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

Not ALL mainstream media is ignoring our side of the vaccination issue

On June 18, 2015, the Sacramento Bee, a major daily newspaper from California’s capital city, published an article about the funding push behind SB277 – legislation intended to take away parent’s rights to philosophical and religious exemptions to vaccination.

The attempts to remove parental choice that we are seeing in Australia are happening in just about every country around the world and are being coordinated and funded directly by the companies that produce and profit from vaccines.

Entitled, Drug companies donated millions to California lawmakers before vaccine debatethis article in a major, mainstream newspaper, paints a sordid picture of corruption occuring in plain view. Senator Richard Pan, a medical doctor who introduced this bill and has been playing all sorts of nasty tricks to prevent the opposition from having a say. He has had over $500,000 donated to his campaign by drug companies over the last 4 years. Many others in the California Senate have had similar amounts ‘given’ to them by these vested interests and I personally believe that these politicians have been bought in order to gain their support for this tyrannical legislation. 

As bad as this information is, at least in the US, it is available to the public. In Australia, there is no way to find out how much money our politicians  have taken from Big Pharma (and other corporate interests) in order to promote their products.

A Voice for Choice, a consumer organisation that supports freedom of choice on this subject, is funding a week’s worth of political cartoons in the Sacramento Bee newspaper. Even if I had the money to do the same here in Australia, I doubt that any newspaper or magazine would run these cartoons because they answer to their advertisers – not their readers.

Here is the first cartoon – I will publish the others on this page as they are published in the US.

AVFC-Tombstones-Cartoon---final

AVFC-Donkey-Cartoon---final

Timeline to a Tragedy: Did incompetence, lies and a government cover-up lead to deaths?

The AVN has created a timeline of events surrounding the ill-fated flu vaccination campaign, from its launch in WA on the 19th of March, 2010 up to the 18th of May, 2010. It paints a disturbing picture of government incompetence; bureaucrats whose only aim seems to be avoiding having their policies questioned; lies from those responsible for protecting the health of the community; and a group of caring parents kept in the dark about the real risks of a medical procedure that caused hundreds of hospitalisations and an unknown number of deaths.George Orwell1

We have merged 3 sets of data to bring you this information:

1-    The timeline included in the Stokes Report, commissioned by the WA government to examine what went wrong with the flu vaccination campaign and make suggestions as to how to prevent the same happening again.

2-    The Right to Information (RTI) request revealing how Ashley Epapara’s death was covered up to prevent criticism of the vaccine. The correspondence in this RTI also proves that both the Chief Health Officer (Jeannette Young) and the Minister for Health were alerted within hours of Ashley dying, despite their claims to the contrary.

3-    Phone calls and emails from parents and health practitioners received by the AVN during the worst of the reactions in WA and elsewhere. Most concerning is the fact that the AVN’s information includes two reports of deaths following flu vaccine – one an infant in Perth and another a 19-year old young man near Newcastle. Neither of these has ever been reported in the media nor, to the best of our knowledge, have they been included on Australia’s national database of vaccine reactions.

The recommendations of the Stokes report have, for the most part, been ignored. What happened four years ago, can happen again. Protecting vaccination policy still appears to take precedence over alerting consumers to warning signs of an unfolding tragedy.

Our health officials are claiming there is no vaccination debate; minimising the known risks and exaggerating the unproven benefits to declare vaccines beyond question. They follow this up with an agenda of vilification against those who have the greatest stake in the issue – the parents of Australia’s children.

Timeline of WA Flu Vaccine Disaster

(Please note – all emphasis has been added by the AVN and this blog will be uploaded in 3 sections due to the large amount of information included.)

Official studiesFriday, March 19, 2010

Flu vaccination campaign launches in WA with letters being sent to all families whose children are in the target age group, urging them to be vaccinated against influenza. No information is provided to alert them to the fact that this is an experimental, untested vaccine.

Wednesday, March 31, 2010

A local health service in WA contacted public health to report reactions in six out of nine children who had received the flu vaccine the day before. One child was hospitalised.

Thursday, April 1, 2010

A public health nurse contacted the Communicable Disease Control Directorate (CDCD, WA), telling them of flu vaccine reactions and one child who was hospitalised. Authorities reassured this nurse that “reactions are common” and asked her to report to the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA)

Tuesday, April 6, 2010

An immunologist working at the Princess Margaret Hospital (PMH) contacted the Telethon Institute (the organisation being paid by pharmaceutical manufacturers to conduct a trial on flu vaccination in children) with concerns that their own child was experiencing a reaction to the Fluvax vaccine.

Thursday, April 8, 2010

A senior nurse emailed CDCD to inform them of a number of calls from parents reporting vomiting and fever after receipt of flu vaccines.

Divider 1
Ashley Jade Epapara, her twin sister and her older brother received their flu shots from a local doctor. That night, all three became ill.

Friday, April 9, 2010

Reports received from the nursing staff at PMH that children were presenting to the emergency department “unwell” after receiving the flu vaccine.

Divider 1

Bunbury hospital called the CDCD to report that an adult had presented to their emergency department suffering a suspected reaction to the flu vaccine.

Divider 1

CDCD emailed the Central Immunisation Clinic (CIC) at the WA Department of Health to confirm that they had heard of some children who were experiencing high fevers, pain and vomiting leading to hospitalisation after flu vaccinations.

Divider 1

Ashley Jade
Ashley Epapara and her family

Ashley Jade Epapara was found dead in her bed at 6.30 on the morning after receiving the vaccine. Her twin sister and older brother who also received the shot are ill.

Divider 1

Channel 10 News runs the following report at 5:00 PM:

Possible swine flu vaccination death – toddler dies in Brisbane

The Brisbane 5pm  Channel 10  TV News  – Friday 9th April 2010 reported  Mt Gravatt police are investigating the sudden death of  a 2 year old toddler .

The death occurred a day after the girl and most of her family had been immunised with the  Swine Flu vaccination.

The Queensland  Health Minister (Paul Lucas) said that no-one should avoid Swine Flu vaccinations.

Divider 1

Samantha Keegan, A/Manager (Corporate) QLD Health, sent the following email to other QLD Health Officials:

Channel 10 have rung saying they have been informed by a very reliable source a 2-year old has died following some kind of flu vaccination.

Sounds a bit suspect as they said QPS is ‘aware’ – Police media know nothing.

Kerry White, Senior Public Affairs Advisor to QLD Health sent the following email to the Commonwealth Health Media Unit as well as to various officials with QLD Health:

 

Gday all, just to let you know (UNOFFICIAL) a two year old had died at Mt Gravatt, a Brisbane suburb, with “no suspicious circumstances”, we have had a TV inquiry already who says police suggested the only thing different in their lives recently was swine flu vaccination. Police seem to have left this as a possibility for post mortem investigation.

That is all we have at the moment, nothing official yet. Awaiting more detail.

Please advise total number of vaccinations in Australia, adverse events, any deaths attributed? And global?

 

Samantha Keegan, A/Manager (Corporate) with QLD Health wrote the following email:

Had a call from Channel 10 about a story they wanted to do on a two-year-old girl who died at Mt Gravatt this morning.

The QAS was called and police attended. There were no suspicious circumstances.

However, someone involved (think it was a police officer) told the journalise the death may have been linked with a flu vaccination given to the child 24 hours before its death, and an autopsy will be performed Monday to rule it out.

I have spoken to police media who followed up with the area to make sure no further statements of the nature were made and spoke to CH 10 News Editor about the unlikeliness of a link and the possible panic such a story could cause.

He has agreed to drop the story at this stage. No other media have called.

 

Email from Kerry White to Neil, Media Unit, Commonwealth Department of Health and Ageing

Gday Neil, a police office apparently made some comment to a Channel 10 reporter abt a possible vacc connection. Samantha has spoken to police media and got them to put a stopper on that talk, and to Channel 10 who have agreed to go no further, not run anything.

 

Email from Neil to Kerry White:

Thanks Kerry, and thanks Samantha for setting the coppers straight.

The irony is that I provided a one-hour briefing to reps of all State and Territory Premiers and Police media units about pandemic flu in Adelaide only last week. Part of that presentation included my thoughts on how people in authority (ie. Doctors in my case) can totally undermine health programs by making silly comments about perceived safety issues.

 

Email from Neil to Kerry White:

Much appreciate the heads up. Please keep me posted on this one.

I’m keen to hear if this blows up. Certainly has the potential to seriously undermine the confidence in the program and I’d like to jump on it before it does blow up (if possible).

 

Email from Kerry White to Dr Russ Schedlich, State Health Incident Controller, Pandemic H1N1 2009:

…In QLD it seems on the latest info I can find that we have had 199 adverse events (33 hospitalised) reported from 717,167 immunisations administered. (AVN note: 717,167 vaccines may have been distributed but there is no information on how many of those were actually administered.).

To be continued tomorrow, May 23, 2014…

AVN Supporters speak in support of their rights

19359622_letterbox1Below are the letters which AVN members and supporters have sent to the various State and Federal Health Ministers and Shadow Ministers in support of the right to conscientiously object to vaccination without being penalised or discriminated against in any way.

As always, these letters are articulate, intelligent and passionate. There are many letters here and at least twice as many people have informed us that they wrote but did not send copies of their letters to us. There are most likely many more who wrote without informing us as well. The upshot is – when your rights are threatened – you don’t sit back and take it, you take action. We will be contacting the Federal Health Minister’s office next week to find out what the final recommendation was after the meeting and will be sure to let you all know. But be assured – if the Ministers have decided not to press ahead with this dreadful plan to penalise Australian families, it will be because of your efforts.

One last note – this page was put together very quickly so if the formatting is a bit wonky or any letters were missed out, we apologise profusely for any problems.

Dear Honourable Health Minister,

I am disgusted yet not surprised by the latest attacks on those of us who are Conscientious Objectors to vaccination. The attacks by both State and Federal Governments on our right to choose regarding vaccination have been constant for the last 2 years.

The media implies that parents opting out of vaccination are somehow following a trend, or are stupid or (insert this weeks insult here). The Medical establishment does not like the sacred cow of medicine, vaccination, being questioned, so it is fighting back in the most bullying and hostile of ways; do what we say or face consequences. This time it will be loss of Governement payments, my feeling is that next in line will be our right to opt out of vaccination.

I could write ad nauseum on the reasons I have chosen not to vaccinate my children. After my eldest child suffered a terrible reaction to her Hepatitis B vaccine at birth I started to research the issue. I was staggered that no Doctor had ever mentioned any of the information I discovered.

In brief vaccines are toxic (ethyl mercury, aluminium, formaldehyde etc), contaminated ( monkey DNA and viruses, aborted human foetal tissue, chicken viruses, pig viruses…it’s a long list) and ineffective (all of the so called Vaccine Preventable Diseases had decreased over 90% by the time the vaccines for those diseases arrived). Not to mention that vaccinated individuals can shed the viruses they have been vaccinated with!

The list of those killed or disabled by vaccines is growing by the day. As demonstrated by VAERS ( Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System) in the USA the consequences of vaccination can be deadly or life ruining, and these types of consequences are not rare. Despite the howling protests of Governments everywhere; vaccines can cause autism. Cases like those of Hannah Poling (US courts) and Valentino Bocca (Italian Courts) prove this. There are tens of thousands of other children out there with the same story as these children.

The tragic case of Saba Button in Western Australia in 2010 shows that citizens are correct to have doubts over Government authorised vaccination campaigns. Saba was permanently disabled after receiving the untested Fluvax vaccine. Hundreds of children in WA were hospitalised as a result of this vaccination. Parents WERE NOT told about the status of this vaccine or the risks involved ( A WA health spokesperson said 1/1000 children were “expected” to have febrile seizures but the rate was 10 times higher than they expected i.e. 1/100 children suffered febrile seizures). It is criminal that parents were not told of this risk prior to vaccination. What about the right to informed consent? What happened to “first do no harm”?

Saba Button’s parents have set up a foundation in her name to raise money to help with the costs of her fulltime care needs. So for the Health Minister to take a few hundred dollars out of vaccine refusers pockets is not even a drop in the ocean of the cost of caring for a vaccine injured child. Personally there is no sum of money that could ever induce me to vaccinate my children and that is true of all the other vaccine refusing parents that I know.

The financial ramifications of the Health Minister’s plan do not bother me, but the ethics behind his decision do. If my child is vaccine injured it is not the Health Minister, Government or Doctor who pay the price. It is my burden to carry, so the choice should be mine , unencumbered by draconian and coercive Government policies.

I could provide you with a lot more information regarding vaccines, but lets face it, you already know them. Concerned and intelligent parents have been writing to all forms of Government for years now saying the same thing, fighting to maintain our right to choose.

The problem for the Government, Medical Establishment and Drug Companies is that there is now a tsunami of educated parents who are refusing to vaccinate their children. I have no doubt that the fight for our rights will be a hard one and it is already getting very ugly. Unfortunately for the Government it is too late. There are now vaccine-damaged children living on every street in Australia and their parents are very vocal. We will stay vocal. We will speak our truth and spread information about vaccine dangers wherever we go and we will not be shut up. So you may try to impose draconian legislation to “punish”us for being so caring, intelligent and righteous, but it is too late. In the words of Andrew Wakefield “There is no place for indulging futile displacement activity, sanctimonious posturing and self-protectionism. In the battle for the hearts and minds of the public you have already lost. Why? Because the parents are right; their stories are true; their children’s brains are damaged; there is a major, major problem.”

Yes the public is fast becoming aware of vaccine dangers. I ask that the Minister also looks into the issue and not be fobbed off by his advisors.

Some interesting points to research

1) The safety studies of the current vaccine schedule (no wait, there aren’t any).
2) The safety studies proving that is safe to inject infants with ethyl mercury (these studies don’t exist either)
3) A study comparing long term health outcomes of fully vaccinated verus fully unvaccinated children. (This doesn’t exist either. Would the Minister please make this type of study his number one priority. We have been asking for this study to be done.)

I trust that the Minister will allow parents the right to choose whether or not to vaccinate their children. Anything less would be an infringement on human rights.

In Support of Conscientious Objection to Vaccination,
AH

Divider 1

Dear Minister Dutton,

I have just spoken with your office of my concern that family tax payments may be withdrawn from parents who have chosen not to immunise their children.

The person who took my call suggested that I send an email to support the phone call.

I treat many children with autism spectrum disorders, severe allergies and worrying gastrointestinal disturbances whose parents firmly believe their problem began with vaccination. I believe them for two reasons – first, their stories have convincing yet uncanny similarities – and there are so many of them, and second, because what happened to their children mimics what happened to mine when they too were vaccinated.

At the time I knew little about the vaccine debate but expressed my concern to the vaccinating doctors that the high fevers and problems that followed were somehow linked to the vaccine they had not long given. My concerns were dismissed out of hand, and still are today whenever I retell what happened. Though much improved my children continue to be affected by those early problems, even into adulthood.

If I had my time over again I would certainly be one of those seeking an exemption for my children as they and I (and others like us) have had to bear the burden – not the doctors who gave the vaccine or the government that advised them to do so.

Did you know that most people who now have a conscientious or medical exemption to vaccines started out as vaccine proponents and trustingly had their child vaccinated as recommended? Do you know that they only stopped giving subsequent vaccines because that child became one of the unlucky ones? These are the people you wish to remove family tax payments from – payments that initially were never intended to be linked to vaccination.

If you remove these payments you will not be punishing parents who just can’t be bothered to go and get the vaccine, you will be punishing those who have already tried to do the right thing and now bear the consequences of following medical and governmental advice. It seems to me that they should be compensated rather than punished like naughty school children for not continuing to do something they are convinced harmed their children.

Please don’t compound their heartache and loss by removing this much needed payment. To do so would be grossly unfair.

Yours sincerely,
FS

Divider 1

To: Mrs Jo-Ann Miller Shadow Minister for Health, Queensland

Dear Mrs Miller,

I am writing to you about this matter, since you are the Shadow Minister of Health in my State of Queensland.

I find it very hard to comprehend that there should be vaccinations, and taken beyond that mandatory vaccinations. I have taken close interest in reading all the articles I can on this matter from sources that are not censored. It seems that all information in the Australian Media is censored.

As a child in South Australia in the war years I was given a tetanus vaccination, and I came out in a total severe body rash. In India in 1946, as a child aged 11, I had another fall from a horse, with a cut requiring stitches. Although the Doctor was told by my Mother about the first reaction, he insisted on giving me another tetanus vaccination. This time I was paralysed over my body for two days, and could not get out of bed or turn over, and was kept in a darkened room in the family house with someone with me all the time.

It is a fact that the Pharmaceutical companies have taken control of the whole world, paying for medical training for doctors, and totally influencing their decisions, so they don’t think of questioning their training. They are rewarded by holidays and gifts, provided they write out a sufficient number of prescriptions. The Minister of Health said on a broadcast that any doctor who would not vaccinate would no longer be able to practice as a doctor. Most doctors have families and mortgages, and how would they find another career. So the GPs continue to vaccinate, but those who know with families, do not vaccinate their own children.

All vaccinations damage. Most of them create the very disease they are meant to protect against. They all have mercury and formaldehyde, and unfortunately viruses have also got into the mix.

The flue epidemic after the War 1914-1918 was created by vaccinations and killed more people than died in the War. Those who were not vaccinated did not get the flue.

