The Global Control of Infectious Diseases and the Directives for COVID19
The directives introduced to control the novel coronavirus 2019 in March 2020 are the opposite to how we have controlled infectious diseases for decades. An in-depth explanation of how pathogens have been controlled is presented in my PhD (a summary version can be found here) and below is the link to a 25 min slide presentation that explains the flaws in the lockdown directives that were imposed on the healthy asymptomatic population, for the first time ever, in 2020 – Controlling Infectious Diseases and the COVID19 Directives
Since 1986 when the US Congress passed legislation that removed all liability from pharmaceutical companies for any harm caused by vaccines, governments have been adding more and more vaccines to the program, and mis-using the precautionary principle that is used to protect human health in government policy. This legislation enabled them to reverse the onus of proof of harm, from the pharmaceutical companies to the public, and to claim that because vaccines are essential governments can approve them in the population without having complete knowledge of the the types and frequency of adverse events.
These claims are false and pharmaceutical companies have not produced any evidence to support the claim that “vaccines can produce herd immunity” or to support the claim that they are not causing significant harm in the population. There is no transparent risk assessment for vaccination programs because it is all done by mathematical modelling that is based on non-transparent assumptions.
The pharmaceutical companies requested indemnity because there were too many compensation claims for vaccine injuries and deaths, so they claimed they could not go on making “life-saving vaccines” because it was costing them millions of dollars each year. The US Congress passed this act even though a drug that causes serious adverse events and deaths in humans cannot be described as a “life-saving” drug? Where is the risk assessment that this legislation was based upon?
And why are doctors not informing parents that pharmaceutical companies are not liable for any harm caused to themselves or their children from these drugs that are presented as ‘vaccines’. Here is my article published in the Science, Public Health and Law Journal – ‘Misapplication of the Precautionary Principle by Governments has Misplaced the Burden of Proof of Vaccine Safety.’
Australian Government Immunisation (Vaccination) Policy
My PhD research has demonstrated that Australia’s National Immunisation (Vaccination) Program (NIP) of 16+ vaccines has not been designed on the factors that controlled infectious diseases in Australia. These diseases were controlled by 1950/60 in all developed countries and the majority of vaccines on the government program were not developed until 1990 onwards.
The case for polio disease requires an in-depth explanation about the context and cause of this disease. But the historical facts are clear that the primary cause of the reduction in deaths and illnesses from infectious diseases was due to the implementation of public health infrastructure and improved nutrition that occurred by the mid-twentieth century.
Since 1990 parents have become increasingly concerned about the increased use of vaccines and the direct correlation between this and the 5-10 fold increase in chronic illness occurring in children. The Australian government has implemented mandatory vaccination policies without proving with empirical evidence that the increased use of vaccines from 1990 onwards was not the cause of this serious increase in chronic diseases in children.
Here is a pamphlet that summarises the four main themes in my PhD Thesis describing the science and political decisions that underpin Australia’s vaccination program. My research investigated the historical control of infectious diseases in Australia from 1900 – 2015 and the government’s reasons for expanding the use of vaccines in 1990. The 16 vaccines that are recommended in government programs in 2019 were not developed in 1950/60 when infectious diseases were controlled in all developed countries.
Further from 1950 – 1990 vaccination was voluntary and it was not tied to financial incentives for doctors and consumers until 1993. My research demonstrated that there is undone science in government vaccination policies that is resulting in politicians making decisions about using the vaccines that are based on assumptions and not scientific evidence. These assumptions are not clear to researchers, politicians or the community because governments use mathematical modelling to determine the cost-effectiveness of a vaccine to the community and the assumptions that are used in these models and algorithms are not transparent to the stakeholders in these policies.
The safety and efficacy of vaccines has not been proven with empirical scientific studies. This undone science includes properly designed safety and efficacy studies. Here is the information collected under the US Freedom of Information Act that demonstrates the science that is being suppressed about the risks of vaccines by the US regulators and promotors of vaccines – the CDC and the FDA.
In October 2019 I did an interview with Dr. James Lyons Weiler, Editor in Chief of the journal, Science, Public Health Policy, and the Law (October 2019) in which I have described the science of the risks of vaccines that have been ignored in the implementation of legislation that mandated 12-16 vaccines in social services policies in Australia in 2016. I also describe the lack of evidence for the efficacy of many of the vaccines that have been mandated – Unbreaking Science: Dr. James Lyons Weiler interviews Dr. Judy Wilyman.
Here is a 5 minute video (Your Children Your Choice) that describes the risks of vaccines that have not been acknowledged in government vaccination programs and it provides quotes from doctors and scientists stating that the proper safety and efficacy studies have not been done to support these government policies. This undone science was the focus of my PhD thesis at the University of Wollongong (UOW) from 2011-2015.
