Editorial Note: This is another post on the vaccination and censorship theme. Elizabeth Hart’s comments, over the past few weeks in response to some of the posts here, on efforts to stifle debate have been balanced and eloquent. Given the growing number of new journalism outlets, such as The Conversation, that portray themselves as tackling cutting edge issues fearlessly but in fact do no such thing it is a pleasure to help her get a message out that the editor of The Conversation has ignored.
Her interest in the issues began in an unusual way – after her dog died from a booster dose. Checking into it she became aware that pet vaccination is big business and one that has does more for the health of Vets than Pets. This is what radicalized her.
For the attention of:
Mr Andrew Jaspan
Executive Director and Editor
I suggest there are serious problems of bias and censorship at The Conversation and I question whether you are fulfilling your charter.
The Conversation is very ‘pro-vaccination’, there is little in the way of critical analysis of vaccine products. For example The Conversation has helped promote HPV vaccination. I suggest HPV vaccination is controversial, see for example my summary which discusses the questionable way HPV vaccination was initiated in Australia when Tony Abbott was Health Minister in 2006.
The Conversation should be mindful that it has conflicts of interest in that it receives funding from universities that receive funding from the pharmaceutical industry for vaccine research. It seems to me that The Conversation is a marketing arm for the university and research sector.
Today comments were closed down on The Conversation article “Forget ‘no jab, no pay’ schemes, there are better ways to boost vaccination”.
Comments were also recently closed down on “Want to boost vaccination? Don’t punish parents, build their trust” and “’No jab, no pay’ policy has a serious ethical sting”.
I had posted detailed and referenced comments on these articles relevant to vaccine policy and practice, with some still awaiting a response. I had planned to post more comments, but I have now been thwarted in this regard, as ‘the conversation’ has been closed down. Opportunities for serious discussion on vaccination policy and practice are limited in the current hostile climate, and The Conversation does not help by curtailing debate.
Mr Jaspan, Prime Minister Tony Abbott’s announcement that vaccination will be compulsory to obtain family tax benefits is a very serious matter. We are on a slippery slope when governments mandate medical interventions such as vaccination.
There are serious problems with transparency and accountability for vaccination policy in Australia, and I have recently raised this matter with Prime Minister Abbott, see my letter dated 21 January 2015. There is a serious problem of potential conflicts of interest and lack of disclosure by people influencing vaccination policy.
Tony Abbott, and Opposition Leader Bill Shorten, have reacted to the crude “No Jab, No Play” campaign by News Corp Australia media, e.g. The Sunday Telegraph.
It appears the vigilante pro-vaccination group SAVN (Stop the Australian (Anti) Vaccination Network) was also instrumental in this campaign. It also appears The Conversation is a supporter of SAVN, as evidenced by its publishing articles by self-avowed SAVN members, e.g. Rachael Dunlop and Patrick Stokes. It is notable that Patrick Stokes’ membership of SAVN is not included in the Disclosure Statement on his article “No, you’re not entitled to your opinion”.
I have tried to raise serious discussion about vaccination and individual vaccine products on The Conversation as my ‘activity’ illustrates [https://theconversation.com/profiles/elizabeth-hart-6978/activities], but I have often been impeded by followers of the SAVN who colonise comments threads on vaccination articles on The Conversation.
I was astonished today to discover that SAVN member Patrick Stokes has the ability to ‘hide’ (i.e. censor) comments on articles on vaccination on The Conversation, (see discussion between Patrick Stokes and Adam Bonner on “Forget ‘no jab, no pay’ schemes, there are better ways to boost vaccination”). Patrick Stokes is hardly an impartial arbiter, on what basis have you given him this power?
I also suggest there are serious problems at The Conversation in regards to proper disclosure of authors’ potential conflicts of interest. In this regard see my discussion with Professor C Raina MacIntyre on the “Want to boost vaccination? Don’t punish parents, build their trust” comments thread.
It is also ironic that experts on vaccination such as Professor MacIntyre and A/Professor Kristine Macartney do not appear to understand the difference between ‘vaccination’ and ‘immunisation’, and incorrectly use these words interchangeably, another point I raised on their articles. If ‘experts’ are so careless with the basics, what else are they getting wrong?
