation – especially when we see industry-sponsored front groups like the Friends of Science in Medicine (FOSIM) trying to destroy 5,000 year old practices like Ayurveda and Chinese Herbal Medicine because they are not ‘evidence based’.

Of course, my focus is and always has been the practice of vaccination, so how can I show that vaccines are not evidence-based?

I have often posted copies of graphs from Greg Beattie’s excellent book, Fooling Ourselves on the Fundamental Value of Vaccines showing the decline in mortality (deaths) well before the introduction of either vaccination or (in most cases) antibiotics. (and these or similar graphs can be found for just about every country that instituted mass vaccination campaigns in the early part of the 20th century)

These graphs demonstrate clearly and scientifically that there is little to no evidence that vaccinations were responsible in any way for the decline in deaths from infectious diseases experienced over the last 2 centuries.

But what about today? 

Australia instituted mass vaccination in 1953. At that time, the only vaccines being used were DPT (diphtheria, pertussis [whooping cough] and tetanus), smallpox, tuberculosis for some individuals, typhoid (mostly for indigenous populations) and a couple of years later, oral polio.

So, we would expect that the introduction of and encouragement to vaccinate all children would have seen an immediate and permanent decline in the rates of infectious diseases we vaccinated against.

But have they?

Pertussis is the most obvious example that all is not right in the state of vaccine effectiveness. We first started using the DPT (whole cell) vaccine in the 1930s, but it was not in widespread use until 1953. In 1991, the National Notifiable Diseases Surveillance System (NNDSS) created a database of all laboratory-confirmed cases of infectious diseases in Australia. This database tracks ALL confirmed cases of these illnesses each year, though it does not track (or even ask) about vaccine status. Now the database itself is suspect because vaccinated people are FAR less likely to be tested for a so-called vaccine-preventable disease than their unvaccinated peers, so we know that this database would underestimate the true rate of infection. But bad data is the only data we have to we’ll go with that for the time being.

For all we know, 100% of those on the NNDSS database who are reported to have had these “vaccine preventable’ diseases were fully vaccinated against them. The fact that this basic information is not requested is an omission so blatant, it would appear to most of us to have been intentional.

But I digress.

Below is the table of reports for pertussis from 1991 (when the NNDSS started collecting data) to 2016. Of course, the 2016 figures are only preliminary and not complete. As you can see, there has been a huge increase in laboratory-confirmed cases of pertussis – an increase that would indicate there must have been a decline in vaccination. After all, if vaccination rates were steady or even increasing and the vaccines provided ANY protection whatsoever, we would expect to see a decline in incidence, not an increase.

Pertussis notifications 1991 to 2016 NNDSS

But over the time period covered by this table, Australia’s childhood vaccination rates went from a low of 68% (in 1991) to a high of 95% in 2008.

Evidence-Based medicine demands that there be at least some proof of a treatment’s or preventative’s effectiveness. Well here, we have proof positive that the whooping cough vaccine is ineffective (and evidence that it might be counter-productive since increases in vaccination rates have been met with concurrent increases in notifications).

To add insult to injury, if we look at the per capita (per head of population) rate of whooping cough, we find that in 1953, when mass vaccination began, the rate of whooping cough was approximately 100 cases per 100,000 Australians. In 2011 when we had nearly 40,000 cases of pertussis reported in Australia (and a 95% vaccination rate), that equated to a rate of over 181 cases per 100,000 head of population – nearly double what it was before the vaccine was used nationally in 1953.

Mumps (see NNDSS table below) has gone from less than 200 cases per year to over 600 in 2015. This year looks like it might be even higher. Again, there is no information about the vaccination status of these children and adults, but if the Australian situation is anything like that in the US, most of them would have been fully vaccinated with 2 doses of MMR. America has now added a third dose of MMR to the vaccination schedule, simply because the number of mumps and measles cases amongst the vaccinated is exploding.

Mumps notifications 1992 to 2016 NNDSS

One has to ask – if 2 doses aren’t working (and when this vaccine was introduced, we were assured that it would be one dose for life), why in the world would 3? Is that really the answer to a vaccine that is not effective – give more ineffective vaccines? I guess if you were a drug company profiting from every shot, it would be the best possible answer. But if we are talking about ‘evidence-based’ medicine, surely we can do better?

