AVSN: The Vaccine Myth: An Issue of Trust (interview)
WARNINGThe Australian Vaccination-Skeptics Network is the subject of a current health warning issued by the NSW Health Care Complaints Commission. The warning, in part, states:
"The Commission considers that AVN's dissemination of misleading, misrepresented and incorrect information about vaccination engenders fear and alarm and is likely to detrimentally affect the clinical management or care of its readers."
"Given the issues identified with the information disseminated by AVN, the Commission urges general caution is exercised when using AVN's website or Facebook page to research vaccination and to consult other reliable sources, including speaking to a medical practitioner, to make an informed decision."
For accurate information about vaccination, please visit the Immunise Australia Program website and I highly recommend reading Immunisation Myths and Realities: responding to arguments against immunisation.
Host: Shawn Siegel, The Vaccine Myth: An Issue of
Co-host: Nancy Novax
Guest: Meryl Dorey, Australian Vaccination-Skeptics Network
Date: 9 September 2012
Shawn: Welcome back to The Vaccine Myth: An Issue of Trust. This is Shawn Siegel and we're coming to you via the auspices of the Logos Radio Network. I want to introduce Meryl Dorey of the Australian Vaccination Network. Meryl emigrated from New York to Australia almost 24 years ago. She's the mother of four children who were all American-born, one of whom had serious reactions to his vaccines, leading to lifelong immune system and health problems. With several natural health practitioners and the parents of other vaccine-injured children, Meryl established the Australian Vaccination Network which since 1994 has been supporting and informing families and healthcare practitioners about the issues surrounding vaccine safety and effectiveness. The AVN, the Australian Vaccination Network, is a pro-choice vaccine-safety watchdog that believes... and Meryl I'd like to welcome you to the show and ask you to go ahead and explain what exactly it is that you believe?
Meryl: Hi Shawn:, thanks very much for having me here. Well, we believe that everyone has the right to make an informed decision and that the responsibility of the government is to make sure that parents or anyone who is thinking about accepting a vaccination or any drug has access to all of the available information on that before they make that choice. And unfortunately the information from, about the safety and effectiveness of vaccination is actively suppressed by governments, by people within the medical community, so we believe that that suppression has got to stop and that there needs to be independent research to show that vaccines are safe and effective, and that no vaccine or medical procedure should ever be compulsory. Making vaccines which are not 100% safe or effective mandatory, is morally and ethically abhorrent, really. So we just think that it always must be a matter of personal informed choice.
Shawn: Right, couldn't agree more. Are you aware of, we discussed several times here, in the US the National Institute of Health literally describes the final stage of clinical trial as basically the administration to the mass public of a vaccine.
Shawn: So it's literally ongoing research.
Meryl: They call it post-marketing surveillance in Australia, I'm not sure if they use the same term in the US, but it basically means that they do very small trials which are not done scientifically anyway, because there's never a real control group; a control group would be given a placebo which is something like a saline solution injection or a sugar pill, so that you can actually compare the people who get the vaccine and the people who don't, and that's not done even before the vaccine is licensed; it's always tested against another vaccine or against the toxic ingredients of vaccinations such as the chemical adjuvants. So that's done before the vaccine is licensed. It's paid for and conducted by the pharmaceutical companies and then when the vaccine is licensed - after very little study - it's put out into the community and doctors are supposed to report anything unusual that they see but we know that only about 1% of them do.
So we really know so little about the effects of vaccination and the effectiveness, and that's because the government does not take its duty of care seriously to ensure that vaccines are safe and effective before they're licensed.
Shawn: Do you have the same situation in Australia that we have here with the complete lack of liability on the part of the manufacturers?
Meryl: The government has not idemnified manufacturers here but it's almost impossible to take action against them. And we have a worse situation. Our situation is based on the UK - I don't know what the word you'd use - but the format, I guess, for proving drugs and vaccines. We have our version of the Food and Drug Administration is called the Therapeutic Goods Administration. And since 1998 they've received no government funding even though they are a government organisation. All of their money comes from licensing fees from drugs, vaccines and therapeutic products. So if they don't license, they don't get paid. So they're totally dependant on the pharmaceutical industry and they're the ones who are supposed to make sure that vaccines are safe and effective and they don't test anything.
Shawn: Yeah, an egregious situation, the same thing goes on here. The pharmaceutical companies are responsible for the trials and there are even folks at the FDA here in positions of authority and responsibility in determining what gets approved and what doesn't in the way of vaccines, who work for some of the vaccine manufacturers. 24:29
Meryl: That's incredible. You wouldn't accept it in any other industry. I know, I worked on Wall Street for about ten years before I moved to Australia and there was such a strong effort to make sure that there was arm's length between anyone who worked on Wall Street and any of the companies that had publically-held stock. And yet, when it comes to the pharmaceutical industry it seems that it's quite open and accepted that people with strong vested interests are the same as the ones who are making the government decisions about what vaccines we're going to use, what the schedule is and who's going to pay for them.
