Jane Hansen: Can We talk? My Shout!

Dear Jane Hansen,

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

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

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

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

What precipitated this offer?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Be Afraid. Be Very Afraid

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

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

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

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

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

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

Now, it’s called exposure to the unvaccinated.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

All Theory-All the Time

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

Sounds good, right?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I see. Makes perfect sense.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Be afraid – and be active

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

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

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

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

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

by Meryl Dorey

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

 

I’ve changed my mind

They say it’s a woman’s prerogative. Making one decision and then, down the track, changing your mind. But everyone does it and it’s not necessarily a bad thing either.

Think about those words – changing your mind.

Brain CarvingTaken literally, they may sound a bit strange. They conjure up a scene of someone – an artist, perhaps, carving out a brain from hard wood and then, deciding at the last minute that something’s gone wrong and it might need a little bit of work here or there. A few hits with the hammer and chisel, being careful not to break it and have to start again.

That’s how my strange mind works and what I’ve visualised 🙂 But changing your mind is one of the many, many idioms that make the English language so difficult for non-native speakers to learn.

When it comes to vaccination, I started to change my mind 26 years ago.

Like many parents, I didn’t just decide blithely one day to stop vaccinating my son or my subsequent children. It wasn’t like taking my clothes out of the closet and deciding that the red top looked better with those pants than the blue one. I changed my mind because I saw that vaccines had hurt my child and, like most people who were trying to be the best parent they could, seeing that harm and having it confirmed by my doctor (who told me that he would leave out the whooping cough portion of my son’s next shot – something that isn’t even possible today!) made me start to search for more information about these shots I was giving my son.

And I didn’t change my mind that day or that month – or even that year.

Trying to be a responsible parent, I couldn’t decide until I had enough information about what I was doing.

In retrospect, I should have put off any further vaccines until I was fully informed, but the default position back in the late 1980s/early 1990s was to vaccinate so, I did.

It wasn’t until my son was hospitalised 10 days after his MMR vaccine (the most common time for certain reactions following that particular shot, as I found out later on through my research) that I decided enough was enough. And even then, I didn’t have enough information to stop vaccinating my children completely. My daughter received 3 DT (diphtheria and tetanus) and OPV (oral polio) vaccines and my next son got 3 OPVs. My youngest child is the only one who is completely unvaccinated.

By the time she came along, I had gathered together enough information and done enough research to completely ‘change my mind’ about vaccination. By then, my husband and I had both knowledge and confidence about our decision – it was a good place to be!

Many parents have stories that echo ours. Nearly everyone I know who started out totally committed to vaccinating (or just going along with it because it was the default position) but who stopped at some point, changed their mind because of either personal experience with vaccine reactions, reactions in a friend or family member or exposure to information that made them question and want to know more.

I am very proud of the fact that some of these people were able to find the information they needed because of the existence of the Australian Vaccination Network (AVN), the organisation I started way back in 1994. The AVN had and has many sister organisations:

VINE (Vaccination Information Network);

VISA (Vaccines Information Serving Australia);

VAIS (Vaccination Answers Informed Sources);

IAS (Immunisation Awareness Society);

VAG (Vaccination Awareness Group);

VIS (the Vaccination Information Service);

and the group started by Kerry Hamblin in the Blue Mountains in the 1980s that pre-dated all of the others and whose name escapes me (if anyone remembers, please let me know and if I’ve left any organisations off, I apologise – let me know and I will amend this).

When I originally had my change of mind, the internet was not as easily accessible as it is today. I got my information the old fashioned way – I visited medical libraries, copied medical journal articles, took them home and sat with my highlighter pen and read them through. I went to the medical library in Princeton, New Jersey. I visited the Library of Congress for one amazing day of obsessive reading, photocopying and research. I remember being afraid that those articles would weigh so much, I wouldn’t be able to take them home with me to Australia!

Parents that Don't Vaccinate

How times have changed. What used to take me hours and a lot of money at 10 cents a page to photocopy, is now nearly instant and free.