In addition, the mumps portion of the MMR vaccine is now the basis of a major whistleblower lawsuit in the US. Two Merck scientists have been granted whistleblower protection for their claims that the protective efficacy of the mumps vaccine has been fraudulently overstated! Merck says it protects 95% of those who receive it – these scientists say it could be less than 60% protective. If Merck loses, they could be subject to a fine totalling in the billions of dollars. Just the cost of doing business for a company like Merck, however.

Reports of influenza are a true shocker! According to the NNDSS, there were over 100,000 cases of laboratory-diagnosed influenza last year – a year in which the stated efficacy of the flu vaccine was 17%. Influenza seems to be exploding in Australia and the more the government and the medicos campaign to get people – from 6 months of age through to the elderly – vaccinated – the higher the number of reports of influenza (much like pertussis).

Influenza Notifications 1992 to 2016 NNDSS

There are many more tables that you can access at the NNDSS – click here or on any of the tables above for a searchable page where you can filter by disease so you can see for yourself how little vaccination has done to reduce reports of infectious diseases.

The last illness I would like to cover – briefly – is Hepatitis B. A birth dose of Hep B vaccine was introduced in Australia in the 1990s. As most of you would know, Hep B is a sexually transmitted disease and a disease of intravenous drug users. It is NOT a disease you can contract from casual contact and it is NOT a disease that newborns or children are prone to contracting unless their mothers are carriers (and women are routinely tested for this during pregnancy).

To target babies with this vaccine would require real evidence that they are at risk of contracting and suffering from Hep B. Evidence that is non-existent.

Hep B itself is not a disease that, in most cases, causes disability or serious health problems. In most people, the virus is cleared from the system without long-term issues. In a tiny percentage, however, the virus is not cleared and with those people, it is thought that the infection can lead to liver cancer decades later.

This is why the vaccine was introduced – to prevent liver cancer in those who are affected.

So, we would expect, when looking over the incidence of liver cancer during the period of time after the introduction of the Hep B vaccine, that we would see a huge decline in diagnoses.

Nothing could be further from the truth, however.

Since the introduction of Hep B vaccination in the 1980s, the incidence of and mortality from liver cancer has skyrocketed! (Graph from Cancer Australia)

Liver Cancer Mortality

In conclusion, there is no statistical evidence to show that vaccines have been responsible in any way for a reduction in either the reported incidence of or mortality from most infectious diseases they are meant to prevent.

At a time when all treatments must prove to be ‘evidence-based’ and when our tax dollars are having trouble keeping up with the growing demands for medical services, one has to ask why we are continuing to throw good money after bad on ever-more vaccination campaigns targeting the entire Australian population.

Serious flu risk could be identified with genetic test | Science | The Guardian

Your ability to sail through flu infections (as most of the population seems to) has nothing to do with:

1- Your diet;

2- Your lifestyle choices (do you drink to excess, smoke, take pharmaceutical drugs);

3- Exercise status;

4- Living conditions.

No, none of this really matters so don’t even worry about them. New anti-viral$ will be developed by Big Pharma to help ‘treat’ your flu infection$. I’m $ure they will be every bit a$ $afe a$ Tamiflu was. Ohwait a minute…

So pay no attention to the man behind the curtain. Don’t be concerned with the choices you make regarding your health – there is nothing you can do to improve it outside of the needles and pills your doctor pushes at and into you. 

Western medical practitioners and researchers – the Calvinists of ‘science’!

Findings show that the severity of infection can be partially governed by a person’s genetic make-up, and opens the door to new types of anti-viral drugs

Source: Serious flu risk could be identified with genetic test | Science | The Guardian

Vaccination During Pregnancy – Untested, Unsafe and Recommended by the CDC

By Benjamin Rush

Below is a table of vaccinations which are recommended before, during and after pregnancy for American women. The table is from the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) -the corrupt American Government body that has been implicated in colluding with pharmaceutical interests to cover up and suppress information on the link between vaccinations and autism (amongst other things).*

Please note that NONE of these vaccines have ever been tested for safety during pregnancy  and that since the US Government began recommending vaccines to pregnant women, the number of fetal deaths has exceeded postnatal deaths the first time ever. (Fetal and Perinatal Mortality: United States, 2013)

Australia also started to recommend vaccinations during pregnancy – even during the first trimester when moms are supposed to avoid exposure to any and all toxins and drugs.