Over the last two decades parents have become increasingly concerned about the science supporting government vaccination programs as the chronic illness in Australian children has increased 5-fold in direct correlation to the expanded vaccination program. This is the sickest generation of children in Australia’s history and the government schedule of childhood vaccines expanded from seven vaccines in 1990 to fifteen vaccines by 2014 This involves 52 doses of vaccines given in 22 injections from 0 – 14 years of age. Most grandparents are not aware of this expansion in the vaccination schedule as parents were only required to use 2 or 3 vaccines on a voluntary basis up to 1990 – a time when infectious diseases were not a serious risk to the majority of children/adults in Australia.
Doctors are also not required to discuss the ingredients of vaccines with parents before they give consent. Here is the government’s list of ingredients for the vaccines used in Australia (Australian Immunisation Handbook (Ed 10) Appendix 3 2018). Please print these ingredients and discuss with your doctor. Here is the complete list of excipients used in vaccines as listed by the US CDC.
Vaccines used in Australia are the same as those in the US but they are approved in Australia under a different name.
In January 2016 the Australian government mandated twelve+ vaccines in social welfare policies, not health policies, for welfare payments and for entry into early childhood education (in some states). They were also mandated for many adults in employment situations.
This occurred even though vaccination in Australia has always been voluntary because the deaths and illnesses were reduced prior to the vaccines being introduced. Further, the Australian government mandated all 15 vaccines even though there was no increased risk from these diseases in 2016. This was not a transparent policy and the government and medical doctors declined to attend a public forum at the University of Technology, Sydney to provide evidence for these mandatory vaccination policies before the policy was approved – Questions and Answers: No Jab No Pay/Play Policy.
An important fact that many people do not know about government vaccination programs is that they are not designed by governments in response to the risk of infectious diseases in their own country. For example, Australia’s National Immunisation Policy is not designed by the Australian government in response to the Australian death and illness rates for infectious diseases.
Australia’s immunisation policy is based on Global Health Policy recommendations that are provided by public-private partnerships within the Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunisation (GAVI) and presented to governments by the World Health Organisation (WHO). Whilst the charter of the WHO is to present objective scientific research for health recommendations, this is not happening for vaccine recommendations and it is a breach of the WHO’s charter for health promotion.
The GAVI alliance is an alliance that is made up of pharmaceutical companies, biotechnology companies, the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, the Rockefeller Foundation and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and many more public-private partners. All of these partners have equal input into the recommendations for national vaccination programs that they provide to the World Health Organisation (WHO).
The GAVI alliance is composed of members who profit from recommending vaccines for implementation into government policies – a captive market for their product. This is a deceptive practice because the general public is not informed about this conflict of interest in the advice that is provided by the World Health Organisation (WHO) to its 193 member countries.
Conflicts of Interest in Government Vaccine Advisory Boards
Australia’s vaccination policies are recommended to our Minister for Health by the Australian Technical Advisory Group on Immunisation (ATAGI). This group is also responsible for providing advice about research funding to research organisations and recommending the areas where additional research is needed.
In Australia, the chairman of the ATAGI committee, Professor Terry Nolan, was also the deputy chairman of the research committee for the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) from 2005 – 2015. This is the body responsible for recommending the areas for research funding.
Here are the declared Conflicts of Interest of the ATAGI Chairman, Professor Terry Nolan, the co-director of the National Centre for Immunisation Research and Surveillance (NCIRS), Professor Robert Booy, the WA Department of Health, Associate Professor Peter Richmond, Chairman of the Influenza Specialist Group (ISG), Dr. Alan Hampson, and Member of the ISG, Anne Kelso.
It is possible that many other COI exist in these boards that have not been made transparent to the public.
ATAGI Chairman Terry Nolan was the principle researcher on the pediatric swine flu trials for CSL’s Fluvax vaccine in 2009 and this vaccine was withdrawn from the market in 2010 after many children had serious adverse events to this vaccine. Associate Professor Peter Richmond was also involved in the Fluvax vaccine clinical trials in western Australian children in 2008-2010. Both Professor Nolan and Richmond were on the ATAGI advisory boards that recommended the government implement the Fluvax vaccine into the national immunisation schedule in 2009-2010.
And they were both on the team that investigated the 1000’s of severe adverse events to the Fluvax vaccine that occurred in children in 2010 and resulted in the vaccine being removed from the market.
The Lack of Evidence for Mandatory Vaccination Policies in Australia
A direct correlation of harm with the increased use of vaccines (drugs) in the population needs to be invesitgated before a government claims that the combined schedule of vaccines is safe. However, governments have not investigated the combined schedule of vaccines in long-term health studies using an inert placebo.
Instead they are claiming that ‘correlation does not equal causation’ and that reactions after vaccines are given are simply a ‘coincidence’. This is unscientific and they are claiming vaccines are safe by ignoring this plausible cause of the increased chronic illness we are observing in childen. In doing so they are breaching their duty of care to the general public and designing public health policy that will cause death and disability in the human population.
The causality studies for the combined schedule of vaccines have not been done to prove that vaccines are not causing this chronic illness and disability in the population and the direct linear increase in illnesses with the increased use of vaccines is strong evidence for a safety signal that needs investigating.