Shawn: Absolutely. And before you came on the air, we went over a couple of agents dealing directly with the HPV vaccines. One was an article in The New England Journal of Medicine that basically said, "whoa, you licensed the vaccine in 2006, the preliminary clinical trials that should have provided you the evidence allowing you to license them, wasn't provided to you until 2007". And it basically said that there really was no justification at all for releasing the vaccine. In fact, there was very good reason to continue, for many years, decades they said, before you would have a realistic idea of what the final effect of the vaccine was.
Nancy: Well, we also talked a little about placebo, as Meryl mentioned, and just earlier I was reading about the HPV vaccine, and the placebo - they originally called it a saline placebo, but later in the same study they referred to it as a non-aluminium based placebo - and so from what I can see, it was another vaccine that didn't have aluminium in it. And I don't know what it was but there's something very wrong with that.
Meryl: Yeah. Nancy, the trial that I've seen which was presented to the Food and Drug Administration before the vaccine was licensed - and there were a couple of trials, but this was the biggest one - the people who were in the control group, the one's who were getting a so-called placebo, they got 225 micrograms of aluminium hydroxide which is the adjuvant that's in the Gardasil vaccine, in the vaccine. And the way that they actually licensed the vaccine, was they said that they had the same rate of reactions in both the vaccine group and the control group, and that was almost 90% of the people.
Nancy: Crazy. It's crazy to me that that can even happen.
Meryl: Yeah, it is. It doesn't make any sense. And in Australia after the vaccine was released, and we have the same situation that you have in the United States with only about 1% to 10% at the most, reactions being reported. We have a 1600%, that's one thousand six hundred percent increase, in reported reactions. And the government admitted that that was because of the Gardasil vaccine but there was no effort to find out why we had this huge increase in reactions, nor was there any effort to say, maybe we should stop using this vaccine until we can prove that it's safe. Because vaccines are always assumed to be effective and safe until proven otherwise. And it's almost impossible to prove otherwise.
Shawn: Well, and the irony here, one of the many ironies, is that when a vaccine manufacturer determines that the vaccine is effective, what they mean is that the benefits, [garbled] benefits, outweigh the risks. And we've determined many, many times on this show, including in the last few minutes of conversation, that we have no idea what those risks are and nor do the vaccine manufacturers.
Meryl: We're always told that vaccination is a medical science and yet when you look at how they're tested and used, you discover that there is no science whatsoever in the use of vaccines as we currently have them in our government policy. There's no science at all and when you try and get science, you're being told that you're anti-vaccine. And it's not anti-vaccine to ask logical, reasonable questions about why we don't have this information; it's just common sense.
Shawn: Right, and your figures are staggering; the 1600% increase in serious injury and that's with only a small percentage of actual injuries being reported. Who in the world knows what the true increase in damage done by the vaccines is, after the HPV vaccines were added?
Meryl: We have no idea. We have no idea at all, and nor does the government seem to be interested in finding this out.
Shawn: No, they seem very vested in not finding out.
Shawn: Ok, we're coming up to a break in just a few seconds. We're talking with Nancy Novax here as co-host and Meryl Dorey talking to us from Australia, and we will continue discussion about the HPV vaccines and some other topics of interest that Meryl wants to discuss. In just a few seconds we're coming up on a break. This is The Vaccine Myth: An Issue of Trust, coming to you on the Logos Radio Network, we'll be back with you after just a few minutes.
Shawn: Ok, we're back with you, this is Shawn Siegel, The Vaccine Myth: An Issue of Trust, and we'll go right back to our guest, Meryl Dorey, speaking to us from Australia. And I think Meryl has one slight correction she wants to make to my announcement before she came on last segment. Meryl?
Meryl: Yes. I just wanted to say that all of my children were actually born in Australia, not the United States. So, I moved out here before I had my family and they were all born in Australia.
Shawn: Right, and it probably makes more sense to start with. So, go ahead and continue with the HPV discussion if you will, Meryl.
Meryl: Well there is one thing that's only come out recently. There's an organisation in the US called SaneVax and they've got two websites, one of them is sane - s. a. n. e, vax - v.a.x, and the other one is The Truth About Gardasil. And from what I understand they paid to have all thirteen lots of HPV Gardasil vaccine tested for the presence of contaminant, which is the actual DNA, the genetic material, for the virus that causes human papillomavirus infections. And the governments all around the world have said all along that there was none of this contaminant in the vaccine. And when they sent the lots of the vaccine to these laboratories, it was found that every single lot of the virus, sorry, every single lot of the vaccine, was contaminated with this virus.