Please investigate this yourself. You will not be able to change the world situation, due to bribery and corruption, but at least you will be able to influence decisions about mandatory vaccinations, giving the choice to parents who know the dangers, or who are just wary about damaging their children.

You are welcome to forward this email on to others.

Sincerely
SW

Divider 1

Dear Ministers,

On the eve of ANZAC Day it seems the Australian Government seeks to dishonor what our countrymen fought for 100 years ago. Freedom, choice and democracy.

I oppose any moves by the Government to remove the right of a person to be a conscientious objector with regard to vaccinations.

People should have the same rights to vaccinate or to not vaccinate.

I oppose any moves to take away our right to entitlements based on our vaccination decision and status.

I am sure that in legal circles this could be called ‘Blackmailing’. (Blackmail refers to a situation that arises when a person threatens another person with some form of punishment if they do not offer some form of concessions. http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=blackmail)

Nobody should be FORCED to have their child be vaccinated.

We live in Australia, a democratic society which means (taken from http://moadoph.gov.au/democracy/australian-democracy/):

The Australian democracy has at its heart, the following core defining values:

freedom of election and being elected; freedom of assembly and political participation; freedom of speech, expression and religious belief; rule of law; and other basic human rights.

As far as I am concerned it is my basic human right to choose how I medicate myself and my children. If you take away government entitlements you are penalising those that make an educated and informed choice that is different to the current political and medical dogma, and are saying that I don’t have a right to choice.

Regards,

DW

Divider 1

Dear Minister Dutton,

I ask you to please not participate in the discrimination against loving parents who have legitimate concerns about vaccinating their children, please do not persecute parents by taking away government entitlements that are meant for every eligible low income family struggling with the costs of raising their children, it is ethically and morally wrong.

The current environment of blaming unvaccinated children for every disease outbreak under the sun is unjustified and very worrying especially for me as I am both a conscientious objector and a recipient of the government payments that they are thinking of taking away from parents like myself.

My name is Tasha David and I am a widowed Mum of 8 and also a committee member of the AVN, but today I am writing to you as a Mum. I have vaccinated 6 of my children to varying degrees and they all have neurological, allergic and autoimmune disorders as well as having poor general health. My two unvaccinated children have excellent health and no neurological disorders yet I had them when I was in my late 30’s when they should have been more susceptible to the disorders that are affecting their elder siblings. We also did genetic testing and there was no genetic reason found for their afflictions. In my position would you have continued vaccinating your children, and do you believe that I should be punished financially for doing what I believe was in the best interests of my children?

What this proposed legislation is in essence saying, is that parents like myself are bad parents and do not deserve the same rights as other parents but on what basis is the judgement made? I love and adore my children, I make sure that my children are safe from physical harm, that they are educated, they are fed nourishing whole meals that I cook from scratch, I support their immune systems through nutrient rich supplements, foods and probiotics and we avoid all additives, preservatives etc and toxic chemicals in the home, and they get plenty of fresh air, exercise. If my children are sick which is very rarely then I keep them home so that they are not exposing any other children to any illnesses that they may have and this has worked really well for my children especially my unvaccinated children, they have never had or needed an antibiotic in their lives unlike their elder siblings which have all had antibiotics. Almost all of my vaccinated children have been admitted to hospital for either asthma attacks, rotavirus and grommets for chronic ear infections etc, my unvaccinated children have not. I have researched countless vaccine studies that show pros and cons and have seen firsthand what vaccines can do to my children, so by deciding that vaccination is not for my children anymore does this make me a bad mother?

If we are going to start penalising parents for making their decisions that they know in their hearts is best for their children and call them irresponsible parents, where does it end? Is it fair that parents that smoke, drink and do drugs around their children are eligible for these payments, are they better parents than us? What about parents that feed their children chips and coke and sweets all day and let them run around the streets all hours of the day and night, are they better parents? Going on the proposed legislation by Minister Springborg they are, as they will still be eligible for these payments yet we will not. How can this be considered anything other than discrimination?

I always wonder how a parent who believes in vaccination would feel if they were punished for vaccinating their child because of the shedding from the live vaccines? If they were vilified and condemned by their government,the media and other parents and were told that there children should not be allowed near other children in school, in public etc how would they feel? How did we get to this point where the Government and media are stirring up hatred against parents like me, are there great epidemics of disease in unvaccinated children? No, there isn’t so why the hatred, the demonising of parents, the encouraging of the us and them mentality, why are we so eager to hate others for being different?

If the Government is so worried about conscientious objectors why don’t they talk to us, why can’t we have an open discussion where both sides can be heard, how can you think that financial penalties are the only way to reach an understanding with parents?

The other part that does not make sense to me about all of this is why the Government thinks taking away Centrelink payments is going to change the minds of the rich affluent suburbs which are the ones with the lowest vaccination rates, this type of discrimination only targets the poor?

We have just experienced the largest Whooping cough epidemic and the vast majority of cases were in the vaccinated, so how many others are not protected by their vaccinations and are walking around thinking that they are? Or are asymptomatic transmitters of the disease?

“This research suggests that although individuals immunized with an acellular pertussis vaccine may be protected from disease, they may still become infected with the bacteria without always getting sick and are able to spread infection to others, including young infants who are susceptible to pertussis disease.”

http://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/Newsroom/PressAnnouncements/ucm376937.htm

Why is that the Government has only got a passive surveillance system in place for vaccine reactions/injuries? How can we really know how many vaccine injuries and deaths there are if they is no mandatory reporting system in place?

“Professor Bryant Stokes, the eminent neurosurgeon and former head of WA Health who reviewed the events for the state’s health minister, concluded in a report tabled in the WA Parliament last August that the “slow response” by federal and state authorities had “not served the public well”. It was “disturbing”, he noted, that Australia had not put in place the surveillance and reporting systems recommended by the World Health Organisation, which had advised all countries in August 2009 to “conduct intensive monitoring for safety and efficacy” of the pandemic vaccine, Panvax.”

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/features/virus-in-the-system/story-e6frg8h6-1226063484330

How is it that we can vilify parents for not vaccinating their children by saying that the science is clear when there has been no long term health outcomes comparing the fully vaccinated vs fully unvaccinated? Shouldn’t this be done before we even start to think about discriminating against conscientious objectors?

How can we have herd immunity when adults have not been vaccinated appropriately for decades, and the theory was based on natural immunity to start with not vaccine induced immunity?

http://www.webmd.com/vaccines/news/20140206/many-us-adults-not-getting-key-vaccines-cdc

Why is there such a push to force vaccination on parents when they are much more serious priorities that deserve the governments full attention ie 1 in 6 having developmental delays, sky rocketing numbers of Asthma, Allergies, Autoimmune disorders, Autism, ADHD, Alzheimer’s, Cancer etc? What about the estimated 18,00 to 30,000 dying from medical errors in our hospitals?

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-04-06/australia-on-verge-of-allergy-epidemic/2628058 http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/Lookup/4428.0main+features42009 http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-02-04/cancer-now-biggest-killer-in-australia/5236148 http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-06-10/lack-of-data-creates-concern-over-true-extent-of-medical-errors/4744286 http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-02-04/cancer-now-biggest-killer-in-australia/5236148

Why have we forgotten the hundred children rushed to hospital in WA with febrile seizures because of the Fluvax vaccine, and the death of Ashley Epapara, the severe brain damage of Saba Button and even more recently Lachlan Neyland? Do these children not deserve to be protected also, why is it that a child that is injured or killed by a disease is given priority over children that have been injured or killed by vaccination? Who decides which life is more worthy of protection?

http://www.tga.gov.au/safety/alerts-medicine-seasonal-flu-100702.htm#.U0UEb6J7R2A http://www.perthnow.com.au/news/western-australia/saba-button-the-girl-who-is-never-alone/story-e6frg13u-1226035296706 http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/nsw/toddler-who-was-given-an-adult-flu-shot-is-left-severely-brain-damaged-and-unable-to-walk-or-talk/story-fni0cx12-1226756398505 http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/toddler-ashley-jade-epapara-2-dies-after-flu-vaccination/story-e6freon6-1225857803417

Conscientious objectors are just trying to raise healthy children like everybody else we just believe that there has to be a better way than injecting substances in to our children with an unknown long term health outcome. Parents should be allowed to make the choices that they believe are right for their children whether it be to vaccinate or not, especially when there is no way of knowing whether your child will be the one having a serious adverse reaction. I couldn’t save my first six children from life long chronic illness please do not punish me for trying to save my last two from this.

This is my family’s story…

Thank you for your time and I hope that this helps in some way Kind regards Tasha David

To all the Honourable Members of Parliament State and Federal to whom this has been sent.

I believe you are meeting to decide wether or not to continue to allow Government payments to be made to those who object to vaccination. No mention as to the legitimate reasons for objections, of which there are many.

My wife and I raised our children from 1974 till the last born in 1990. We were aware of the discussion and claims regarding the efficacy of vaccines, but chose to vaccinate untill our last baby reacted badly to the vaccine and we saw what others had warned us of. There are real dangers with vaccines and to deny that is to deny the truth. Who is responsible for the wellbeing of our children? Did you give them to us? Why are the vaccine manufacturers indemnified against prosecution for the death or disablement of those injured by vaccines?

Should you even consider such a proposal then we do not live in a democratic country.

Yours Sincerely
DGS

Divider 1

Minister Dutton,

I have spoken with Alex in your office and left a message for you. He suggested I could also write.

With respect, I want to pass on my views as they relate to your discussion with state health Ministers on the potential removal of (or tightening of) conscientious objection (CO) clauses with Vaccination policy.

First, CO is NOT used ‘willy nilly’ – people who do appropriate research and then make an informed choice take advantage of this right. The difficulty experienced in actually finding a GP who will sign such a form is testament enough to the fact that the clause is not being ‘taken advantage of’.

Second, our constitution provides us with the right to refuse medical treatments against our will. As such governments of both persuasion have often argued that vaccination is not compulsory – but you then tie access to certain family payments to vaccination status which effectively ‘force’ compliance with vaccination policy. This is under-handed and dishonest.

If you do believe vaccination is such an important public health initiative, then make it compulsory, institute protection-schemes for those that are vaccine-damaged (or better yet, allow once again the common law right to sue vaccine manufacturers!), fund and instruct the TGA to do proper analysis including post-market safety studies, don’t ‘farm out’ investigation of reactions to the companies that produce the product, and instruct all health practitioners to keep accurate reaction statistics rather than just voluntary adverse reactions registers. Also, fund the studies that have been called for ad nauseum (with such calls being ignored so far) for long-term health outcomes of the fully vaccinated versus the fully non-vaccinated.

The FTB is an important payment most used by needy families in our society. It should not be in any way linked to whether or not you have a medical procedure. The fact that it currently is, means you MUST allow conscientious objection.

The argument you and others have put forward regarding the importance of high vaccination uptake is always predicated on the ‘greater good’ which is turn is based on a theoretical mathematical model of herd immunity…the levels required to achieve herd immunity continue to change and rise, because we reach the level suggested and then we find eradication has not occurred, and fully or mostly vaccinated populations are still contracting these diseases! You can’t blame unvaccinated children for fully vaccinated outbreaks! True, there are populations that for whatever reason are not able to be vaccinated (partly because of the toxic ingredients in vaccines!)…but if you look into the history of flu vaccine policy for example, you find profound conflicts of interest and policies derived from ‘expert’ panels without any evidence or research – particularly the justification to vaccinate the over-65 age-group originally was non-existent!

Ministers are often guilty of spouting inaccurate information regarding vaccination – first confusing vaccination with immunisation (they’re NOT the same thing!), second, claiming extremely high levels of safety based on voluntary reporting data, third claiming efficacy based on the fact that people don’t contract the disease after innoculation (with no evidence they were EXPOSED to the organism and no analysis of differences in immunocompetency or the factors which might raise immunocompetency in some population groups/individuals while not in others!) Leaps of faith are made with inadequate basis, and this informs your public policy.

Please…if you (and by this I mean the pro-vaccine lobby) are not willing to sit down and have a real, inclusive debate and address areas of perceived or actual lack in the evidence to back up your policy, don’t force people who HAVE researched the issue into something they firmly believe could cause greater harm than good.

If you cannot achieve herd immunity through education then surely there is some reasonable doubt you have not adequately addressed…and the way most pro-vaccination experts contribute to the public debate further inflames this issue. By just simply trying to deny that there is a valid debate, or for that matter ridiculing alternative points of view, you don’t actually do your cause any favours! Removing the only real option for people to still receive their rightful government funds

As Minister for HEALTH (not minister for sick-care) it would be amazing if you began to heavily promote research and public policy based not on the minimum standards needed to avoid illness, but on what is required to achieve sufficiency to maximise full function and the expression of ultimate health. The philosophy underpinning allopathy – whereby society is effectively taught to only respond to their health status when they experience a symptom is the real issue here!

Clearly I’m passionate about this issue and I would welcome any indication from you that you have considered this email – a ‘pro-forma’ email will just further reinforce my opinions as presented in this letter!

— Regards,

Dr. P

Divider 1

Peter Dutton,

I oppose any moves to take away our right to government entitlements based on our vaccination decision.

Nobody should be FORCED to have their child be vaccinated.

The Australian Constitution No 51 ‘The provisions of maternity allowances, widow’ pensions, child endowment, unemployment, pharmaceutical, sickness and hospital benefits, medical and dental services (but not so as to authorize any form of civil conscription), benefits to students and family allowances’

By removing the family tax will not get me to vaccinate my children but will place more financial stress on my family and will cause us to tighten our belts even further. Are you sure this decision will really profit out children? Are you not satisfied with the 90% you already have claimed?

Jesus therefore says to him, If thou doest, do quickly.

God bless

PB

Divider 1

Letter of Objection for Peter Dutton.

I write in regards to the proposed removal of the conscientious objection clause in relation to vaccination and remove entitlements. This is in Violation of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution. The Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act was signed & Sealed in 1900, by Queen Victoria using the Royal Seal, which then became the law-making seal of the Federal Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia at Proclamation in 1901. No other symbols or system can be used to create an authority of any kind, OVER the civil & political rights of the legal or private Persons of the Commonwealth of Australia. The Queen holds the title Defender of the Faith, upholding our Commercial and Civil rights to Common and Canon Law . That title is a direct covenant with God Almighty. A contract. In her, and her alone, through that contract, lies the authority to Judicially adjudicate over the men & women of the Contract.

Commonwealth Of Australia Constitution Act

Part V – Powers of the Parliament

51.The Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to make laws for the peace, order, and good government of the Commonwealth with respect to: –

(xxiiiA.) The provision of maternity allowances, widows’ pensions, child endowment, unemployment, pharmaceutical, sickness and hospital benefits, medical and dental services but not so as to authorise any form of civil conscription, benefits to students and family allowances.

Correct me if I have read this wrongly but it states not as to authorise any form of civil conscription to medical services. So there we have it, this is why vaccination is a voluntary procedure.

Be aware that we the people are watching you and are growing in numbers and will hold you accountable for the decisions you make.

I have informed you of the illegality of enforcing vaccinations and hereby this communication is a letter of objection.

Vaccination has no scientific background to support it. Wherever we have so many vaccine failures it becomes a scam.

Science means 100% efficacy, nothing less can be deemed to be back by science. No failures not now not ever, I have witnessed to many vaccine failure particularly the Flu Vaccine for it to be considered scientific.

We the people are now looking at this hoax in growing numbers as you can never fool all the people all the time.

You are elected by the people to stand up for the people. Its high time you backed the people who elected you to office as opposed to the corporate entities who only have profit as there agenda and care not for anyone or the planet.

Yours Sincerely

RM

Divider 1

To the Hon. David Davis, Hon. Peter Dutton, Hon. Catherine King and Mr Gavin Jennings

I am a Victorian resident, Company Director, mother of young children and supportive wife to a very hard working tax payer, and I write sharing my concern regarding current discussions about vaccination and the removal of rights of Conscientious Objectors (CO).

As a fellow Australian citizen, I respectfully ask that our Health Ministers and Government Officials please respect our rights as parents (and human beings) to make decisions on behalf of our children. Many parents choose to vaccinate, but some believe it is not in the best interests of their children to follow the current Australian Vaccination Schedule or to vaccinate at all. With so many vaccines required to stay “up to date”, my husband and I do not feel comfortable injecting our children so often and with so many vaccines as is currently suggested. My mother was instructed by her GP back in the 1980s not to even think about vaccinating me until I was at least 6 months old, and with far less vaccines required when I was a child, it is no wonder some parents are not “fulfilling” the current schedule.

As it stands, we are one of the CO families which have been vehemently despised, blamed and shamed throughout the media and some medical circles in recent times. We submitted the CO paperwork (which, ironically, was misplaced at Medicare for one of my children although we sent the letters together) so that Centrelink/Family Assistance/Childhood Vaccine Registry would cease sending us so much correspondence in reminder letters, tax benefit reduction threats and the like. We thought it was the right thing to do considering our options, and we trust you will take on board that right to choose. Considering my vaccinated daughter contracted the chicken pox last year from who knows where and gave the illness to her siblings, one of which is unvaccinated, I really cannot see us changing our position in the near future and I do not believe it is fair, constitutional or downright “Australian” for my children to be forcibly medicated against our wishes.

It is very unfortunate when an industry (which does not have any scientific research supporting the safety of injecting multiple vaccines at a time as suggested by the current schedule) has more clout than the parents of the precious children being injected. The right to choose to vaccinate or not is one right we desire to stand up for; for our children and for their wellbeing.