The science on this website is supported by many doctors and all the science must be included in any public health policy, not selective science, to protect the health of the population. A policy that is not open for debate by the public is indoctrination and not a policy that is based on evidence-based medicine that has been properly scrutinised by all stakeholders – particularly the public on whom it has been enforced .
The suppression of the scientific debate in Australia has led many parents and professionals to investigate the science of vaccines and to set up websites presenting information about the risks of this medical intervention to the public. Links to these websites can be accessed on the Websites describing the Risks of Vaccines .
The Australian government’s vaccination policies have been influenced by the pharmaceutical companies through pharmaceutical donations to the government and lobbying of politicians by industry associated lobby groups – The Australian Medical Association (AMA), The Australian Skeptics Inc and their offshoot Stop the Australian Vaccination Network (SAVN), The Friends of Science and Medicine and the Public Health Association of Australia (PHAA).
The PHAA is the face of the Australian National Immunisation Conference that is run every two years and is funded 100% by industry and the government. It has a conflict of interest in promoting vaccines to the public because of this sponsorship. In 2014 this conference allowed the SAVN lobby group, that operates as a facebook group of consumers (many of whom do not have science or health qualifications) to present a poster that described the strategies they are using to suppress the scientific debate of vaccination in public forums and in the mainstream media in Australia.
Here is a link to the SAVN lobby group poster that was presented at a scientific conference. It is titled “Analysis of the Impact of the Stop the Australian Vaccination Network Campaign on the Public Profile of the Finances of the Australian Vaccination Network (AVN)“ by Alison Gaylard, David Hawkes, Anne Coady, Cate Ryan, Rachael A. Dunlop et al (leaders of the SAVN industry-associated lobby group).
Many of these individuals have used abuse, ridicule and emotional arguments to dismiss and shame academics and professionals that speak about the risks of vaccination in Australia. This abuse of academics and professionals is occuring both in the Australian mainsteam media, on the Conversation website and on social media.
A description of how the medical literature is being selected for vaccination policies in Australia is given in the presentation that I gave at the University of Technology Sydney (UTS), 15 October 2015. This was a vaccination forum organised to discuss the public’s concerns about the government’s new mandatory vaccination legislation that was being implemented on 1 January 2016 in social welfare policies.
The forum was titled Questions and Answers: No Jab No Pay/Play Policy. and all the public health professionals, doctors and government representatives, including the ex-directors of the NCIRS, Peter McIntyre and Robert Booy, declined to attend this forum to explain the necessity for implementing mandatory vaccination legislation in social services policies at a time when infectious diseases were not a serious risk to the majority of Australians.
An policy that is not open for debate by the public is indoctrination and not a policy that is based on evidence-based medicine that has been properly scrutinised. Here is a video of Dr. Kenneth Stoller discussing the cover up of the causal link between vaccines and autism. Here is more scientific information on the vaccine/autism link
Here is an article that describes the corruption and criminality that can occur in the State-Pharmaceutical complex with the intensification of neoliberlaism in health policies. It is titled “Immunity and Impunity: Corruption in the State-Pharma Nexus” by P. Rawlinson, Western Sydney University, Australia.
The Development of Immunisation Policy in Australia since 1950
The threat from infectious diseases in Australia declined before most vaccines were used in mass vaccination programs (Professor Fiona Stanley, 2001). Today the Australian government recommends vaccines against 12 diseases before children are 1 year of age yet the majority of these vaccines were not required for children in the 50’s-60’s when infectious diseases were no longer considered a threat to the majority of children in Australia (Commonwealth Yearbook of Australia 1953). Here are the documented comments by public health authorities during the 20th century that are conclusive evidence for this fact.
Most of the vaccines on the government’s mandated list were not even developed in the 1950’/60’s when the risk of all infectious diseases declined in developed countries like Australia. Further, in July 2012 three new vaccines were added to the Australian government schedule and in 2016 they were mandated for all children in social welfare payments, for attending early childcare centres and for many employment situations. This indicates the arbitrary nature of the government’s ‘mandated’ vaccines.
Most adults have never used these vaccines and so the vaccines were clearly not responsible for controlling infectious diseases by creating ‘herd immunity’ in Australia.
At the same time the government increased the parental welfare payment that is linked to fully (all 16 vaccines) vaccinating a child to $2,100. This increased use of many new vaccines and the emphasis on increasing vaccination rates in the population, instead of increasing ‘health’ in the population, has led many parents, health practitioners and academics to conclude that the risks of vaccines outweigh any benefit from vaccines. Evidence for this conclusion has been documented on the Prevent Disease website.
Here is a link to the ingredients of the vaccines in the government’s combined schedule of vaccines. Whilst this list is from the US Centre for Diseases Prevention and Control (CDC), many of these vaccines are also used in Australia but they are approved in Australia under a different name.
