The control of infectious diseases has always been a public health issue and not a medical issue because these diseases were controlled by public health reforms. That is, changes to the environment and lifestyle resulting from political and economic decisions that occurred by 1950/60 in all developed countries.
However, by the mid-1990’s this area of health was being promoted as a ‘medical‘ issue in Australia and other countries. This is because of the power of the pharmaceutical companies and the desire by the medical/industry complex to use an increasing number of vaccines in the community. The public are now informed that they must only get their information about infectious diseases from doctors or the health department even though vaccines were not the main factor in their control by the 1950/60’s.
These global health policies were being recommended by an alliance of vaccine manufacturers, doners and research institutes (the Children’s Vaccine Initiative (CVI) that later became the GAVI alliance) and promoted to countries through the World Health Organisation (WHO) in the 1990’s. This led to the adoption of many more vaccines in the national programs of all countries regardless of the variation in the risk of these diseases in different countries.
Whilst the WHO has a charter to provide objective scientific information with community input the GAVI alliance does not. This alliance includes the Federation of Pharmaceutical companies and many other organisations that profit from vaccines but the public is not informed of this conflict of interest in the design of global health policies that are recommended by the WHO.
In Australia the public information on vaccination policy became easier to control through a corporate-sponsored media, with funding from the pharmaceutical companies, when the Australian government relaxed the media regulations to allow ownership to be concentrated (~80%) into the hands of one media mogul – Murdoch’s News Ltd.
It is also possible to control the information on the risks and benefits of vaccines because the regulator for all Australian health professionals – the Australian Health Practitioner Regulatory Authority (AHPRA) prevents any doctor or nurse from discussing the risks of vaccines that are not presented to them in their medical education.
This medical education is funded by big pharma. These ‘risks’ that doctors see that are not described in their medical education are deemed by AHPRA to be ‘not part of the accepted science on vaccines’ even though they are described in the peer-reviewed medical literature and listed on the package inserts for all vaccines.
AHPRA dismisses this science as ‘anti-vaccination material’ and doctors and health professionals are immediately deregistered if they present this peer-reviewed science to their patients or on social media. This has removed the autonomy of doctors/nurses in assessing the benefits and risks of vaccines for themselves and it has created a medical tyranny whereby AHPRA is the only group that decides what is the ‘accepted scientific evidence’ for vaccinaton.
AHPRA now controls the scientific evidence on vaccination instead of the entire scientific community of evidence-based practitioners. AHPRA is providing an opinion of the evidence for vaccines on behalf of thousands of health professionals in Australia.
Further, in Australia any unqualified person can complain to AHPRA or the NSW HCCC about a health professional or an academic who presents information that AHPRA considers to be ‘anti-vaccination material’ and these health professionals will be de-registered or academics will be discredited.
This regulatory system has allowed Dick Smith’s Australian Skeptics/SAVN/Friends of Science lobby groups to ‘astroturf’. That is, to describe themselves as a grassroots organisation concerned about public health and to report health professionals or academics that provide the medical literature that goes against their corporate agenda.
Here is a letter that I received from an employee of the Fiona Stanley Hospital (23 May 2019) showing the fear that employees have for their jobs if they present the risks of vaccines that they are observing in the hospital. This email was titled ‘Fiona Stanley Cover-Up’ and it was describing the increase in severe adverse reactions to the flu vaccine, including severe anaphylactic reaction that is listed as a side-effect on the package inserts, that have resulted in the hospital changing its policy.
Instead of this change in policy being publicised to the community to show the risk to human health from the flu vaccine, the Australian newspapers carried front page stories in big headlines scaring people into getting their flu vaccine.
During the last two decades there are two vaccine myths that the government NCIRS/Health department and the Skeptic/SAVN lobby groups have promoted through the media. These myths have resulted in the Australian government adopting mandatory and coercive vaccination policies for 12+ vaccines in 2016 without a legitimate public health purpose. These policies are discriminatory and they have removed the fundamental right to informed consent to all medications. That is, our right to bodily integrity.
These two vaccine myths are that:
- Vaccines created herd immunity that controlled infectious diseases in Australia and
- Vaccines are safe: the government claims that ‘adverse events to vaccines are rare.‘
There is no evidence to support either of these claims and they have both been refuted with evidence in my PhD thesis: a thesis that investigated the control of infectious diseases in Australia from 1900 – 2015.
