Cervical Cancer Jab Researcher Warns of Risks

August 31st, 2010

Cervical cancer jab researcher warns of risks | Irish Examiner

THE leading researcher in the development of the cervical cancer vaccine, Gardasil, has called it a “public health experiment” and has warned that parents must be made aware of the serious adverse events associated with its use.

Read more: http://www.examiner.ie/ireland/cervical-cancer-jab-researcher-warns-of-risks-129272.html#ixzz0y7zybVuj


However, concerns are mounting with in excess of 18,000 adverse reactions recorded in the US, including 75 deaths. Adverse reactions have also been recorded in New Zealand, Canada and Australia”

In Australia, there was a 1662.5% increase in adverse reactions in the first 12 months after Gardasil was introduced here. 17 women and girls a week were reporting serious reactions in Australia but since then, the government has suppressed information on the actual reactions that are occurring.

In the US only about 1% of serious adverse reactions are reported to the Federally-run VAERS (Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System) database. This means that the actual figure could be far closer to 7,500 deaths and 1.8 million serious adverse reactions.

For more information, please view stories at the following links:
Gardasil causes 400 percent more detahs than other common vaccines

Part 7 – Gardasil and the Harper

A License to Kill? Part 1: How A Public-Private Partnership Made the Government Merck’s Gardasil Partner – AGE OF AUTISM

The following 2 websites are excellent resources for further information on the risks of both Gardasil and Cervarix vaccines

SANE Vax, Inc.

Truth about Gardasil

Vaccine Zombie – Gotta love Mike Adams!

August 29th, 2010

Vaccine Zombie by Michael Adams – NaturalNews.com

This text will be replaced by the player

Vaccination Network Attacked Unfairly

August 28th, 2010

Thank you to Fairfax media and the Southern Highland News who had the courage to print my letter to the editor. If you are able to make a comment on this page in support of freedom of choice and freedom of communication, please do so at the bottom of the letter at the link below:

Vaccination network ‘attacked’ unfairly – Opinion – Letters to the Editor – General – Southern Highland News

THE Australian Vaccination Network has been vilified in the media in recent weeks.

While it is the media’s job to expose wrongdoing when it has been found, it is not their job to act as judge, jury and executioner. Newspapers and radio stations have been reporting ridiculous lies stating that the AVN believes in reptilian aliens and mind-control chips.

They got this misinformation from Ken McLeod, an active member of a group that has set out to either shut our small, volunteer-run organisation down or shut us up in any way they can. That is their agenda. What is the media’s excuse?

And while this beat-up has been taking place, 136 of 139 pharmaceutical and vaccine manufacturing facilities in Australia have failed their TGA audits – yet this hasn’t merited so much as a mention in the press. It seems that drug companies have a privileged position in our society while vaccine safety watchdogs are shut down quicker than you can say “Pan Pharmaceuticals!”

The AVN was formed in 1994 due to a lack of information in the community on the downsides of vaccination. We were started by a group of parents whose children had reacted to this medical procedure and the health practitioners who had helped us.

Daily, we provide support and information to parents in Australia and overseas who are seeking medically based, fully-referenced data on vaccines. Daily, we help parents report to the Australian Government (because their doctors have refused to do so) their children’s serious and sometimes fatal reactions .

Vaccines are not compulsory. It was previously not illegal to criticise vaccines.

The AVN are vaccine whistleblowers and, like all organisations that are perceived to threaten an entrenched status quo, we are now being victimised by a group that openly states their object is to stop us in any way they can.

That this organisation has used these tactics is shameful and should be taken seriously by the authorities.

That the media and government bodies such as the HCCC have co-operated with them – even sending people who request more information about the current “investigations” to their website – is criminal.

It is time the Australian people learnt the truth about the co-ordinated attacks on the Australian Vaccination Network by those who want, above all, to stop anyone questioning the safety or effectiveness of vaccines.

I invite everyone who is interested in knowing more about the facts behind these attacks to read the documents that can be found at http://scr.bi/cpfdTe and on our website, www.avn.org.au

MERYL DOREY

Australian Vaccination Network

BANGALOW

Swine flu vaccine ‘narcolepsy link’

August 28th, 2010

Swine flu vaccine ‘narcolepsy link’ – Yahoo! News UK

As we found in Australia with the Stokes Report, there are two forces at play here:

1- The premature release of vaccinations in a panic which were never properly tested on the age groups which they were targeting.
2- The lack of reporting of reactions when they occur – leading to a larger than necessary number of people being injured because most reactions are simply not reported.

It is important for us to learn from these mistakes and not continue to make them over and over and over again.