This list can be used to discuss the recommended schedule of vaccines with your doctor to ensure they believe this combination of active ingredients is safe in your developing infant. This doctor’s warranty will also help you to ask the right questions when investigating this medical procedure – Doctors Warranty of Vaccine Safety
I have also published here the poster titled ‘Coercive and Mandatory Immunisation: how ethical is this policy?’ that I presented at the Australian Health Promotion Association Conference in Perth in May 2009 to illustrate the increase in chronic illness in children that has occurred at the same time as the increased use of vaccines in the Australian population.
Whilst a correlation does not equal causation, the government has a duty of care to the public to investigate all possible causes of the increase in chronic illness because vaccination policy should be designed in the public interest. The information presented below demonstrates that the Australian government has not investigated the link between the combined schedule of vaccines and chronic illness in the population. Hence they are breaching their duty of care to the Australian public by enforcing social services policies that link the full schedule of vaccines to financial benefits and other services that people cannot live without. [/pane]
Vaccines were not Responsible for the Majority of the Decline in Risk from Infectious Diseases
Infectious diseases in Australia were controlled by 1950 1. Only diptheria vaccine was in use at this time and this was in voluntary vaccination campaigns. It also resulted in the Bundaberg tragedy that killed 12 children in 1928. Measles, whooping cough and influenza were removed from the national notifiable disease list in 1950 because the deaths and serious illness to these diseases had been significantly reduced for the majority of children. No vaccines were used for these diseases in 1950 and the measles vaccine wasn’t introduced into voluntary vaccination campaigns in Australia until 1970 1.
The deaths and illnesses from infectious diseases were reduced for the majority of children by the 1950’s and outbreaks were less virulent because of the changes to environmental and lifestyle conditions. Each disease needs to be assessed separately in the context of the environmental conditions at the time to determine the risk from these infectious agents. This is also the case for the polio outbreaks in the 1950’s. The risks and benefits of using a vaccine for each disease must be considered separately because of the specific nature of the infectious agents, the environment and the host characteristics.
In 2013 there are too many vaccines on the vaccination schedule and the combined schedule of vaccines has not been tested for safety in infants/children by comparing vaccinated to truly unvaccinated children. The placebo used in the unvaccinated group in clinical trials is either the vaccine adjuvant (aluminium phosphate) or another a competitor vaccine. These are ‘active’ ingredients and not true (inert) placebos and they are known to cause adverse events in the participants. Inert placebos have never been used to test the safety of vaccines. Therefore an accurate estimate of the harm caused by vaccines is unknown. Here is a link to my poster illustrating the science that has not been done to prove the safety of the government’s vaccination schedule. This poster was presented to health professionals at the National Health Promotion Conference in Perth in 2009 and it is titled ‘Coercive and Mandatory Immunisation: how ethical is this policy?’
In 1966 public health officials stated that “until social and economic changes are made no amount of medical and scientific knowledge can be of much help” (Dubos R, Health and Disease,1966 p.14). In other words the most significant factor in the control of infectious diseases is sanitation, hygiene, nutrition and other environmental and lifestyle changes.
In 2001 Professor Fiona Stanley, Director of the Telethon Institute for Children’s Health Research until 2012, stated:
“Infectious deaths fell before widespread vaccination was implemented” (ABS 2001, Child Health Since Federation, p.11). This comment and many others by prominent public health officials about the decline of infectious diseases in Australia are listed here Comments by prominent public health authorities.
Comments by Australia’s Commonwealth director of Health, JHL Cumpston (1914 – 1945), and Australia’s Nobel Laureate for Immunology (1960), MacFarlane Burnett, clearly stated that public health reforms such as sanitation, hygiene, nutrition and smaller family sizes from 1850 -1950 were the most important factors in reducing the deaths and illness due to infectious diseases. Therefore the government is incorrect to suggest that high participation rates in all vaccination programs are necessary to prevent deaths and illnesses from returning as a public health problem.
Natural herd immunity is achieved by communities through natural exposure to the infectious agents over time and in many cases through sub-clinical (infections without symptoms) or mild infections. This is why infectious diseases are less virulent in developed countries once environmental and nutritional factors have been improved. There are many reasons why herd immunity created by vaccination may not be possible and is unproven.
Proof that herd immunity has been created by a vaccine could be provided by governments by publishing the vaccination status of each case of disease that is hospitalised. Yet this information is never clearly presented to the public as evidence for the efficacy of vaccines. Whooping cough vaccine was not introduced into mass vaccination programs in Australia until after 1953 and these programs were voluntary. Yet the disease was not considered a significant risk to children after 1950 and here are the comments from prominent public health officials that support this statement:
‘As causes of infant mortality in Australia all the infective disease have been overcome’ (Lancaster 1956a p.104). Lancaster also noted from 1946 -1954: ‘Whooping cough (pertussis) was an uncommon cause of death for children and there is a significant decline in mortality if the age of infection increases’ (1956a p.104) and ‘Mortality rates due to whooping cough (pertussis) are used as an index of hygiene or social well-being’ (Lancaster 1956b p.893). The same decline was observed in the UK and the USA [2, 3]. The graphs demonstrating the decline of disease can be found here.
