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.

Who’s REALLY picking cherries, Jane?

I got an email from my old ‘friend’, Jane Hansen this morning and really, it’s been far too long since we two have communicated. You know how it is. Life gets busy, kids are growing, places to go, people to see…

cherry cartoon

But Jane took the time to drop me a quick line and for that, I’m very grateful

I had just sent a copy of Dr Brian Martin’s latest article, News with a negative frame: a vaccination case study, to some social networking pages I follow and the email lists I help maintain. And darned if I didn’t forget to include Jane on that email – so sorry! But all’s well because she got the email anyway.

For those who haven’t yet read this article, I highly recommend you do! It concerns negative and biased coverage regarding Dr Judy Wilyman’s PhD from the University of Wollongong by Kylar Loussikian of the Australian newspaper in particular, and the Australian media in general.

You see, there are some journalists out there who apparently believe that those who hold a contrary position on scientific issues (such as vaccination) should not be able to obtain a PhD – nor, it seems, should they be allowed a voice in the public debate. Hard to imagine, I know!

And Jane, bless her little heart, appears to be one of those journalists too. Jane, we really do have to talk…

In her usual spontaneous style, Jane’s email to me was direct and straight to the point:

You’re the queen of twisting truth Meryl

Gardasil is one of the most heavily studies vaccines around and one of the most effective. To ignore the vast body of science on this is pure ignorance.

Now Jane, I really am trying to work with you on this – really! But I have searched Dr Martin’s article for even one mention of Gardasil and it might surprise you (or not) to know that it is not mentioned even once. There is a short mention of HPV – the virus that Gardasil is meant to protect against – but that mention is made, not to discuss the science behind HPV vaccination, but simply to quote a paragraph from the Australian newspaper article in question.

So, trying to be helpful because after all, I really ‘get’ you, I offered the following response:

Did you actually read the article, Jane? If so, what is your objection to what Dr Martin has said? Where has he gone wrong? Please feel free to share your insight on this article with either myself or Dr Martin.

He was most particularly NOT not talking about the science behind vaccination which is what leads me to believe that you did not read the article you are replying to. Dr Martin was speaking about how the media uses language to frame an argument in such a way that the truth of matters is ignored and instead, a particular barrow is pushed based purely on what it is the media wishes to propound.
Please read Dr Martin’s article and if you have any criticisms, I am sure he would be most happy to hear them and to respond to you.
Meryl
PS – why are you bringing up Gardasil? What did that have to do with Dr Martin’s article or Dr Wilyman’s PhD from the UOW? You seem to have strayed very far from the point, Jane.

Instead of thanking me for so kindly and politely pointing out the errors of your way, Jane, you instead sent me the following email:

I don’t engage with cherry pickers. Goodbye

Well! May I remind you, Jane, that you were the one who contacted me! So any engagement was totally and absolutely down to you.

Is this any way to carry on a conversation? You start talking and when someone gives a reasoned and civil reply, you attack them and storm off in a virtual huff? That’s neither mature nor is it productive.

These are Australia’s children we are talking about here, Jane. Their health, wellbeing and their very lives. Don’t they deserve better than what you are giving them?

Oh, forgive me! How silly.

I seem to have forgotten that you work for Murdoch.

Forget I said anything.

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.

Silencing the opposition

iStock_000011256677XSmallThis last week has been a time of tough decisions. A time when I had to make a choice between pursuing justice in the courts or cutting my losses and pulling out of what I saw as a totally biased system where the cards are stacked against me – not because of a lack of evidence but simply because of a perceived bias against my stance on a political and scientific issue.

I chose to withdraw my Apprehended Personal Violence Order (APVO) appeal against Peter Bowditch and, true to form, the skeptics and SAVN have been making false statements about my reason for doing so to members of the media – statements which I believe require a response.

Let me preface this by saying that these cases were initiated by me personally. They are not AVN matters, though I believe it is my involvement with the AVN which has influenced the courts against me, causing them to be decided on the personal preconceived opinions of the magistrates involved, rather than on the merits and the evidence presented.

A bit of history

Last year, at the suggestion of police in two NSW jurisdictions, I filed three separate APVOs: against Daniel Raffaele, founder of Stop the AVN (SAVN), Peter Bowditch, committee member of the Australian Skeptics and Dan Buzzard, WA member of SAVN.