It is also important to realise that when someone reacts to a vaccine, there may not be a specific test to prove that it was the vaccine that caused the reaction. When the Epaparas in Brisbane lost their little girl 12 hours after receiving a flu vaccine, the coroner stated that he could not show any evidence that it was the vaccine that caused her death. But her twin sister who received the vaccine also had a serious reaction though thankfully, she survived. There is a time when we have to say that the laboratory may not give us the answers we require but our eyes, our brains and our intelligence should suffice. This is not a matter of post hoc ergo propter hoc (after this, therefore because of this) as many might say. But if you are seeing the same reaction repeated over and over again after the administration of any drug or vaccine, then it is a pretty safe bet to say that the drug or vaccine is implicated.

Further, if these reactions are occurring but are not being reported, it increases the chance that there is a logical fallacy in action here – because we don’t know how many of these adverse events are occurring, we downplay the actual risk of the intervention taking place and continue to put people in harm’s way when full reporting and unbiased examination of events would lead to a more efficient duty of care being exercised in these cases.

The UK’s medicines regulator is examining a possible link between a swine flu vaccine given to millions of Britons and the sleeping disorder narcolepsy. Skip related content

The Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) said it is “evaluating” case reports in Europe of patients developing narcolepsy after taking the drug Pandemrix.

Made by GlaxoSmithKline, the vaccine was the most widely used in the UK at the height of last year’s flu pandemic.

On Friday, the European Medicines Agency said it was looking into Pandemrix after a number of cases of narcolepsy were reported, mostly in Sweden and Finland.

Is Swine flu vaccine causing narcolepsy?

Epidemic of measles or good excuse to push vaccines?

August 27th, 2010

I was interviewed for this weekend’s edition of the Tweed Daily News regarding an ‘epidemic’ of measles in a High School in Tweed Heads. One of the things I asked the reporter to find out (because of course, it hasn’t been reported anywhere) is how many of the 8 confirmed cases of measles had received the measles vaccine. Below is the response from Mr Corben (the same Mr Corben from the Health Department who contacted the parents of the 4 week old child who died of whooping cough last year to tell them that I had requested information on their daughter’s diagnosis…) to that question. According to Mr Corben, “The overwhelming majority of them had not been vaccinated.” There’s a scientific answer for you! Out of 8 cases, the overwhelming majority were not vaccinated. What is that Mr Corben? 7 out of 8, 6 out of 8? If you know the number, why don’t you release it? And if you don’t release the number, are people to assume that means you really don’t know? Either they are vaccinated or not. Either you know or you don’t. It is time to get some straight answers to straight questions. Especially when the unvaccinated are being blamed for this outbreak.

There is a vaccine poll on this page so please be sure to vote.

Below is the quote from the Journalist at the Tweed Daily News who interviewed me – this was in response to my request that he find out whether or not the 8 cases were vaccinated or unvaccinated:

Hi Meryl.

I put the question to Mr Corben about how many of the eight confirmed cases of measles in the latest outbreak were vaccinated.

“The overwhelming majority of them had not been vaccinated,” Paul Corben.

Of course, despite a long interview, the reporter did not use any of the information I had given him in his 3 articles on this subject. To give him some credit, it was probably the sub-editor who deleted any reference to my interview or the AVN. At least they did include the information I had given them on the fact that vaccination is not compulsory and parents won’t miss out on any government entitlements if the choose not to vaccinate. Below are the articles. I will highlight some of the important points. If you would like to respond to this newspaper on their reporting, the editor’s email is:

Growing fear of measles epidemic

James Perkins | 28th August 2010

HEALTH authorities are adamant immunisation is the best way to combat disease, but are battling low childhood vaccination rates across the Far North Coast.

NSW Health targets a minimum 90 per cent of vaccinated kids to create a “herd immunity” to disease in the community.

The Tweed Shire has a 89.1 measles, mumps, rubella vaccination rate for children aged 24 to 27 months, but that figure drops off to 83.3 per cent who return for the follow-up shot at five years of age.

Parents can become conscientious objectors against vaccination and not lose government benefits usually reserved for those who do.

While vaccination statistics are only available at shire level, Paul Corben, the North Coast Area director of Public Health said Tweed Valley had a high conscientious objector rate.

“Certainly in the area around Murwillumbah, we do see conscientious objector rates of about 25 per cent and that is extraordinarily high,” Mr Corben said. (Murwillumbah is about 20 kms from Tweed Heads. If the objector rate is so low in Murwillumbah – why are we seeing the outbreak in Tweed Heads? What point is Mr Corben trying to make here?)

Doctor Graeme Burger, spokesman for the Tweed Valley General Practice Network said some parents didn’t want their children vaccinated “for all sorts of strange reasons” and acknowledged it was their decision. However he is an advocate of the practice.

“Vaccination is one of the major advances in medicine and is a way of preventing diseases that is simple, easy and without complication,” he said.

There had been a few concerns raised with vaccination in the past few decades, including fears it could lead to autism, but Dr Burger said they had been totally debunked.