For further reading on this and to see the graphs showing the decline of infectious diseases in Australia please visit the website ‘A Parent’s Dilemma’ www.vaccinationdilemma.com You can download the book ‘Fooling Ourselves on the Fundamental Value of Vaccines’ by Greg Beattie.[/pane]
Coercive measures in Government Vaccination Policies
The Australian infant mortality rate (death rate) was low before coercive measures were used in government policies. Prior to the Immunise Australia Program (IAP) in 1993 the infant (under 1 year) mortality rate was very low at 8.2 per 1,000 births [4]. This was achieved without the use of coercive measures in government policies and before many new vaccines were added to the schedule in the 1990’s.
Whilst four vaccines were used in long standing mass immunisation campaigns from the 1960′ – 70’s onwards there were no coercive measures in immunisation policies until the early nineties [5]. In 1993 the government introduced payments to GP’s to provide free vaccines to children and linked parental welfare payments to the national immunisation program (NIP).
This significantly increased the vaccination rates of the population in the nineties and chronic illness in children also skyrocketed 5-fold during this decade. The number of free vaccines on the childhood schedule increased during this time and many of the vaccines contained Thimerosal (a compound containing 49% mercury).
Prior to 1993 the government recommended the use of vaccines against 9 diseases but by 2016 the government was recommending vaccines against 15 diseases. In other words, as the threat from infectious diseases declined in Australia the number of vaccines recommended to the public in government policies increased.
The government’s explanation for adding new vaccines to the recommended schedule was to see if these diseases could be eradicated – death and illness to these diseases had already been significantly reduced in developed countries.
The government’s description of the national immunisation program (NIP) on the Immunise Australia Program (IAP) website misuses the terms ‘immunisation’ and ‘vaccination’ and this results in misinforming the public about the benefits of vaccines. The government explains its use of these terms by claiming “the term ‘immunisation is used on this website as it is commonly used in the community” but this misleads the public about the benefits of vaccines.
‘Immunisation’ is not ‘vaccination’ and the two terms cannot be used interchangeably. ‘Receiving a vaccine (vaccination) does does not always result in immunity (immunisation) and it is known that some vaccinated individuals still get the diseases they are vaccinated against. By framing the government policy around the term ‘immunisation’ the government has implied greater benefit from vaccines than the evidence suggests. Here is a description of the policy illustrating why the correct definitions of these words needs to be used to inform the public about the use of vaccines Terminology of the Australian government’s policy : ‘vaccination’, ‘immunisation’ and ‘vaccine-preventable diseases’. [/pane]
Vaccines and Autism
Long-term controlled clinical trials of the combined immunisation schedule using an inert placebo have never been done in animals or children
There are no controlled clinical trials that have investigated the long-term health effects (5 – 10 years) of combining 12 + vaccines in infants or adults [5]. These trials are needed to prove or disprove the link between the combined vaccination schedule and the increasing chronic illness and autism in children. Trials are needed that compare vaccinated animals with unvaccinated animals to determine the causal relationships (and frequency) of adverse health events that are linked to the combined schedule of 12 + vaccines in infants. It is unethical to recommend this schedule of vaccines in humans until these trials have been carried out. These studies are essential for proving or disproving a causal link between vaccines and autism.
Currently government scientists are using selective studies to make the claim that vaccines do not cause autism. However, it is noted that the majority of these studies have been funded by industry and the parameters and design of these studies have been chosen by industry funded researchers. The outcomes of these epidemiological studies are dependent upon the design of the study. Here is a short referenced article that summarises the information governments are using to de-bunk the claim by the Institute of Medicine (2001) that vaccines are a plausible cause of autism.
Vaccines are a Plausible Cause of Autism
Small studies of the combined schedule of vaccines that have been done in animals have indicated a link between vaccines and neurological damage, chronic illness, autism and cancer [6, 7, 8]. The chronic illness that has increased in children with the increased use of vaccines includes autoimmune diseases (including arthritis and diabetes), life-threatening food allergies, autism, asthma, learning and behavioural difficulties and cancer [9].
In 2011, a review into the cause of autism was carried out by Helen Ratajczak. This review is titled ‘Theoretical aspects of autism: Causes – A review’ and it was published in the Journal of Immunotoxicology. This paper examines many published, peer-reviewed articles demonstrating that vaccines are a plausible cause of autism. Ratajczak states that ‘Documented causes of autism include genetic mutations and/or deletions, viral infections, and encephalitis (brain damage) following vaccination. Therefore, autism is the result of genetic defects and/or inflammation of the brain’. This suggests that epigenetics (the influence of toxins in vaccines on the expression of genes) could play a role the development of autism after vaccination or the inflammation of the brain due to the vaccine ingredients.