And it means that it's potentially possible that the vaccine can cause the infection that it's meant to prevent. And this could be one of the reasons why a large number of people who get the vaccine end up with pre-cancerous lesions afterwards, even when they were tested beforehand to find they were clear of these sorts of lesions. So the disease that's meant to be prevented could actually, potentially, be caused by the vaccine. And this is a big issue. The government is now aware of it because SaneVax has informed them all and they have totally ignored this information that's come out. And this is one of the problems with vaccines because the government doesn't do any independent testing and simply relies on the drug companies to tell them what the vaccines do and do not have as ingredients. We really and truly don't know anything unless we test them ourselves and it's expensive and time-consuming. So of course only the drug companies are doing it and not the government.
Shawn: Right, expensive, time-consuming and virtually impossible because the vaccines will change from batch to batch, and I think it's probably impossible for even the vaccine manufacturers to totally accurately assess and analyse every batch to tell you what they have in it. And, unfortunately, as with every other aspect of vaccines it sounds like they have absolutely no interest in doing that.
Meryl: Hmm. Well why would they, you know, they've been indemnified in the United States, they're very difficult to sue in other countries. And they have no reason to spend extra time and money in trying to make vaccines safer unless they are forced to. And nobody's forcing them to do it; the government certainly isn't.
Shawn: Yeah. It's something that I'm sure in Australia, certainly in America, that the general public just doesn't seem to understand. And it goes back of course to the fear of disease, which is also propagated by the government and their spokespeople, the mass media. And if it wasn't for this phenomenal - as Janine Roberts called it, the fear of the invisible - that almost spooky feeling you get when you try and think what's happening in your body that makes you feel ill and how you get better. You take the word of your doctors and that's too bad if the doctors have been given misinformation.
Meryl: Yes, doctors really aren't trained... I'm sorry, go ahead Nancy.
Nancy: No, go ahead.
Meryl: I was just going to say that doctors, it's not really 100% their fault because they are trained by a medical industry. The books, the text books, are written, the curriculum for the universities, are [dropout] by the pharmaceutical companies, so they only know what they've been told as well, and unless doctors go out and do their own research, they don't ever question this issue. And when they do question it, they end up getting deregistered. In Australia, at least, we've had a few really good doctors deregistered because they didn't support 100% the vaccination policy, and the drug and antibiotic policy, that's been propagated by the government and pharmaceutical industry.
Shawn: How did that process work? I mean, the only other comparison... the only comparison I can think of is Dr Wakefield and the other two of that original group of thirteen, that basically went to trial in front of the British Medical Council.
Meryl: Well, in Australia, it's sort of self-regulation. It's incredible. We've had a really good doctor in Sydney that was deregistered a couple of years ago. And she was deregistered because the AMA, the Australian Medical Association, said that she acted so far outside of what is considered mainstream medical care, that she could no longer consider herself to be a doctor. So unless you routinely administer drugs and vaccines, you can't be considered a doctor. There is only a one-size fits all for medicine, and anyone who strays outside of that one-size, is not part of the fraternity any longer. And there have been several doctors who've been deregistered for similar reasons. One of them was deregistered because he referred someone to a natural therapist when they had cancer instead of sending them to an oncologist, and they were deregistered for that as well.
Nancy: That sounds exactly like Dr Burzynski, here in the US, who has been treating people very successfully with his own cancer treatment and he has been taken to court many times. They have put him in jail, they've raided his office, they've stolen his medical records, and fortunately for him, most of his patients have survived their cancer as a result of his treatment and testified on his behalf. So, he's still practising, but only in clinical trials, from what I understand. So they've really put their thumb on him, but everyday I'm outraged a little bit more about this, really.
Shawn: It's draconian, the general public is simply not aware of how thick, how intense, is the suppression of information, the out-of-bounds treatments such as everybody is describing. Invading doctors offices, taking them to court because they steer you toward a treatment that is not considered orthodox, just beyond the bounds, almost like a SWAT team raid, of sorts, when ostensibly the entire purpose of the medical establishment is simply to care for ill people and you would think, to work toward curing them.
Meryl: Medicine has little to do with actually curing people than it has, the medical hierarchy has more to do with maintaining their monopoly than anything else. The AMA is not a healing organisation; the AMA is a lobby group. And it's making a lot of money and it's paying a lot of money to ensure that it maintains that position as the only option for health in the world. So, yeah, it's quite scary what's happening.
Shawn: Yeah, it is.
Nancy: So, how do we combat this, how do we, you know, this is my question on a daily basis, is how do we continue to promote our side. How do we continue to talk about some of these things that are happening. You know, we talked about, I have a website, we have some great people on Facebook that are spreading the word, but the media is suppressed, the media's controlled, and it's very difficult to get the word out. And then we have people that are putting up billboards, think [garbled] Shawn knows all about that. And, you know, so we are getting the word out but it's quite difficult when you're up against this cartel.