Are millions of children being killed and permanently injured in the womb where their parents will never suspect the involvement of vaccines? Will children who are born with multiple birth defects and congenital issues or being miscarried hours or days after their mothers were vaccinated ever be counted in the official toll of vaccine victims?

If you know of someone who is currently pregnant or is thinking of getting pregnant sometime in the future, please share this information with them.

If you are a pediatrician, obstetrician or other health professional, please become informed about the risks of the procedures you recommend. Primum non nocere – Firstly, do no harm.pregnancy chart

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 the government, your health care provider and/or other medical source material to assist you in developing the knowledge required to make informed health choices.

Benjamin Rush is nocompulsoryvaccination’s USA Correspondent and the owner of the Fans of the AVN Facebook page.

Timeline to a Tragedy:Part 3 – Lessons go Unlearned

Monday, April 19, 2010

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

Divider 1

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

Divider 1

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

Divider 1

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

 Divider 1

Michael Rutherford from QLD Health, emailed Kerry White:

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

Kerry White responded:


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


To which, Michael Rutherford replied:

Dear Mr Swine Flu,

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


Kerry White, then responded with:

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

Tuesday, April 20, 2010

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

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

Divider 1

CIC stops using both Fluvax and Fluvax Junior.

Divider 1

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

Divider 1

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

Wednesday, April 21, 2010

Triage nurses assigned to collect data on reactions at RGH.

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


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

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

Thursday, April 22, 2010

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

Divider 1

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

Divider 1

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

Divider 1

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

Divider 1

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Friday, April 23, 2010

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

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

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

Divider 1

PMH sends 5 more reaction reports to the TGA.

Divider 1

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

Divider 1

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

Divider 1

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

Divider 1

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

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

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


Saturday, April 24, 2010

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

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

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

Dr Young replied to Naomi Ford as follows:

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

Naomi Ford provided Dr Young with the following information:

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

Are you aware of this? Please advise.

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

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

Monday, April 26, 2010

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

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

Tuesday, April 27, 2010

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

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

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

Thursday, April 29, 2010

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

Tuesday, May 18, 2010

Email from Naomi Ford to Dr Jeannette Young:

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

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

Saturday, April 10, 2010

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

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


Dr Young replied to both Christine Selvey and Dr Schedlich:

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

Monday, April 12, 2010

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

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

Divider 1

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

Divider 1

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

Divider 1

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

Divider 1

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

Divider 1

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

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

Tuesday, April 13, 2010

Craig Davis sends an email to Christine Selvey:

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

Divider 1

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

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

Divider 1

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

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

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

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

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

Divider 1

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


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

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

Wednesday, April 14, 2010


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

Divider 1

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

Divider 1

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

Divider 1

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

Divider 1

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

Thursday, April 15, 2010

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

Divider 1

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

Divider 1

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

Divider 1

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

Divider 1

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

Friday, April 16, 2010

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

Last part of timeline will be uploaded tomorrow

Tamiflu drug ‘largely ineffective’ in reducing hospitalisation: study

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

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

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

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

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

UK Government Laments Tamiflu Secrets | The Scientist Magazine®

tamiflu fullNow let me get this straight…The UK Government spent more than $700 million purchasing and recommending Tamiflu to all of its citizens and now, they are complaining that the drug companies withheld information from them so they didn’t know about the safety or effectiveness of the drug prior to buying it. I don’t know about you, but if our governments spend our money on drugs and vaccines BEFORE knowing this information, they should be put in jail for stealing at the very least – gross negligence as well. This is why the AVN has been saying that governments need to do their own testing of all vaccines and drugs prior to licensure. It is the necessary due diligence and without that, we have a situation that we currently see where adverse reactions to drugs and vaccines is now close to the number one cause of death in just about every developed country in the world.

“Despite the UK government stockpiling £424 million ($694.3 million) worth of the antiviral medication Tamiflu, doctors and researchers are unable tp make informed decisions about its use because of a lack of public data on the drug’s safety and efficacy, according to the Public Accounts Committee of Parliament.

“Committee member Richard Bacon, who is a member of parliament, told the BBC: “The full results of clinical trials are being routinely and legally withheld from doctors and researchers by the manufacturers of medicines.” On top of that, the committee had “extreme concern” that positive trial results were more likely to be published than negative ones, Bacon said.”