Dr Burger urged people to vaccinate their children and continue with the recommended vaccination schedule.

“Vaccination is the single most effective thing we can do to prevent major, catastrophic and killer diseases.”

In the case of measles, a person vaccinated as a child was considered vaccinated for life. (why are we now seeing vaccinated adults being pushed to take boosters for measles then? And where is the information that those who are getting a measles vaccine are actually getting mumps and rubella vaccination as well?)

Measles spreads to eight in Tweed

James Perkins | 28th August 2010

Protected: Public Health nurse Sue Devlin vaccinates Kara Garchevic yesterday.

EIGHT students have contracted measles in a Tweed Heads outbreak and health authorities are expecting more victims.

A student recently brought the disease back from an overseas holiday and subsequent cases have been confined to the student’s siblings and fellow school students.

But there are fears more people will soon come down with the highly infectious preventable disease, and health authorities have renewed their call for parents to have their children vaccinated.

The Far North Coast has some of the lowest vaccination rates in Australia, and North Coast Area Health Service director of public health Paul Corben said there had been multiple opportunities for people outside Tweed River High School to have been exposed to the outbreak.

Mr Corben said the overwhelming majority of the eight people already infected were unvaccinated.

“Measles can be a serious condition which can be trivialised by some anti-vaccination groups, but one-third of people who get the disease suffer complications including ear infections, pneumonia and diarrhoea,” Mr Corben said. (first of all, ear infections and diarrhoea are NOT considered to be serious complications. Secondly, the figures used here come from a CDC publication called the Pink Book and in that publication, there are NO references to this information whatsoever. So our Health Department is referencing a CDC publication which references nothing. In other words – they are saying whatever the heck they like – may as well say that measles kills everyone who gets it and the vaccine is absolutely harmless – there is as much evidence of those statements as there is of the one-third complication rate)

He said 10 to 15 per cent of cases could result in inflammation of the brain. (Could result. Where is the reference, Mr Corben? I can easily say that 10 to 15% of Public Health Officials misquote and make up statistics…but unless I actually have a reference for that, it would just be an assertion on my part. Without Mr Corben’s reference, this is just an assertion on his part.)

Doctor Graeme Burger, spokesman for the Tweed Valley General Practice Network, said vaccination was the single-most-effective measure to prevent major, catastrophic and killer diseases.

And the last article in the trilogy. Whilst I have great sympathy for any parent who has lost a child to a disease – the fact is that those families whose children have died of vaccine reactions are ignored, vilified and treated like dirt in many cases. It is time for both sides to be heard.

Mum speaks out about measles death

James Perkins | 28th August 2010

Protect your kids: Immunisation advocate Cecily Johnson with a picture of her daughter, Laine, who died of measles complications 15-years ago.

Blainey Woodham
IT was 15 years ago this week that Cecily Johnson lost her daughter Laine to a terrible, degenerative disease she suffered because of a measles infection.

Laine died of subacute sclerosing panencephalitis, or SSPE , a disease that left her blind within two weeks of diagnosis at seven years old, mute not long after and bedridden by her death, aged 12.

Ms Johnson has understandably become a passionate advocate of vaccination because of the ordeal. The Pottsville woman said she usually tried not to mark the anniversary of her child’s death, but rather remembers her birthdays as a more positive anniversary.

But it was hard not to remember it this week after a measles outbreak in Tweed Heads that has infected at least eight people.

Laine became infected with measles at 10-and-a-half months old, too early for her 12-month measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) vaccination.

SSPE usually hits seven to 10 years after a young child has had measles. About one in 100,000 people who catch measles get the disease.

Ms Johnson was, and still is, a registered nurse who regularly administers vaccinations, which made Laine’s infection with measles and subsequent death more tragic.

“I am big time for it (vaccination),” Ms Johnson said. “SSPE is a terrible disease, every time I hear of an outbreak of measles I freak out.”

Not only is there a risk of suffering SSPE, but contracting measles itself can be devastating for anyone with a compromised immune system.

Unvaccinated babies are among the hardest hit by measles. (Which is another reason to question why we vaccinate since it is KNOWN that women who are vaccinated – even if they subsequently contract measles – are less likely to be able to pass on placental antibodies to their unborn children that will protect them from measles within the first 15 to 18 months of life)

Ms Johnson goes to anti-immunisation meetings to ask questions, then shows the audience pictures of her daughter, even ones of her body in a coffin on the day of her funeral.

“I went to one two days after my daughter’s funeral,” she recalled.

A chiropractor told the audience no child had died as a result of measles. “I pulled out photos of her in the coffin and told them it was my own daughter.

“They say there could be a reaction to vaccination … but look at it, look at the odds, a lot more kids died of measles itself, or later of SSPE than suffer a side effect from a vaccination. (when most of those who die or react as a consequence of vaccinations are denied – how can she say that more kids die of measles and SSPE than from the vaccines? This is just a guess)

“All of you who don’t want to vaccinate … I get so upset, because you are putting all the little bubs at risk,” she said.