Mr Jaspan, compulsory vaccination is at odds with the requirement for ‘valid consent’ before vaccination, see Section 2.1.3 of The Australian Immunisation Handbook.
I suggest there should be an investigation into the aggressive campaign to make vaccination compulsory in Australia, and the tactics used by News Corp Australia, SAVN, and The Conversation.
Copyright © Data Based Medicine Americas Ltd.
Quote Tony Abbott, and Opposition Leader Bill Shorten, have reacted to the crude “No Jab, No Play” campaign by News Corp Australia media, e.g. The Sunday Telegraph.
The results of the poll? 70% say NO, dont cut the welfare. Isn’t that amazing, the people pro choice, although seemingly beaten down and abused for their views, well 70% of Australians are with us. How amazing!
Isnt it amazing, the only two sides of politics in Australia, agree on this forced immunisation, and they are both obviously so out of touch with what Australians want. How crazy…….
Ang, perhaps one of their motives is saving money in the budget, see for example this SBS report:
Budget 2015: Vaccine crackdown to save government half a billion: http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/2015/05/12/budget-2015-vaccine-crackdown-save-government-half-billion
Budget documents show that the “No Jab No Pay” scheme, unveiled in April, is set to save the government more than half a billion dollars over five years.
A total of $508.3 million is expected to be saved through measures cutting access to Family Tax Benefit A to families whose children are not up to date with childhood immunisations.
The new measures, to come into effect from January 1, will only allow exemptions for medical reasons.
END OF QUOTE
As Elizabeth pointed out. It’s more a case of saving money rather than a public health issue from the Coalition.
The other side have assumed it is a popular move because of the continuous parroting by all the subject matter experts ie. the television and radio commentators, the newspaper writers, politicians, the occasional GP and surgeon.
Speaking of subject matter experts….where are they? Where are the immunologists and communicable disease researchers?
My own vaccination injury has been dragging on since July 2012. I ceased work last year because of the debilitating nature of it and then that was after 8 months of work restrictions.
I have a half-cocked diagnosis and no treatment to date and I still continue to deteriorate.
My claim to the Department of Veteran Affairs was rejected based on lies and misinformation.
I have been declined treatment by GPs and specialists. I have had numerous medical records falsified.
The adverse event was deliberately miss-reported to the TGA. A recent viewing of my report under FOI showed that it was still inaccurate and now contained an additional comment trying to pre-date a medical condition. I can only assume an attempt by someone to absolve the vaccine of any causality.
Off the record, I am told there is little doubt the vaccination has caused my problems….”good luck trying to prove it”.
What are they afraid of? What are they trying to protect?
I find the whole thing very disturbing.
Oh gosh, I know your situation all too well. My best wishes that your health may improve. I got the 2015 report I made to the TGA, (because I asked, to make sure it was correct, and finally got reported)…
re: my baby death, zoloft use in first trimester. Glad I asked for a copy of the report, as it wasn’t correct. BUT FINALLY after 19 years the report is there. Dont ask me what happened to the first report, 19 years ago, dont ask me why it wasnt listed on the death certificate (probably called SIDS?)..the doctor knew what caused it, why he didn’t also put in a report, or whether that was ignored, who knows?