Please take note of my conscientious objection to any discussions penalising CO families for making a decision for their individual family.

Yours sincerely
SE

Divider 1

The Hon. Peter Dutton, MP Minister for Health

Dear Minister,

I am writing to offer an ordinary, informed citizen’s view of a proposal by your Queensland state counterpart, Lawrence Springborg, for using undue and unrelated financial penalties to coerce conscientious parents, in contravention of Australia’s human-rights obligations, to undertake a course of action that in their view may endanger, threaten, or compromise their own children’s health: Mr Srpingborg’s proposal to remove from such parents the admittedly burdensome option of lodging conscientious objection, for the purpose of receiving an unrelated tax rebate, to the questionable* practice of universal vaccination using all the vaccines not yet banned that the industry that stands to profit by their sale “recommends”.

That such a successful industry as the pharmaceutical industry is must increasingly rely upon punitive measures, upon physical force, upon court orders, and, at least in the United States, upon physical violence in order to force its most disreputable products upon resistant consumers is a strong indicator that something has gone awry in the most expensive marketing campaign that any industry has yet financed.

What industry with a product that works and offers great benefits to its potential customers has ever had to force that product down their throats? If the most expensive marketing in history has failed to persuade a minority of parents of the value of all vaccines to their children, what has gone wrong that the product must be delivered punitively (and, in the U.S., even at gunpoint)? If the product cannot be sold at any price, then perhaps it is the product, not the consumer, that has something wrong with it.

What has undermined the success of vaccine marketing, minister, may be a mix of fundamental changes in perception.

First, formerly pro-vaccination parents have seen their children being harmed by vaccines and have chosen to educate themselves and to realise that vaccination is not the be-all and end-all of child health.

Second, formerly zealous paediatric proponents of vaccination have seen their patients damaged and have undertaken their own research.

Third, international studies of the long-term health of the vaccinated and the unvaccinated have come up with results that unarguably speak against indiscriminate childhood vaccination as a long-term health strategy.

Fourth, several studies that supported vaccine efficacy and safety have emerged as having been tampered with, ghostwritten, and forged altogether.

Fifth, alternatives to vaccination have been studied and have been found to be effective preventatives of infectious illnesses.

And, sixth and most tellingly, the Internet, as did the Gutenburg press in its day, has enabled parents and concerned citizens to conduct their own research, communicate their findings, and question formerly unquestionable dogmas.

Possibly the greatest subversion of the success of vaccination marketing, however, has been the refusal by the most vehement proponents of the unquestionable dogmas to answer such questions — except by attempting to subvert the right of all parents to make the health choices most appropriate for their children with the assistance of the most accurate information available on the subject and without undue pressure by industry or government.

Could you yourself possibly give a straightforward, informative, and accurately referenced answer to a question concerning a particular vaccination’s value to a particular child whose parents have noted that child’s familial or personal history of sensitivity to that vaccine or to a related one? If not, then on what possible basis could you justify overcoming that child’s parents’ better judgement and parental intuition using the force of financial penalties?

Undermining the set dogmas more broadly than do questions of safety in relation to a particular individual are some of the larger statistical studies that have demonstrated some vaccines’ surprising roles. Two of the better-known reasons for concerned citizens to question the universal truths of the dogma of vaccinations’ universal benefit to their recipients are (a) the evident role of pertussis vaccine (whole-cell in particular as opposed to acellular) in perpetuating cycles of pertussis and parapertussis epidemics, and (b) the evident role of the now highly discredited “swine flu” vaccines in increasing susceptibility to annual influenza. Could you yourself possibly offer the least evidence to contradict the studies that have elicited these relationships? If not, then on what possible basis could you justify using pressure of any kind to sway a parent’s better-informed decision?

Minister, these questions and many more like them deserve answers based on respect for truth and for the rights of the individual, not answers that come from the barrel of the handiest financial cannon.

The more readily the pharmaceutical industry and the Government turn to force in order to sell the unsellable to the unwilling, the stronger the Government makes the message that it has no recourse in terms of rational argument and evidence but must use irrelevant penalties — withholding of irrelevant tax payments — in order to enforce its opinions. Such irrational measures do less than nothing to inspire confidence in the ability of our ministers for health to understand evidence and argument and communicate it. Rather, they demonstrate the inadequacy of such ministers to their portfolio.

That parents manage to stand up to the already significant financial pressure of losing access to a relevant payment — the Maternity Immunisation Allowance (M.I.A.), through payment of which the Government tacitly admits a certain degree of risk to the child it pays on behalf of — says that some parents retain both a sense of higher vaccine risk than the Government acknowledges and stronger principles than the Government counts on in using the M.I.A. as blood money. Seeking deliberately to add to such conscientious parents’ burdens is the work not of good citizens and servants but of those who believe in their own power above all else. That your office, when I phoned, was punctilious in insisting that such deliberate privations neither force parents to vaccinate nor constitute, technically, penalties — is a clear indicator that you yourself are conscious both of the burden and of the force of that burden upon parents. I urge you to become equally aware of the existence of an entire library of careful research demonstrating that the dogmas underlying your Queensland colleague’s proposal have had their day in the court of scientific investigation and been found wanting in factual accuracy.

I look forward to your prompt, public assurance that you have forsworn committing the grave errors of judgement and disrespect for your electorate that your Queensland colleague would willingly lead you to commit. And I look forward to learning that you have led a movement toward a factual basis for government policy via research uncontaminated by unarguably vested interests.

Yours sincerely,

JH

* I use the word “questionable” here advisedly. A medical procedure whose value has become beyond question becomes impossible to subject to intelligent investigation. In the minds of those who think of science as a canon of established, unquestionable knowledge rather than a process of careful discernment, vaccination has already reached such a canonised state. It is truly remarkable, in the poisonous atmosphere that habitually attends the questioning of vaccination’s value, that any independent research in the field continues to be done. It nonetheless does occur. For a start in reading independent research on vaccination, you could do worse than to consult the writings of Dr Tom Jefferson, of the Cochrane Collaborative. I’d be happy to refer you to peer-reviewed work by him and other notables in such places as the British Medical Journal.

cc Shadow Minister for Health, the Hon. Catherine King <Catherine.King.MP@aph.gov.au>

cc A.C.T. Minister for Health, Katy Gallagher <gallagher@act.gov.au>

cc A.C.T. Shadow Minister for Health, Jeremy Hanson <hanson@parliament.act.gov.au>

Divider 1

Dear Minister Dutton

It has come to my attention that tomorrow a meeting will be held and one of the topics for discussion is the Family Tax Benefit A and the possible removal of the conscientious Objection as a qualifier for this payment. I truly hope you can see that doing so will be indirectly forcing parents to ignore their childs health needs in favour of receiving a cash reward. If you are going to pay families for vaccinating, you need to make the payment available to those who do not wish to vaccinate for what ever reason they may have. You may argue that only medical exemptions will be acceptable, but I put it to you that… there is no medical testing of children and infants prior to their vaccines to test for possible allergies or reactions. At present parents must subject their children and babies to vaccines on blind faith that everything will be ok. Often times it isn’t ok. Therefore the medical exemption is not good enough in my opinion, it is not going to prevent children from becoming vaccine damaged. Personally I believe this payment should be removed all together from both vaccinating and non vaccinating parents and redistribute it fairly back to families in another way or perhaps remove the link to vaccinations for this payment all together and just leave it as a family assistance payment. Health decisions must be made based on an individuals needs and should never be influenced by monetary gain or reward. If parents choose to vaccinate it should be based purely on their belief that it will benefit their child. As it is, most parents who choose not to vaccinate do so based on what they believe is most beneficial to their childs health.

Trusting you will remain unbiased and fair to all in your decisions.

Regards

MS

Divider 1

Dear Shadow Minister King,

I am writing to inform you of my personal opposition to remove parental rights to government entitlements based on my family’s vaccination decision. For the past fourteen years I have worked as a Special Education Teacher, both in government and non-government positions. During this time, I have observed the very rapid increase in children being diagnosed as developmentally delayed, more specifically autistic. When I first commenced in my career, it was apparent that a more widespread array of disabilities was evident in the classroom demographic. Nowadays, a proportionately high number of the classroom demographic consists of autistic children, many classed as severely autistic on the spectrum.

Parents have personally attested to the fact, they believe their child’s autism was a direct result of vaccination. One parent asked me whether I had my own children. At the time I hadn’t, and the mother said to me, do your research. She was well versed on the topic and I still remember her very vividly today. I have also counselled many parents in person or over the phone who have just stepped out of the Paediatrician’s office to be told their child is autistic. I cannot describe to you the devastation and emotional state of these poor, helpless parents. It broke my heart.

I started to observe consistencies in parents stories; about how their child was developing atypically, then suddenly they stopped speaking, giving eye contact, ceased interacting with peers and siblings etc. etc. All children mentioned here where fully vaccinated according to the schedule.

In 2006 I had my own adverse reaction to the DPT vaccine. I had to undergo a minor procedure at a medical centre after I sustained a small fragment of glass in my fifth finger. Having being asked by the medical staff when my last tetanus shot was, I couldn’t recall, so was then vaccinated with what I thought was a ‘tetanus’ vaccine. I later learned that the tetanus vaccine is a three in one shot and includes Diphtheria and Pertussis. Tetanus cannot be given in isolation. A resulting adverse reaction became immediate following the vaccination and lasted 3-4 days.

Due to my personal experiences, I began a course of research and read material from both sides of the vaccination debate . Countless hours where spent conducting this research and consequently an INFOMED decision not to vaccinate my own children resulted. For me, vaccination is a medial procedure I simply did not want for my children. The potential risks simply outweighed the apparent benefits.

Nobody should be FORCED to have their child vaccinated.

We live in Australia, a democratic society, which for me, means freedom of choice. By denying a parent access to this government payment is discriminatory.

I strongly urge the government to act justly and fairly on this matter.

Yours Sincerely,

MF

Divider 1

Dear Peter Dutton & co-workers,

I understand that as politicians, you are under increasing pressure from pharmaceutical lobbyists and the higher powers that be at the Australian Medical Association to pass legislation that will take away the rights of hard-working and educated parents of non-vaccinated children to receive government assistance payments.

Before you consider enacting upon such a drastic and oppressive endeavour, I beg of you (and your colleagues) to please take the time to view the award winning and informative documentary, ‘The Greater Good’; http://www.greatergoodmovie.org/#!prettyPhoto I also encourage you and colleagues to educate yourselves about the specific ingredients in vaccines, rather than assume blindly that because a person with a white coat or esteemed medical title has assured you, that every word they utter is to be considered an unequivocal and eternal truth.

Please keep in mind also, that most parents who have chosen not to vaccinate, have not made this decision on a whim, but rather painstakingly – many after witnessing serious adverse reactions to vaccinations in their child or other loved ones. In fact, most parents (like myself) were previously PRO vaccination, blindly trusting in the authorities, and have only bothered to educate ourselves about the ingredients, manufacture and funding of vaccines after experiencing an adverse reaction in our families.

Pharmaceutical and other medical authorities whom benefit financially from these vaccines are disturbed and dare I say frightened, by this growing number of educated adults who are taking the time to do their own research. But enforcing draconian laws upon people, borne out of pride and anger is never a good recipe for a democratic society that wishes to look back in time without regret.

Australia is and should remain a free, democratic country, where the rights of all to access government assistance and the right to accept or decline medical drugs for our children should be respected. Our children are OUR responsibility… not the governments.

All scaremongering and drug-pushing aside, I can assure you that the growing number of non-vaccinated children out there are far healthier and arguably happier than their vaccinated counterparts. Rather than be injected with heavy metals, formaldehyde and other neurotoxins, they are nourished with pure, unadulterated healthy food, clean water, a good dose of fresh air and daily sunshine and are thriving! Sadly, this is not a reality which the pharmaceutical vaccine industry can benefit from. Please open your heart and mind and consider our plea…..

In freedom and truth,

JL

Divider 1

Dear Minister Gallagher/Shadow Minister Hanson,

We are forwarding this email to share our concerns about family tax payments that may be withdrawn from parents who have chosen not to immunise their children. Don’t punish those of us who thought we were doing the right thing but simply weren’t aware of the dangers that immunisations pose until we learnt the hard way.

Here in Australia we live in a democracy and that gives us the right to make choices and the right not to be discriminated against. We feel that what you’re doing is impinging on our right to make decisions. In this case, one that is researched and in the best interest of our children.

We can only speak for ourselves in this matter however we are very well educated and intelligent people. We did not make the decision not to immunise lightly; rather we made the decision to immunise too lightly!! We did not research how immunisation works & what the chemicals can do to the body, especially in one that is still developing, we just blindly trusted our doctor and the information disseminated to the general public. Our children are only partially immunised because after an immunisation at 2.5 years old, our eldest had a major gut/bowel reaction over a period of weeks. Our doctor & nurse did not believe it was a reaction & of course we were not encouraged to report it.

Both our sons now suffer multiple food/chemical/environmental intolerances & allergies; our eldest suffers from ADHD & asthma. Although we fully understand that our children have different dispositions etc., our youngest (who is only immunised to 6 months) does not suffer to the same extent or with the same issues as his older sibling. He suffers from far less infections etc. and also recovers from illness significantly quicker & more effectively than his older brother.

These are children that were both breastfed, eat wholefood organic diets and live in safe non-chemical environments. We insist on healthy practices with our children to ensure their health is the best it can be, however we can’t take back the immunisations they were given early in their lives.

As a result of our sons reaction, we have read books & information written by highly respected medical professionals and people who have carried out great deals of investigative research on the matter. They do not use scare tactics they simply present information & facts. We do not support fear mongering, discrimination or hatred by either side of this debate and hope that you might take note of this letter.

Yours sincerely,
M & A 10 April 2014 (out of fear of retribution, we not supply our full names)

Divider 1

Dear Mr Springborg,

As a parent of a child who has been vaccine damaged and diagnosed with Aspergers I have had to reassess my previous personal views on vaccines and their effects, function and success.

I am 41. I had very few vaccines as a child. I caught the mumps, measles as a young boy around 4 and 5 and chickenpox at 15. All were mild. I enjoyed the time off school as a teenager. I grew up in Perth. I travelled with my parents throughout Australia and the US and the UK at various times. I attended a normal State Primary School and a Private Highschool and I went to University and got a degree. I got married and became an MCSE – Microsoft Certified Systems Engineer. I’m a very normal Australian.

I was, in the past a person that didn’t think much about vaccines and trusted in the information I had been given. I was what you would call very pro-vaccinations however the irony of that position was that I had very very little knowledge of them other than that I had gleaned from documentaries on small pox and polio. After the adverse reaction my son experienced and some of my own personal experiences I’ve spent some significant time researching for myself and have come up with a far different conclusion to that which we are told in the nightly news and pro-vaccine documentaries, and at a standard GP or Paediatrician’s office – namely that they are safe and effective.

Although my son was fully vaccinated as per the Australian schedule he at 7 years of age in his Grade 1 class contracted Pertussis along with 8 others in his class – all of whom had been fulled vaccinated. So either the vaccine hadn’t worked or it had worn off. In other words it was ineffective.

In the past I had myself received two flu vaccinations, the second of which made my extremely ill.

This only furthered my drive to gain more understanding and after reading 7 books plus numerous websites and videos on the subject (from doctors, immunologists and neurologists) I have some key basic tenants I know hold to be true. I now call myself a vaccine-sceptic.

1. Vaccine induced antibodies do not necessarily grant immunity – even if they can be observed in sufficient numbers with a blood test http://www.greenmedinfo.com/blog/study-disproves-cdcs-primary-justification-vaccination

2. Vaccine induced antibodies wear off – thus the need for boosters

3. Most adults who have not received boosters are thus themselves in the same camp as an “anti-vaccer” – ie. NOT IMMUNE and therefore adding to the theory of herd immunity.

4. Many vaccines “shed” for up to 21 days (read the package insert)

5. The adjuvants used in vaccines to promote and ensure an immune response are toxic even in small doses when injected into muscle and veins – especially in the young and those who are susceptible

http://www.ff.ul.pt/FCT/PTDC/SAU-FAR/110871/2009/Aguilar2007.pdf

6. Vaccine injuries and adverse reactions are seriously under reported

7. Most outbreaks in the Western World occur in vaccinated groups

8. Those who are vaccinated still do carry many of the viruses they espouse they are now immune to. http://www.fhfn.org/why-vaccines-spread-disease-an-in-depth-analysis-of-flawed-vaccine-science/

9. Vaccine companies have been distorting their success and their efficacy http://www.vaccinationinformationnetwork.com/merck-scientis-claim-merck-forced-them-to-falsify-vaccine-efficacy-test/

10. Herd Immunity is an impossible lie http://www.vaccinationcouncil.org/2012/02/18/the-deadly-impossibility-of-herd-immunity-through-vaccination-by-dr-russell-blaylock/

11. Some vaccines work very very poorly. So poorly as to be almost worthless. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/mutations-explain-poor-showing-of-2012-flu-vaccine/

I know you are busy men, however I would ask you to read the articles below:

http://gianelloni.wordpress.com/2014/04/07/dear-parents-you-are-being-lied-to/

http://vaccineresistancemovement.org/?p=13481 – Measles Report

http://vaccineresistancemovement.org/?p=10185 – Autism Report

Although my wife and I may not have another child, the numbers of children with neurological disorders, diagnosed on the ASD spectrum and allergies is growing constantly, I believe that Vaccines have had some part to play in this rise and I cannot stand to see that total lack of honesty or openness surrounding any discussion on vaccines from the medical community or vaccine makers. I believe there is an epidemic of autism and allergies.