The current medical opinion is that vaccines are scientifically linked to encephalopathy (brain damage) and this has been known since the 1980’s-90’s (IOM 2001 in FDA Thimerosal in Vaccines). When thimerosal was being phased out of vaccines in 2000, manufacturers were introducing human DNA into vaccines. Human feotal DNA was introduced into the second version of the MMR vaccine (MMR II) and into 22 other vaccines including the chicken pox vaccine introduced in 1995 (Ratajczak 2011).
There is plenty of scientific evidence suggesting vaccines are a plausible causal of autism and this is confirmed by the United States Government and Dr. Geberding, Director of Vaccines at Merck & Co, Inc, who say that autistic conditions can result from encephalopathy following vaccination. Here is a list of many published peer-reviewed scientific articles that support the link between vaccines and autism.
Here is a link to further scientific evidence from Dr. Brian Hooker PhD, linking vaccines as a plausible cause of autism. This includes the video titled ‘Vaccines cause more autism than the CDC will admit.’ (18 mins). The suggestion that the link between autism and vaccines is debunked is false not only because the correct studies have not been done but because the surveillance for adverse reactions is inadequate for determining cause and effect after vaccination.
It is also known that some of the studies being used to make the claim that ‘vaccines do not cause autism’ are fraudulent. In 2003 the Hon. Dan Burton gave evidence in the US Congressional Hearing into the ‘Mercury in Medicine Report’ and it is recorded that “studies conducted or funded by the CDC that purportedly dispute any correlation between autism and vaccine injury have been of poor design, under-powered, and fatally flawed”. Here is a link to the testimonials that have been given in the US Congressional Hearing on autism in November 2012.
Here is an article by Dr. Mark Allan Sircus, Ac., OMD, DM, (P) that indicates all of the science is not being used in determining the causes of Autism. It describes the environmental and genetic links and the effects of vaccines on human development. Autism is now 1 in 88 in the USA and approximately 1 in 100 in Australia and the UK. As the number of vaccines in the schedule has increased so has the rate of autism.
New research continues to identify additional concerns about mercury, aluminium adjuvant, antibiotics and other preservatives in vaccines and the combination of 7 + vaccines that are given to infants before the development of the blood brain barrier and the excretory systems. These systems are necessary to protect the brain and remove toxins from the body.
Here is the story of Dr. Andrew Wakefield and the way the authorities acted when he suggested that further research was required to determine if the MMR vaccine was implicated in the cause of autism Dr. Wakefield Film ‘Hear the Silence’ Resurfaces After 10 Years [/pane]
Science that has not been funded by Governments or Research Institutions
The government and private research institutions have not funded any studies that have investigated the long-term health effects of the combined schedule of vaccines in animals or infants – using an inert placebo. They have not designed studies to establish if vaccines are the cause of the significant increase in chronic illness and autism that is being observed in this generation of children.
The precautionary principle has not been used in the design of public health policies in a way that will protect public health.
This prinicple requires that the onus of proof of harmlessness for an intervention or technology is placed on the proponent of the intervention not the general public. But the Australian government has placed the onus of proof of harmlessness of the vaccination schedule on the public – not the medical practitioners or the pharmaceutical companies.This ensures that the government is protecting the vested interests of industry lobby groups in its vaccination policies. That is, pharmaceutical profits.
The adverse health effects that are linked to the components of vaccines in the medical literature include neurological damage and immunological damage similar to many conditions that are being observed in children. A link to the ingredients in Australian vaccines can be found here and this demonstrates that vaccines are a plausible cause of these diseases.
Even though the use of 11 vaccines (in infants under one year of age) contains many environmental toxins there are no studies that investigate vaccines as a possible cause of the increase in chronic illness in children. I have listed below the well funded studies that have not investigated vaccines as a cause of chronic illness in children:
a). In 2009 The Telethon Institute for Child Health Research (TICHR) and researchers from the University of Western Australia and Curtain University were funded by the NHMRC to complete a 5-10 year study of children born in 1980. The aim of the study was to look at the impact of developmental disorders and mental health problems and relate them to possible environmental causes. The study involves looking at children from birth and their mothers pregnancies to see what environmental exposures affected their development. Vaccines which are a significant environmental exposure to all children were not included in this investigation.
b) The Children’s Medical Research Institute (CMRI) in Australia claims to be ‘committed to unlocking the mysteries of childhood diseases’ yet this organisation has not completed any studies that examine the effects of vaccines on the long-term health of children. It is known that environmental toxins affect gene expression yet there has been no attempt to examine the components of vaccines and their influence on the genetic expression of chronic illness in children.
c) Murdoch Children’s Research Institute (MCRI). This institute has not funded a study that examines the effects of multiple childhood vaccines on the development of children and their ability to reach their full potential in life.
d) The AusImmune study at the Australian National University (ANU) was carried out from 2003 – 2008 and examined the link between multiple sclerosis (an autoimmune disease) and environmental toxins – including 4 vaccines that may be a possible cause of this disease. Multiple Sclerosis is one of the many chronic illnesses that is increasing in adults. The conclusions to this study depend upon the chosen criteria and parameters of the study.
e) The US Department of Health and Human Services, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS), has not funded a study investigating the effects of vaccines on the development of children.[/pane]
Conflicts of Interest in Government Vaccination Policies
The public trusts that government advisory boards for public health policy are acting in the public interest. In order to make decisions that protect the public interest in this policy it is necessary for policy-decision makers to base decisions on objective or non-biased science.