Meryl: Nancy, I've been doing this since 1994 and for the first time I really feel that we're making a difference. I think that the only way to combat this, is to make the media and the government and the medical community, irrelevant. And they're actually helping us...
Nancy: Yes, they are, absolutely they are.
Meryl: I don't know if you guys in the US heard about what happened in Australia in 2010 with the flu vaccine in Western Australia, for children? The government in Western Australia, which is a state here, actually pushed on children, six months to ten years of age, an experimental flu vaccine and more than 250 kids were hospitalised with seizures. One child is still permanently brain-damaged and one child died, at least, that we know of. And it was only after these huge number of reactions that, it's only a small place, happened that we started to see that a) the vaccine had never been tested, b) it was an experiment. These kids were being used as guinea-pigs and a charity out in WA was working with the drug companies, being paid by the drug companies, to get the vaccine tested on Australian children, and c) the Food and Drug Administration in the US, which is not known for actually taking much care in these sorts of situations, they refused to license this vaccine for American children because they had serious questions about how [dropout] manufactured and the safety. And all of that came out in the media which was [cutoff by music]
Shawn: Meryl, are you still with us? Ok, a little awkward, the music has come in and we're heading quite quickly to the next station breaks. So, we'll resume the conversation when we come back, this is The Vaccine Myth: An Issue of Trust, on the Logos Radio Network and we'll be back after a short break. [43:56]
Shawn: This is Shawn Siegel, this is The Vaccine Myth: An Issue of Trust, coming to you on Logos Radio Network. We're talking to our guest, Meryl Dorey, of the Australian Vaccination Network, coming to us naturally enough from Australia. I do want to add one piece of info, our phone lines are open. If you have a question for our guest or my co-host, Nancy Novax, or myself, the call-in number is area-code 512 6461984, that's 5126461984. Ok, welcome back Meryl, let's go ahead and continue with the conversation.
Meryl: Thanks. I was just talking very briefly about how the governments and the medical community through their own, I guess, ineptitude, are their own worst enemies, and they are helping to make people less trusting of vaccines. [dropout] The whooping cough situation, I know you have a whooping cough outbreak, a record-breaking whooping cough outbreak in the United States, and we've got the same thing in Australia. And this is happening despite the fact that we have 95% of the children vaccinated against whooping cough, and I think your rate is even slightly higher. And most of the people getting the disease are fully vaccinated against it. And we're finding that the vaccine could be responsible for the outbreak for a couple of different reasons. One, is that the bacteria that causes whooping cough has mutated, potentially because we vaccinate so much, just like using antibiotics too much causes the bacteria to mutate and cause these super-bugs, well, we now have a super-strain of whooping cough that's causing in Australia 84% of the disease that's in the community. And also, being vaccinated against whooping cough makes it more likely that you're going to contract a related illness that looks just like whooping cough, it's caused by this slightly different bacteria. But if you're vaccinated, you are much more likely to get that disease than if you're unvaccinated. And the government knows this, the medical community knows this, but yet the media when they report on this outbreak, the only thing they're blaming is the unvaccinated children, the one or one-and-a-half percent of children in the community who are unvaccinated are being blamed for causing the disease in the fully vaccinated. There is no logic, there is no sense in this, and yet this is the way that the government behaves.
And I think that parents are really starting to question why is my fully vaccinated child getting sick with these diseases and why does my fully vaccinated child have so many chronic conditions; why are they autistic, why do they have diabetes, why do they have food allergies, environmental allergies, ADD and ADHD. You know, parents are not stupid and they are starting to ask these questions and I think it's only a matter of time before they realise that the government and the medical community have no answers for them.
Shawn: Right, I agree. And it's pretty obvious isn't it when you see the outstanding growth in the membership and equally outstanding growth of Facebook pages, for instance. And I'm sure there are other social networks that are dealing with vaccine awareness that are out there of which I'm not aware. But almost on a daily, certainly on a weekly basis, you see another Facebook group formed of parents who are concerned about vaccines, and the titles themselves of the various pages tell you parents are becoming more and more resolute and sure of themselves because they no longer call their Facebook pages, "questioning vaccines", it's the "vaccine damage being done to our children". In some cases, they literally say "vaccines can kill", which they can, that's a matter of historical record, there's over 4,000 deaths just recorded and recorded here in the United States revolving around the vaccines and as we've all said many times, but it always bears repeating, that's probably only as little as 1% of the actual deaths that have been caused over the years by the vaccines. I'd like to read this one little article because it speaks to what you are speaking to, Meryl. September 6, 2012, from cbs8.com, San Diego:2 whooping cough cases reported at San Diego county schools
Two cases of whooping cough are being reported at two local schools. Health officials say an eight-year-old at Cook Elementary and a 13-year-old at Carmel Valley Middle were diagnosed.
Both students were up-to-date on immunizations.
County health officials urge all parents to get their children vaccinated.