I could have filed APVOs against many more SAVN members. So many have threatened and harassed me, as well as inciting others to do me harm, but these were the three whom I considered to be the ‘ringleaders’ – whose abuse and harassment were unremitting. My reasons for taking this action were two-fold

1-    To stop them from continuing their criminal campaign of abuse, harassment and threats against me; and

2-    To send a warning to others that the justice system would protect someone who was being openly abused, harassed and threatened.

My family and I were living in great fear that one of these individuals would either harm us or would incite someone else in the community to do so. I had no funds for legal advice but I was told by the police that applying for an APVO would be straightforward and simple, so I proceeded to make the application. At no time did they inform me that they themselves could have applied for the APVO. Had they done so, I would have insisted that they do it and a whole lot of time, heartache and expense could have been saved.

Simple and Straightforward

At the time I first applied, I had no idea that the ensuing process would be incredibly slow, outrageously expensive to me – the victim of this abuse – and a total waste of time.

I admit I have become jaded over the years regarding the expectation of fair treatment from our bureaucracy. However I still believed it was possible to get justice from the courts, and that magistrates would pass judgment without allowing their personal preconceived biases to interfere. I was a babe in the woods in that regard.

It is my firmly held belief, based on the evidence from both cases that actually went to trial, that my losses had nothing to do with the evidence presented to the courts. Based on that evidence alone – APVOs should have been granted without question. But both magistrates showed a strong disapproval for the work that I have done for the last 20 years with the AVN and I feel that they were unable to separate Meryl Dorey the mother, woman and victim of institutionalised and long-running abuse, from Meryl Dorey, ex-President of the AVN and vaccine rights advocate.

Just a clarifying note at this point for those who are unaware of my case against Daniel Raffaele: the APVO against him was granted without his making any admissions of wrongdoing even though threatening calls to my home were made from his house in the middle of the night. I was advised to accept these terms rather than going to trial. In retrospect, I think I made the right choice since even with the damning evidence against him, I am unsure that the courts would have granted my application had Raffaele opposed it.

SAVN Untruths and a complicit media

To make matters worse, however, SAVN and the Australian Skeptics are now using my withdrawal from the case against Peter Bowditch as an admission that I only took these actions in order to silence my critics.

Their excuse for saying this is based on a lie and they know it is based on a lie yet they continue to state it anyway.

When I went to the courthouse last year to make the initial applications, I selected several of the standard orders from the list available (orders which limited the perpetrator’s ability to come near me or enter my property or threaten me). I also asked that they not be allowed to mention me in any online forum in a derogatory manner. At the initial mention in Ballina Courthouse almost a year ago, the magistrate said that he did not have the power to grant the latter order and I agreed to withdraw it. All I was asking the court to do was to prevent them from coming near me or physically threatening me. None of that would in any way ‘silence’ them.

Having since spoken with a solicitor about this, I have been told that there was no problem with my asking for these latter orders because my intention was to stop them from inciting others to commit violence against me or to join in harassing, abusing or stalking me as they and their cohorts had done for some time. My wording was the only issue and this became a moot point since that order was removed before either hearing.

Dan Buzzard and Peter Bowditch are perfectly aware that this is the case – but they have continued to mislead the media – and the media have continued to print whatever they are told about me – stating that I only took out these APVOs in order to silence my opposition.

In fact, during the time when these cases were still before the courts, sub judice reports were appearing in the media to the effect that taking away my opposition’s right to free speech was the only reason I made these applications.

In addition to this and in a move that can only be called bizarre, Greens Senator Richard Di Natale stood up in Federal Parliament and stated that these applications were only being made to silence my opposition and he thanked two of the three perpetrators by name for their ‘work’ in this regard!

Decisions based on fact or bias

It is my belief that the magistrate in my case against Dan Buzzard may have used this misinformation in his decision since he did refer to media reports when making his summation. In fact, he criticised me openly many times during the hearing to the point where I was relieved to only have to pay $11,000 in court costs – at one point, I had the distinct impression that I was going to be sent to gaol. I do not remember him sanctioning Dan Buzzard even once despite his admissions to having asked people to send me violent pornography.