Reactions to vaccination – are they really rare?

August 26th, 2010

We are often told that vaccine reactions are incredibly rare – with only 1 in a million suffering any ill effects after their shots. I thought that I might share with you all the letter and two phone calls I received today regarding vaccine reactions. Perhaps the only thing ‘rare’ about reactions is having them either admitted to or reported by the medical community?

Dear Meryl,

Many years ago, my daughter contracted measles following her MMR vaccination. This was followed by meningitis / encephalitis, causing certain brain scarring.

Later in life, she had a baby and when the baby’s immunisation was due, I became concerned and contacted the Infectious Diseases Department at the Royal Children’s Hospital where I was told that this was an “at risk” baby because of her mother’s complications and would require special attention. But the local doctor here assured my daughter she would be fine.

It was then I heard of the AVN and phoned to tell them of my concerns. They were very helpful and suggested that I take note of all batch numbers, lot numbers and expiry dates of everything injected into this baby.

We purchased Infanrix (the purer form of the vaccine) and the baby was vaccinated in hospital.

Within weeks, the baby suffered many convulsions, spent time in hospital and became vaccine damaged.

It took 18 months to have her registered with the health department as suffering adverse events following immunisation – and this would never have been accomplished without being able to present them with all the information that Meryl and the AVN suggested that I obtain.

It’s been an ongoing and continuing battle with speech therapy, learning disability, paediatricians etc, but she is 12 years old now and really trying hard to learn.

Two more children born later have not been vaccinated and are perfectly well and healthy.

Thank you to you Meryl and the AVN for your continuing support. May others benefit from your knowledge and courage.

JH

Shortly after opening the mail this morning to find this letter, I received a phone call from a woman who has had a serious reaction to the seasonal flu vaccine. This woman who is in her 50s and has been incredibly fit, playing basketball 3 times a week as well as other sports and working full time. She got the seasonal flu vaccine in mid-April of this year at work.

She began to experience strange symptoms and a week after getting the shot, whilst at a friend’s christening, her sister and sister-in-law both asked why it was she was squinting. She answered that she didn’t know – she just felt that she couldn’t keep her eyes open properly. She was also continually blinking.

Within days, she was unable to drive her car at night because her eyes were so sensitive to light, she was blinded behind the wheel when another car approached.

Stranger still, being on the computer at work affected her ability to speak. If she would look at the monitor, her jaw began to spasm and she was unable to speak. The same thing happened when she watched TV and when she had to speak to people. If she kept her eyes closed, she was able to speak properly, but as soon as she opened her eyes, the spasming and problems talking would start (she had her eyes closed whilst speaking with me).

Her work had to let her go and right now, they are fighting to keep her off of workers’ compensation.

She called the company that had administered the vaccine and went through all her symptoms with them. After spending a long time with them on the phone, she asked the person on the other end what the next step was. Oh, they said, there is no next step. She asked who they would be reporting the reaction to and they said that they would not be reporting it at all. They also told her that 99% of people who get the flu shot are not affected by it. What about the 1% who are though, she asked? There was no answer.

At this point in the conversation, I mentioned that she was constantly clearing her throat and asked if she was aware of that.

Yes, she said – that started after the shot too. She always feels as though she has a lump in her throat and her sister actually looked down her throat and says she saw a lump there.

I asked if she had been given any medication after her reaction and she said that she had seen her GP when her symptoms first started and that the doctor did no tests but diagnosed her with a sinus infection and put her on antibiotics and a nasal spray that cost her $72! She said that this did her no good.

She began to have headaches constantly starting a couple of weeks after the shot and she had to be taken to hospital in an ambulance. They told her that there was nothing wrong with her and that she should see a psychologist.

The headaches didn’t stop though so about 2 weeks ago, she was booked into hospital for an MRI. By this time, she was having a really hard time getting around – even on public transport. With great difficulty, she took a bus to the hospital and had the MRI. She took the bus home and as soon as she got off and was crossing the road to her house, she got a call from the hospital telling her to come back in because they wanted to the MRI again – only with dye this time!

A few days ago, she made an appointment to speak with her GP about the results of the MRI. The doctor could not make heads or tales of the radiologist’s report so while this woman was in the office, the doctor called to speak with the MRI operator who told her that there was a lesion at the base of this woman’s brain. The doctor asked what the next step was and the MRI operator said – nothing – that lesion appeared on the MRI that had no dye but on the next MRI, nothing was found at that location but an artefact. Neither the doctor nor this woman really understood what that meant.

This woman has an appointment to see a neurologist next month and we will be following up with her to see how she goes. We are also reporting her reaction to the government.

A couple of hours later, I received a phone call from another woman who has a 5-year old child with cerebral palsy.