The AVN’s library contains hundreds of books and tens of thousands of journal articles dating back to the early part of the twentieth century – and even further back when it comes to the smallpox vaccine.

I – like most parents who have changed their minds about vaccination, nutrition and medical treatments – made my decision after a lot of thought and a lot of discussions with health professionals and natural therapists about these issues. I took my responsibility seriously.

And yes, like the artist in my earlier thoughts who changed the direction of his carving in hard wood with great difficulty, it was not easy for me to change my path or for my husband to do the same. We were your classic ‘true believers’ like most of our generation.

A belief and trust in doctors was hard-wired into our consciousness through years of medical shows, government pronouncements and social conditioning. But once we were empowered through our own research to understand that we could change our minds, the veil was torn away and we were able to see this situation clearly for what it was – a mass delusion that was built on quicksand and that needed bullying and lies to shore it up and keep it from sinking away forever.

understanding-understanding

If you are like I was – a true believer in vaccine safety, effectiveness and necessity – challenge yourself to read a bit about the other side of this issue. You may never change your mind or your beliefs, but at least you will come to understand that those of us who stopped vaccinating made that choice with valid information and out of love for our children. Understanding can overcome fear and hatred and right now, there is way too much fear and hatred going around regarding the issue of vaccination.

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.

 

measles in africa, vaccination africa, measles

Measles deaths in Africa

The following article is by Greg Beattie, author of Vaccination: A Parent’s Dilemma and the more recent Fooling Ourselves on the Fundamental Value of Vaccines. It was originally published on the REAL Australian Sceptics blog and bears repeating.

This information and the graphs included are excerpted from Mr Beattie’s latest book. It demonstrates very clearly that a true sceptic will not necessarily believe in headlines such as “Measles deaths in Africa plunge by 91%” without seeing the proof of those claims. Question everything – accept nothing at face value – that is the credo of the true sceptic.

Man is a credulous animal, and must believe something; in the absence of good grounds for belief, he will be satisfied with bad ones.
Bertrand Russell

Africa, measles africa, vaccination africa
0.450–0.499 0.400–0.449 0.350–0.399 0.300–0.349 under 0.300 n/a (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

If you are not one to follow the news, you may have missed it. Others will have undoubtedly seen a stream of good-newsstories over the past five years, such as:

Measles Deaths In Africa Plunge By 91%[1],[2]

There have been many versions on the theme; the percentage rates have changed over time. However, the bodies of the stories leave us in no doubt as to the reason for their headlines. Here are some direct quotes:

In a rare public health success story on the world’s most beleaguered continent, Africa has slashed deaths from measles by 91 per cent since 2000 thanks to an immunization drive.

An ambitious global immunization drive has cut measles deaths…

Measles deaths in Africa have fallen as child vaccination rates have risen.

These stories represent a modern-day version of the belief that vaccines vanquished the killer diseases of the past. There is something deeply disturbing about the stories, and it is not immediately apparent. The fact is: no-one knows how many people died of measles in Africa. No-one! Not last year and not ten years ago.

I will repeat that. No-one knows how many measles deaths have occurred in Africa. So, where did these figures come from? I will explain that in this blog. In a nutshell, they were calculated on a spreadsheet, using a formula. You may be surprised when you see how simple the method was.

We all believe these stories, because we have no reason to doubt them. The only people who would have questioned them were those who were aware that the deaths had not been counted. One of these was World Health Organisation (WHO) head of Health Evidence and Statistics, who reprimanded the authors of the original report (on which the stories were based) in an editorial published in the Bulletin of the WHO, as I will discuss shortly. Unfortunately, by then the train was already runaway. The stories had taken off virally through the worldwide media.

Overview

First, an overview of the formula. The authors looked at it this way: for every million vaccines given out, we hope to save ‘X’ lives. From that premise, we simply count how many million vaccines we gave out, and multiply that by ‘X’ to calculate how many lives (we think) we have saved. That is how the figures were arrived at.