I am currently awaiting delivery of the transcripts from these cases and when I have received them, I will be updating everyone with exactly what occurred and why I feel that there were grave errors not only in law but also in fact which led to these adverse decisions.

Freedom of speech

If by silencing my opposition, SAVN and the Australian Skeptics mean that I wanted to stop them threatening, harassing and stalking me as they have done for so long and prevent them from inciting others to do the same, then I admit that’s what I was trying to do.

If however, they mean that I want to take away their freedom of speech – their ability to engage in respectful and non-threatening debate on this or any other issue, I’m afraid they are completely wrong.

Because I welcome that debate. I have asked for it publicly – over and over again. I support freedom of speech 100% and in fact, have been lobbying to have an Australian Bill of Rights introduced to codify this right and the right to other freedoms which most democratic nations take for granted but which, shamefully, do not exist in Australia.

This is not a matter for question – it is and has been my stance in public and in private for 20 years now.

It is SAVN and their members – including Daniel Raffaele, Dan Buzzard and Peter Bowditch, who are the ones trying to silence their opposition. And they do it over and over again.

  1. In the initial complaint to the Health Care Complaints Commission (HCCC), SAVN member Ken McLeod asked that the HCCC issue a Prohibition Order against me using their powers under the Health Care Complaints Act 1993. He asked that this order be used to stop both myself and the AVN from publicly discussing the issues surrounding vaccination.
  2. The purpose and reason why Stop the AVN exists is to silence the AVN, our members and anyone who openly asks scientific and legitimate questions about this medical procedure. It is their goal to take away our freedom of speech and to remove our inalienable rights to both question and make informed choices on this subject.
  3. SAVN Supporter and head of the Australian Medical Association, Dr Steve Hambleton, stood on the steps of NSW Parliament not long ago stating that any individual or group who criticises vaccination should be subject to punishment.
  4. Greens Senator, SAVN supporter and doctor Richard di Natale proposed and passed a motion in Federal Parliament stating that the AVN should be disbanded simply because he disagreed with our viewpoint on the issue of vaccination.
  5. SAVN members, including Dan Buzzard, Daniel Raffaele and Peter Bowditch have written to venues where I was booked to present seminars, requesting that they stop me from speaking there. They have also contacted media outlets asking them not to interview me, and filed complaints against those who have allowed me the right to comment on vaccine-related issues.

These people are truly guilty of using bureaucracy and the media to silence their opposition.

All I asked was that the courts protect me from these abusers who had openly threatened and harassed me. This is a protection that should be available to all Australian citizens and residents – indeed – to everyone in every country around the world. It is a basic human right which, thanks to what I consider to be the bias of the courts, was denied me in these cases.

Please note: I have sent a copy of this blog post to Jane Hansen of the Daily Telegraph and the Murdoch media. She had contacted me because she plans on writing a story for Sunday’s paper about my APVO applications. I hope that, having set the record straight, her article will cover this issue fairly and truthfully.

Jane Hansen and the Daily Telegraph-Stop the Smear Campaign and Tell Australian parents the truth for once!

I was prompted to write this blog by an email I received from Jane Hansen, a ‘journalist’ at the Daily Telegraph and other News Ltd (Murdoch) papers.

Luke was a perfectly healthy 18 month old who died 10 days after receiving a measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) vaccination. His doctor tearfully admitted to his mother that the vaccine had killed her child but later changed his story and threatened her with committal to an asylum should she tell anyone that vaccines were responsible for her child's death. It was only years later that she found the courage to contact the AVN and report her story.
Luke was a perfectly healthy 18 month old who died 10 days after receiving a measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) vaccination. His doctor tearfully admitted to his mother that the vaccine had killed her child but later changed his story and threatened her with involuntary committal to an asylum should she tell anyone that vaccines were responsible for her child’s death. It was only years later that she found the courage to contact the AVN and report her story.