These two claims are false because:
- The significant decline in risk from infectious diseases (99%) occurred by 1950 in Australia due to public health reforms and most of the mandated vaccines were not developed at this time. This is not a medical issue.
- The government has not funded a causality study using an inert placebo that can prove that combining 16 vaccines in the infant body is safe. Prior to 2016 there was no active surveillance system to determine long-term effects of vaccines and these effects are still undetermined. This is called undone science in government vaccination policy and the Australian government is making claims of safety and efficacy without this scientific evidence.
The government does not know the exact number and types of adverse events occurring to vaccines because it has not carried out this research. But we do know that 158 serious adverse events are associated with vaccines and are listed on all the package inserts by the pharmaceutical companies and that children’s health has declined significantly with the expansion of the vaccination program.
Further, the donations and lobbying system in Australia shows that the pharmaceutical companies donate millions to both political parties every year that the public is not informed about. This system also allows lobbyists, many of whom are previous ministerial or political advisors, to have easy access to politicans and to influence public policy with industry information.
This would explain why Peter McIntyre has participated in the following activities, including an incidence where a federal crime was committed, that have suppressed the scientific debate on vaccination in Australia:
- Providing false information to the media about my PhD research
- Refusing to publicly debate my research at a Q and A Panel discussion at the University of Technology Sydney (15 October 2015). This debate was organised to discuss the proposed No Jab No Pay policies that were implemented in Australia in January 2016.
- Peter McIntyre has publicised ~60 academics at the University of Wollongong who were required to sign their names to the government’s claims that vaccines are safe and effective on a statement published on the University of Wollongong website. This occurred in January 2016 one week after my PhD thesis was published on the university website and it occurred even though these academics have never researched the science in the government’s vaccination policies or debated my in-depth PhD research on this topic. This is deceiving the public about the validity of the government’s claims about vaccine safety and efficacy.
- In 2016 Peter McIntyre declined to permit his PhD thesis on the HIB vaccine completed in 1994 to be published in Open Repository on the University of Sydney website – as mine has been on the University of Wollongong website. This limits the ability of the scientific community to scrutinise the academic rigour of his PhD. In contrast mine has received global scrutiny since it was published and the UOW is standing by this research.
- Peter McIntyre was involved in a court case in September 2018 in which the government’s team of lawyers leaked my affidavit to the Sydney Morning Herald and he is quoted in this SMH article making false claims about my qualifications and my PhD research. The leaking of my affidavit is currently being investigated by the Australian Federal Police as it is a federal crime to leak an expert witness report to the media when it is still before the courts and it is punishable with up to one year in jail.
These actions and strategies used by Peter McIntyre and the industry-associated lobby groups including the Australian Medical Association (AMA) and the Public Health Association of Australia (PHAA) have resulted in the Australian public receiving false and misleading information on vaccines through the State and Federal Health Departments and in the Australian mainstream media.
Recently, January 2019, Peter McIntyre, former Australian government director/deputy director and vaccine advisor of 20 years for the National Centre for Immunisation Research and Surveillance (NCIRS) was involved in writing an article with Julie Leask, Margaret Burgess and Kerrie Wiley that critiqued my PhD thesis by providing false and misleading information. This article was written three years after my PhD thesis was published by the University of Wollongong and it contains significant flaws and false claims.
These authors, particularly Peter McIntyre and Margaret Burgess, have a significant conflict of interest in writing this critique because they are defending their own recommendations in government vaccination policies for the last 22 years. Margaret Burgess was the founding director of the NCIRS in 1997 and Peter McIntyre took over from 2005 – 2018. The other two authors, Leask and Wiley, have done research that has been used by the NCIRS for government policies and position statements.
In their critique, Julie Leask and Peter McIntyre, admit that neither of them have read my entire PhD thesis. This would explain why my arguments and the evidence that I have provided has been misrepresented in the critique.
I am also concerned that these government representatives that profess to be interested in a debate on ‘children’s health’ have refused to publicly debate my research and have written a strongly critical article without being interested enough to read the entire thesis.
Here is a link to my response to the McIntyre, Leask, Burgess and Wiley critque exposing the flaws in their critique and the false information they have provided – ‘Judy Wilyman’s response to the Wiley, McIntyre, Leask, Burgess, Article in the Vaccine Journal 2019