The stories and the formula are both products of a deep belief in the power of vaccines. We think the stories report facts, but instead they report hopes.

The nuts and bolts

Hardly any of the willing participants in spreading the stories bothered to check where the figures came from, and what they meant. That was possibly understandable. Why would we need to check them? After all, they were produced by experts: respected researchers, and reputable organisations such as UNICEF, American Red Cross, United Nations Foundation, and the World Health Organisation.

However, I did check them. I checked because I knew the developing world wasn’t collecting cause of death data that could provide such figures[3]. In fact, it is currently estimated that only 25 million of the 60 million deaths that occur each year are even registered, let alone have reliable cause-of-death information[4]. Sub-Saharan Africa, where a large proportion of measles deaths are thought to occur, still had an estimated death registration of only around 10%[5] in 2006, and virtually no reliable cause-of-death data. Even sample demographic surveys, although considered accurate, were not collecting cause-of-death data that allowed for these figures to be reported. Simply put, this was not real data: the figures had to be estimates.

I was curious as to how the estimates were arrived at, so I traced back to the source—an article in The Lancet, written by a team from the Measles Initiative[6]. After reading the article, I realised the reports were not measles deaths at all. They were planning estimates, or predictions. In other words, they represented outcomes that the Measles Initiative had hoped to achieve, through conducting vaccination programs.

Don’t get me wrong. We all know that planning and predicting are very useful, even necessary activities, but it is obvious they are not the same as measuring outcomes.

The title of the original report from the Measles Initiative reads, “Has the 2005 measles mortality reduction goal been achieved? A natural history modelling study.[7] The authors took one and a half pages to explain how natural history modelling applied here. I will simplify it in about ten lines. I realise that in doing so, some may accuse me of editorial vandalism, however I assure you what follows captures the essence of the method. The rest is detail. If you are interested in confirming this, I urge you to read the original article for that detail. Here we go… the formula at the heart of the stories:

My interpretation of the Measles Natural History Modelling Study

  1. Open a blank spreadsheet
  2. Enter population data for each year from 2000 to 2006
  3. Enter measles vaccine coverage for each of the years also
  4. Assume all people develop measles if not vaccinated
  5. Assume vaccination prevents 85-95% of measles cases
  6. Calculate how many measles cases were ‘prevented’ each year (using the above figures)
  7. Calculate how many measles deaths were ‘prevented’ each year (using historical case-fatality ratios)

There, simple. As you can see, this is a typical approach if we are modelling,for predictive purposes. Using a spreadsheet to predict outcomes of various plans helps us set targets, and develop strategies. When it comes to evaluating the result of our plan however we need to go out into the field, and measure what happened. We must never simply return to the same spreadsheet. But this is precisely what the Measles Initiative team did. And the publishing world swallowed it—hook, line and sinker.

As mentioned earlier, WHO Health Evidence and Statistics head, Dr Kenji Shibuya, saw the problem with this method. Writing editorially in the Bulletin of the WHO, under the title “Decide monitoring strategies before setting targets”, Shibuya had this to say[8]:

Unfortunately, the MDG[9] monitoring process relies heavily on predicted statistics.

…the assessment of a recent change in measles mortality from vaccination is mostly based on statistics predicted from a set of covariates… It is understandable that estimating causes of death over time is a difficult task. However, that is no reason for us to avoid measuring it when we can also measure the quantity of interest directly; otherwise the global health community would continue to monitor progress on a spreadsheet with limited empirical basis. This is simply not acceptable. [emphasis mine]

This mismatch was created partly by the demand for more timely statistics …and partly by a lack of data and effective measurement strategies among statistics producers. Users must be realistic, as annual data on representative cause-specific mortality are difficult to obtain without complete civil registration or sample registration systems

If such data are needed, the global health community must seek indicators that are valid, reliable and comparable, and must invest in data collection (e.g. adjusting facility-based data by using other representative data sources).