She has asked me some leading questions which she obviously thinks the paper’s readers would be interested in knowing the answers to whilst completely ignoring the real burning questions about the safety and effectiveness of Australia’s current vaccination schedule. The questions she asked have nothing to do with the work the AVN has been doing for nearly 20 years to  try and protect the rights of Australian families to continue to make free and informed vaccination decisions for their children. Rights which Jane Hansen would like to see ripped away from us. Her questions also had nothing whatsoever to do with what is happening in the world of vaccine science today – including peer-reviewed research which questions whether:

we are using too many vaccines too soon;

  • if our vaccines have been properly or independently tested;

  • if vaccination itself could be the cause of epidemics of infectious diseases which are now sweeping the world in record numbers; or

  • if vaccines could be blamed for the tragic explosion in the incidence of chronic illnesses such as asthma, diabetes, autistm, ADD, ADHD, childhood cancers and more.

Jane has asked me some questions which are completely irrelevant to these important issues which she mistakenly thinks the readers of News Ltds papers are clamouring to know. The AVN, on the other hand, thinks that News Ltd’s readership would find it refreshing and even surprising to read – for once – about the truth of the vaccination issue in Australia and around the world. But will they ever see the truth printed in the Daily Telegraph or the stable of other newspapers owned by Rupert Murdoch’s News Ltd?

For instance, wouldn’t they love to know that:

  • A recent study published in Poland (a country which refused to give in to the pharmaceutical hype about ‘swine flu’ and did not buy or administer vaccines against this illesses to their population with the result that they had fewer cases of influenza that year than normal.) reviewed the medical literature on the safety of vaccination. This paper, entitled Neurologic Adverse Events Following Vaccination (which can be downloaded for free by clicking here) states:

“Reports in many Polish and foreign medical journals lead us to conclude that postvaccinal complications among children can be observed in sporadic cases and that they are disproportionate to the benefits of vaccination in the elimination of dangerous diseases in childhood.”

Don’t you think that the readers of the Daily Telegraph – and all other media in Australia – would be fascinated to know that, according to reviews of the current medical literature, any potential benefits of vaccination may be far outweighed by their risk to the developing brain of our children? For those who are interested, a plain-English overview of this study can be found at Gaia Health’s website and at the website of The Refusers.

  • For years, the Australian government and mainstream media have tried their hardest to convince parents that vaccines absolutely don’t and never have been linked with autism. They want everyone to believe that – aside from one lone-wolf British researcher – not a single other scientist had ever even suspected that injecting babies full of vaccines containing known neurotoxins (substances which have been proven to be poisonous to and kill brain cells) could in any way affect
    Laura descended into autism less than 24 hours after receiving a single Hib vaccine at the age of 2. Her parents and grandparents had to fight to have her reaction acknowledged and today, Now in her 20s, Laura requires round-the-clock supervision and will for the rest of her life.
    Laura descended into autism less than 24 hours after receiving a single Hib vaccine at the age of 2. Her parents and grandparents had to fight to have her reaction acknowledged.  Now in her 20s, Laura requires round-the-clock supervision and will for the rest of her life.

    their brains. Dr Andrew Wakefield, who had already published over 120 peer-reviewed studies prior to the article in question being released in the Lancet in 1998, dared to suggest that perhaps more study needed to be done on the safety of the MMR vaccine. He never said that vaccination caused autism nor did he call on parents to stop vaccinating despite the many media lies to that effect. Instead, after listening to (shock-horror!) a group of parents who claimed that their children’s health and behaviour changed following receipt of MMR, and conducting laboratory tests on these children along with a team of 12 other eminent scientists, he said that the government should study this possible relationship for the protection of future generations. Instead of applauding him for his good work, he was vilified, deregistered and slandered by the same media which is today slandering parents whose children have been so badly affected by vaccines. Since the time of Wakefield’s initial publication, more and more evidence has emerged and the link between vaccines and autism can’t be buried any longer. In fact, surveys conducted both in Australia and in the US have both found that despite the cover-up by some members of the media and the medical community, a significant minority of parents (up to 40% depending on the survey) believe that vaccines can cause autism. And the evidence is mounting. An Italian court recently awarded compensation to the family of a child who became autistic after being vaccinated. Not only that, but the Ministry of Health stated that the vaccine was the direct cause. Funny that we haven’t seen this in the Telegraph. Maybe we missed it? But then again, we haven’t read about the cases of autism which the American vaccine court has awarded compensation for, stating that the child’s autism was a result of their vaccination. If a story falls in the forest of trees cut down to produce your daily Murdoch rag, will it still make a sound?