Nancy: [laughing] You know, Shawn:, I read that this morning and I shouldn't laugh but it is funny. How can they, in the same paragraph, say these kids were fully vaccinated, please run out and get a vaccine.
Shawn: ...and get vaccinated, I know. And my comment to someone who put that on the Facebook page was, well, how soon before we see these groups, these herds if you will, of people walking down a road in perfectly good mood following the signs that say, "this way to the cliff". It's almost that bad, it's so absurd that it's almost surreal. It's hard to believe that people look at this and after reading the whole paragraph turn to their spouses and say, "well, we'd better go get Johnny immunised".
Nancy: You know, I have to say that we talk about vaccines all the time in real-life and on Facebook and with our friends and what have you, and I find that it's a very small percent of the population that really is staunchly pro-vax, that they will fight tooth and nail with you about the benefits of vaccine, and that for the most part, the real world, parents are questioning, at least. And they're saying, "you know, I'm really not sure about this, I don't feel good about this, I don't understand why they're getting so many vaccines". And then you present them with some more information and they start to open their eyes and see what's going on.
But there are a few pro-vaxxers out there and I just have to tell you a little story. I went this morning and posted my normal flyer up on the local bulletin board with information about exemptions that are available in our state. And my flyer was torn down. I have to put up a new one, pretty much weekly, because somebody tears it down. I've spoken to the store manager. The store manager initially had some complaints and took it down and then when she and I had a conversation about it, she decided that they would leave it up. But somebody's mad and pulling my poster down because they don't want people to know that there are exemptions available. It's madness.
Meryl: It's wrong, because if they are vaccinated, if their children were vaccinated, what are they worried about? If their belief in vaccines is so strong that they think that they're going to work for their family, why are they concerned about somebody else's child not being vaccinated? And the only reason is, is because they don't actually think that vaccines are going to work. And in Australia, what they're saying now is that vaccines don't work unless everyone does them. And if vaccines don't protect the individual, vaccines don't protect at all. It doesn't make any sense. It's just another nonsense, you know, phrase by the government to try and get people to vaccinate without thinking.
Nancy: But when we were kids, we didn't have the number of vaccines they have today, but through the promotion of all of this fear-mongering over these illnesses, the young parents today, many of them just believe what they're told, we need to get these vaccines and they have no idea that they have increased tremendously, the numbers have increased tremendously, from the 1960's, the 70's or even the 80's.
Meryl: Yes, my son was born, my eldest, in 1989 and if he had been vaccinated according to schedule, which he wasn't because he had serious reactions which I had never known about or been told about, he would have gotten eighteen vaccines by the time he started school. And a child in Australia today who starts school has had over fifty vaccines and in the US it's even higher. And we have to wonder how many more vaccines they can add to the schedule. It's amazing that these vaccines have never been tested individually or in combination, yet they're being administered in that way. Where is the science, where is the proof? There is none.
Nancy: No, and the latest vaccine... it's umm.... I forget, it's like the DTaP, HiB, and the polio virus. People think that's one vaccine. And there is something like five or seven vaccines in one shot, but they count it in their own head, as one.
Shawn: Right. Prevnar 13 has thirteen different strains of the disease, it calls for thirteen different reactions from the babies immune system.
Nancy: And when in mother nature would you have thirteen strains of the disease introduced into your body at the same time?
Shawn: She wouldn't, she wouldn't, she's got better sense than that. [everybody laughs]. The actual total right now Meryl is, in the United States as per the CDC recommended schedule, by the age of two, 115 doses of 36 different disease antigens. 115. And I think it's somewhere around... and that's by two years old. And that's in approximately 27 to 30 shots which means you're also getting 27 to 30 doses of adjuvants which, as we discussed last week and several times previous to that on this show, are used in lab experiments to induce rheumatoid arthritis in animals. The same adjuvants, the same chemicals used to induce auto-immunity in the lab are shot into our newborns, infants and babies from literally within an hour or two of birth. It's egregious, it's crazy.
Meryl: The whooping cough vaccine used to be used to induce what they called acute allergic encephalomyelitis, brain disorders, in laboratory animals, and yet when the same situation occurred in human babies it was called coincidental because no vaccine can ever cause a problem; it's always got to be a coincidence or unknown.
Shawn: Yeah. Why does it feel malevolent to me?
Nancy: Maybe because it is.
Shawn: Maybe because it is and, you know, that's a final step and it's one that we have kind of tiptoed around for years in the vaccine awareness community and it's being addressed more directly now because of the incredible onslaught, juggernaut of advertising, that the fact that CVS Pharmacy now offers every vaccine, virtually, not just the flu. You can go in there and get a DTaP, we can go in there and get anaphylactic shock or the beginnings of years of regression and a lifetime of debilitation. We're coming up on the hour break, and we will continue with our conversation with Meryl Dorey when we get back. This is Shawn Siegel, this is The Vaccine Myth: An Issue of Trust, and we are coming to you on the Logos Radio Network. Be back in a few minutes.