David, do I have to read another post, cause I feel I’m gone, Does anyone have a heart’ that won’t stop dancing, A mind that has to have drugs (Alcohol) or do . A life I don”t know any more I’M Freaking wanting help
My appreciation to Elizabeth Hart for this write-up – and for her phenomenal over-vaccination website. The following, too, came to my attention today:
Thanks moyper1. As my website details, I’m concerned about the over-use of lucrative vaccine products. In particular, I’m challenging the arbitrary second dose of live measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) vaccine, as the manufacturer advises most individuals are likely to be immune after the first dose, and this can be verified by a blood test. I’m also questioning repeated ‘boosters’ with the failing pertussis (whooping cough) vaccine, and questionable HPV vaccination, along with annual flu vaccination for the ever-mutating flu. The following webpages provide more detail:
– Measles/Mumps/Rubella (MMR) ‘booster’: http://over-vaccination.net/questionable-vaccines/mmr-jab/
– Human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination: http://over-vaccination.net/questionable-vaccines/hpv-vax/
– Pertussis / Whooping cough ‘booster’: http://over-vaccination.net/questionable-vaccines/whooping-cough/
– Annual flu vaccination and the influenza industry: http://over-vaccination.net/questionable-vaccines/flu-vax/
I tested for whooping cough, last outbreak in Western Australia. I was shocked, and started researching. As a pathologist, I was alarmed…… yes I have been lied to… the whooping cough was 100% occurring in THOSE VACCINATED. I now find that breast fed babies of mothers who are vaccinated, do not get the proper immunisation to these diseases through breastmilk….. so new born babies, have to avoid those immunised? NOT WHAT WE ARE TOLD>
ang, see this ABC Science report: “Whooping cough increase related to current vaccine”: http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2015/04/24/4222316.htm
I forwarded questions on this matter over two years ago to academics Professor Ruiting Lan and Professor Lyn Gilbert, see this email thread: http://users.on.net/~peter.hart/Whooping_cough_enquiry.pdf
In particular I question how does increasing the number of ‘boosters’ of the current vaccine protect against the new strain?
I didn’t receive a response, which is par for the course regards the lack of accountability for vaccination policy and practice.
Thankyou so so much for the links. My daughter sent me a message saying “hahah they recon immunistation is causing whooping cough”, I replied “”it is”, but I had no clear references, only my own experience. I have forwarded the references to her. I am advising she never immunises her kids for HPV…. she is clever, and researches, yet her immediate reaction to the whooping cough was the typical reaction from everyone who believes that vaccination is good. I was surprised, as she does not believe in giving her kids all the vaccinations. But as a mother on low income, she now has no choice……
I wondered why I never caught the whooping cough from my many, many patients, now I know, I was given a vaccine for whooping cough in about 1965 or before. I never had whooping cough myself, but my vaccine, after 50 years, stopped me getting the virus from these infected people. (Yes always in the age group mentioned… 6-10 or so)…. I was doing about 5 whooping cough tests a day, and despite all the best care, I should have caught it, I didn’t…
moyper1, re the recent infant deaths in Mexico after vaccination, the mainstream media is giving this some attention, see for example:
– 2 babies die, dozens hospitalized after vaccination in southern Mexico. CNN, 11 May 2012: http://edition.cnn.com/2015/05/10/health/mexico-vaccine-deaths/
Elizabeth, thanks for bringing this to our attention. It’s unfortunate that an organization that avows to be open, fact-based, & editorially independent appears to be controlled by an astroturf group like SAVN on the issue of vaccination. (In case you’re not familiar with astroturf groups, see this: https://sharylattkisson.com/propaganda-and-astrotuf-recognize-it/) Most corporate media outlets are blatantly biased against any criticism of vaccination regimes, but an outlet that claims to be independent ought to live up to their own charter. I direct your attention to an outlet whose mission is to “expose and oppose news censorship and we promote independent investigative journalism, media literacy, and critical thinking”: projectcensored.org/. They’ve posted quite a few articles about the pharmaceutical industry.
The Murdoch media (News Corp) is dominant in Australia and it has been running the aggressive ‘No Jab, No Play’ campaign in its tabloid newspapers, with some coverage also in its broadsheet The Australian.
On 12 April 2015 The Sunday Telegraph boasted: “Our No Jab, No Play campaign has scored a stunning victory, with bipartisan support for the “conscientious objector” loophole to be completely closed to protect all children.” http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/nsw/anti-vaccination-parents-face-15000-welfare-hit-under-no-jab-reforms/story-fnpn118l-1227300073570
As I argue in my letter to Andrew Jaspan, The Conversation and SAVN have also had a role in this crude campaign which has bullied the community to be compliant to an ever-increasing list of questionable vaccine products, including repeated ‘boosters’ with the failing pertussis (whooping cough) vaccine(1), and the controversial HPV vaccine(2).