  • And hey, when we are talking about autism, it’s important to realise that the link between vaccines and what we now refer to as ASDs (Autistic Spectrum Disorders) predated Dr Andrew Wakefield’s 1998 study by well over 80 years – only back then, it was referred to as post-vaccinal encephalitis. And since his study was published, a swathe of other articles have been released in peer-reviewed journals which support Wakefield’s hypothesis that there is a common link between autism and severe gastrointestinal complications. Moreover, as evidence that pharmaceutical companies have no shame, they have actually begun work to find a vaccine to help autistic children deal with the very gastrointestinal complications that Wakefield was pilloried for saying that they had! And since I know that Jane Hansen must be far too busy digging up dirt on consumer advocates to do any research on actual issues, here is a list of just some of these articles confirming Wakefield’s findings for her – all ignored by the Telegraph and her sister papers, for some strange reason.* Must have been an oversight.

◦                     The Journal of Pediatrics November 1999; 135(5):559-63

◦                     The Journal of Pediatrics 2000; 138(3): 366-372

◦                     Journal of Clinical Immunology November 2003; 23(6): 504-517

◦                     Journal of Neuroimmunology 2005 

◦                     Brain, Behavior and Immunity 1993; 7: 97-103

◦                     Pediatric Neurology 2003; 28(4): 1-3

◦                     Neuropsychobiology 2005; 51:77-85

◦                     The Journal of Pediatrics May 2005;146(5):605-10

◦                     Autism Insights 2009; 1: 1-11

◦                     Canadian Journal of Gastroenterology February 2009; 23(2): 95-98

◦                     Annals of Clinical Psychiatry 2009:21(3): 148-161

◦                     Journal of Child Neurology June 29, 2009; 000:1-6

◦                     Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders March 2009;39(3):405-13

◦                     Medical Hypotheses August 1998;51:133-144.

◦                     Journal of Child Neurology July 2000; ;15(7):429-35

◦                     Lancet. 1972;2:883–884.

◦                     Journal of Autism and Childhood Schizophrenia January-March 1971;1:48-62

◦                     Journal of Pediatrics March 2001;138:366-372.

◦                     Molecular Psychiatry 2002;7:375-382.

◦                     American Journal of Gastroenterolgy April 2004;598-605.

◦                     Journal of Clinical Immunology November 2003;23:504-517.

◦                     Neuroimmunology April 2006;173(1-2):126-34.

◦                     Prog. Neuropsychopharmacol Biol. Psychiatry December 30 2006;30:1472-1477.

◦                     Clinical Infectious Diseases September 1 2002;35(Suppl 1):S6-S16

◦                     Applied and Environmental Microbiology, 2004;70(11):6459-6465

◦                     Journal of Medical Microbiology October 2005;54:987-991

◦                     Archivos venezolanos de puericultura y pediatría 2006; Vol 69 (1): 19-25.

◦                     Gastroenterology. 2005:128 (Suppl 2);Abstract-303

*List sourced from Why Medical Authorities Went to Such Extremes to Silence Dr. Andrew Wakefield

  • Jessica's parents found this bright, bubbly teenager dead on the bathroom floor 2 days after she received her third dose of Garadasil HPV vaccine.
    Jessica’s parents found this bright, bubbly teenager dead on the bathroom floor 2 days after she received her third dose of Garadasil HPV vaccine.

    No lesser source than the British Medical Journal (BMJ) reported last week that public health authorities are not necessarily basing their decisions about the need for influenza vaccination on the best available science. Instead, they are giving in to a seductive (and lucrative) marketing campaign being run by drug companies which makes all of us ‘at risk’ of injury and death from influenza without a skerrick of evidence to show that there is any danger at all for the majority. Entitled Influenza: Marketing vaccine by marketing disease, it is one of those rare articles in mainstream medical journals which are completely independent of vested interests – and it shows. You can read the article for free by clicking here. In amongst the Tele’s strident demands that we must all get flu vaccines or face dying and killing others, did anyone happen to see this report mentioned? Maybe I didn’t get the paper that day.

I almost forgot that I started writing this because of my email from Jane Hansen. Well, I will get to her shortly. I have a few more important things to say first.