Shawn: This is Shawn Siegel, The Vaccine Myth: An Issue of Trust, we're back with you on this Sunday September 9th 2012. We're talking with Nancy Novax, our co-host, and Meryl Dorey, our guest from the Australian Vaccination Network. And Meryl, you want to go ahead and take the floor again, please?
Meryl: No problem. We were talking before about the testing of vaccines and how vaccines are really never tested scientifically. And the AVN and Dr Viera Scheibner, who some of your listeners may have heard about before, she's done 25-30 years of research into this subject. She issued a challenge many, many years ago and the AVN has picked it up and been issuing it for a long time as well, for any adult to take vaccines adjusted to their weight. Now with every drug, like, you know, say you take Tylenol, baby Tylenol is adjusted for the weight of the baby because you have to actually make sure that you're not over-dosing. Well, with vaccines the dosage is not weight-dependent, everybody gets the same dose, and in fact with many vaccines the adult dose is much lower than the childhood dose. So we've been asking for a long time for people to demonstrate that the vaccine is safe in the dosages given to children by taking a weight-adjusted dose of the childhood vaccines, and nobody has ever done it. And we've recently had two people accept this challenge; we're working out the final details of how this is going to work.
But it's going to be a very interesting demonstration of their faith in the safety of vaccines because, for instance, they're going to have 25 hepatitis-B vaccines if they weigh 50 kilos versus a 2 kilo baby. That's about 4 pounds versus 100 pounds, a 102 pounds, sorry, a 120 pounds, I'm always trying to convert the grams and kilos to pounds again in my head. And it will be very interesting to see a) if they do eventually decide to go ahead with this - they both confirmed that they will - but if they do go ahead with it, what the response will be in their bodies, whether or not they are affected by the vaccines in the same way that the children are because we're always being assured that vaccines are safe for infants and children, and yet there doesn't seem to be any effort to try and prove that. So this will be a very good proof of the safety of vaccines, I believe, and I think it's an important step that these two are taking.
Nancy: Meryl, so that brings up a question, how will this study be funded? And maybe you can talk a little bit about the way AVN is funded and what is your interest in, behind this.
Meryl: No problem. The AVN is going to be paying for the vaccines and one of the people has asked the AVN to take out a five million dollar life insurance policy on their life, as well. Depending on the cost, we're not going to spend tens of thousands of dollars, but if it's a reasonable cost we are happy to do that.
The AVN... my interest in this started because my child had serious reactions to his vaccines and he's 23 years old now and he still has health problems and other issues that are related to the vaccines. You know, I don't think that if I... if I hadn't had a child who reacted I probably never would have questioned vaccination, like so many parents. It's only because I had a personal experience that I ended up looking into this because I felt that it was my responsibility at that point, to get more information. I wish I'd taken that responsibility before I made the decision. So, that's my passion, I guess, for the issue is because I don't think that any other parent should see their child suffer because they didn't have this information and they couldn't access it.
The AVN, since it started, has been a membership and donation-driven organisation. We publish a magazine and we have members who get the magazine as part of their membership, and through our members we are continuing to work and we also get donations from the general public. Now, the Australian government has been actively trying to close down the AVN for the last three years using an organisation - well, not using, they didn't start the organisation - but they seem to be working very closely with an organisation called Stop the AVN, whose goal is exactly what their name is, to stop us in any way that they can. And we lost our authority to fundraise, in other words we stopped being a charity about two years ago.
The Health Care Complaints Commission received complaints against us from this group, Stop the AVN, and the Health Care Complaints Commission deals with dangerous doctors and dangerous health practitioners, and we went through a one-year investigation, and at the end of the investigation the Health Care Complaints Commission said that we were dangerous, deceptive and misleading because we refused to tell people that we were anti-vaccine. And we're not anti-vaccine, we don't think we have the right to tell anyone what they should or shouldn't do. We just think they have the right to access information on both sides of this issue. And because of that warning, we lost our charity authority. We couldn't take on new members, we couldn't take on donations for eighteen months. I had to fire our office staff and for the last two years I've been doing three people's jobs all by myself.
The people at Stop the AVN are saying that I'm personally making money out of this; believe me, I am not. If I had a job, if I wasn't doing this, I would be a lot more comfortable than I am right now. I'm doing this because I'm passionate about it and because we have a membership who wants me to continue doing this because they believe that it is important to support parents who are trying to make an informed decision. As Barbara Loe Fisher says, freedom of choice is not free. And it's not. You have to continue to fight for your rights and that's what the AVN does and if it wasn't for our members and if it wasn't for the donations that we receive from people who are also passionate about this issue, we would not be here and vaccination would probably be compulsory in Australia, just like it is in the US.