Regardless of new disease-specific initiatives or the broader WHO Strategic Objectives, the key is to focus on a small set of relevant indicators for which well defined strategies for monitoring progress are available. Only by doing so will the global health community be able to show what works and what fails.

In simple terms, Shibuya was saying:

  • We know it is difficult to estimate measles deaths, but
  • You should have tried, because you attracted a lot of interest
  • Instead, you simply went back to the same spreadsheet you used to make the plan—and that is unacceptable!
  • If you want to make a claim about your results, you need to measure the outcomes and collect valid data
  • Until you do, you cannot say whether your plan ‘worked’

Unfortunately, by the time Shibuya’s editorial was published, the media had already been trumpeting the stories for more than a year, because the Measles Initiative announced its news to a waiting media before subjecting it to peer-review. So, without scientific scrutiny, the stories were unleashed into a world hungry for good news, especially concerning the developing world. The result… the reports were welcomed, accepted, and regurgitated to a degree where official scrutiny now seems to have the effect of a drop in a bucket.

The question of who was responsible for this miscarriage of publishing justice plagued me for a while. Was it the architects of the original report? Or was it the robotic section of our media (that part that exists because of a lack of funds for employing real journalists) who spread the message virally to every corner of the globe, without checking it?

One quote which really stands out in the stories is from former director of the United States Centers for Disease Control (CDC).

“The clear message from this achievement is that the strategy works,” said CDC director Dr. Julie Gerberding

What strategy works? Is she talking about modelling on a spreadsheet? Or, using the predictions in place of real outcomes? More recent reports from the Measles Initiative indicate the team are continuing with this deceptive approach. In their latest report[10] it is estimated 12.7 million deaths were averted between 2000-2008. All were calculated on their spreadsheet, and all were attributed to vaccination, for the simple reason that it was the only variable on the spreadsheet that was under their control. And still there is no scrutiny of the claims. Furthermore, the authors make no effort to clarify in the public mind that the figures are nothing but planning estimates.

No proof

Supporters of vaccination might argue that this does not prove vaccines are of no use. I agree. In fact,let me say it first: none of this provides any evidence whatsoever of the value of vaccination. That is the crux of the matter. The media stories have trumpeted the success of the plan, and given us all a pat on the back for making it happen. But the stories are fabrications. The only aspect of them which is factual is that which tells us vaccination rates have increased.

Some ‘real’ good-news?

General mortality rates in Africa are going down. That means deaths from all causesare reducing. How do we know this? Because an inter-agency group, led by UNICEF and WHO, has been evaluating demographic survey data in countries that do not have adequate death registration data. These surveys have been going on for more than 50 years. One of the reasons they do this is to monitor trends in mortality; particularly infant, and under-five mortality.

Although the health burden in developing countries is inequitably high, there is reason to be positive when we view these trends. Deaths are declining and, according to the best available estimates, have been steadily doing so for a considerable time; well over 50 years.

One of the most useful indicators of a country’s health transition is its under-5 mortality rate: that is, the death rate for children below five years old. The best estimates available for Africa show a steady decline in under-5 mortality rate, of around 1.8% per year, since 1950[11]. Figure 1 shows this decline from 1960 onward[12]. It also shows the infant mortality rate[13]. Both are plotted as averages of all countries in the WHO region of Africa.

Figure 1. Child mortality, Africa

This graph may appear complex, but it is not difficult to read. The two thick lines running horizontally through the graph are the infant (the lower blue line) and under-5 (the upper black line) mortality rates per 1000 from 1960 to 2009. The handful of finer lines which commence in 1980, at a low point, and shoot upward over the following decade, represent the introduction of the various vaccines. The vertical scale on the right side of the graph shows the rate at which children were vaccinated with each of these shots.