The government and media are completely out of touch-and it shows

This last week has seen an escalation by certain parliamentarians and the Murdoch media of the campaign to vilify and punish those who have chosen not to vaccinate or to vaccinate selectively. The opposition is becoming ever-more desperate because their message is literally sickening – even to those who believe strongly in the benefits of vaccines. All Australians are appalled by hate speech. All Australians can see that the arguments being made by those involved in this campaign are thin enough to read through and are not based on anything even approaching the smell of an oily petrie dish. Science doesn’t get a look-in because real science doesn’t suit the fear-mongering agenda of these bodies.

So, while politicians are receiving hundreds of letters from constituents telling them in no uncertain terms that they will not be re-elected if they vote for discrimination against fellow Australian families (and I still plan on uploading these letters – my apologies for not having done so as of yet); and when internet polls promoted by major media outlets are virtually ignored while opposing polls put forward by tiny community groups are well-supported; there is only one road left for those running these fear campaigns to tread – the road of personal attacks, character smears and lies.

Enter Jane Hansen

And tread it they will. It appears that some prominent media representatives have a moral compass which is not only broken – it was been sent overseas for repairs where it was lost years ago. At the bottom of the Pacific Ocean. At the base of the Mariana Trench. Where no light will ever find it. Get the picture?

For those of you who are unaware of Jane Hansen, let me explain that she is a ‘journalist’ for the Murdoch media and has been running her own private vilification campaign for many years against anyone who chooses to research their vaccination decision rather than just listening to their doctor.

She has penned such memorable fear-mongering hate pieces such as:

Vaccination refusals high as babies die

Sorry flower children: rainbows and unicorns won’t stop polio

Doctors warn parents to keep newborns at home as whooping cough epidemic escalates

Several days ago, I received an email from Ms Hansen which read as follows:

Hello Meryl

We are running a story this weekend about the experiences of the McCaffery family and other bereaved parents and their treatment at the hands of members of the AVN, or regular bloggers on your site. I am putting these questions to you for your right of reply.

I had no intention of responding directly to Ms Hansen though I did provide her with a link to my blog posts about the family of Dana McCaffery (see below) – links which, of course, she ignored. Going on previous experience, I would not have expected a fair hearing from her nor could I trust in any way that she would honestly report what I said.

Instead of responding to her in private therefore, I have decided to respond to her publicly and expose the incredible desperation being displayed by those in power who can’t seem to get the public to believe them no matter how hard they lie.

Q- Why did you ring Paul Corben and ask for test results for Dana McCaffery on March 12, 2009?

You wrote in your defence of this action you had a right to, but do you concede the move was an invasion of the family’s grief?

Was it disrespectful of Dana?

Why would you post your vaccination paraphernalia on Dana’s website? Was that insensitive in the extreme? 

The answers to these and all other questions concerning the McCaffery’s can be found at:

Why I did what I did – why I do what I do

A Grieving Family and Baseless Accusations

AVN Response to Sydney Morning Herald Article – 27/7/10 (you see, it isn’t just the Murdoch media that is at fault – the ‘love’ has been shared around!)

Q- What is your response to the criticism that you ‘orchestrate’ complaints to media outlets and even tell members what to write?

Was it that group which orchestrates complaints about us that told you that? You know the one… SAVN or “Stop the AVN”? As for your question, gee, I’ve never heard of an activist group which starts letter-writing campaigns with suggested topics for those who support certain issues to discuss with their elected representatives or media outlets. That really IS subversive! Who’d have thought?

Q- Is Bernice London, a regular on your site, a real person? If so is she a member of the AVN.?

No idea. Never heard of her before. Do you think she is a real person?

Q- What responsibility does the AVN take for vile and insensitive comments that have been made about the McCaffery’s.

Not having ever made vile or insensitive comments about anyone including the McCafferys – nor do I know of anyone who is associated with the AVN who could have or would have done such a thing, I’m afraid I can’t comment. Now, a question for you, Jane: What responsibility does the Daily Telegraph or Rupert Murdoch take for the vile, insensitive and harassing comments you have made about parents who are making educated choices for their children’s health? Two words for you – “Leveson Inquiry”. Oh, I almost forgot, a few more words – “GlaxoSmithKline”, “Brian Deer” and “Sunday Times

Q- Did you ring Chris Kokegei, the father of the boy who died of chicken pox, and tell him your views on vaccination?