Government policy is also required to be transparent and accountable. This means that conflicts of interest on government advisory boards need to be declared and publicised to the community.
However, lobby groups are framing this issue to suggest that people who discuss conflicts of interest or question the use of so many vaccines are ‘conspiracy theorists’. This is ignoring the possible influence conflicts of interest have on policy development.
In Australia conflicts of interest on government vaccine advisory boards were not publicised to the community until February 2015 – just after Terry Nolan retired as chairman of the ATAGI vaccine advisory group and deputy-chair of the NHMRC.
Australian Government Advisory Boards for Immunisation Policy
Australia’s vaccination policies are recommended to our Minister for Health by the Australian Technical Advisory Group on Immunisation (ATAGI). This group is also responsible for providing advice about research funding to research organisations and recommending the areas where additional research is needed.
In Australia, the chairman of the ATAGI committee, Professor Terry Nolan, was also the deputy chairman of the research committee for the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) from 2005 – 2015. This is the body responsible for recommending the areas for research funding.
Here are the declared Conflicts of Interest of the ATAGI Chairman, Professor Terry Nolan, the co-director of the National Centre for Immunisation Research and Surveillance (NCIRS), Professor Robert Booy, the WA Department of Health, Associate Professor Peter Richmond, Chairman of the Influenza Specialist Group (ISG), Dr. Alan Hampson, and Member of the ISG, Anne Kelso.
It is possible that many other COI exist in these boards that have not been made transparent to the public.
ATAGI Chairman Terry Nolan was the principle researcher on the pediatric swine flu trials for CSL’s Fluvax vaccine in 2009 and this vaccine was withdrawn from the market in 2010 after many children had serious adverse events to this vaccine. Associate Professor Peter Richmond was also involved in the Fluvax vaccine clinical trials in western Australian children in 2008-2010. Both Professor Nolan and Richmond were on the ATAGI advisory boards that recommended the government implement the Fluvax vaccine into the national immunisation schedule in 2009-2010.
And they were both on the team that investigated the 1000’s of severe adverse events to the Fluvax vaccine that occurred in children in 2010 and resulted in the vaccine being removed from the market.
Policy decisions should be made on non-biased information yet the representatives on the US and Australian vaccine advisory boards have many financial conflicts of interest (COI) with industry. These conflicts have the potential to bias their decisions. Many drugs and vaccines are licensed in the USA by the US Food and Drug Administrator (FDA) and then automatically approved for other countries without further clinical trials.
A prominent US public health official who is often presented in the media and in documentaries about the benefits of vaccines is Dr. Paul Offit. Paul Offit has declared many conflicts of interest in his advocacy of vaccines including being a consultant for Merck Pharmaceutical Company. Here are some of Paul Offit’s conflict’s of interest in promoting vaccines.
The government has a duty to demonstrate that the science used in policy development is based on non-biased science and that is why representatives are required to declare COI. A declaration reveals what interests there are in an issue and the public is entitled to see these interests in order to determine if all the science is being assessed in policy development. If COI and the composition of stakeholders on vaccine advisory boards are not publicised then the public cannot assess the validity of the information. The public should not be required to trust that objective science is being used in policy development: it needs to be demonstrated.
The Significance of Conflicts of Interest in Government Policy
This information is important because the public needs to know whether all the science is being included in policy development and that advisory boards are not selecting the information that suits a chosen outcome.
Ms. Bennett, ex-CEO of the Consumers Health Forum (CHF) informed me on the 7th November 2011 that disclosure of COI was an issue that the CHF was addressing and eventually in 2015 COI for vaccine board representatives were published on the government website.
This issue is about committees being transparent to the public in declaring whose interests they may be representing. Yet the declared COI of government representiatives on vaccine advisory boards are never made easily accessible to the public (over-vaccination). The Australian government states that immunisation policy is for the good of the community therefore it has a duty of care to protect the public interest in government policy and not the vested interests of industry.
Public concerns about the number of vaccines on the childhood schedule are not being acknowledged by journalists and the Australian Government. In 2013, Australia’s Health Minister, Tanya Plibersek, “rubbished fear campaigns about the risk of immunisation” instead of providing evidence for its safety by answering the questions that the public are asking. By ignoring these concerns the government is selecting the science that is being used in government policy. This doesn’t make the schedule of vaccines safe and effective. A consensus in science should not be obtained by removing one perspective from the risk analysis.