The primary purpose of this graph (as well as that in Figure 2) is to deliver the real good-news. We see a slowly, but steadily improving situation. Death rates for infants and young children are declining. I decided to add the extra lines (for vaccines) to illustrate that they appear to have had no impact on the declining childhood mortality rates; at least, not a positive impact. If they were as useful as we have been led to believe, these vaccines (covering seven illnesses) would surely have resulted in a sharp downward deviation from the established trend. As we can see, this did not occur.

In Africa, the vaccines were introduced at the start of the 1980s and, within a decade, reached more than half the children. The only effect observable in the mortality rates, is a slowing of the downward trend. In other words, if anything were to be drawn from this, it would be that the introduction of the vaccines was counter-productive. One could argue that the later increase in vaccine coverage (after the year 2000) was followed by a return to the same decline observed prior to the vaccines. However, that does not line up. The return to the prior decline predates it, by around five years.

With both interpretations we are splitting hairs. Since we are discussing an intervention that has been marketed as a modern miracle, we should see a marked effect on the trend. We don’t.

The WHO region of Africa (also referred to as sub-Saharan Africa) is where a substantial portion of the world’s poor-health burden is thought to exist. The country that is believed to share the majority of worldwide child mortality burden with sub-Saharan Africa is India, in the WHO south-east Asia region. Together, the African and South-east Asian regions were thought in 1999 to bear 85% of the world’s measles deaths[14]. Figure 2 shows India’s declining infant and under-5 mortality rates, over the past 50 years. Again, the introduction of various vaccines is also shown.

Figure 2. Child mortality, India

And again, vaccines do not appear to have contributed. Mortality rates simply continued their steady decline. We commenced mass vaccination (for seven illnesses) from the late 1980s but there was no visible impact on the child mortality trends.

In a nutshell, what happened in the developed world is still happening in the yet-to-finish-developing world, only it started later, and is taking longer. The processes of providing clean water, good nourishment, adequate housing, education and employment, freedom from poverty, as well as proper care of the sick, have been on-going in poor countries.

I would have loved to go back further in time with these graphs but unfortunately I was not able to locate the data. I did uncover one graph in an issue of the Bulletin of the WHO, showing the under-5 mortality rate in sub-Saharan Africa to be an estimated 350 in 1950[15]. It subsequently dropped to around 175 by 1980, before vaccines figured. It continued dropping, though slower, to 129 by 2008[16].

The decline represents a substantial health transition, and a lot of lives saved. When cause-of-death data improves, or at least some genuine effort is made to establish credible estimates of measles deaths, it will undoubtedly be found they are dropping as well. Why wouldn’t they? This is good news, and all praise needs to be directed at the architects and supporters of the international activities that are helping to achieve improvements in the real determinants of health. In the midst of all the hype, I trust we will not swallow attempts to give the credit to vaccines… again.

I am not confident, however. I feel this is simply history repeating itself. Deaths from infectious disease will reach an acceptable “low” in developing countries, at some point in time. And although this will probably be due to a range of improvements in poverty, sanitation, nutrition and education, I feel vaccines will be given the credit. To support the claim, numerous pieces of evidence will be paraded, such as:

Measles Deaths In Africa Plunge By 91%

We need to purge these pieces of “evidence” if we are to have rational discussion. The public have a right to know that these reports are based on fabricated figures.  Otherwise, the relative importance of vaccines in future health policy will be further exaggerated.


[1]    Medical News Today 30Nov 2007; http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/90237.php

[2]    UNICEF Joint press release; http://www.unicef.org/media/media_41969.html

[3]    Jaffar et al. Effects of misclassification of causes of death on the power of a trial to assess the efficacy of a pneumococcal conjugate vaccine in The Gambia; International Journal of Epidemiology 2003;32:430-436 http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/32/3/430

[4]    Save lives by counting the dead; An interview with Prof Prabhat Jha, Bulletin of the World Health Organisation 2010;88:171–172

[5]    Counting the dead is essential for health: Bull WHO Volume 84, Number 3, March 2006, 161-256 http://www.who.int/bulletin/volumes/84/3/interview0306/en/index.html