This woman told me that her daughter had been walking and talking perfectly until she got her MMR vaccine at about 18 months of age. Within a few days, she started to limp and stopped talking. Slowly, she lost most of her muscle control.

She was put through a battery of tests and was diagnosed with cerebral palsy.

I told this woman that it was very rare for a child to develop cerebral palsy after birth since it was usually congenital and she said that she was aware of that. The doctor told her though that her daughter had the brain damage from birth and it just appeared after the vaccine was administered! One really has to wonder how they get away with telling these lies?

This little girl is now on botulin toxin to help her control her involuntary movements and the mother has 3 other children who she is being pressured into vaccinating though she does not want to.

I reassured her that vaccinations are not compulsory for any reason for children in Australia and that the decision to vaccinate is absolutely hers alone.

At this point, she told me that the reason why she was calling is because she wanted to get her daughter’s medical records but when she told the doctor that she would not be giving this little girl any more vaccines, the doctor refused to provide the records to her and said that the records were owned by the doctor – not the mother – so she was not entitled to them.

This woman is now looking for an ACNEM doctor who will treat her with more respect to help her take care of her family. She is also filling in an adverse reaction report form which we will report to the government.

Oh, one more thing. She said that the conscientious objection forms she filled in for her children have been lost by the ACIR so she needs to go back and get them done again. This happens all the time. So often that it is hard to imagine it is accidental.

I advised her to get the forms and to send the original AFTER making and keeping a copy. Then, when they get lost next time, she won’t need to make another appointment with the doctor and instead, she can just photocopy the form she has and send it off again. I suggest that anyone who is filling in a conscientious or medical exemption form for their children do the same.

True colours

August 17th, 2010

Today, I would like to share a few more of the abusive and threatening messages that have been sent out into cyberspace by members of Stop the AVN (SAVN).

What has shocked me – almost as much as the anger and irrationality of these posts – is the fact that so many on SAVN have spent the last few weeks, since my first blog on this subject was released, making excuses for this behaviour. I’m sorry – but there IS no excuse for this. (please see below)

Perhaps Ken, you would have been better served to have listened to your own advice (above)?

And then, shortly before I posted the images of the threats and vileness that emanate from SAVN, Ken put his foot in it yet again by sending the following post:

I do feel I need to mention that one woman in particular has chastised her fellow SAVN members because of these abusive and, to quote her, moronic postings. But she is the only one who has done this so I thank her but once again I say, the rest of them should be absolutely and thoroughly ashamed. I have also, Ken, given the Ballina Police copies of many of these screen shots and they said that over the next couple of weeks, they will be contacting the perpetrators to discuss with them the advisability of becoming involved in internet stalking and cyber-bullying.

If people disagree with what the AVN says or what I say, that is their right and they are more than welcome to debate me on these issues. What they do not have the right to do is ignore the issues and make personal attacks such as these. They do nothing to advance our knowledge or understanding of either vaccinations or each other. All they do is create a situation where fear, anger and ignorance can lead to someone – most likely not them because like most bullies, they appear to be cowards – deciding to act on their incitement and a tragedy will be the result.

I would like to ask that those who oppose the AVN stick with the science, bring the debate back into the arena of respectful disagreement and stop the personal attacks against both myself and other parents and practitioners who believe in informed choice.

The HCCC – don’t confuse them with logic #2 – Did the AVN mislead the ABC?

August 10th, 2010

In what must be a very unusual move, the HCCC has tacked a second complaint on to this original case. This complaint was submitted by Toni and David McCaffery, parents of 4-week-old Dana, who died from whooping cough in March of 2009. Even more unusually, I am unable to view the actual complaint and instead, need to try and reply based only upon what the HCCC has chosen to share with me.

It is interesting that this second complaint was received by the HCCC on the 16th of December 2009 – more than 2 months after my original response to McLeod’s complaint which was submitted on the 9th of September, 2009.

I believe that this action taken by the HCCC constitutes a denial of my right to natural justice.

In their complaint, one of the few items which the HCCC chose to share with me was an accusation that both myself and the AVN used misleading statistics to argue against pertussis (whooping cough) vaccination.

I believe this accusation was regarding a complaint that the McCaffery’s filed against me with the ABC after an interview I did with Katya Quigley, from ABC Radio. Interestingly, the McCaffery’s state that they have obtained a copy of this radio program but I have been unable to – either from the ABC itself who have told me that this information is not available nor from Media Monitors who have also told me it is not available. If anyone reading this happens to have a copy of this day’s show they are willing to send me a copy of, I would be really grateful.