Q- Was this necessary?

Since I’ve never heard of him, I can honestly say that I never called him. And if anyone wants my views on vaccination, they are available in almost 20 years of magazines, newsletters and website posts. Oh, and for your second question, was this necessary, great use of the loaded question fallacy, Jane. You are obviously a pro at this slander thing.

Q- He feels you, or someone from the AVN told him that he was doing society a disservice by discussing vaccination, is this true?

Sometimes when I’m sleeping, I feel as though the media and the government have somehow found a conscience. But then I wake up and I realise how silly that feeling is. How can someone possibly claim to feel that they were contacted by another person. Either they were or they weren’t. If they were, they should be able to say who the person was and what they said. If they can’t provide this evidence, then why are you even asking me these questions? Is it a slow news week, Jane?

Q- Did you threaten to take out an AVO against Cecily Johnson because she attended you talks on vaccination?

Considering the fact that I have no idea who Cecily Johnson is nor do I remember anyone by that name attending any of my seminars (though of course, there have been lots of people who have attended my seminars and I can’t possibly remember all of their names) I can answer by stating that I have not taken out an AVO against her nor have I threatened to do so since I don’t know her nor, to the best of my knowledge, have I ever had contact with her. I’m curious though. Why are you asking this question? Have you taken out an AVO against Cecily Johnson? How’d that go for you, Jane?

Avoiding the REAL issues

Now that I’ve answered your ‘insightful’ and ‘important’ questions, perhaps you will return the favour.

Q- Jane Hansen, when are you going to stop abusing families who have made decisions you don’t understand and start doing what journalists are supposed to do – investigate both sides of the issue without any preconceived notions and write an honest, unbiased research piece?

Q- Since you obviously think that science is important, will you support the Australian Vaccination Network in our campaign to get the Australian government to finally fund and conduct an independent study comparing the overall health of the fully vaccinated vs the fully unvaccinated? After all, since you believe that vaccines convey health, both you and the government should be anxious to do such a study to set the minds of parents at ease and increase our already record-high rates of vaccination. The results of this study could do just that.

Baby Ian was hospitalised immediately following receipt of a Hep B vaccine. He died in terrible pain less than 2 weeks later of multiple organ failure caused by vaccination.
Baby Ian was hospitalised immediately following receipt of a Hep B vaccine. He died in terrible pain less than 2 weeks later of multiple organ failure caused by vaccination.

Every single day in Australia and around the world, children are injured by vaccines because their parents were convinced by articles they read in the Murdoch media – many of them written by you – that vaccination is a one-size-fits-all safe and effective procedure even though an unknown minority of those who are vaccinated can and do suffer permanent damage and even die from their vaccines. Because of your refusal to report fairly, they don’t feel a need to become better-informed on both sides of this issue to learn about their own family’s particular susceptibilities prior to agreeing to have their children vaccinated. Perhaps even worse, parents of children who have already had serious vaccine reactions continue to allow the administration of more and more shots because neither their doctors nor, apparently, you will inform them that accelerating reactions are a real and present danger and contraindications do exist which they should be made aware of before continuing to vaccinate. While we have gone from 1 child in 20,000 to 1 child in 50 with autism (and before you say it – let me stop you! This has nothing to do with better diagnosis since these are all diagnosed as per the guidelines in the DSM IV) you and your colleagues have continued to claim that there is no evidence linking vaccination with autism, neurological or behavioural disorders – leading to more and more children being diagnosed with this condition which mainstream medicine has no cure for. So Jane, when are you going to step down off of your high horse and acknowledge the harm that your suppression of scientific evidence has caused within the Australian community? I await your response with great interest – as do the readers of the Murdoch media.

Keep in mind when looking at this table that Australia administers at least 23 vaccines by the time a child reaches the age of 12 months.
Keep in mind when looking at this table that Australia administers at least 23 vaccines by the time a child reaches the age of 12 months. Some of the information in this table was sourced from – http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3170075/ – The Table itself comes from http://deathbyvaccination.com/

T