I oppose any moves to take away any rights to personal exemption from vaccines for anyone via any means of coercion, be it physical or financial (such as removing government entitlements) based on a vaccination decision.

Nobody should be FORCED to have themselves or their child be vaccinated. That is part of the worst possible totalitarian nightmare scenario of a “1984” like society.

As far as I am concerned it is my basic human right to choose not to vaccinate my child or myself and to choose to be fully informed regarding vaccines.

I understand you will be discussing removing government entitlements from those who do not vaccinate. I think this is wrong for all the reasons given above.

Kind regards

LB

Divider 1

To the Hon David Davis MLC

Regarding tomorrow’s deliberations on vaccinations and government benefits I have one simple request:

Do not use your voice at the table to support coercive implementation of the health department’s vaccine regimen.

Coercion has no place in this area when parents, like me, are solemnly issued with ultimate responsibility for our young children’s health decisions.

Do you know Grace White? She is my daughter, I know her well. I also know her four siblings better than you do because they are my children. Please use your position to support my right to parent my children in their best interest as I, their responsible guardian charged by God with their upbringing, see it.

I can’t imagine how a round-table bureaucratic discussion in sunny Queensland can determine once and for all that I have lost my parental rights on this issue.

Say yes to choice for parents on vaccination. Yes to a choice without punishment.

I will awake three or four times tonight to tend to my children. No matter how interventionist the nanny state becomes in this country, you won’t lullaby my kids to sleep when they are distressed, so please do not insinuate yourself into jabbing them without ever having met them.

Kindest regards
MW

Divider 1

My name is XXXXXn. I am a NSW and Federally registered voter in this country. I am 37years old, a teacher, daughter, sister, friend and recently a new mother. I pay taxes, drive a car, have 2 dogs, a partner, go to the beach on the weekend and go camping at Easter…my point with this seemingly irrelevant, and trivial information, is that I am what society might consider “normal”. However, I CONSCIOUSLY chose not to vaccinate my 7month old son. It was what I believe to be a very well researched choice and I am astounded at the vitriolic reaction from some people when I mention that he is not having/had his needles. I was born in 1977 in the same hospital as my son and my mother chose not vaccinate me or my 2 younger brothers. She meticulously raised us in good health; so that we as adults would have a true understanding of what health and living a healthy lifestyle means and we do. I went to primary school and high school like every other normal kid in the 70s and whether I was vaccinated, or not, never came up in conversation; people did not “talk” about it. But now, oh now, everyone has got an opinion about vaccination! It’s astounding! No longer is this a decision talked about only amongst my direct family and my GP- this has become public debate and my decision has become somewhat controversial and people are more than happy to tell me so. I don’t discuss with people when they had their last pap smear, prostate examination, blood test or flu shot so why is it that I have to discuss/justify my health decisions/choices with people? I believe that this is now such a hot topic because it involves money; a financial payment of “candy” if you are up to date with your child’s shots. But here is the problem with financial candy. It is public, and scientific, opinion that widespread vaccination will keep disease under control in this country. It is also public, and scientific, opinion that smoking is disastrous to your health. It is also public, and scientific, opinion that eating too much deep-fried food is bad for your long-term health and it is also public, and scientific, opinion that drinking too much alcohol over a long period of time can cause a variety of health problems. There is a lot of medical and scientific information proving that smoking, drinking and eating fried food is very bad for you. There is also a lot of information indicating there are benefits to you by vaccinating your child. These 2 statements are backed up by information from the health department. But why offer the money for getting the immunisations and penalise the people not doing it? Why the financial candy for sticking to the immunisation schedule set out by the government?? I don’t get a financial benefit for not smoking, not drinking too much alcohol or not frequenting fast food chains so why should a benefit exist for me to get my child vaccinated? If vaccinating was truly in the best interest for children in this country then why do the government have offer parents money to do it?? The government is already paying FOR the actual vaccines and then they also have the extra financial commitment of having to entice parents into sticking to the schedule. I don’t understand. I didn’t realise the government had enough spare cash to offer a financial reward for people to take medications that they (the gvmt) have just paid for. I also think that since I am not costing the government any money, as I have not used the immunisation service, could I please have what figure it would have cost to keep my son up to date with the immunisation schedule put into my bank account. Instead, you are attending a meeting tomorrow in Brisbane to discuss various issues, including the potential removal of my right to conscientiously object to the immunisation schedule and the removal of my financial candy…oh sorry…’benefit’ because I have used a loop-hole and not played by the correct rules! By the way this is a direct link to the Merck website and a 2013 Letter to Shareholders. http://www.merck.com/finance/proxy/letter-from-chairman.pdf In 2012 Merck had $5.1billion in sales of vaccines, that’s billion written there, not million…billion and $5.7billion in the sale of diabetes medication. Call me a conspiracy theorist if you like but I can’t help wondering if there is a connection between the Australian government bullying families into joining the non-compulsory vaccination schedule and companies like Merck being able to boast about a 5% increase in sales. The GlaxoSmithKline website was not user friendly at all and that finding an actual figure on their profits was very confusing (I can’t help but think that it’s designed to be that way that the staggering figure can’t be as easily known). http://www.gsk.com/content/dam/gsk/globals/documents/pdf/Investors/GSK%20publishes%20historical%20quarterly%20restated%20financial%20information.pdf And BAYER made a handy £20 million profit after costs but at least they made their statement easy to read and find. http://www.annualreport2013.bayer.com/en/income-statements.aspx At the meeting tomorrow I believe the clause of ‘Conscientious Objector’ is up for debate and there are moves to potentially cancel this as an option for parents to use to not vaccinate their child/ren. The removal of me having choice about the vaccination schedule for my child is not ok. It is undemocratic and very un-Australian. You were VOTED into your current office and it would do you well not to forget that. You are a Public Servant and I am member of the public so therefore you are my ‘servant’. I am asking you to ‘serve’ me and leave this clause right where it is. With respect, I don’t care whether you as a person agree with my decision, it is not your business as Health Ministers to decide what I do with my child. It is my business and I believe that I am the best person to be making decisions about his health and welfare and if I need advice I will seek it. I do not wish to have schedules imposed on me like I don’t know what I am doing or run the risk of financial penalty because I don’t fit into the mould. Should you wish to take the same amount of time that I have today and send me a reply then I would be happy to hear some of your thoughts as health ministers of my state (Jillian) and country (Peter and Catherine). I expect your reply to address my concerns and reassure me that you understand that I know best for my child and will continue to support me, as my public servants, in my journey of motherhood.

Yours sincerely
AN

Divider 1

I am writing to all of you, representatives, and public servants regarding this discussion that I believe you intend to have tomorrow regarding Vaccinations and penalising conscientious objectors to this most barabaric practice.

No One has the right to impose upon others their opinions regarding ones own body, and also the bodies of those entrusted by GOD to their care, ie parents, grandparents, etc as the case may be.

Vaccinations are proven to be dangerous. Your continued promotion of this barbaric pratice is abhorrent. But even if injecting foreign bodies, toxins, pathogens, dangerous chemicals into the body of another was not dangerous, it is still abhorrent.

NO ONE has the right to do that. I am disgusted that in Australia, which is supposed to be a DEMOCRACY, you are continuing to foster genocide against the will of the people.

I AM A PEOPLE. I am against this practise period.

But as regards this discussion that you will be having tomorrow I am against you even contemplating penalising those brave souls amongst us who are standing up for their bodies, and the bodies of their children by consciously objecting to this barbarous practice.

I support them, I applaud them, and as my public servants I expect you to do the same.

Conscientiously objecting to anything is a right that should be sacrosanct in a FREE and DEMOCRATIC society. You have an obligation to uphold DEMOCRACY.

Uphold IT.

It Is MY WILL that you Do NOT Even raise this issue tomorrow, or any other day. It is MY WILL that vaccinations be stopped. If Vaccinations continue against my will, then it is MY WILL that they are NEVER made compulsory.

Sincerely TMC

Divider 1

Mr Dutton,

As our Federal Health Minister I would urge you not to support moves that would discriminate against parents who have chosen not to vaccinate their children.

You would be aware that there is a large body of peer reviewed medical literature that clearly indicates that vaccines are not nearly as effective or safe as generally portrayed by the medical establishment. Indeed, vaccines can maim and they can kill.

By removing the “conscientious objector” clause with regard to the Family Tax Benefits, you would be effectively coercing parents into submitting their children to controversial medical procedures that could cause great harm.

Please be reminded that we elect people like you to support our rights, not to take them away.

Regards,

BB

Divider 1

Dear Mrs Miller,

I rang your office earlier today and was advised by Tracy that it was her understanding that you will not be attending the State Health Minister’s meeting with Minister Peter Dutton scheduled for tomorrow, Friday 11th April. However, I felt it was prudent to email you, just in case circumstances change.

I would like you to know that I vote, am a resident of Queensland and that I am strongly opposed to any move to remove my government entitlements based on my vaccination choice. Australia is supposed to be a democracy. It is my right to make my own health choices and most definitely NOT the government’s to strip me of them.

It is my will that all Conscientious Objectors are treated with respect.

Regards,
SK

Divider 1

Dear Minister for Health (The Hon Peter Dutton MP) and the Shadow Minister for Health (The Hon Catherine King) and; the QLD Minister of Health (The Hon Lawrence Springborg) and the QLD Shadow Minister for Health (Mrs Jo-Ann Miller),

I am writing to you regarding the article in today’s Courier Mail regarding your joint opinion to stop the the $726 Family Tax Benefit A payments to parents of unvaccinated children.

I am a mother of 3 healthy children and also a health practitioner residing in QLD.

Before I chose to become a conscientious objector I thoroughly researched the existing literature on the benefits and detrimental effects of vaccinations.

To my understanding and knowledge vaccinations do not confer guaranteed protection to the diseases that they are ‘protecting’ babies and children from. There are still cases of children who have been immunised getting sick from whooping cough, measles etc.

If you would understand the basics of a healthy immune system and quoting the words of Louis Pasteur ‘it is not the germ, rather it is the soil’.. meaning that the difference between a person that gets sick and one that is well, is based on a healthy immune response, rather than the supposed germs out there, then you may realise that there is probably no point to vaccinating at all. Furthermore, until a child is 2 years old, their B lymphocytes are not fully matured so they do not retain the antigenic memory of viruses which is why vaccines go through the alternate T cell route (and many top ups and boosters) in order to make them ‘stick’. In addition, many of these viruses can be managed (medically) if they do become complicated.

Unfortunately, in my view, the problem stems in (parents) poor dietary habits/practice (and lack of public education and awareness of how to stay well) and possibly lack of sufficient funds to be able to buy ‘health foods/supplements to maintain a good healthy immune system. Sadly it is probably the same types of parents that will probably suffer from the removal of the FTBA if they conscientiously chose to keep their children free from being vaccinated.

There are many medical arguments for both sides of the vaccination debate and I lean towards the side that promotes healthy living and informed choice.

I personally have seen in my practice what the effects of vaccination can do and prefer to keep innocent young babies and children who should be given a chance to live ‘normally’ in this world before they are injected with viruses and the like to let their own bodies adapt (and become resilient) to the world around them. Hence maybe the rise of so many allergies, atopic diseases (eczema, asthma), autism etc…

We do live in a democratic country, therefore I am enacting my right to be able to voice my opinion and concern for parents who may be affected by your potential decision to remove their welfare entitlement based on whether or not their child is vaccinated. How and why are the two linked anyway?

Thank you for your time and consideration of my letter.

Sincerely,
NS

Divider 1

Dear Minister Springborg,

As per my conversation with Aaron of your office earlier today, I would like to reiterate that I do vote, am a resident of Queensland and that I am strongly opposed to any move to remove my government entitlements based on my vaccination choice. Australia is supposed to be a democracy. It is my right to make my own health choices and most definitely NOT the government’s to strip me of them.

It is my will that all Conscientious Objectors are treated with respect.

SK

Divider 1

Hi there jo-ann.

a little ignorance goes a long way apparently, especially when it is backed by billions and billions in lobbying. and that’s a ‘B’.

from memory, and I might be out the odd billion, in 2001, US pharmaceutical companies alone spent in the order $9bill on free drug samples, and $16bill on marketing.

this link has later figures that are much higher and show that US drug companies spend approx double on marketing as they do on R&D.

http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pmed.0050001#s6

so plenty of money sloshing around for lobbying, misinformation campaigns, corruption, and worse.

the world-wide Big Pharma vaccination industry is a massive possibly trillion dollar industry (paid for by us by our Govts) – and a lobbying and disinformation effort and budget to fit that amount of money.

yet the real vaccination science going back decades does not support its effectiveness, and also shows the long term damage to individuals’ health (and deaths)

there are none so blind as those who will not see. or is it simply corruption bought and paid for by the pharmaceutical companies?

vaccination is not about your health or the health of your children (if only!): it is solely about MONEY. And how much more they can gouge out of our Govts and our taxes.

if vaccines actually worked as we are told (otherwise why get them?), why would anyone who had vaccine get the relevant disease?

only those unvaccinated would, and you could say ‘serve them right’.

so isn’t it funny that the people who get flu most are those that have been vaccinated?

and isn’t it funny (not) that those who have been vaccinated against whooping cough now get a more dangerous and deadly form of it?

billions and billions given to greedy and corrupt global corporations for something that not only doesn’t work, but makes things worse

the links below substantiate various facts, such as that vaccines don’t work, actually cause more disease, and massive health side effects.

http://www.vaclib.org/sites/debate/web2.html

http://www.vaclib.org/sites/debate/web1.html

http://www.soilandhealth.org/02/0201hyglibcat/020132sinclair/vaccinaion.htm

http://www.vaclib.org/sites/debate/web3.html

btw, have you noticed how much sicker and sicker and sicker our population is becoming? it seems these days the population spends half their time in a doctor’s surgery, not being made healthy, just being subscribed more and more drugs, incl vaccinations?

so why are people and children getting sicker, getting diseases, so much more often, so constantly and frequently, than in the past? (when, btw, in fact the vaccination rates for so many diseases and sicknesses have never been higher.)

there is an answer.

kind regards
DC

Divider 1

Dear Mr Dutton

I am concerned in regards to the meeting that you will have with the State Health Ministers tomorrow, discussing Conscientious Objection and plans to remove it.

As a loving mother of three children, I do everything that I can to do right by my children. I am well aware at how emotional the vaccination issue is in Australia. The decision whether to vaccinate or not should always be the decision of the parent as should all care of our children. It doesn’t matter if I agree with someone who wants to vaccinate or doesn’t, basic human right means that each parent should have the right to decide. Any parent who goes down the Conscientious Objection path must speak with a doctor and be counselled by them before the doctor will even sign the form, so they are fully informed and have made their decision having the information. I don’t believe that they should be penalised by having parenting payments removed or reduced. In a democratic society, freedom to choose should exist and parliamentarians, our representatives should uphold those rights.

Yours sincerely
MH

Divider 1

I am a voter in our Australian democracy. I am writing to have my opinion heard over conscientious objection.

I became a conscientious objector after changes in my son’s general health after vaccinations. I did my research in order to make this decision, and I continue to do extensive research on the contraindications of vaccinations.

I am aware that a meeting is taking place to discuss the removal of the conscientious objector clause to force all children/people to be vaccinated according to a schedule set by the government. Aside from the fact that it is impossible to legally enforce such a position, it is also contrary to the basic rights parents have to raise their own children by their own set of ethics and beliefs.

I 100% believe I have done the right thing by my son to protect him from further damage, including the Gardasil vaccination which is now being given to boys in Year 7. This vaccine has not been proven to prevent cervical cancer and it has killed or permanently injured 1000s of girls across the U.S. Many countries have now banned this vaccine or refused to put it on their schedule in the first place.

There is plenty of peer-reviewed research outlining the dark side of vaccination however it is actively suppressed. I seek out this information and circulate it. I have 15 years of research training behind me and I am very capable of identifying bogus research when I see it. Unfortunately most of the bogus research I read is paid for by the manufacturers of damaging vaccines and other chemicals to make their products falsely appear safe.

I strongly object to the mindset that any substance should be forcibly administered to any person against their will or that of their parent/guardian. It clearly cannot be enforced at law.

Yours sincerely,

GH, B.A. (Psych), PG Dip (Psych)

Divider 1

Dear Mr Dutton,

I am writing to you to express my concern at your intention to implement legislation to discriminate against parents and children who are not vaccinated.

I am a contentious objector to vaccines. However I did start out vaccinating my children, until a dangerous range of side effects (known to the vaccines AND listed on the vaccine insert) began to affect my children’s health. After much research and consideration, it was decided that it was best to no longer expose our children to the toxic load injected into them through vaccines in hope that their health will improve or at least not longer deteriorate.

It is a basic human right to make decisions about our own health. It cannot be denied that vaccines carry a huge amount of risk and a dangerous list of side effects. Should you implement mandatory vaccination, will you step up and take responsibility when these risk become a reality in the lives of your voters? Will you and government offer compensation to those unlucky ones who lives are adversely affected by following your legislation to inject foreign substances in the body of a young child? I would hope so.