Apparently, during this interview, Katya referred to the whooping cough rate in Australia in 2001 when I had specifically indicated that the time period we were discussing was 1991. Please see my original correspondence with Katya’s producer, Janine Fitzpatrick, sent on morning of this program:

From: Meryl Dorey
Date: 4 September 2009 8:49:40 AM AEST
To: fitzpatrick.janine@abc.net.au
Subject: Information on whooping cough incidence / vaccination rates

Dear Janine,

I just wanted you to have this information prior to my interview this morning because I will be referring to it in my talk. As I told Katya (not sure if I’m spelling that properly so apologies if it’s wrong), I want to keep this on a scientific level – and avoid emotional issues and personal accusations.

A summary of the following information is that in 1991, Australia had a whooping cough vaccination rate of 71.6% and 318 cases reported nationwide. Last year (2008), for the first time, our whooping cough vaccination rate was in excess of 95% – the stage at which we have been told the disease will disappear. Instead, we had 14,522 cases last year – the highest on record – and this year is already over 19,000 without any decline in vaccination.

So blaming the unvaccinated for these deaths and for the record outbreak is ignoring the fact that more people are vaccinating then ever before and we have seen an increase in incidence of 40 times sine 1991.

Thanks so much,
Meryl

The McCaffery’s filed a complaint with the ABC after this program aired. I was unable to see the actual complaint and I didn’t even know about this until my local newspaper, the Northern Star, published an article stating that a local couple, Toni and David McCaffery, had filed this complaint and the ABC had found that the information I had provided to the radio station was misleading and incorrect.

Below is the actual graph that I had provided to the ABC:

I contacted the ABC Corporate Affairs department and corresponded with Denise Musto who assured me that the finding was not against myself but against the presenter, Katya Quigley. Please read her correspondence below:

From: ABC Corporate_Affairs11 <CORPORATE_AFFAIRS11.ABC@abc.net.au>
Date: 5 February 2010 4:26:39 PM AEDT
To: “‘meryl@avn.org.au’” <meryl@avn.org.au>
Subject: RE: ABC Investigation of vaccination information

Dear Ms Dorey

I refer to your emails of 28 and 29 January to ABC presenter Katya Quigley. In line with ABC complaints procedures, your correspondence has been forwarded to Audience and Consumer Affairs.

As previously advised in a number of my emails to you, the findings of the Audience and Consumer Affairs review did not relate to your contribution to the program or to how the AVN presents statistics. Consistent with ABC complaints procedures, our review related to whether the statements about the statistics made by an ABC presenter complied with the ABC’s editorial standards for accuracy in factual content. Our finding was that the ABC presenter’s statement did not meet the standard, which requires that “Every reasonable effort must be made to ensure that factual content is accurate and in context”.

In respect to your question as to the confidentiality of our findings, please note that general summaries of all upheld complaints are publicly reported on the ABC’s website, consistent with our accountability and transparency requirements. As previously advised, this investigation is reported at:

http://www.abc.net.au/contact/upheld/s2739849.htm.

In addition, following investigation of a complaint about a broadcast or story, Audience and Consumer Affairs respond to the complainant substantively. Whilst this response is not made available publicly by the ABC, as you will no doubt appreciate, we have no control over how a complainant may choose to make such information available to other parties.

Yours comments in respect to this matter have been noted. However, as previously advised, we are satisfied that the finding of our investigation was appropriate and in keeping with the requirements of the ABC’s Code of Practice and Editorial Policies. We would ask that you cease contacting ABC staff members directly in respect to this investigation, which has been finalised. There are no options for review available to you, and we will not engage in any further correspondence on this matter. If you would like to raise concerns in respect to other matters, these are best submitted using our online form at:http://www.abc.net.au/contact/contactabc.htm.

Yours sincerely Denise Musto Audience & Consumer Affairs

Despite knowing this, the McCaffery’s continue to this day to accuse me of providing incorrect information to the ABC – a statement which they should have been informed is not correct since they were sent a copy of the ABC’s findings in this case.

Below is a review of the information I had provided to the ABC by Dr Gary Goldman, a peer-reviewer for such journals as the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), Vaccine, The American Journal of Managed Care (AJMC), Expert Review of Vaccines (ERV) and Expert Review of Dermatology (ERD). He serves on the Editorial Board of Research and Reviews in Bioscience. He has worked under contract for the Los Angeles Department of Public Health, in an epidemiological study project funded by the Centres for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC, Atlanta, GA). :

The authors of this assessment [the ABC’s assessment of the statistics presented to Katya Quigley) state, “the two statistics are drawn from different data sets and relate to different groups of children.”

First, the data sets both present percent of children fully immunized against Pertussis. The fact that both tables represent different age groups is actually appropriate in this case because in 1989-1990 (the true figure referred to in the discussion) children aged 0 to 6 years received pertussis vaccination according to a vaccination schedule that differed from that of 2008; whereby, pertussis vaccination occurred in children by the time they were 2 years old.