[6]    Launched in 2001, the Measles Initiative is an international partnership committed to reducing measles deaths worldwide, and led by the American Red Cross, CDC, UNICEF, United Nations Foundation, and WHO. Additional information available at http://www.measlesinitiative.org

[7]    Wolfson et al. Has the 2005 measles mortality reduction goal been achieved? A natural history modelling study; Lancet 2007; 369: 191–200 Available from http://www.measlesinitiative.org/mi-files/Reports/Measles%20Mortality%20Reduction/Global/Wolfson%20Lancet2007_Measles_Mortality_Reduction.pdf

[8]    Kenji Shibuya. Decide monitoring strategies before setting targets; Bulletin of the World Health Organization June 2007, 85 (6) http://www.who.int/bulletin/volumes/85/6/07-042887/en/index.html

[9]    MDG – Millennium Development Goals, to be discussed shortly in this chapter.

[10]  Dabbagh et al. Global Measles Mortality, 2000–2008; Morbidity & Mortality Weekly Report. 2009;58(47):1321-1326 http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/714345

[11]  Garenne & Gakusi. Health transitions in sub-Saharan Africa: overview of mortality trends in children under five years old (1950-2000);  Bull WHO June 2006, 84(6) p472 http://www.who.int/bulletin/volumes/84/6/470.pdf

[12]  If you perform a ‘google’ search for ‘infant mortality rate’ or ‘under-5 mortality rate’ you will locate a google service that provides most of this data. It is downloadable in spreadsheet form by clicking on the ‘More info’ link.  http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SH.DYN.MORT/countries/1W-US?display=graph :Vaccine coverage data is available from the WHO website http://www.childinfo.org/files/Immunization_Summary_2008_r6.pdf

[13]  Infant mortality rate is “under-1 year of age” mortality rate.

[15]  Garenne & Gakusi. Health transitions in sub-Saharan Africa: overview of mortality trends in children under five years old (1950-2000);  Bull WHO June 2006, 84(6) p472 http://www.who.int/bulletin/volumes/84/6/470.pdf

They WILL Hear our voices

KittenThe sound was tiny. So small, my brother in law, Charles, wasn’t even sure he had heard it. His wife, my sister Rhonda, was profoundly deaf, so she was no help in this particular matter.

This was nearly 40 years ago. They were both on their way to work and had made their usual trip down to the parking garage in the basement of their apartment building to make the 1 1/2 hour journey to Midtown Manhattan where they worked.

Charles wasn’t even sure he’d heard anything, but there was something wrong, he knew it. He walked around the garage, listening intently and finally, stopped in front of a drain pipe in the far corner. A soft, sad sound could barely be heard above the banging of water pumps and the roar of the central heating units.

Crouching down, Charles pulled a bit of wire away from the bottom of the pipe and out plopped 4 or 5 furry little bodies – all of them unmoving except for one. A small black kitten who was so weak from hunger and illness, he could barely move or make all but the most pitifully tiny sounds.

But my brother-in-law, who had an abiding love for cats, had heard this little one’s pleas.

Domino, the name they gave the kitten – as much from his colouring (all black with a flash of white on his toes and face) as from the lucky roll of the dice that had brought him to them – was near death. My sister and Charles took him to the vet where he was treated for worms, an infection, mites in his ears and other parasites in his fur. It was touch and go for a while.

They took him home and nursed him and within a matter of weeks, he was a hale and hearty cat who reveled in affection and drove their other cat – a rather spoiled Siamese named Cinderella, to distraction with his antics.

Why am I telling you this story now? 

Perhaps I’m drawing a bit of a long bow, but I have been thinking about Domino over and over again for the past few days. How close he had come to death and how his tiny, little weak voice managed to gain the attention of Charles over all the surrounding noises and against all odds. And how that voice – weak nearly to the point of death – eventually saved his life – and a long and happy life it was too.

Our movement was been a bit like Domino.