Each Australian has a right to make decisions about their own life for what is best for them, without being discriminated or penalised against because those view or decisions differ from a politician’s.

I wonder why the sudden push to take people’s freedom? Is there money in it for you? Or are you trying to grab votes by appealing to one side? Whatever your motives, my vote counts too. And I will not be voting for you should you discriminate against people for making decisions about their own health.

Regards,
BT

Divider 1

In a modern democratic society, surely this right should be upheld.

As parents and grandparents of vaccinated children, we strongly feel that the right to free choice should remain with parents in this country.

In the matter of vaccination decisions, it has been noted that there is a high percentage of doctor’s unvaccinated children in affluent areas like Mosman in Sydney giving some credence to those questioning the safety of vaccination in it’s present form. In any case those listed as conscientious objectors, should clearly retain that right regardless of their socio-economic position in the Australian community.

Thank you for giving consideration to this simple, basic concept of what it means to live in a free society.

EF

Divider 1

To Gavin Jennings

I am a voter and a resident of your state Victoria. I have just called your office whom have advised me to send you an email to register my opposition to being penalised by not receiving family tax benefits for exercising my democratic right to choose whether or not to vaccinate my children. The removal of the Conscientious Objection Form Clause in this matter is a removal of my democratic right to choose what I believe is best for my children. I like most parents who have chosen not to vaccinate have actually taken the time to do the research to decide what was best for my children and find it appalling that we would be penalised for doing so. Living in a democratic nation as we apparently are means that we are not meant to be forced by any governing body to make decisions we believe are not in our and our family’s best interests, I hope this democratic right to Conscientious Objection is upheld and not taken away as that would really democratically speak for itself, wouldn’t it?

Kind Regards
RH

Divider 1

Dear Mr Dutton,

It has come to my attention that all State Health Ministers will be meeting with you tomorrow with regard to removing the Conscientious objection clause to vaccination. The removal of this clause will enable the Government to take away payments from parents who choose not to vaccinate.

I am urging you to please consider the many families whose children have been damaged by vaccines and give them the respect that they deserve. There is much more to this issue than just family payments. People have a right to protect their families, and the decision not to vaccinate does not come easily, a lot of research goes into this decision.

There are many books and scientific research articles showing that vaccines are not completely safe and for a Government to force them upon the Australian people (which is where this decision is heading) would be a sin and a grave moral injustice.

Please take the time to look much further into the issue of vaccinations, their production and their history, please look much further than what the Government Health sites have to offer. See what the rest of the world have decided on the issue of vaccinations and once again, please give the families of vaccine damaged children the respect that they deserve. They have no voice and have been completely disregarded and treated with contempt by both the medical profession and the media.

Many thanks for taking the time to read this email, I and many others appreciate it.

Sincerely yours,
HF

Divider 1

Dear Minister,

As a taxpayer resident of NSW, I wish to express grave concerns over todays Courier Mail newspaper article that mentions ministers are meeting tomorrow in Brisbane with Mr Dutton to discuss removing FTB A payments to conscientious objectors of vaccination.

I oppose any moves to take away rights to government entitlements based on a vaccination decision. To do so is discriminatory in my view.

Would this mean government will then take full responsibility for any adverse reactions of vaccination? Would it provide, as a standard, testing to see if natural immunity to a disease exists before vaccinating for it? Would it compensate for any adverse effects of vaccine adjuvants such as the newly recognized ASIA syndrome? (Autoimmune Syndrome induced by Adjuvants as presented by Professor Yehuda Schoenfeld)

I hope the proposed changes are rejected in full.

Regards,

FO

Divider 1

Dear Peter,

Do you have any concept / idea of the ramifications of your decision re vaccination ? Do you actually know what is contained within a jab? Vaccination will be recognised as the biggest con/scam ‘ever’ with devastating and lasting effects throughout the generations to come ,all of which are horrific! Please ,if you are a man of integrity, caring and have a real desire to do your best for humanity do your diligent research on this important topic. The overwhelming influence/ power and clever propaganda consistently pumped through the media has the majority blindly ‘following the heard’ and sadly believing that the injection of pure toxic poison into a defenceless baby can actually improve health and prevent disease when it is just the opposite! Simply take a look at the ingredience and you will not need to go any further ,other than to check out the ‘real’ stats which will tell you that sickness disease and death by disease and Western medicine policies is almost in plague proportion.

This process of blackmail must not be allowed to happen as it will only result in more illness disease and death. Big Pharma has got ‘most’ of the human race completely fooled and following in a heard like fashion like ‘lambs to the slaughter’ .

TS

Divider 1

Dear Federal Minister Dutton, State Health Ministers and Shadow Health Ministers,

I write with regard to tomorrows Ministers meeting in Brisbane, pertaining to a proposal by Minister Springborg to consider the abolishment of the Family Tax Benefit Part A, to parents that have a Conscientious Objection to vaccinating their children.

I note with concern: “Mr Dutton said he didn’t want to penalise forgetful parents but said a “sterner conversation” was needed with parents who were actively choosing not to vaccinate.”

Minister Dutton; realistically, that is quite threatening, intimidating and surely not in line with our Australian Democratic Westminster system; to which I might inconsequently add; am of 7th generation and my children 8th; with my parental Grandfather being a highly decorated and well literary published Senior Naval Officer.

So, Minister Dutton, the proposed idea is, to remove legitimate child directed payments from tax paying parents, whom by all accounts under recent media touting, are of an “upper class, highly educated and from wealthy suburbs”. If this were seen to be true, do you think the withdrawal of $726.00 is really going to impact upon their educated choice? I think not. I believe the likely outcome will be a rush from those driven by the dollar not education to line their children up for vaccination, so that the purchase of a new television is not impeded. But realistically, these individuals have already vaccinated their children and purchased their new TV! Parents that have duly educated themselves on the very real and possible dangers of vaccination are not swayed by this threat, but they will stand firm on their right to have a choice about their parenting without threat of punishment.

I have several major concerns with the proposed policy:

Firstly; vaccination in this country is not mandated by law;

Secondly; we have no established legal portal to manage vaccine injury and death in this country; currently the onus is on the (uninformed) parent;

Thirdly; this is in direct conflict of basic human rights and choice in this country;

Lastly; DISCRIMINATION. I need say no more; although, I am quite sure, as an educated, tax paying minority group that is being singled out for making choices for their children; I’m pretty sure that can be called DISCRIMINATION.

Minister Dutton, if your desire is to have a fully vaccinated child population; then my suggestion to you all is, to make vaccines unequivocally safe, provide proof of efficacy through double-blind placebo testing, provide a legal and financial safety-net for vaccine injuries, and perhaps, just perhaps, start telling everyone the truth!

Realistically, a traditionally unvaccinated child is going to be a potentially lesser burden on our health system; a majority of whom are free from diabetes, heart disease, eczema, neurological disorders, anaphylactic allergies – the list goes on. Does this entitle said taxpaying parents to a reduction in their Medicare levy?

Minister, have you considered the aspect of children that are unable to be vaccinated for health reasons? How would this be classified? Will every unvaccinated child be entitled to a free complete health examination by the child’s own Medical Practitioner; blood, stool and saliva testing, DNA and genetic testing to ensure that they are not at an increased risk of becoming vaccine damaged? I think the important part of this is classification, followed by clarification.

If it is the Government’s suggestion that a persons educated and informed health choices are now in the hands of elected officials; then perhaps non-vaccinating parents can share with you the expenses of raising said children, given that everyone’s choices about parenting are being rapidly removed. I am sure many would welcome your full contribution to their schooling, sports and general living expenses!

Whilst having this opportunity to communicate with you; I would request, that part of your meeting tomorrow address the need for a democratic ruling and implemented law, to ensure that all Practitioners that are licensed to vaccinate both children and adults, are mandated by law to provide full disclosure to the parent or patient to whom is being vaccinated. Yes, this would include a complete copy of the package inserts found in vaccines, a comprehensive discussion with patient or parent about the very real potential dangers, a complete listing of ingredients and Adjuvants and manufacturing processes, as well as advising the parties, that on accepting said information; they are in fact taking full responsibility for any adverse reactions. They should also be informed that there is no re-course for compensation or assistance for vaccine injury in this country, and any desire to do so, would be a costly and lengthy legal battle on their behalf.

In finality Ministers; this is very shaky ground indeed. If you insist on pursuing this discriminatory and undemocratic law; then, in all fairness to democracy, an implementation of the above proposal regarding disclosure and indemnity be implemented as well. I’m quite sure that, with this information provided directly from Practitioner to patient, that they surely would not sway away from vaccination – or would they?

AN

Divider 1

Dear Minister

REMOVING CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTION AND PAYMENTS

This is discrimination; it is disgusting what this Government is trying to do. Vaccination should be free choice. Is the Government planning on a Vaccine Injury scheme? Parents can then sue the government for ordering their child’s injury or death.

So parents that drink, smoke, and/or do drugs, abuse, feed them junk food, these people deserve these payments? You are saying these people are better parents than those who choose not to put toxins in their children’s delicate bodies. Just want to clarify that. But parents who have taken the time to check out all avenues of their child’s health, and have come to the decision that vaccination is not one of the avenues they will take because of it’s lack of testing and a history of worldwide adverse reactions; they are to be punished; these children (and some of them are actually siblings of vaccine injured children), these beautiful innocent children must suffer at the hands of bureaucratic power driven Government officials.

The financial ramifications of the Health Minister’s plan do not concern me personally, but the ethics behind his decision do. It is not the Health Minister, Government or Doctor who pay the price if a child is vaccine injured. It is the parents burden to carry, so the choice should be theirs, without coercion from draconian and discriminatory Government policies.

If I sound angry or like a crazy person, I feel I have a right too. I’m old, I’ve seen the diseases and I can tell you all this hype in the media is rubbish and obviously money driven.

This vaccination push has been going on for years and it is to the point where even the “big wig” researchers are afraid to say anything against vaccines for fear of being discredited. They have seen what happens when a scientist or researcher comes out against vaccines, it’s not pretty.

Have you even looked at the information available? And I don’t mean what you are fed by your advisors, get off your behind and Google reactions to Gardisal; at least four countries have now stopped it because of the injuries from the vaccine, in the thousands I might add. Reactions to MMR, DPT, Flu and all the rest.

Look up the package inserts for the vaccines, they will tell you about the reactions that have happened. It’s an interesting read. http://www.vaccinesafety.edu/package_inserts.htm

Then there is the historical data. These childhood diseases were almost gone through natural fruition before vaccines were even on the market. Once the vaccines were introduced, the usual occurrence was a rise in the disease. What does that tell you? I could give you a history lesson but it took me 20 years of research and reading (no Google back then) so I doubt one letter is going to be enough.

Basically, vaccines are toxic (thimerosal (mercury), aluminium, formaldehyde etc), contaminated (monkey DNA and viruses, aborted human foetal tissue, chicken viruses, pig viruses…it’s a long list) and ineffective. Check out the attached excipient table just as a sample. We still have outbreaks and it is the vaccinated that get the disease, very few un-vaccinated; what does that tell you? Not to mention that vaccinated individuals can shed the viruses they have been vaccinated with!

Think long and hard.
DM

Divider 1

Dear Ministers,

Re: Today’s health ministers’ meeting in Brisbane and agenda issue of VACCINATION

The purpose of this letter is primarily to give legal constructive notice with regard to the meeting in Brisbane today of federal and state health ministers, and the subject of vaccination that has been proposed by Mr Springborg and Mr Dutton to be to be included on the agenda.

Australian Immunisation Handbook

My friends, colleagues and I find it extraordinary that it appears that we need to refer some health ministers to directions that are, with substantial legal foundation, contained in the Commonwealth Government’s own Australian Immunisation Handbook (the latest (10th) edition, published 2013)(”Handbook”), in relation to vaccination, as of course is applicable equally to all medical procedures (other than in emergency situations):

“2.1.3 Valid Consent
… For consent to be legally valid, the following elements must be present:6,8
1. It must be given by a person with legal capacity, and of sufficient intellectual capacity to understand the implications of being vaccinated.
2. It must be given voluntarily in the absence of undue pressure, coercion or manipulation.
3. It must cover the specific procedure that is to be performed.
4. It can only be given after the potential risks and benefits of the relevant vaccine, risks of not having it and any alternative options have been explained to the individual.”

Why does the Handbook contain these directions? It is because any form of meddling with a person’s body constitutes common law assault, unless there is fully informed (with the information fully understood), totally voluntary consent of the patient or their parent/carer.

Common Law

In Secretary, Department of Health and Community Services v JWB and SMB [1992] HCA 15, the Commentaries of Blackstone (9) 17th ed. (1830), vol 3, p 120 were accordingly quoted as follows:
“ ‘(T)he law cannot draw the line between different degrees of violence, and therefore totally prohibits the first and lowest stage of it; every man’s person being sacred, and no other having a right to meddle with it, in any the slightest manner’ “.

Hence, such meddling without fully informed consent would constitute assault regardless of whether or not any damage is occasioned, but:
a) the assault is especially serious when the meddling is invasive, and
b) the assault is more serious still when it is of a nature that to any degree is experimental in nature (which applies when there is any need for post-marketing surveillance), and
c) the assault is still more serious when it is fully acknowledged (by the Commonwealth Government itself), that it can occasion serious harm, even death itself.

All of these three circumstances, a), b) and c) obviously apply in the case of vaccination.

This is notwithstanding the seriously and obviously flawed “science” behind vaccination, which is the likely reason for the greater refusal rate amongst the more educated in the community (and amongst medical doctors themselves).

Existing Law is already in breach of common law and must be reversed

Even Commonwealth and state laws as they exist already today are in breach of the aforesaid criteria for valid consent, because in certain circumstances, parents who choose to exercise their God-given right not to vaccinate are required to have a conscientious objection form signed by a medical doctor. The doctor then becomes a potential obstacle to the parents’ exercise of their right to choose “in the absence of undue pressure, coercion or manipulation”.

Hence the legislation changes that have imposed this existing requirement ought, in fact, be reversed.

Instead we have a proposal for more serious breaches?

Instead, the Federal Health Minister, Mr Peter Dutton, and the Queensland Health Minister, Mr Lawrence Springborg, appear to be desirous of applying even further, and significant “undue pressure, coercion or manipulation”.

It is time that all ministers:
–          wake up and smell the law – the common law, and
–          remember that pursuant to the Preamble of our Federal Constitution and its stated reliance upon “the blessing of Almighty God”, “the supreme absolute and uncontrollable authority remains with the people”[1], so there is no provision therein for any “nanny” state nor worse, a “bully” state, and
–          remember that the ministers have accordingly been elected to serve electors, not to cause electors to be subjected to a “stern conversation” (these offensive words were purportedly spoken recently by Mr Dutton) on the basis of, despite being already placed under undue pressure, their courage to remain strong and exercise their God-given inalienable right to make the health choice they believe is best for their own children, and
–          be mindful that helping to preserve, instead of to destroy, the precious freedoms for which our forefathers died, may indeed also benefit their own descendants.

Yours sincerely

BH

Divider 1

Dear Mister Dutton,

Your move to withdraw family tax benefit to parents who have an ethical objection to vaccinations is in keeping with the usual modus operandi of right wing governments.

Firstly, let me remind you, you are an employee of the people, you are not an appointed authority to lord it over the people. Not only are you violating the fundamental precepts of democracy with such draconian discrimination, but you are acting with complete irrationality.

I am sure that pharmaceutical giants contribute hugely to your party’s funds and that you therefore feel you must act on their behalf to improve their profits, however, you seem to be under the impression that as an elected official you have the right to tell families that their young children must be injected with dangerous pharmaceuticals or they will fail to receive benefits that other families receive, when such benefits are garnered from all tax payer’s money.

Answer these questions: Why can’t a parent whose previously healthy child exhibits seizures, brain retardation and other severe maladies, or death, immediately after a vaccination event sue the pharmaceutical company that gave them the vaccination? Furthermore, if that family was forced to give their child such a vaccination against their will, as you would have it, why can’t that family sue your government for forcing them into such action? Putting the burden of proof on the family when such a catastrophe has an obvious source is the same defence as  tobacco giants making lung cancer sufferers prove the connection to cigarettes – fundamentally dishonest and reprehensible.

If you believe so firmly in vaccination, and claim that 90% of children are vaccinated, then why are you afraid of the other 10%? If children are vaccinated, then what threat is there to them from unvaccinated children? According to you vaccination makes those with it invulnerable. If this is not true, then why are you bullying families to use medicines that are faulty?

I have no children, but if I did I would not raise them in this country under a government like yours.

One can only wonder why anyone anywhere votes for right wing political parties. They discriminate against the elderly, the unemployed, rape health and education, and favor mega industries over the very people they have been hired to protect. It is a fact that under right wing governments everywhere the suicide rate within the general population increases.