Click the link below to read the full story.

UK Government Laments Tamiflu Secrets | The Scientist Magazine®.

Why should we trust medicine?

We are constantly being told that when it comes to our health and the health of our families, we should trust our doctors because they practice ‘evidence-based medicine’ – three words which would indicate to any thinking person that the drugs and vaccines being delivered by medicos have undergone rigorous independent trials and been shown to be both safe and effective.

In fact, nothing could be further from the truth and the evidence for this lack of safety and efficacy is becoming more apparent on an almost daily basis.

On Tuesday this week, an article appeared in Britain’s Guardian newspaper, written by Brian Deer of all people. Yes, the same Brian Deer who was the instigator of the charges brought against the authors of the 1998 Lancet paper that hypothesised a potential link between the MMR vaccine and autism.

Entitled, It’s time for a register of interests for science academics, this article discusses the fact that a great deal of medical research is being called into question because it has been performed by academics who are financially linked with the drug companies and the products they are meant to be studying. There is no way of knowing about these links in many cases because there seems to be a strong reluctance on the part of these researchers to reveal this information and there is no legal requirement for them to do so. As a result, the conclusions drawn by published, peer-reviewed studies is suspect.

Does this sound familiar? It’s exactly what the AVN has been saying for almost 20 years now!

Stating the bleeding obvious in his own inimitable style, Deer says that,

Although triumphant in the common room over their front-of-the-plane funding, successful science academics (particularly in biosciences) are often as publicly transparent about the paymasters behind their publishing as chefs are about rats behind the fridge.

And whilst scientists, academics and pharmaceutically-funded researchers continue to publish studies without independent oversight, the toll of bad medicine continues to mount as does the cost – both emotional and financial – to society.

As long as scientists get more money (which I think was Bhattacharya’s point) and the idea doesn’t get round that most science articles are advertising, the tobacco industry’s dosh is the same colour as Marie Curie’s. All it needs is a good scrub for opacity. More worrying to journal editors would be any dent in reader loyalty triggered by stirring public pressures to disclose.

The Bhattacharya Deer was talking about published a blog in the Guardian back in February entitled, Scientists have sold their souls – and basic research – to business. In this article, Bhattacharya says that,

Young scientists who want their research funded are now expected to ‘forge lasting links with industry’.

…Can basic research be saved from the tyranny of the profit motive? I doubt it. The coalition government has shown little inclination to question the science policies inherited from New Labour, and judging by the science minister’s comments, he has little time for science for science’s sake. The devil, it seems, will always get his due.

This new form of chequebook science is what we see happening in Australia via organisations like The Telethon Institute. Their former director, Professor Fiona Stanley, crowed in an interview with the NHMRC that Telethon’s relationship with big pharma was pivotal to the Institute’s success.

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

What’s the problem?

The government claims that this cozy relationship between researchers and drug companies is not a problem. They say that the integrity of research is not affected by money and anyway, it’s impossible to find qualified experts who are not already affiliated with big pharma so we need to use what we have.

That’s simply not good enough, however. Not when our lives and our health are at stake!

In today’s New York Times, Peter Doshi from the Johns Hopkins School of Medicine and Tom Jefferson from the prestigious Cochrane Collaboration have contributed an Op-Ed piece entitled, Drug Data Shouldn’t Be Secret. In this article, they describe the inevitable outcome of industry-funded studies which are classified as commercial in confidence with data that is not available to the public or the scientific community for independent scrutiny.

Doshi and Jefferson talk about the Tamiflu debacle where the US government spent over $1.5 billion stockpiling this anti-viral drug during the so-called ‘swine flu pandemic’. They did this based upon information provided by Roche, Tamiflu’s manufacturer and the only body to have studied the ability of this drug to prevent influenza or reduce the severity of its symptoms or a person’s risk of hospitalisation.

IN the fall of 2009, at the height of fears over swine flu , our research group discovered that a majority of clinical trial data for the anti-influenza drug Tamiflu — data that proved, according to its manufacturer, that the drug reduced the risk of hospitalization, serious complications and transmission — were missing, unpublished and inaccessible to the research community. From what we could tell from the limited clinical data that had been published in medical journals, the country’s most widely used and heavily stockpiled influenza drug appeared no more effective than aspirin .