Everywhere around us, we are surrounded by extraneous noises that threaten to cut off our access to the very people who could – literally or figuratively – save the lives of our children and ourselves. Our message is being drowned out – quite intentionally – by those who through fear, greed or hatred – believe that our message does not deserve to be heard or might be too dangerous to their bottom line should it get out into the public.

If it isn’t the government telling us they will penalise those least able to survive through No Jab, No Pay, or saying that our healthy, unvaccinated children aren’t entitled to an early childhood education via No Jab, No Play, it is corporate bullies threatening to remove sponsorship from a film festival if they don’t censor a video that tells the truth about the vaccine – autism connection.

Vaxxed Screenshot

Our movement had been seriously weakened by this constant battle. Many of our siblings – the other groups that have fought so hard and so bravely – succumbed to fatigue and fell away. But many more of us are still here, staying the course. And we have been offered a second chance.

Rising from the ashes – against all odds

We were near death – our cries for health freedom and respect for basic human rights were, for the most part, unheard.

vaccines and moneyThen, the unthinkable happened. The government and their corporate masters became so evil and repressive, through their actions, they galvinised support for health freedom – even from amongst those of us who would not normally be involved in this issue.

Through their fascist behaviour, the government has betrayed and alienated a large minority of the population. They destroyed the social contract we have always relied upon between those who govern and those who elect.

They have abused and vilified a law-abiding segment of the community and encouraged others to do so as well.

Through discriminatory legislation like No Jab, No Pay in Australia and SB-277 in California, they effectively took away the rights, the voice and the sense of community and belonging of a large and growing proportion of the population.

Instead of listening to what citizens and health professionals had to say about vaccination, the government ignored our voices. The only sounds they seemed capable of hearing were the voices of the multi-national corporations who profit from continued illness and enslavement to their products.

From great repression comes a rebirth of freedom

Vaccination-billboard-11Through their dictatorial and draconian measures, the government here and abroad has done what the entire health-freedom movement could not do in decades of trying – they have unified the broader community around a single goal – saving the rights, the freedoms and in some cases, the very lives of those who believe that when it comes to health, parents and individuals must ALWAYS have the final say about what procedures they will and won’t accept.

The people supporting these groups will never feel the same about their government or their country again. Their belief and trust in the government has been irreparably damaged.

Hundreds of ‘old’ supporters have come back on board, offering to help with their time, their money and their willing hearts. Our depression has begun to turn into cautious optimism.

Then, the real breakthrough occurred – thousands of new supporters stepped forward and amongst them, many, many people who have chosen to vaccinate their children but who wholeheartedly support our right to say no for our own families.

The parable of Domino

Though Domino has been gone for many years, his story is the one I think of when considering the state of vaccination choice in Australia and around the world today. From weakness to strength, we have come full circle and we will prevail.

Though the fight will be hard and wearying, while we have the support of such a broad base within the community, and the knowledge that our goal is a just and truthful one, a victorious outcome is assured.

Never doubt it.

by Meryl Dorey

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

 

Does Malcolm Turnbull support censorship?

OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA
Patrick Stokes – vaccine-risk denialist

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

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

Stokes Defers to Experts

Is the PM Censoring Debate?

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

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

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

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

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

But I digress.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Setting General practices in Thames Valley, UK.

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

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

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

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

Divider 1

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

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

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

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

Divider 1

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

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

Merck Has Some Explaining To Do Over Its MMR Vaccine Claims

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

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

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

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

Divider 1

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

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

New Concerns about the Human Papillomavirus Vaccine

American College of Pediatricians – January 2016

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Primary author: Scott S. Field, MD

January 2016

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

Divider 1

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

by Meryl Dorey

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

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.

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

by Meryl Dorey

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

URGENT – Action Plan to Protect Your Rights

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

You can (and should) read the Bill here:

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

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

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

IMPORTANT UPDATE:

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

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

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

2- Do the same for your federal pollies.

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

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

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

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

Love to you all,

Meryl