Sincerely,
CC

Divider 1

Dear Honourable Health Minister,
I am writing to express my opposition to the withdrawal of family tax payments to parents with an ethical objection to vaccinations. I consider myself to be an intelligent, logical and devoted parent. I have two university degrees in the fields of anatomy and the medical sciences. I researched this issue considerably and it came down to a risk/benefit analysis for me.
One of my jobs as a mum is to ensure my child is as healthy as possible. To this end, I do a number of things to achieve this. I’ve been lucky enough to fully breastfeed my child. He eats mostly organic produce. He has a probiotic daily to promote gastrointestinal health (important for appropriate immune responses). He has regular chiropractic adjustments to assist his motor and cognitive development. He attends his scheduled child health nurse/medical doctor visits. He plays outside in the dirt, with our pets and other kids to stimulate his immune system (among other things). I keep a clean but unsterile home..…. I could go on….
All of these things move him further toward health and further away from sickness on the health/sickness continuum. As a result and possibly with a little luck, he is, by far, the healthiest child I know. In his first 18 months, other than an initial reflux problem, he has had one runny nose lasting a couple of days. Period. That’s it. I’ve seen other children (all vaccinated or partially vaccinated) suffer with illness regularly. We know that disease effects those susceptible to it, not just those in the presence of infectious agents. We can agree that it therefore makes sense to make one less susceptible to disease. It is my belief that to make one less susceptible, one must be as healthy as possible, i.e. closer to health on the health/sickness continuum. Does it make sense to administer substances with known toxins inherent in their make up? This, it would seem, would bring one further from health, lowering one’s resistance to illness and making one more vulnerable (susceptible) to disease in the first place. Have you ever wondered why some vaccinated children still fall prey to the illnesses they have been vaccinated against? Yes, I understand some of these substances are required, to invoke the response considered desirable in a vaccine. But is this the best way?? There has been so much debate on this topic for a very long time. Much toing and froing. Many statistics quoted. Some credible, some downright fraudulent, on both sides of the debate. This is a complicated issue. There are many questions regarding risk. Many questions yet to be asked (some that won’t be asked) by those producing the supporting evidence, and many conflicts of interest. Researching the safety of vaccines must include the testing of all of the ingredients present in a vaccine, not just the active ingredients, to be deemed safe. It seems odd to me. From what I’ve seen, people on both sides of the debate decide on their stance, and then look for supporting evidence with a coloured view of the issue, instead of the other way round.
On the issue of benefit, for me, questions have also arisen. We constantly hear vaccination being hailed as the reason many of these diseases are not seen (much) anymore. Looking historically, can we really credit vaccination with this? Looking at the rate of decline before the introduction of vaccination, I would question this. Yes, there has been evidence to suggest vaccines are effective at promoting an immune response (which is very different from achieving immunity) and reducing the rates of these diseases. But evidence would also suggest that vaccines might only be a contributing factor in disease decline. Why does vaccination not always work? Is the vaccination status of children succumbing to these so-called vaccine preventable diseases acknowledged? The immune system is so very complicated. To assume we know exactly how it works is, at best, a tad arrogant. Are we causing damage in ways yet to be researched? How will future generations be effected? Is there a link or at least partial link between increased vaccination rates and the decreasing health in kids today? Not just the much debated behavioural problems, but asthma, allergy, obesity, auto immune conditions such as diabetes etc. And importantly, why has research into decreasing child health included a multitude of factors but excluded one of the most obvious factors? So many questions to ponder.
I would hope any parent would ask questions, source information and advice and come to a conclusion that works best for their family. In the end, we chose not to vaccinate. That does not mean we do nothing, or are neglectful. We simply chose another way. I am not opposed to those that do choose to vaccinate their children or themselves.
On a personal note, I have witnessed my husband experience serious adverse reactions to a number of vaccinations, particularly hepatitis B and more recently, the typhoid, polio and meningitis vaccines. Some of these adverse reactions are ongoing and debilitating. Why on earth would I take the risk and expose my child to these vaccines, knowing the effect they have on his father? Would you?
So, the idea of jumping the gun and making vaccination compulsory or withdrawing government entitlements to parents who object to vaccination, simply scares the hell out of me. Not just because of the immediate health implications for my family, and for that matter, the community at large, but for the dangerous precedent this move would set. Who decides what’s best for us? Who promoted them to such a task? Who makes sure these people remain accountable and free from bias? Who decided that we, as parents, are incapable of sourcing credible information and making intelligent decisions? Since when is this a country that tramples on our fundamental right to our own bodies? Will this lead to other rights being taken away in the future? What happened to self-determination and informed consent?
It is not only my right, but also my obligation to ask these questions. In the end, it is not so much the issue of vaccination, but of the coercive and unjust measures to ensure vaccination and the suppression of freedom of information, that has me so concerned. So in conclusion, I simply state that withdrawing government entitlements to parents who object to vaccination is a deal breaker for me. I cannot give my vote to any individual or party that supports such legislation.

Yours sincerely,
LB

 

Divider 1

To whom It may concerne;
I’m just writing to express my disappointment in the fact that you are trying to take away my right as a democratic voter by taking away my rights to receive government entitlements based upon my decision not to vaccinate my children.  I absolutely oppose this decision and as an  Australian paying taxes I should be entitled to make my own choice on how I bring my children up without being penalised.
Myself and my partner have not made this decision lightly, as we did our research and decided not to vaccinate my children, however our decision also included the fact that we be responsible for our children health by living a healthy lifestyle.  My children are rarely sick and if they are sick  they recover quicker than other children.  I spend a lot more money on keeping my children in a healthy lifestyle ie naturopathy, homeopathy, chiropractic , kinesiology rather than parents who do no research, feed their children rubbish, feed them Panadol and are constantly at the doctors putting a strain on our Medicare system.  However, you want to penalise me for living a healthier lifestyle which includes not vaccinating.
You want me to have faith in these vaccines, how can I when my daughter recently was admitted to hospital with a partially cut Achilles tendon, I allowed the doctors to give her the Tetnus injection (only because it was separate and not combined with other vaccines), however after they administered this injection they returned a short time later to inform me that the vaccine was 3 months out of date but don’t worry.  How can I not be!
At least we have done our research before making our difficult decision unlike those parents who have vaccinated their children because “they just do what they are told” or “just bury their heads in the sand”.  How is it that by living in a democratic society we cannot make a healthy decision without being penalised (or being bribed).  Absolutely shamefull!

Regards,
JS

Divider 1Dear Minister Dutton,

Thank you for taking time to read my letter. I appreciate the busy demands that are placed on Federal health ministry. In a recent Courier Mail article you are quoted that a “sterner conversation” was needed with parents who were actively choosing not to vaccinate. If I may, I would like to share with you some of my thoughts about Vaccine compliance to safe guard our children. I fully supported the concept of vaccination, having made sure my tetanus vaccination was up to date,  having the flu vaccination as I hate having the flu and having the hep B shot. Later I started to hear disturbing reports of one of a friends daughter who had a developed a high temperature and taken her first fit after her first MMR shots and continues to fit to this day. Later when I married my wife, she told the story of her Aunt who had been completely normal until the day she received her MMR vaccine. That night she started to have fits for the rest of her life until one of those fits ended her life early. When I had children I very spent many hours looking at this matter, wanting to do the right thing. I read many journal articles, the best was a compilation of over 500 studies, some showing there were no risks to vaccination, and some showing that there were. I also spoke to my physician about my concerns. Even United States FDA government documents from people who support or research vaccines have doubts as to the safety of Vaccines as the following document shows. (I have attached the document to this email.)

http://www.fda.gov/downloads/biologicsbloodvaccines/newsevents/workshopsmeetingsconferences/transcriptsminutes/ucm056219.pdf

“..Does anybody know if vaccines have been checked for foamy virus contamination”  Answer Maxine Linial PH.D “As far as I know, no.” Page 74

Ron Desrosiers Ph.D “I don’t worry so much about the agents that one can test for. I worry about the agents that you can’t test for, that you don’t know about’ Page 99

Dr Engler, walter reed army medical centre
“I just wanted to make a comment and ask a broad question to challenge the panel, speaking from the perspective of a clinician and an educator, trying to translate the contents of meetings like this and the recent Thimerosal meeting for regular folks whether it’s providers or the patients. And the complexity alone, and when people say.”I worry about the unknown agents,” we have to worry about foamy virus transmission, lentivirus insertion into herpes, and that all translates into, for the common man, woman, and child, is there a bad disease with chronic consequences that can result  from immunization…………An awful lot of what you all have discussed is very hard to translate, but what’s left is, “gee, I’m not sure that this is safe.” from your mouths….” page 102,103.

Then we have the disturbing report of a fatal case of pertussis infection in a child care center where all children were fully vaccinated and when this was investigated the conclusion was that Vaccinated children may be asymptomatic reservoirs for infection. (Emerging Infectious Diseases Vol 6, No 5, September-October 2000).  As you will recall the same thing happened in Australian Hospitals when fully vaccinated staff had whooping cough.

I have to confess that the more I look into this subject the more expansive it becomes. The simple message in the Media is that vaccination is safe and effective.  While this mantra is both loud and long, it does not convey the complexity of this issue. Some would have us believe there is no debate about Vaccines and that the science complete and over. If this is true then it is not science but a religious dogma. In science the debate is never over.

Reading congressional US meeting transcripts, of both those who support vaccination and those who do not,  shows to me, that this issue is not settled and is becoming very expensive to maintain. The US Vaccine compensation fund is not looking very good and is not without its problems as noted by pulitzer prize winning author John Hanchette, professor of journalism at St. Bonaventure university in his article http://www.niagarafallsreporter.com/hanchette53.html

There is much rhetoric usually from powerful industry groups/media that usually goes along the lines that science is overwhelmingly supportive of vaccinations. One only has to look at the H1N1 debacle and the harm caused to children with the CSL vaccine and the expensive Tamiflu antiviral which is now reported to be of little use according to.

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/antiviral-drug-stockpile-a-waste-of-money-says-study-20140410-zqt3i.html

When I look at the United States VAERS data base It is very evident that vaccination can carry significant risks including death, like a lot of medical interventions. Given this, it is clearly a matter of informed consent rather then the state forcing or quasi forcing a medical intervention that carries risks. If the state uses coercion then this also implies redress against the state in the case of harm. I believe the current practice of sending home children who are seen at risk in the even of and outbreak is the wisest and tested course. In addition, the history I have seen in several countries certainly does not support the notion that vaccinations saved the world or influenced the rapid decline of disease. The vaccine industry would like us to believe this, but they were mostly a Jonny-come-lately component. If someone does have overwhelming evidence (not opinion) I would be delighted if it could be forward it to me.

Where are the double-blind Placebo-controlled studies that prove the safety and effectiveness of vaccines?
Where are the scientific evidence that confirm the long-term safety and effectiveness of vaccines?
How can the safety and mechanism of vaccines in the human body are scientifically proven if their pharmacokinetics are never examined or analysed in a vaccine study?
Where are the studies showing the health benefits between those who have and have not been vaccinated?

The State needs to be very careful with powerful interest groups that want to force a particular paradigm or product in one direction which they directly or indirectly profit rather than letting people make informed decisions which is a long and established medical ethic.  It is also of concern if the state starts to either actively or passively discriminate against its citizens because they hold a different view after having studied the matter. History is littered with examples of minority groups who have different views contrary to the established science or religion of the day being persecuted. As a democratic society his was the whole point that the Australian Parliament was making in having people go to their local Doctor to have a Conscientious Objector form signed so they were aware of both the risks and benefits.

I would ask that you put this matter into perspective given that Iatrogenic injury is magnitudes larger in cost to the community and makes so called vaccine preventable injury infinitesimally small. Yet I don’t know anyone that wants to ban doctors. I would ask that you support people who make informed decisions about their children in line with the Australian Health Care Rights and the ethos of the medical community.

Thank you for your time and commitment in representing the people of Australia.

Respectfully
BH

Divider 1Dear Sir(s)

It has been brought to my attention that you are planning to vote on removing parental rights to be a conscientious objector when it comes to childhood vaccinations. Thereby affecting their entitlement to Family Tax Benefits.

I understand that we would all like to live in a world without disease. Our natural immune systems are designed to develop natural antibodies when we come into contact with viruses and bacteria, pathogens and toxins. Unfortunately vaccinations introduce us to man made replica viruses and bacteria, pathogens, toxic heavy metals, deceased animal and human tissue, unnatural hormones all of which can have (in some instances) catastrophic affects in the recipient leading to death, serious and permanent disability, cellular damage amongst many vaccine side effects. There are court cases in progress and completed whereby vaccine could be and has been proven to be the cause of devastating and life changing effects within the recipient(s) and their families.

For these reasons and a great many others, this decision MUST and SHOULD remain the choice of the parents. They do not make the decision lightly in whichever direction they choose. Educated parents take away the information given to them, research their options and discuss their concerns with family, friends and health care professionals.

Please take this into consideration when making your decision.

Kind regards

D

Divider 1
I am a voter in New South Wales, previously having lived in Kallangur, QLD.

I object strongly to any moves to remove access to Government entitlements based on our vaccination decision.

This is total discrimination. When the authorities compare the health of the vaccinated and unvaccinated, and do it according to valid scientific procedures, then there is room for proper debate. Until this happens, there is no way government should be contemplating penalising people based on their decisions. If proper evidence is not being looked at, then you will continue to hear more and more prejudice in the community, and such a lot of unnecessary hate.
Conscientious objectors are people who have made carefully thought out decisions. When you know that something has caused unwanted side effects, you have the right to reject that something, especially when it comes to health. Health decisions should be made carefully with information on the subject freely available, not under threat of punishment.
Government continues to ignore that some of us have suffered greatly from the effects of vaccines, some much more than others, but fail to make the necessary impartial investigations. Those who have lost loved ones should never have it explained away as coincidence, and be made to look simple minded.  Taking away benefits based on vaccination status, in many cases simply means further punishing victims of  vaccination.
We need to investigate just how strong those links between vaccines and sides effects really are and be sure people know these before accepting vaccines. It would seem obvious since labelling is important everywhere else. We should know if statistically there is evidence showing our children are more susceptible than others, eg if  Archie Kalikoneros’ work with Aboriginal children is still just as relevant today.
Autism keeps rearing its head in the debate, – again rigorous investigative work needs to be carried out. How much government funding is being taken up with this disorder?

To sum up, our decisions especially in the case of our health should be freely made by ourselves, with quality research by independent parties freely available and promoted and people’s concerns should never be put down. Punishment  and discrimination for making valid choices is not acceptable.
Further, I strongly object to the notion that forgetfulness is ok, but those who have made choices in life should be subject to sterner conversations. Sounds like Nazi Germany.

Please make your time in Parliament a time for democracy to shine through.
Yours faithfully,
SM

Divider 1Dear Ministers,

I write to voice in the strongest possible terms, my protest against the removal of Family Benefits for those families who choose not to vaccinate their children!
I have an Honours Degree in Pharmacy from Sydney University and a Postgraduate Diploma in Clinical Nutrition. I am a much-published author. In 2011 I received the Sydney University Pharmacy Alumni Award for Achievement for my work (over more than 30 years) to improve the health of both parents before they conceive a child. My goal in promoting preconception healthcare is to improve every aspect of reproductive health and the health of the unborn child, which includes strengthening the child’s immune system by natural means!

I know of many like myself, intelligent, informed and concerned individuals, involved in the delivery of true preventive healthcare, who feel as I do about the issue of vaccination.

What’s more, concerns about vaccination are now also voiced by those once convinced of its benefits. For example Tetyana Obukhanych, with a Ph.D. in IMMUNOLOGY recently stated …

“I know of many alternative health practitioners and even of a few pediatricians who have embraced the non-vaccination approach to health. However, I have yet to encounter one among my own kind: a scientist in the trenches of mainstream biomedical research who does not regard vaccines as the greatest invention of medicine.

I never imagined myself in this position, least so in the very beginning of my Ph.D. research training in immunology. In fact, at that time, I was very enthusiastic about the concept of vaccination, just like any typical immunologist. However, after years of doing research in immunology, observing scientific activities of my superiors, and analyzing vaccine issues, I realized that vaccination is one of the most deceptive inventions the science could ever convince the world to accept.”

Hardly an encouraging view on vaccination!

At a personal level, I am 66 years old and attribute my robust good health throughout my entire life, to the fact that my mother had the great wisdom not to vaccinate me. I have two sons – aged 24 and 28 – also totally unvaccinated. In their combined 52 years on this planet, they have together seen a doctor 6 times (the average number of visits for a newborn in the first YEAR of life). My 9 week old grandson will follow in the family footsteps.

I am therefore shocked that in this democracy, the payments that should flow to his parents, and to the many other couples who follow my recommendations, all of whom have spent much time, effort and money on true health-promoting measures, may stop!

I await your early response

Yours faithfully
JR

Divider 1

Top 10 Retractions of 2013 | The Scientist Magazine®

17971851_sEvery year, hundreds of articles are retracted from peer-reviewed scientific journals due to fraud or error. Most of them don’t get the media attention that the Wakefield et al article from 1998 garnered (though that was not a fraudulent article. It was a fraudulent attempt by the General Medical Council in the UK to stifle the vaccination debate), but they really should. Because a significant percentage of all medical and scientific research will eventually be proven wrong – or fraudulent. Yet when this happens, it is rare for government to change their policies or doctors to change their practices. Just one more reason why the expression caveat emptor – or let the buyer beware – applies to medicine and science.

It’s been difficult to keep up with all of the retractions in the scientific literature this year, as it has been since we started our blog Retraction Watch in 2010. At the time of this writing, with a few weeks to go in 2013, there have been 511, according to Thomson Scientific’s Web of Knowledge. Here is our top 10 list for the year, in no particular order, based on the response of our readers and other “scientific” factors, such as whether we liked the story:

Top 10 Retractions of 2013 | The Scientist Magazine®.