I suggest it is now time to demand a review of the vaccination schedule, particularly in light of the lack of transparency in this area (e.g. see my letter to Prime Minister Tony Abbott dated 21 January 2015: http://users.on.net/~peter.hart/Letter_to_Tony_Abbott_PM_re_vax_policy.pdf )
And what is it with the Murdochs and vaccination? Are there any conflicts of interest to declare? Is it just ideological or are there any financial interests I wonder?
– In 1986 paediatrician Professor David Danks established the original Murdoch Institute, with the support of Dame Elisabeth Murdoch (Rupert Murdoch’s mother), her family and others. This is now the Murdoch Childrens Research Institute which is involved in vaccine research:
– James Murdoch was a non-executive director and member of the corporate responsibility committee at GlaxoSmithKline, but decided not to seek re-election around the time of the Leveson inquiry into the News of the World phone-hacking scandal: http://www.theguardian.com/media/2012/jan/27/james-murdoch-quits-glaxosmithkline-nonexecutive
– Murdoch’s Sunday Times and Brian Deer took up the cudgels against Andrew Wakefield re his MMR study(1): http://www.australiannationalreview.com/james-murdochs-arrangements-haunt-vaccination-laws/
1. “How does increasing the numbers of ‘boosters’ of the current vaccine protect against the new strain?” http://over-vaccination.net/questionable-vaccines/whooping-cough/
2. Even the co-inventor of the technology enabling the HPV vaccines, Professor Ian Frazer, has acknowledged that the risk of cancer associated with the HPV virus is very low: http://over-vaccination.net/questionable-vaccines/hpv-vax/
3. Wakefield AJ et al. Ileal-lymphoid-nodular hyperplasia, non-specific colitis, and pervasive developmental disorder in children. The Lancet. Volume 351, No. 9103, p637–641, 28 February 1998: http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(97)11096-0/fulltext
All I am going to say is 47 years ago in the the UK I worked with children who’s mothers had taken a morning sickness pill ‘thalidomide’. I know it’s not a vaccination but how can we trust the drug companies. I have only once (22 years ago) had a flu vaccination and only once had the flu (guess when? ….that’s correct after the vaccination)
With my recent attempt to obtain a copy of my TGA adverse reaction report, I too found 16 pages that were originally generated late 2013 can no longer be located……and this is from the ‘firewall’ protecting us from shonky medical products????
I should point out that the TGA FOI staff were helpful, but if the documents aren’t there, they can’t do much about it.
Other issues with the No Jab No Pay decision [why is the term “jab” used…… an attempt to trivialise what is a serious medical intervention??].
My understanding is, and happy to be corrected, the term ‘fully immunised’ is an official status meaning the recipient has been vaccinated with the entire range of vaccines as deemed by the authorities. Tailoring the level of protection to suit your desires or circumstances does not qualify.
Someone may be able to clarify this?
Can we also assume those damaged by coerced vaccinations will be recognised and receive appropriate support and care for the duration of their injury and not have to resort to years of legal wrangling as per the Saba Button case in Western Australia.
I think the hardest lesson we have to learn is that there are areas within the medical profession, like big business and politics, that do not have our best interests at heart. Try to look beyond the jovial smile and the pat on the back.
Number One, I am sure I reported the adverse reaction of that zoloft to everyone, I told my doctor, and am sure he would have reported it also. I didn’t know TGA, but I did send a report thru to the Prime Ministers Office, surely it would have been referred to the TGA? Yes, my report disappeared….. not a good sign…
Number Two, re tailoring the level of protection to suit your desires or circumstance.
First meningococcal vaccination was for a strain that has never occurred in Western Australia. My family and I live in Western Australia, so my daughter and her kids, had every right as I did for her brother, not to allow the immunisation, Why immunise against the MILD form of a disease, that never happens? Also by immunising against the mild form, more likely that the more severe form (that had no vaccination), in other parts of Australia, would reign supreme. Where is the logic? Missing, it seems.
Telling your doctor doesn’t necessarily mean it was reported up the line.
My [former] GP didn’t report it, even though admitting the vaccination was the cause of my unusual health problems.
This GP also failed to properly investigate my symptoms or offer treatment and aggressively discouraged me from pursuing the matter any further.
It was the ADF GP that actually reported the adverse reaction but then what was reported bore little resemblance to the facts.