The tables indicate an increase in the percentage of children receiving pertussis vaccination, from 71% in 1989-1990 to 95.1% in 2008. The children’s ages are by necessity, and are appropriately, different due to vaccination schedule differences associated with each of these two different dates. Therefore, it is without basis that the authors state, “the comparative manner in which they were presented was misleading.”

Conversely, had children of the same age been represented in both tables, say children immunized at 2 years old, by 1989-1990, the percentage of children fully vaccinated for pertussis would have been negligible (approaching 0%) since the vaccination schedule had changed toward providing pertussis vaccine to children up through age six. Therefore, the comparative manner in which Meryl Dorey presented the data actually took into account the differences in the vaccination schedule and reported the relationship of the change in percentage as accurately as permitted by the table data.

Sincerely,
Gary S. Goldman,
Ph.D. Editor-in-Chief,
Medical Veritas

As you can see, I was not guilty of using misleading statistics and the McCafferys – having been provided with the final outcome by the ABC – may, in fact, be the ones using misleading information. To this day, they continue to claim on radio, in writing and on their various internet pages, that I have provided misleading information to the ABC when they should know that this is not the case – it was the ABC interviewer, Katya Quigley, who made an error on air and the ABC found against her – not against myself or my information.

The HCCC was provided with this information on two occasions and yet, they never corrected their misleading and incorrect conclusion that I had provided incorrect information to the ABC.

Tomorrow: The AVN has a website and a Facebook page that give the impression of presenting information about vaccination but does not include information that is pro-vaccination.

The HCCC – don’t confuse them with logic #1 – Health Education

August 9th, 2010

Many of our members have asked me to analyse what the HCCC findings against the AVN were all about. I have gathered together almost all of the correspondence between both Ken McLeod and the HCCC into one location on Scribd which you can access by clicking here, but since this is composed of hundreds of pages of information, I have decided to try and summarise (summarisation is NOT my strong point as many of you would know :-) ) the basic points and how it is possible that, though complete, referenced and logical answers were provided to the HCCC, they chose to ignore this information.

Please keep in mind that the entire ‘investigation’ of the AVN took place on our website and in particular, in one page of our website – the page that lists Ten Reasons Why Parents Question Vaccination. Despite the fact that our organisation publishes a magazine, a newsletter books, information packs and writes articles for other publications; despite the fact that we have provided telephone support and hands-on support to parents for 17 years; and despite the fact that we have lobbied both State and Federal governments in regards to these issues, the HCCC neither visited our office (though they were invited to several times) nor did they interview either myself or anyone else involved with our organisation before reaching their conclusions. This bears all the hallmarks of a kangaroo court of the first order.

Because of the number of points covered and the length of the information, this explanation will, of necessity, extend over several days and most likely, several weeks. I will title each section in the same way and just number them so you can go back to any that you are interested in reading again. Please feel free to forward links to these pages to friends and family who also have questions about the AVN’s stance on this issue and our refusal to abide by the demands of this organisation which, at the end of the day, has neither the jurisdiction or the power to make demands of the AVN.

Does the AVN provide a ‘health education’ service?

In order to investigate our organisation, the HCCC needed to prove they had jurisdiction over us as described by the Health Care Complaints Act which they were formed to uphold. This Act limits their jurisdiction to healthcare providers (described as those whose activities affect the care and treatment of an individual person – and obviously the AVN does not fall into this category though originally, the HCCC had tried to put us into this category.) or health educators which has a definition that clearly does not apply to the activities the AVN carries out. Two barristers and two solicitors have composed letters which were sent to the HCCC questioning their jurisdiction. They have either ignored this advice and these questions or, in their final response after making their decision, they simply stated that they disagree with our reading of the Act.

In their final request for information which we responded to in July of this year, the HCCC stated several indicators they had used to prove that the AVN is, indeed, a health educator. I hope you will agree with me that their ‘logic’ is ridiculous in the extreme and only a government body that must ‘support government policy which is pro-vaccination’ would ever use such reasoning.

The Commission examined the AVN website in detail and noted that the provision of ‘health education’ was evident in the following pages on the website:

1- A ‘news’ page, that summarises and provides links to a number of recent media stories and articles about the risks of vaccination.

My answer to this statement, that the AVN can be considered as a health education service or health educator was that:

I am perplexed at this statement. If I am reading what the HCCC has said correctly, the provision of pages on a website that summarise news articles and give links to media stories constitutes health education.

Toni and David McCaffery started a Facebook site in memory of their daughter, Dana. This page, in its discussion area, gives multiple links to news articles and media stories about the safety and effectiveness of vaccinations. Does this mean that the McCafferys are health educators as well?

Peter Bowditch from the Australian Skeptics, has several websites, one of which is dedicated exclusively to vaccination. On this site, not only does Bowditch link to many media stories and articles about vaccination, but he specifically gives medical advice to all who come to view his page. His advice is that everyone MUST vaccinate in no uncertain terms and his lack of information on either the necessity of vaccination for every person and his refusal to inform about any potential side effects is in opposition to the NH&MRC’s rules governing the responsibility to allow for fully informed choice regarding this issue.