Anti-Chiropractic Gag Proposal by Oz Media

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

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

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

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

To:

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

RE: Ongoing anti-chiropractic campaign

Good morning all:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nothing could be farther from the truth.

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

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

So why are chiropractors being attacked?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

No manufacturer is liable for vaccine deaths or injuries

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

Vaccine manufacturers do not have to disclose all ingredients

There are over 300 new vaccines in development

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I thought Australians were smarter that Americans.

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

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

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

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

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

What was that lesson about ignoring history again…?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The word is out.

Get conflicts of interest out of health policy NOW!

The government knows that there are serious conflicts of interest involving those who make our health policies. They consistently claim that it is impossible to find qualified experts who are not already financially involved in some way with the pharmaceutical industry – as if that somehow excuses the fact that these conflicts exist. Well, they DO exist and as a result, none of us can be sure that our policies are based on good science or just a good living for the regulators.

This problem is not unique to Australia with American experts such as Dr Paul Offit making as much as $55 million from the sale of a patent he sold in a vaccine he worked on whilst he also sat on the government committee that decided what vaccines would be administered to American children!

Below is a letter and an attachment which have been sent to the Federal Human Rights Commissioner by Judy Wilyman, a PhD candidate who has been studying these issues for some time. Have a read. I know you will agree with me that this situation is shocking and must stop now if we are ever to feel confident in taking the government’s advice when it comes to our health and the health of our families.

To the Federal Human Rights Commissioner

Vaccination and chemicals injected into the human body are a human rights issue. I would therefore like to bring to your attention the selective presentation of the vaccination debate that is being presented to the public. Recently, there have been many media reports about the whooping cough vaccine that have been presented by two government officials – Professor’s Peter McIntyre (NCIRS) and Robert Booy (NCIRS). These programs have been promoting the whooping cough vaccine on anecdotal evidence (in particular ,Dana McCaffery’s death) and the mantra of ‘seeing sick babies gasping for air’.

Whilst these cases are tragic, the promotion of vaccines on anecdotal evidence is inappropriate. This is particularly the case as the government is recommending 12 vaccines before babies are one year of age – a schedule that has not been studied in controlled animal or human studies. Today, Australian society is seeing an explosion of children with autism, allergies, anaphylaxis, autoimmune diseases and cancer and it needs to be emphasised that a scientific consensus on the cause of these diseases is not obtained by ‘selecting out’ scientific arguments.

Government Conflicts of Interest:


Professor Robert Booy, the co-director of the government National Centre for Immunisation Research and Surveillance (NCIRS), was an investigator involved in the trial for Panvax influenza vaccine. He receives support from CSL limited and other pharmaceutical companies to attend conferences and is on the vaccine advisory board for these companies (1). He receives funding from Roche, Sanofi, GlaxoSmithKline and Wyeth for attending and presenting at scientific meetings (1).

Professor Peter McIntyre’s National Centre for Immunisation Research and Surveillance (NCIRS) project for the study of pertussis vaccines for newborns was granted $1.5 million of which more than $750,000 in kind will be provided by GSK for monovalent vaccine and laboratory testing (2).

It is noted that many government officials now have conflicts of interest with industry (see attachment) and in addition, vaccine trials and advisory boards are largely funded and influenced by pharmaceutical companies. Whilst this situation is not necessarily a problem, it is important that the public is informed openly (and transparently) about funding from pharmaceutical companies and any financial ties officials have with industry.

It is also noted that health professionals and consumers are being investigated for discussing the risks and benefits of this procedure. The NSW HCCC recently retracted a false charge (after 2 years) that was made against a consumer group (the Australian Vaccination Network) for asking valid questions about the use of multiple vaccines in infants. This is compounded by media programs that do not present complete information about immunisation policies. The media is also not accountable to the Health Department for the information it provides on vaccination (3) (4).

It is everybody’s choice to use a vaccine if they believe it is beneficial, but if we a living in a society that does not ensure the information the public receives on health issues is complete and accurate, then incentives such as tax benefits for parents and payments for doctors are unethical. These measures are being increased by the government on 1 July 2012.

At present, the government has not proved that the increase in autism is not being caused by adding multiple vaccines to a developing infant before one year of age. Therefore, there is no scientific consensus that the government‘s immunisation policy is safe and it is certainly not based upon scientific -evidence.

Judy Wilyman

PhD Candidate www.vaccinationdecisions.net

Reference:

1.       Nolan T, McVernon J, Skeljo M, Richmond P, Wadia U, Lambert S, et al. Immunogenicity of a Monovalent 2009 Influenza Vaccine in Infants and Children: A Randomised Trial. Jama. 2010 jan 6:303 (1): 37-46: Supplementary online content.

2.       Professor Peter McIntyre, School of Public Health, University of Sydney, http://www.health.usyd.edu.au/people/profiles/P.Mcintyre.php 06.09.09
3.       Australian Government, Department of Health and Ageing, Office of Health Protection, 2009
4.       NSW HealthCare Complaints Commission (HCCC), 2012

Health freedom and suppression of information – an interview with Leon Pittard of FairDinkum Radio

The following is a transcript of a radio interview I did a few weeks ago with Fairdinkum radio. You can listen to the original interview here – http://fairdinkumradio.com/resources/AVN%20050512.mp3.

Leon: Today, our podcast is featuring Meryl Dorey of the Australian Vaccination Network. Meryl joins us quite regularly to talk about vaccination subjects and issues. And the topic of our podcast and discussion today is the Australian government’s assault on health freedom. Meryl, welcome to Fairdinkum Radio.

Meryl: Thanks, Leon.

Leon: Meryl, your organisation, the Australian Vaccination Network, has been active for many years endeavouring to give information to the public and the people of Australia and indeed the world on the other side of the vaccination question and often the information that is not shared freely by other interested bodies.

Just recently the Australian Vaccination Network went through a long and protracted court case which ended on the 24th of February. Maybe for our listeners who are not familiar with that, you could give us a little overview of what that court case involved and what the ruling was.

Meryl: Sure, I’d be happy to Leon. Back in 2009 – so it has been a very long time – an organisation was setup called Stop the AVN and this group was very closely associated with an organisation called the Australian Skeptics that’s associated with sceptics’ groups around the world. And even though they’re called sceptics they’re not at all sceptical. They are sceptical of anything that is not supported by mainstream medicine and health, and they basically support mainstream medicine and health. Vaccination is probably the one issue that they all absolutely agree on, and many of them are for compulsory vaccination. But all of them believe that there is not a second side to the vaccination issue. There’s only the side that doctors will tell you and everyone should vaccinate. So they opposed our organisation from the very beginning and in 2009 they setup this group and its stated goal is to close us down in any way they can. And that started with a string of complaints to just about every single government organisation. And one of these organisations is the Health Care Complaints Commission of New South Wales. And this commission was setup to basically protect the population from dangerous health practitioners; doctors and other practitioners. So we said from the very beginning that the complaint that was filed was not a valid complaint because it has to affect the care and treatment of an individual client, and we don’t have individual clients. But we went through an entire year long process of investigation where the Health Care Complaints Commission just about ignored everything that we said, where at one point when I told the investigator that I felt that there was great bias in the investigation, she said to me “well, you have to understand that the Health Care Complaints Commission is a government body and, as such, it must support government policy which is pro-vaccination”. So there was quite strong evidence of bias.

And at the end of this 12 month investigation the Health Care Complaints Commission issued a public warning stating that the AVN was dangerous, deceptive and misleading, and that we needed to post a warning on our website to let people know that our information was solely anti-vaccination. And we refused to do that. We do have freedom of speech in Australia, we do have freedom of communication, and we do not consider ourselves to be anti-vaccination. We are pro-information and pro freedom of choice. But we’re certainly not telling people that they shouldn’t vaccinate. So as a result of our refusal to put this warning on the website.. sorry, put the warning that we’re anti-vaccine on the website, the Office of Liquor, Gaming and Racing which administers charities, revoked our authority to fund raise, meaning that for almost the last 2 years we were unable to accept new memberships or donations from the general public. And it’s my strong belief that it was thought that that revocation would have forced us to close our doors. It came very close to it. I had to get rid of all of our office staff and for the last 2 years, I’ve been doing everything myself. But we decided that we were going to push the envelope on this, we were going to take the government to court because we knew that what they had done was illegal and we wanted to prove it, not just for the AVN but for all the other organisations out there in Australia that go against government policies and have the information to back up what they’re doing. And that’s many natural therapy organisations, many natural therapists because we’re all under attack in Australia and around the world right now.

So we fought our case in the NSW Supreme Court and as you said, on February 24th we won this case and the court awarded costs to us. And they said what the Health Care Complaints Commission had done was illegal. And because the only reason that our charity authority had been revoked was because of the warning of the Health Care Complaints Commission, on the 18th of April the Office of Liquor, Gaming and Racing reinstated our authority to fundraise. So we are now once again able to take on members and donations from the general public. And that was a huge victory for us because everybody said that you can’t possibly take on the government and win, especially when you’re unfunded. We had a barrister who was working on spec and a solicitor who we did pay and that took an awful lot of our cash, our little bit of cash to do, but it was such an important issue – and our members supported us through this – that we felt it was something that we had to do. And almost immediately after our charity was reinvoked, was reinstated, excuse me, the Shadow Minister for Health in NSW has asked the Minister for Gaming & Racing to revoke it once again.

Leon: This is incredible because this really goes to the heart of.. the extension of your case is that my website, and any information sharing website, is, will be under assault to share information which may be contrary to government policy.

Meryl: Exactly. It’s a very big danger. And even with our victory in the supreme court, the decision said that what the Health Care Complaints Commission did was illegal because the complaint did not involve the care and treatment of an individual, but the decision of the judge said that the ‘care and treatment of an individual’ and the word ‘affect’ can mean that someone can come to our website… let’s say they come to our website and they decide to vaccinate even though our website has information on the dangers and risks of vaccination. If they then file a complaint with the Commission saying that they were ‘affected’ by the information on our website, then that would be a valid complaint. And the Stop the Australian Vaccination Network group has been advertising, trying to find someone to file this complaint and for all I know they may have done so by now. I just haven’t heard from the HCCC. So there is incitement and conspiracy, as far as I’m concerned, to actually try and shut our organisation down by these groups. This is illegal. What they are doing is completely illegal. I don’t know what the end result is going to be, but I think it’s something that all, especially natural health practitioners, need to be aware of because the same group that is doing this to us is trying very hard to do this with individual practitioners in Australia and with the organisations that govern the practitioners in Australia. There is a very strong effort to get rid of any natural therapy practitioner, supplements, homeopathy, chiropractic, all of these things are under threat. And I believe that it’s time for us to band together because if we don’t band together we’re going to be gone.

Leon: Absolutely. I’ve got no doubt that this is a test case for the future and that’s why we need to fight it in every way on the basis of humanity’s freedom to choose to research, to choose to investigate, and to choose to make a decision about what enters their body. This is a freedom issue, fundamental and… vaccination, which is a form of allowing someone to enter your body, must be done only by the individual or the parents consent. That’s where we stand today but this case is obviously trying to push that boundary and cross that line to where it becomes a department’s policy that the body will be impregnated by what and who they choose.

Meryl: That’s right. Isn’t it just a basic human right to say what we will and will not take as a health therapy for ourselves and for our children? And when the government says that they have the right to tell us what to put in our bodies and we don’t have the right to say no, then I say that the government is stepping well and truly outside of their boundaries. And it’s time, when that happens, for us to take a stand and say only this far and no further. I think we’ve reached that point.

Leon: Absolutely. Since that case and that ruling on the 24th of February there is now four separate government investigations which have basically started since then. The Department of Fair Trading, the Health Care Complaints Commission, the Office of Liquor, Gaming and Racing, and the Therapeutic Goods Administration. Now, you have information that leads you to believe that all four of these have now begun the wheels of process in an endeavour to work out a different way to come at you so that this ruling is not applicable for you being a charity.

Meryl: Yes, well I don’t know for sure that the departments themselves are trying to work this out but I know that the Stop the AVN group and especially several members of that group who are very active, one in particular, Mr Ken McLeod, who is the original complainant with the HCCC. He has since filed another complaint with the Health Care Complaints Commission, a complaint that is 90 pages [long], and the HCCC assessed that complaint even though once again it did not involve the care and treatment of an individual. Mr McLeod actually referred back to conversations on our email discussion list in 1998. I mean that is how desperate they are. And the Health Care Complaints Commission basically said that they had no complaint, that he had no valid complaint. He said that I had given incorrect information when I told someone that there is no requirement by the Australian government for people travelling overseas to get a yellow fever vaccine. He said that was a lie. The HCCC checked it out and said “well actually, as a matter of fact, that’s true”. So, they’re trying in any way, sort of like shooting arrows in the air and hoping that one of them will fall down and hit something, because they are filing these massive complaints with so many government departments and it’s only a matter of time before one of the departments will actually do something.

So they filed complaints with the Health Care Complaints Commission, the department of Fair Trading, with the Therapeutic Goods Administration and that’s a really interesting one because I got a call from the TGA. Now the Therapeutic Goods Administration, if I can give just a little bit of background for the listeners, it’s like the American Food & Drug Administration. They are the government department that licenses and approves drugs and vaccines and therapeutic products. So all therapeutic products that are licensed in Australia have to go through the TGA. And the TGA, even though it is a government department, receives no funding from the Australian government. Since 1998 they’ve worked under something called cost recovery and what that means, and I think it’s a fairly evil policy, it means that the government gives them no money to operate. All of their operating expenses come from the licensing fees for drugs and vaccines. So when a pharmaceutical company wants to license a new drug, the pharmaceutical company does all the testing, then they give the study to the TGA, and based on that information without any further checking, the TGA licenses the drug or the vaccine. If they stop licensing the drugs or the vaccines they won’t have money to operate. So they are totally dependent on the multinational corporations that they are meant to oversee. They are meant to protect the health and wellbeing of the Australian population but in the way that they’re setup it’s impossible for them to do that. And this has come out lately, there are many enquiries into the TGA that have been going on.

But what the complaint that was made about the AVN to the TGA says, and I’ve only just received this information, you’re the first person I’m speaking with about it, is that we sell a DVD on our website. Now we have a lot of books and DVD’s about general health issues, vaccination, natural health, instinctive parenting, environmental issues, we feel it’s our responsibility to allow people to access information that they might not find elsewhere. And one of the DVD’s that we sell is by Elaine Hollingsworth called One Answer to Cancer. Now, Elaine runs a health retreat up on the Gold Coast called Hippocrates Health and she was almost killed by a mainstream cancer treatment, I think it’s called Aldara, I could have the name wrong. It’s been banned in many countries. She had skin cancer, was given this treatment and it almost killed her. As a result of that experience she found a treatment that’s been used for at least 2000 years called black salve. And it’s a combination of herbs and minerals that is applied topically to cancer and it’s called nature’s scalpel. Now I’ve used it myself on a cancer that I had on my shoulder. I’ve got to tell you, it is like a scalpel, it cut it out in a perfect circle. And it got rid of it completely. So, the Australian government several years ago banned the use of black salve on humans and you could only buy it for animals. As of a couple of weeks ago you’re not even allowed to sell it for animal use.

Leon: Unbelievable.

Meryl: The only reason.. they haven’t actually given any reason except that it hasn’t been safety-tested by the organisation that licenses drugs and vaccines which also haven’t been independently safety-tested, the TGA. But because they’ve banned this now and because, I’m assuming, someone from Stop the AVN and I don’t have information on this yet, has filed a complaint with the TGA. They’ve come to me and said that we have to remove our sale of this DVD because actually providing information via a DVD, according to the TGA, is exactly the same as advertising and selling the product. And we’ve been in touch with several natural health practitioners who’ve been told the same thing. They may have an article on the use of ‘x’ herb for stomach ulcers, let’s say, and the TGA says even though they are not selling that herb the fact that they are giving out information on it’s use, may influence someone to actually go out and find a retailer who sells this herb and to buy it and therefore they’re advertising it.

Leon: Yeah. See, this is incredible because what this is opening up, this is the thin edge of the wedge of total surveillance of all information sharing to… by government bureaucracies to oversee every piece of information that the public receives. And therefore even any information sharing website, and let’s take the subject of fluoride, that may be opposite to public policy, will be subject to litigation or court action even though you may not be selling fluoride – it’s the government selling fluoride – but you’re the person that is sharing the other side of the story. Therefore you will be subject to litigation because it is against what the public system has already incorporated.

Meryl: That’s exactly right. The government has a policy, they’ve put some policy in place and if you are giving out information that opposes that government policy then you can be prosecuted, or persecuted is more likely, as a result of it. We saw the Howard administration start to do this with their anti-sedition laws and I proudly wore a t-shirt saying I’m a seditionist because I believe that in a democracy, public debate is supported. Not only supported, but protected. And if Australia wants to be considered a democracy and not a banana republic, then it has to support the right to free and public debate on all issues. If an issue does not have enough information to back it up, well you have to believe that the people are smart enough to figure work that out for themselves. The fact that the government is trying to control and suppress this sort of communication is frightening and it is not something that a democratic government should, or would, do.