Nancy: That... thank you for that. What I find is that the bulk of us who are... I don't want to say anti-vaccine, but who are vaccine-choice advocates, are in it for the passion. None of us are making any money spreading the word.
Meryl: [laughs] Yeah, as opposed to those in the medical community, there isn't a profit to be made doing this. If you can pay your expenses you're doing well, and that's about it. And if we didn't feel strongly about this issue, we wouldn't be doing it. You wouldn't be doing it, I wouldn't be doing it, none of us would be because we would like to have a life and enjoy ourselves and do other things, but we feel so strongly about rights that we don't have a choice, we just keep going.
Shawn: Yeah, and there's no choice but to keep going. You know, you see repeated stories like we heard over the last four weeks from our parental call-ins of kids whose arched back and the [garbled] the sign of encephalitic reaction to the vaccines brought only a cry of normal, normal, from the paediatricians. You wonder at that point, where is the responsibility of the paediatrician. We know that their training is basically what I would consider misinformation. It's a total lack of information, that's a certainty. But at what point do they become responsible, ethically, for responding to what they see happen, even now and then. Like what Dr Blaylock said last week in the video we played, and I pointed it out very specifically, where he said, "just to be on the safe side, we have to give the benefit of the doubt to whatever potential dangers there are, not the other way around". And we work in just the opposite fashion.
Meryl: Yes, and all vaccines, all events occurring after vaccination, are assumed automatically to be coincidental. I remember Walter Orenstein, I think his name is, from the Food and Drug Administration, many years ago said that 95% of people who have car accidents would have had bread in the 24 hours before the accident, so can you say that the bread caused the accident. Well, no, you can't say that and you can't say that the vaccine caused the reaction. And I think that that's a really twisted form of logic. If you [dropout] think that is known to contain heavy metals, serious toxins, and contaminating viruses and bacteria, and you inject it into a healthy child and that child stops being healthy, you cannot say that that is a coincidence. And when you see it happen time and time again, one of the favourite things that those people who oppose choice say is correlation does not equal causation, in other words, just because something follows something else it doesn't mean that that something caused it. And if it happens once or it happens twice, yeah, you can say correlation may not equal causation. But when you see the same thing happening thousands, or tens of thousands, or hundreds of thousands of times, then you've got to say correlation does equal causation. And the only reason they can continue to refute that is because nobody's collecting this information. Nobody is actively going out there and saying when you vaccinate someone, what happens. Nobody is comparing the overall health of the fully vaccinated with the fully unvaccinated. We have Dr Mayer Eisenstein in Chicago who has no autistic children in his practice because he doesn't vaccinate. You have studies done with the Amish in Pennyslvania who have no autism because most of them are not vaccinated. And nobody is looking at this and when you point this out to the government or to the medical community, they refuse to even consider it. It is nothing to do with science and everything to do with protection of the status quo. And you can't blame them, because the scientists have backed themselves into a corner by saying all these years, even though we haven't tested vaccines we know they're safe and we know they work. And if all of a sudden they were to say, hang on a second, we may have made a mistake, maybe they are causing a lot of harm, maybe they're not actually protecting, well, no government in the world would have money to pay the compensation that would be required if that were to become public, as it will be.
Nancy: You know, Meryl, I'm just reading the book, "Evidence of Harm". I'm a little slow, the book is quite old. But I'm sure you're familiar with the book, it seems everybody is but me until recently, and I am outraged to read that everybody was aware that there was far too much, which any amount is too much, of mercury in these particular vaccines. And some parents were suing and when the anti-terrorism bill went through Congress in 2002, somebody, nameless person, they still don't know who it is today, or some people know but the majority of people do not know, tacked on at the end of this law, that Ely Lilly could not be sued for the harm that they caused with the mercury in these vaccines. And it's all been hush-hush, nobody's discussed it, and there's still mercury in vaccines today. It was recommended that it be removed and if they didn't remove it then they should explain why they weren't removing it, but it's still in some vaccines today. And most people don't know that. The whole system is so backwards, corrupt, shocking.
Shawn: Yeah, it is. We can hear Earl Scruggs playing the banjo in the background, it's nice hearing something positive and we don't often have a chance to do that on this show because of the subject matter. This is Shawn Siegel, this is The Vaccine Myth: An Issue of Trust, and Meryl Dorey is our guest, Nancy Novax is our co-host, and we'll be back after another station break with everybody, hold on.
Shawn: Ok, hi again, this is Shawn Siegel with The Vaccine Myth: An Issue of Trust, with Nancy Novax and Meryl Dorey. And Meryl, let's go ahead and go right back into the conversation.
Meryl: Ok. I don't remember what we were talking about, isn't that terrible. You were talking about the mercury in vaccines, and one of the issues with mercury, yes, mercury is a known neurotoxin, it kills brain cells, it causes allergies, it causes so many of the problems that we see with vaccinations. And it has been removed from some vaccines, possibly, and it has been reduced in other vaccines. Nobody is asking what it's been replaced with, and it's been replaced with something called 2 phenoxy ethanol, or 2PE, which is almost as potent a neurotoxin as mercury was. So if you take one poison out and put another poison in, is it any wonder that you're still getting poisoned.