So we had a drug that was not suited to the purpose for which it was sold, being studied only by the drug company that reaped huge profits from its sale and whose data was not made available then or since – despite promises by Roche to provide this information.

After we published this finding in the British Medical Journal at the end of that year, Tamiflu’s manufacturer, Roche, announced that it would release internal reports to back up its claims that the drug was effective in reducing the complications of influenza. Roche promised access to data from 10 clinical trials, 8 of which had not been published a decade after completion, representing more than 4,000 patients from every continent except Antarctica. Independent verification of the data seemed imminent. But more than two years later, and despite repeated requests, we have yet to receive even a single full trial report.

…This is not the way medical science should progress. Data secrecy is a disservice to those who volunteer their bodies for clinical trials, and is dangerous to those being asked to swallow approved medicines. Governments need to become better stewards of the scientific process.

…We should not have to wait for patients to be hurt by the medications they take, as recently happened with the diabetes drug Avandia , before reviewing this wealth of data.

As I said, these are just a few of the reports that come out on an almost daily basis demonstrating that what we currently call science actually represents research available only to the highest bidder and what medicine calls evidence is only smoke and mirrors set up to conceal the fact that actual scientific research has never been done.

Trust? It’s something that has to be earned.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Junk Science at it’s Best (Worst?)

Every once in a while, an article appears that is so blatantly biased – so obviously just printed directly from a press release – it needs to be highlighted. There will be many credulous people out there – health professionals amongst them – who will look at the title and think they know the story. But let’s look through this piece of medical marshmallow fluff and see where this article has gone so badly wrong.

Kids Benefit from Flu Vaccine Via Shot or Spray Study Finds

There you have the title. And if you were to just read that much, as many people do, you would be under the impression that a REAL study was done which found REAL results showing that children were protected from influenza whether they got an injected vaccine or the live-virus nasal spray option. Nothing could be further from the truth. Please read on.

Study data suggests that children younger than 3 years old receive roughly the same amount of protection from the flu vaccine regardless of whether the two recommended doses are administered by injection, nasal spray, or one of each, as reported in MSN.

The language is so important in cases such as this. Study data ‘suggests’. Now I can make a suggestion to you and you will take it as just that – a suggestion. But study data should not suggest – it should find or prove. Also, look at the source – there is no reference for this study through the entire (short) article. It keeps referring to MSN  as being the source of this data but there is no primary reference nor, on searching the web, can I see where this ‘study’ has been published. There are just several other reports in the media which obviously came from the same press release. Journalism should be something more than just reporting what you have been told no matter the source.

NIAID director Anthony S. Fauci noted that “this study provides initial evidence that the prime and booster doses for these young children can be different types of flu vaccines and still provide adequate protection against matching seasonal flu strains.”

NIAID is the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases – a division of the National Institutes of Health in the US. A search of their website finds a link to the press release that all of these stories must have been taken from – you can read it by clicking here and the actual study report can be found by clicking here, though keep in mind that the results have never been published to the web, as far as I can see. I will get back to the study design in a little while, but for now, I want to discuss more of this lousy excuse for an article.

For the study, researchers examined 53 children ranging in age from 6 months to 35 months over the course of two years, during which children received the doses in one of the following manners: two injections of flu vaccine; two doses of the live, attenuated nasal spray; nasal spray followed by an injection; injection followed by the nasal spray.

You have GOT to be kidding me! There are tens of thousands of infants and children in that age range who get either the nasal flu or the injected flu vaccine every year in the US. Are they honestly trying to convince people that a study of 53 children is going to prove either safety or effectiveness? If this weren’t so sad, it would be laughable.

The investigators found that all four groups of children were safe and produced similar amounts of protective antibodies, but young children who receive at least one dose of the nasal spray vaccine had the broadest immune response, which could boost their protection against many diverse flu strains.

This is not surprising. The nasal spray is a live virus vaccine that delivers the dose over the mucous membranes in much the same way that we would contract the flu (or a cold or many other viral illnesses). It makes sense that antibody production would be highest in this group. Also, keep in mind that they said that all 4 groups of children (divide 53 by 4 and you find out that there could not have been more than 14 children in any one group – a statistically insignificant number to anyone who is actually trying to find out how safe or effective a treatment is as opposed to someone who is just trying to get a good headline to push their own agenda) were safe using these protocols. We will come back to that.