Leon: The thing is we can see that schoolchildren are being taught that we are entering a phase of dangerous global warming and that is the government’s position. That is put in the curriculum. Now there’s many in society that question the validity of that indoctrination and therefore anyone who would oppose that, automatically, their information is not able to be shared. To just follow on from that example, for instance, all of the price increases via the carbon tax, there has been legislation passed to say that the business cannot put on the product that this product is $10 dearer because of the carbon tax. It is illegal to put there what the increase is. Now you can see there that what this legislation, and this is related to what we’re talking about because what it is, is a dampening of the information to the public about the government policy. Now, it’s an attack on openness, it’s an attack on freedom, and it’s an attack on information sharing about the truth. If a person believes something is the truth he should be able to have the freedom to share that.

I wanted to ask you, Meryl, about… to register as a charity. Now, this was the recent ruling and I notice that what the opposition health person, Dr Andrew McDonald, is now asking is why has the Minister reinstated authority for charitable fundraising for the AVN. Can you describe to us what the parameters and the conditions are for being a charity?

Meryl: Yes. Now, from the very beginning because of our constitution, the AVN has been considered a charity. A charity basically means, and there is a whole lot that you can read on the Office of Liquor, Gaming and Racing website about this, and every state has their own body that administers charities. If the government determines that the activities of the organisation constitute the pursuit of a charitable purpose then they are a charity. Now the really crazy thing is that we had actually tried to get rid of our charitable authority well before this happened because it is a huge onus, a huge burden, for a charitable organisation. Especially a small unfunded one like ours to be considered a charity. You could go out tomorrow, Leon, and you could put a “donate here” link on your website – I don’t know, you may even have one now – and there would be absolutely no requirement for you to report to anybody or do anything because you’re not pursuing a charitable purpose. But if you’re pursuing a charitable purpose and you are registered as a charity, you have to account for everything that you do. You have to account for the size of the collection box that you use when you go out and do a seminar and put up a collection box on the table.

Leon: Incredible.

Meryl: You have to be audited every year at a cost of… well, it’s cost us upwards of four to five thousand dollars a year just to get that audit done. Where if we were not a charity, all we would need is a plain accountant to do our end-of-year figures, which might cost four or five hundred dollars. So we tried to get rid of this but we were told that we pursue a charitable… we have a charitable pursuit, our organisation, so we are a charity. And even when our authority was revoked the OLGR said that we still needed to abide by those regulations because we pursue a charitable purpose. The only reason that we were not able to accept new memberships and donations during that period when our status was revoked was because the OLGR said that we pursue a charitable purpose. So Dr McDonald saying that we are not a real charity, it means to me that he really doesn’t know 100% what he’s talking about. He also said that we get special tax breaks because we’re a charity and that’s not true at all. I think he might be talking about becoming a tax-deductible gift recipient and that’s one of those organisations where if you donate more than $2- you can deduct it off your tax. And the AVN applied for that several times. The last time the ATO told us that we definitely do qualify as a deductible gift recipient but they wouldn’t give it to us because they considered that we were anti-vaccine and the government is pro-vaccine and therefore they wouldn’t give us the deductible gift recipient. Which they weren’t supposed to do.Tthey were supposed to make that decision based on whether we qualified or not. And the other thing is that some charities can be income tax exempt but you have to apply for that, it’s not automatic. So Dr McDonald really doesn’t know what he’s talking about in this situation. And in his questions on notice in NSW Parliament that were given yesterday, he said that… he asked the government whether there were any reasons for declining our authority, such as alleged fraud. Now, he’s using parliamentary privilege to say something that I believe he might know is not true because there was no alleged fraud. The Office of Liquor, Gaming and Racing specifically stated that they found no evidence of fraud when they did an audit of our organisation. What they found were breaches to the Act and mistakes, errors. And they said that these were of a technical nature and that they were common in organisations of our sort. And they asked us to fix everything and we immediately fixed everything. So they said that there was no reason to revoke our authority based on the errors that they found.

Leon: The very fact that you raise this issue about ‘is there any alleged fraud’, I mean, he’s planting seeds in peoples’ minds about your organisation. And he goes onto say, is there any other questionable issues about this organisation that we could revoke their authority on. I mean, I could raise a thousand issues against him and his former government about selling his people out, selling our electricity and selling us in every way. The corruption that was in that government is just incredible. And here they are burdening the individual who’s just trying to share information with so much… I only saw the numbers the other day, in the last 12 months we’ve had 16,000 pieces of legislation passed in Australia, in the last short time.

Meryl: Wow.

Leon: Just incredible.

Meryl: How did they know that?

Leon: And what they’re doing to us, as individuals, they’re loading us up with requirements, checks and balances, how big’s your offering box, all of these different things. And yet, those in power basically march on and take away everything that’s dear to us without question.

Meryl: Yeah, a government’s responsibility is to mandate, not to mandate, but to govern the safety and wellbeing of the population in as far as infrastructure goes. They are not there to tell us what we can eat, what treatments we can use, how we educate our children. All of these things they are stepping outside of their real responsibility on. And I believe that it’s time for us to put the government back in its place cause it’s stepped right outside of that place.

Leon: Absolutely. Well that’s, you’re exactly right. That’s what they are doing, they’re crossing the line to say what we should teach our children, what we must teach our children, what we must give our children as far as healthcare goes… the direction of our whole lives is being impregnated by government policy and even about the cost in our lives, everything is being encroached upon. Now Meryl, regarding this… is there anything else you wanted to add regarding this latest assault by Dr Andrew McDonald?

Meryl: Not really. The only thing I would ask is if your listeners are interested, our blog “No Compulsory Vaccination” which is on wordpress, will have regular updates as we find out more information and as we put in our responses to these issues. So if people are interested in finding out more and staying up to date with what’s happening, I urge them to stay in touch. You can subscribe to our updates on our blog and that would probably be a really good thing to do.

Leon: That’s good. Now another question I wanted to ask you about the gaming authority, sorry, the Therapeutic Goods Administration, you were saying how the only way that they actually get funded is by the registration process of vaccines and therapeutic drugs, etc. Do they receive grants from any other foundations, to your knowledge?

Meryl: Not to my knowledge, that’s not anything that I’ve ever looked into. I do know that they receive no funding to test either the safety or the effectiveness of the drugs and vaccines that they license. And that they’re licensed purely on the information that’s provided to them by the drug manufacturer.

Leon: Ok. And the reason I ask is I’ve been doing a little bit of research into the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and have discovered that their foundation has been giving millions of dollars to different media outlets and these media outlets actively promote their vaccination programs and what they are doing around the world with vaccination, etc, especially in places like India and Pakistan. And that these millions of dollars that go to these different media organisations, these media organisations then produce documentaries about the miracle working power of vaccinations in all of these countries. And if you follow the money you see a link between those promoting the vaccines and the media companies that are actually promoting them, which leads me to an article that I was reading last week about the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation program in India which was promoted as the last mile to eradicating polio in India. And it featured a promotional video which was displaying numbers of the cases of polio in India decades ago, with the number of cases dropping to 42 by 2010, but it appears that the wild polio virus stats have been traded for polio from vaccines and non-polio acute flaccid paralysis. Now, in India over 47,000 cases of this non-polio acute flaccid paralysis was reported in 2011. Now these symptoms are practically the same as what is attributed to the eradicated wild virus polio. Now, apparently vaccine polio viruses also cause polio paralysis. Have you got any thoughts on that, Meryl?

Meryl: Yes, it’s interesting. India declared itself, or was declared by the World Health Organisation to be free of polio for the first time, I think it was about two months ago, sometime in February. And there was wild celebration, our polio vaccine campaign has worked! But this article that you’re talking about was published by two Indian researchers. And what they found, they did an absolutely, fantastic job of researching this. As you said, there were 47,500 cases of acute flaccid paralysis, and non-polio paralysis. And it’s interesting because before the polio vaccine came in, polio was always diagnosed using clinical symptoms. So we didn’t know what virus was causing paralysis before the polio vaccine came in. And in India there was very little testing done up until fairly recently, it’s only within the last 8 years that there’s been widespread testing. So they’ve had a lot of paralysis and they’ve been calling it polio, but they don’t really know what virus is causing it. Now, they’ve had to politically declare that all of these millions and millions of dollars, well actually billions of dollars, that have been spent trying to rid India of polio have been successful. So they’re doing all these tests and they’re finding that there are 47,500 cases of paralysis but that a lot of it’s not being caused by the wild polio virus. A lot of it’s being caused by the vaccine virus and what these researchers did is that they found that the death rate from the non-polio, non-wild polio virus is twice, it’s double, what the death rate is from polio. So if you get polio naturally you are half as likely to die from it as you will be if you get it from the vaccine or from one of these other viruses which 10 years ago in India would have been called polio anyway. So it’s playing with statistics.

And the other thing they’ve done is they found that India is using polio vaccine as if it was water. In Australia, a child will get four polio vaccines by the time they start school age, and I believe there’s another one at school age. In India, they are getting up to 50 doses of the oral polio vaccine. Every time this vaccine campaign, the pulse-polio campaign comes through a village, it doesn’t matter, they don’t check to see if the person’s already got the vaccine. If one dose is good, fifty’s better. And because you’re continually exposing people to this live virus, and these people live in less than hygienic conditions, and polio virus is a stomach virus, it’s an enteric virus so it’s carried through stool, you’re spreading the disease. We stopped using the live polio vaccine over 10 years ago in Australia, and in the U.S. they stopped using it a decade before that, but it’s cheaper to produce. So we send it to third world countries which is the last place where it should be used because of hygiene problems. So not only has the vaccine not eradicated polio in India, it has made the situation worse. It has increased the number of cases of paralysis, and who cares if paralysis is caused by polio virus or by another virus. The fact is that your child is paralysed and it doesn’t make any difference to you whether it was caused by polio virus or something else. The fact is your child is paralysed. And if we are causing more paralysis by vaccinating than we were by not vaccinating, then why aren’t we looking at what we’re doing? We are causing huge tragedies, huge numbers of tragedies and grief in a country that’s already dealing with so many issues. And we’re declaring a victory when there was no victory; or what there was, was more disease.

Leon: It was good work of those Indian researchers to find that and as we discussed in one of our other conversations, how a lot of the out-of-date swine flu vaccines were dumped on countries like India, Brazil, Pakistan, even though they were a year or two out-of-date. They had millions of these vaccines left over, and they dumped them on these countries as an experiment or we had to get rid of them somehow. What’s going on with these poor people? As you said, we don’t use this polio vaccine anymore and yet it’s ok for them.

Meryl: Yep, what’s done in developing countries by medical organisations is beyond immoral. It’s horrible, it’s absolutely horrible. These people are used as guinea-pigs for tests. There have been vaccines that have been given in these countries that have abortive agents in them, in other words, vaccines that will prevent a woman from getting pregnant, make them lose their baby if they are already pregnant. This is not conjecture, this is confirmed by the World Health Organisation. And they’re used as guinea-pigs in drug and vaccine testing because ethics committees in developed countries will not allow these sorts of tests that are done in these countries. Doctors are paid an awful lot of money in these countries to refer parent, who don’t know what their children are getting, to these studies.

Leon: Look, they’re using these countries as experiments, they want sterilisation, they want population control, and vaccines are a perfect way to deliver that outcome. Now, Meryl, I want to talk to you a little bit about autism rates and I’ve noticed that there’s a lot of… the autism rates have spiked, and I notice there’s a lot of articles circulating regarding that, but I would like to just speak about Donald Trump for a minute, and a statement he made which obviously makes a lot of ground because he’s an important type person, someone’s that in the spotlight. He acknowledged that speaking out against vaccines and a vaccine schedule is very controversial but he went on to state, he said “I don’t care less. I’ve seen people where they have a perfectly healthy child. They go for vaccinations and a month later the child is no longer healthy.” Trump’s statement is a victory for parents who have long believed vaccines contribute to neurological damage their children suffered post-vaccination. It goes on to say that the Centers for Disease Control just released a study based on 2008 data revealing autism rates have risen to an all-time high. Health records for 8 year old children in 14 states were analysed showing autism now affects 1 in 88 children and 1 in 54 boys in the U.S. Have you seen these rates recently?

Meryl: I have. And it’s amazing. First of all, if there was anything that twenty years ago caused 1 person in 10,000 to get a disease and that disease has now risen to 1 in 88, there would be worldwide panic. There would be billions of dollars. Look what happened with AIDS. I mean billions, if not trillions, of dollars were thrown at that issue trying to solve it. And yet, with autism there’s this constant thing from the government and the medical community “calm down, it’s not really happening, it’s all smoke and mirrors”. But it’s not. These are real diagnoses of autism, it’s not better statistic keeping because the countries where this statistic keeping is done have always kept good statistics on autism. And that 1 in 88 figure, we’ve gone from 1 in 10,000 to 1 in 88 as of the year 2000, because they did this in 2008 with 8 year old children. The U.S government says that the rate of autism is increasing by 12% a year and if we extrapolate that, that means that a child born today has a 1 in 20 chance of being autistic. It’s not 1 in 88, it’s 1 in 20, and possibly 1 in 10 for boys. So, when are we going to panic? When are we going to start saying what is going to happen to the future of these children? How is our society ever going to provide for kids who can’t speak, who can’t learn, who are constantly ill? It’s the most amazing situation, the emperor has no clothes and yet everyone is saying what a beautiful outfit he’s wearing.

Leon: Exactly. And I notice between 1960 and 1980, we talked about these rates before, children were subject to around 25 doses. Today, children are subject to about 70 doses in the same time period. To put this in perspective, a child born today, if you follow the schedules, would receive more vaccine doses by the time he’s six months old than his mother did by the time she went to college. And we’re looking at 160 or so vaccine doses from a child to an adult. It’s just incredible. It just keeps growing and growing.

Meryl: But don’t worry, because Paul Offit, who’s at CHOP, the Children’s Hospital, Pennsylvania, and who has sold his patent for a vaccine for an estimated 20 million dollars, says that children can get up to 10,000 to 100,000 vaccines at one time without suffering any ill-effect. So the number of doses that our kids are getting, according to Paul Offit, should make no difference to their health. Yet, we have parents all over the world, millions of parents, who are saying that they had a perfectly healthy child one day, they vaccinated them, and then the next day their child regressed into autism or had another health condition that either permanently disabled them or killed them. But Paul Offit says this is not happening despite the parents out there whose own experience have shown them that it is.

Leon: You know what’s incredible about the time which we’re living in, you alluded to it there about the emperor having no clothes. Cancer rates are increasing. Autism rates are increasing. Neurological disorders increasing. All of the health of humanity. Obesity. It doesn’t matter what avenue you look at, people are getting sicker and yet the one thing that the system will never do – they will never ask why. They will always provide a new vaccine to fix this problem or a new chemical drug to fix this problem, but they never ask, “Why are people getting sicker?” Why are these rates increasing. And they will refuse to look at the link between the chemicalisation of foods, the genetic modification of foods, and the vaccines that are going into people’s lives, that is actually a cause of all of these… I mean, mercury, there’s more and more studies showing the damage that adjuvants like mercury do, and the link to mercury and autism. And yet, this is never addressed by the system and anyone that wants to speak out about it, they’re side-lined and they’re isolated. Like in your case where the assault is against your organisation to even receive a donation.

Meryl: That’s right. It’s very true. But I have to say I think that all of these attacks, which are accelerating and getting far worse, not just in Australia but around the world, are the last gasp of an industry that is on… it’s dying. We’re at a tipping point right now. The latest research shows that I think by the year 2016, the average cost per year for American citizens for healthcare will exceed the average income of the American citizen. We cannot continue the way that we’re going and it’s obvious that there are more and more people becoming better informed about these issues and making decisions not to use chemical drugs, not to use vaccines. For once, I believe that it’s true, when the governments say that the rate of vaccination compliance is declining. They’ve been saying it for years, crying wolf, but now I think it’s actually true because people are better informed, because the internet is there, and because people are finally waking up and saying enough is enough. Our children are sicker. In Australia, over 40% of Australia’s children are currently being treated for a chronic disease; in the U.S. it’s over half. We’re sicker than we’ve ever been before, and yet we spend more money on medical care and medical treatments than we’ve ever spent before. This generation of children is going to be the first generation in history that’s going to live for a shorter time than their parents have. Where is the great success? Where are the blockbusters that we’re constantly hearing about every day? They are not working and people are finally knowing that they’re not working, and they’re looking at the safer, effective natural therapies and they’re saying “When I take them, I feel better. When I have a condition and treat it with natural therapies, I get better. So why I am listening to my doctor and using these drugs when all I do on the drugs is get sick?” People are saying this. You can only fool people for so long.

Leon: I think you’re right. People are waking up to the system and waking up because of the research that they’re doing themselves, and that’s the great thing that we have with the internet today that we are able to research and look at two sides of the story or as many sides of a story as possible. Ladies and Gentlemen, a return to good health is what we need, eating good quality foods and removing ourselves as much as we can from the chemical assaults that we are under today. And I encourage you all to investigate the other side of the story with vaccinations. Go to the Australian Vaccination Network website. I encourage you all not to vaccinate until you do the research and if you choose to vaccinate after you do the research that’s your privilege, but we encourage you to do the research, read and investigate, and look at the statistics. Meryl, it’s been great speaking with you again. Is there anything you’d like to add in closing?

Meryl: No, Leon, I’ve think you’ve said it all, that was perfect.

Why should we trust medicine?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What’s the problem?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Enhanced by Zemanta

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

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

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

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

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

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

Enhanced by Zemanta