Australia’s broadcaster, the ABC, has an extensive website on health. This site maintains numerous links to articles and media stories about vaccination. In fact, an entire page is devoted to the subject of vaccination which you can find here – http://www.abc.net.au/health/tag/vaccines-and-immunity/

Are the ABC, Peter Bowditch and Toni and David McCaffery also health education service providers? If this is the basis for the HCCC’s decision, I believe there would be few who enter public life in any small way who would not fall under the jurisdiction of the HCCC as a result.

Further, if the HCCC believes that linking to vaccination stories in the public media is tantamount to a breach of either statute, common law or statutory regulations in Australia, we would like to ask if it intends in the future to pursue the writers of these stories or to censure journalists who could also be termed as health educators under the Act. Or does it intend to force every web site based in Australia to quote balancing, contrary views – including the websites of government health departments and the medical community?

The HCCC then goes further to state that another indication of our status as a health education service or health educator is that the AVN maintains:

2- A ‘weblog’ page, containing a series of discussions about articles and publications on the risk of vaccination.

My response to this absurdity is that:

Technorati lists 11,113 blogs which are exclusively about health. With the single exception of a blog post by American TV medico, Dr Sanjay Gupta, not one of the 50 top posts on vaccination was blogged by a medical professional. Should all of these people who were passing on information – both for and against vaccines – be considered health education providers under the Act according to the HCCC? If they were in Australia, would they be governed by these same regulations due to the fact that they have published ‘weblog’ pages that contain a series of discussions about articles and publications on either the risks or the safety of vaccination? If so, where does the HCCC propose to draw the line? Do all Australians who mention vaccination in a public forum come under your jurisdiction?

These two points formed the extent of the HCCC’s ‘proof’ that the AVN is either a health education service or a health educator. I hope you will agree that with evidence like this, if we were in a court of law rather than involved with a commission whose stated goal is to uphold the government’s pro vaccination policy, the case would have been thrown out for lack of evidence.

Tomorrow:

Did the AVN mislead the ABC?


Letter to the Editor – Witch-hunt of vaccine safety watchdog

August 8th, 2010

The following letter has been sent to newspapers and magazines across Australia. If you see this letter (or a version of it since the media generally edits anything we write in) in your local paper, could you please write and let me know? Also, if you feel that the coverage of this issue has been grossly unfair, write your own letter to your local newspaper and cc me at meryl@avn.org.au.

The Australian Vaccination Network has been vilified in the media in recent weeks. While it is the media’s job to expose wrongdoing when it has been found, it is not their job to act as judge, jury and executioner.

Newspapers and radio stations have been reporting ridiculous lies stating that the AVN believes in reptilian aliens and mind-control chips. They got this misinformation from Mr Ken McLeod, an active member of a group that has set out to either shut our small, volunteer-run organisation down or shut us up in any way they can. That is their agenda. What is the media’s excuse?

And while this beat-up has been taking place, 136 of 139 pharmaceutical and vaccine manufacturing facilities in Australia have failed their TGA audits – yet this hasn’t merited so much as a mention in the press. It seems that drug companies have a privileged position in our society while vaccine safety watchdogs are shut down quicker than you can say ‘Pan Pharmaceuticals!’

The AVN was formed in 1994 due to a lack of information in the community on the downsides of vaccination. We were started by a group of parents whose children had reacted to this medical procedure and the health practitioners who had helped us.

Daily, we provide support and information to parents in Australia and overseas who are seeking medically-based, fully-referenced data on vaccines. Daily, we help parents report their children’s serious and sometimes fatal reactions to the Australian government because their doctors have refused to do so.

Vaccines are not compulsory. It was previously not illegal to criticise vaccines.

The AVN are vaccine whistleblowers and, like all organisations that are perceived to threaten an entrenched status quo, we are now being victimised by a group that openly states their object is to stop us in any way they can. Their tactics include death threats, threats of violence, calling our supporters to threaten them, filing complaints with every government body they can think of and generally inciting fear, hatred and violence towards us in the community – all with the support and cooperation of the government and the media.

That this organisation has used these tactics is shameful and should be taken seriously by the authorities.

That the media and government bodies such as the HCCC have cooperated with them – even sending people who request more information about the current ‘investigations’ to their website – is criminal.

It is time the Australian people learned the truth about the coordinated attacks on the Australian Vaccination Network by those who want, above all, to stop anyone questioning the safety or effectiveness of vaccines.

I invite everyone who is interested in knowing more about the facts behind these attacks to read the documents that can be found at http://scr.bi/cpfdTe and on our website, www.avn.org.au.

Meryl Dorey

Australian Vaccination Network