Minister Plibersek also signed a ‘vaccination pledge’ to increase community vaccination rates on a website that is associated with the Australian Skeptics organisation: a lobby group that is peddling misinformation. The Mia Freedman website, Mamamia, regularly has subscribers of the Skeptics lobby groups present pro-vaccination information on this website and they do not provide their qualifications or affiliation with this lobby group with the information they provide on this blog. The Health Minister signed the pledge designed by this website.
On 5th May 2013 Tanya Plibersek stated that “vaccines are 100 percent not linked to autism” but this has not been proven. It is not possible for the government to make this claim because the scientific evidence to prove this statement has not been collected. The vaccination schedule for children has not been trialled in animals or a study comparing vaccinated and unvaccinated children (Aust. Health Department). Until the correct scientific studies are completed that “prove” or “disprove” this link, it is not possible for any government to claim that vaccines are “100 percent not the cause of autism” or any other chronic illness that is escalating in children. An evidence-based policy should be based on evidence not “a lack of evidence” to make claims about safety.
There is clear evidence that the vaccination schedule is not safe and the US government has paid out over $2 Billion for vaccine damage claims with the most recent case being The Hannah Polling case in which $1.5 million was paid to the family after she received 9 vaccines in one day and developed autism.
News limited papers and other media are informing the public that consumer concerns about the safety and efficacy of vaccines are based on “conspiracy theories and dangerous misinformation”. Janet Albrechtsen, a columnist for the The Australian Newspaper (News Ltd), made this statement in reply to requests that these arguments be published in the mainstream media. Another journalist, Sarrah Le Maurquand demonstrated in her reply that journalists are not being encouraged to investigate this issue and think for themselves. Australian journalists and government ministers are required to represent all stakeholders in public health policy and it must be demonstrated that non-biased science has been used. Instead the mainstream media is informing the public that “there is no other side to this debate” as Caroline Marcus from the Telegraph did in April 2013 and Jonathon Holmes from Media Watch in October 2012.
The media is presenting Dr. Rachael Dunlop as a ‘pro-vaccine advocate’ without informing the public of her position as Vice-President of the Australian Skeptics. Rachael Dunlop has presented misinformation on her blog and many other subscribers of this group are using similar strategies. Therefore it is important that her position in this lobby group is openly revealed to the public when she presents information.
A book exposing the influence of industry on government policy is Vaccine Epidemic edited by the Center for Personal Rights. Globally there are many funded lobby groups who are putting out misinformation in the mainstream media and on social websites to influence public behaviour. The influence of these groups on the debate in Australia can be viewed on the Lobby group page of this website. Doctor’s responses to the information presented on this website can be viewed here. [/pane]
Adverse reactions to vaccines are monitored by passive surveillance
The government uses a voluntary system of reporting adverse reactions that does not systematically monitor the health outcomes of all vaccinated individuals [5]. This means the government cannot make causal relationships between adverse reactions and vaccines (CDC) (TGA). The Australian government claims many of the reactions are just a ‘coincidence’ and it concludes: There is no evidence that vaccines cause significant harm in the population. Yet this statement is being made on a lack of scientific evidence because governments have not funded the studies that would provide conclusive evidence for the causal link between vaccines and many diseases increasing in global populations. In other words, this policy is founded on ‘undone science’ or science that has not been funded to provide empirical evidence to support the policy.
Conclusion:
The majority of the decline in infectious diseases occurred before most vaccines were used in mass vaccination campaigns therefore herd immunity due to vaccines is not responsible for the decline of these diseases. The theory of herd immunity created by vaccines is not a reason for governments to link vaccination policies to welfare benefits, schools or employment opportunities. For further information on the influence of industry on the direction and outcomes of medical research and conflicts of interest in government policy please visit the website over-vaccination. [/pane]
[pane title=”References”]
1. Commonwealth Department of Health, 1945 – 1986, Official Yearbook of the Commonwealth of Australia, No. 37 – 7
2. Stewart GT, 1977, Vaccination against Whooping Cough: Efficacy v Risks, The Lancet, January 29, p. 234-237
3. Armstrong GL et al, 1999, Trends in Infectious disease Mortality in the United States during the 20th Century, JAMA, Vol 281 No. 1, Jan 6
4. Australian Government Bureau of Statistics (ABS), Child Health Since Federation, Year Book Australia 1301.0, 2001
5. Australian Government Department of Health and Ageing, Immunise Australia Program, 2004
6. La Rosa, W.R., 2002, The Hayward Foundation Study on Vaccines; a possible etiology of autoimmune diseases.
7. Shoenfeld Y and Agmon-Levin N, 2011, ASIA – Autoimmunity/inflammatory syndrome induced by adjuvant, Journal of Autoimmunity, 36 p. 4-8
8. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Vaccines, Blood and Biologics. Thimerosal in Vaccines. US Department of Health and Human Services. http://www.fda.gov/BiologicsBloodVaccines/SafetyAvailability/VaccineSafety/UCM096228
9. Australian Government, Bureau of Statistics (ABS), 4829.0.55.001 Health of Children in Australia: A Snapshot 2004-5. [/pane]