However, the study pointed out that the live, attenuated flu virus has been linked to wheezing in the youngest recipients, so the researchers concluded that the best regimen for children younger than 24 months might be one injected dose followed by one live, attenuated dose of the seasonal flu vaccine.

The medical definition of a rare side effect is one that happens in fewer than 1:10,000 doses of a treatment. We have a total study group of 53 children and in such a small group, they found an increase in wheezing and this is not a cause for alarm? But of course not! We can’t say that the wheezing caused by this live virus vaccine is associated with an increased risk of asthma because ALL vaccines are good and safe – just some are better and safer. Instead, we are told that we can still use both injected and nasal spray vaccines – we just use one a bit earlier and one a bit later.

The drug companies are happy; the government is happy; and the parents don’t know any better and would never blame their child’s breathing problem on the vaccine their child received. After all, if it weren’t safe, the government would not have allowed it to be released, right?

Now, for the actual study. Remember, this is 53 children in total who received one of several different combinations of vaccines. This was supposed to show that not only was the vaccine effective but it was safe as well. In order to prove safety, we should have one group that gets a treatment and another that gets a placebo which by definition is a totally inert substance (eg saline solution). For anyone who has been following this issue for any time at all, you will not be surprised to hear that there was no control group. All 4 groups of children involved got 2 different types of vaccine. There was also no blinding of the groups so parents and researchers were aware of who was getting what treatment. Despite this, and despite the increase in wheezing, the vaccines were all declared to be safe. Bravo! Now for the inclusion criteria. These are the children who were ‘allowed’ to participate in the study.

  • Twelve to 35 months of age at enrollment.
  • Minimum weight of 8 kg.
  • In good health, as determined by parent/guardian verbal medical history and physical examination by clinical investigator.
  • Parent/guardian available by telephone for safety data collection through 6 months post-dose 2.
  • Ability of parent/guardian to understand and comply with the requirements of the protocol.
  • Signed informed consent document and Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) authorization by the parent/guardian prior to performance of any study procedures.
One can only imagine what the parents would have been told prior to their agreeing to put their children into this study. You can bet they weren’t told that all flu vaccines were found by the Cochrane Collaboration to be absolutely useless in children aged under 2 years old. Nor would they have been informed that even after 2 years old, children who are vaccinated against flu are no less likely to be hospitalised with influenza or to have the disease for a shorter duration. In any case, these are the children who ARE allowed into the study. Those who are NOT allowed in are much more interesting. Please keep in mind when reading this list that vaccination is a one-size-fits-all treatment. The only true contraindication to vaccination in the real world is an anaphylactic (severe, life-threatening allergic response) reaction to a previous dose. yet here, in a study that is supposed to show us that the vaccines are safe for all, are the kids who were not allowed in. I wonder if they only got 53 children in the final study because with so many vaccinated kids, it was hard to find children healthy enough to meet the criteria?
Exclusion Criteria:

  • History of hypersensitivity to any component of LAIV or TIV, including egg or egg products.
  • History of hypersensitivity to gentamicin.
  • Known or suspected immune deficiency diseases or immunosuppressed or have altered or compromised immune status as a consequence of treatment with immunosuppressive therapies.
  • Known close contact with a severely immunocompromised person, such as someone currently in isolation secondary to a bone marrow transplantation (LAIV recipients should avoid close contact with severely immunocompromised individuals for at least 7 days after vaccination).
  • History of chronic underlying medical conditions such as chronic disorders of the cardiovascular and pulmonary systems, chronic metabolic diseases (including diabetes), renal dysfunction, or hemoglobinopathies.
  • History of Guillain-Barré syndrome.
  • History of asthma or reactive airways disease.
  • Acute febrile (>99.6 degrees Fahrenheit axillary) and/or respiratory illness, within the 72 hours prior to enrollment.
  • Use of aspirin or aspirin containing products in the month prior to enrollment or anticipated use during the study.
  • Administration of any intranasal medication within 2 weeks prior to enrollment or expected receipt during this study.
  • Previous receipt of an influenza vaccine.
  • Administration of any live virus vaccine within 4 weeks prior to enrollment or (other than study vaccine) planned receipt of another live virus vaccine before completion of the 2 weeks after the last vaccination in this study*
  • Administration of any inactivated vaccine within 2 weeks prior to enrollment or planned receipt of another inactivated vaccine before 2 weeks after the last vaccination in this study*
  • Participation in another investigational trial or administration of any investigational drug within 1 month prior to enrollment or during this study.
  • Any condition that in the opinion of the investigator would interfere with the interpretation or evaluation of the vaccine.
    • Routine immunizations can be resumed after the memory aid period following dose 2.
So in the ‘study’ that is supposed to be looking at how safe this vaccine is for the general population, people who would normally get the vaccine in real life are excluded, selecting a group that is less likely to react, therefore making the shot appear safer. And even the reaction that did appear – wheezing – was downplayed despite the fact that wheezing might be a precursor to asthma and there is at least 1 child or adult who dies from asthma each day in Australia and many more times that number in the US.
Lastly, this study purports to have looked at the effectiveness of the vaccine and found that both the flu shot and the flu nasal mist were effective at preventing flu. Did they do this by exposing these children to influenza and seeing whether they got sick or not? Did they do this by following them for a long period of time to determine whether or not the vaccine kept them safe against influenza and for how long?
Of course not!
The only indicator of ‘effectiveness’ they have is the development of antibodies. This is despite the fact that antibodies do not indicate immunity – even immunologists would have to admit that. Antibodies are stimulated by one small part of the immune system. They indicate exposure – not immunity. You can have very high levels of antibodies in your bloodstream and still contract the disease you have been told you are serologically immune to. Alternatively, you can have low or no circulating antibodies, be exposed to and harbour live virus or bacteria in your body and have no symptoms of disease.
So, the safety aspects of this study are non-existent and fraudulent. And the effectiveness aspects are no better.
Yet this news-by-press release is reported as though it were true. It is reported without question. And gullible parents, health professionals and journalists read the headline and think they know the whole story.
This precautionary tale is repeated every day in every single medical journal. The studies are designed to make the vaccines look effective. They are constructed to convey the impression of safety. But no truly scientific conclusions can be drawn from these studies because they are simply invalid.

Does the flu vaccine really reduce the risk of premature birth?

Here we have a media report on a ‘study’ that has been adjusted (a euphemism for the numbers being played with until the researchers got the results they set out to get) to show that there is a 70% lower risk of premature birth in babies born to mothers who got the flu vaccine during flu season than mothers who didn’t.

First of all, in any random group of 400 women, how many would have babies born prematurely?

In the US, the March of Dimes has noted that there has been a 20% increase in the incidence of premature births since 1990. Let’s see – what else has happened over these years? Oh, right! We have gone from 18 vaccines for children to over 60 vaccines for children…
“Preterm birth is the leading cause of death in the first month of life in the United States.  The preterm birth rate has increased about 20 percent since 1990, and costs the nation more than $26 billion a year, according to the Institute of Medicine report issued in July 2006.”

So here we have a group of 400 families – one would assume that half of them got the flu vaccine and the other half didn’t? Now, we have an even smaller cohort to look at. Out of a random group of 200 women, how many would be expected to have a premature birth or a low birth weight child? How many of these women smoked during their pregnancy? How many took pharmaceutical drugs? How many of them miscarried within a short time of receiving the vaccine vs miscarriages in the unvaccinated? Did they look at the outcome in the babies – were they more or less likely to have behavioural or developmental issues? Too many variables – too little information.

But based on this one ‘study’, we are told that using a flu vaccine that contains 24.5 mcg of neurotoxic, carcinogenic, immune system destroying mercury – a vaccine that has never been tested for its safety, efficacy or teratogenicity – can actually reduce the incidence of both preterm birth and low birth weight.

Let’s not forget that the United States, which has more vaccines given to children than any other country in the world, is now number 47 out of the top 50 countries when it comes to infant mortality, trailing behind many developing nations. Australia is not doing that much better when it comes to that issue though we do not use as many vaccines as the US does – yet.

The only real way to study these vaccines is to compare the overall picture in a cohort of completely unvaccinated people with a cohort of the fully vaccinated. Scientists have refused to do this study and it is perplexing to understand why – unless they are afraid that the result they get may be the one that organisations like the AVN suspect – that unsafe and untested vaccines have been harming and killing people for centuries while the government and the medical community fiddled.

Articles like this one are just thinly-masked pharmaceutical advertising campaigns.

Sydney Morning Herald – Body and Soul – 17 July 2011