And this is why people... what, one thing that the AVN recommends is that before anyone makes a decision about vaccination for their children or for themselves, they get a hold of what's called the manufacturer's package inserts, or in some countries they're called datasheets. And this is the information from the vaccine manufacturer, it lists the ingredients, the known side-effects, and the contraindications, or reasons why the vaccine may not be appropriate for everyone. People need to have this information to make an informed decision and they need to look at everything and find out why those ingredients are in the vaccine and what their effects are on the human body. Part of being a responsible parent is making sure you have that information.
Shawn: And part of being a responsible doctor, if you are adhering at all to the Nuremberg Code, is to provide that information freely and fully to every patient. We've actually seen more than one comment where patients requesting the insert of their doctor, have been denied the insert and been told to go look on the internet. Literally. And it approaches surreality, I don't know how else to express it.
Meryl: We've had doctors call us to ask us to give them the inserts because when the government, now in Australia the government provides the vaccines to doctors and when the government sends [dropout] the box with the vaccine vial in it, many times the insert has been removed. So a lot of doctors haven't even seen them.
Nancy: I have often asked parents... and all you have to do is go online, look at the ingredients and say, would you put that into a sippy cup with some apple juice and feed that to your child. And how is that ok if you wouldn't do that, which most people wouldn't, how is that ok to inject it into their body with a needle. Makes no sense. And the other thing is, you know, if a vaccine breaks in a doctor's office, it's hazardous waste, it's treated very specifically like hazardous waste, but somehow you inject it in the body and it becomes some magical potent... or potion.
Shawn: It's potent, alright, but just not the way they're saying.
Nancy: Yeah, I have to tell you I'm looking at our Facebook page right now and I just got an email from somebody, a private message, saying that her daughter just treated, was treated for medulloblastoma, brain cancer in June, and she still has a compromised immune system. And she had a flu shot on Thursday and had a reaction and she's having some other reactions and she's wanting to know if perhaps these reactions have anything to do with the flu shot.
Shawn: Well, at least she's asking, you know.
Meryl: Yeah, that's it. And vaccines contain so many carcinogens, things that are known to cause cancer. It's funny; it's like you have [dropout] toxic if it's used individually but if you put it into a vaccine, and all of a sudden it becomes totally benign. And this is the... I mean, this is exactly the way a lot of doctors and the government officials think about it. We know that formaldehyde causes cancer, and yet formaldehyde is in several vaccines. We know that mercury can cause cancer, and yet is in several vaccines. And when the rate of childhood cancer increases by thousands of percent after vaccines were introduced, we are told that there is no connection, and yet this connection has never been tested. It's just an automatic assumption that vaccines can't cause this. Somehow, like you said Nancy, they're magical and they can't possibly cause these problems but we are not magical, and vaccines are not magical, and you know, if there is a scientific link between an ingredient and a condition and that ingredient is in the vaccine and someone gets that condition, then it's not outrageous to think that the vaccine could've caused it.
Shawn: Right, [talked over] ... conditioning and the agenda, well-used and well-wielded by the mass media and the pharmaceutical companies.
Nancy: Right. I was just reading this morning about Tween, polysorbate 80, and that it's a carcinogen, or a co-carcinogen, and vaccines, as we know, are not tested for carcinogenicity and maybe that's why, because they know that some of these ingredients are definitely cancer-causing.
Shawn: How do you test for cancer, anway? I mean, cancer can take 5, 10, 15, 20 years to develop, how in the world can you accurately even test?
Meryl: [dropout] ...long-term studies and you'd have to have a real control group - two things that are never done with vaccines. And Nancy, Tween is also a... something that stops you from getting pregnant, the word has just gone right out of my mind...
Meryl: And it's used in the Gardasil vaccine and it's used in several other vaccines, and there is a school of thought that much of the infertility that we're seeing and the lack of being able to get pregnant that we're seeing so often in the world today, could possibly be related to some of the ingredients that are in vaccines that are known to cause infertility. But, you know, nobody ever tests for this, nobody ever looks at it. And in fact some of the vaccines, like the flu vaccines, I know, all say in their package inserts that there is no evidence that they can actually prevent the disease. So, you know, you wonder if they are so blatant in saying that not only haven't they tested the vaccines for certain conditions or for the ingredients causing certain problems, but that they can't even prove that it's going to do what it's supposed to do - prevent the disease - then we have to ask why we're using them and why other people aren't asking these questions.
Shawn: Well, we are, there's lots of folks asking the questions; just aren't quite enough yet. But, it's growing; it's growing by leaps and bounds.
Meryl: It is. And I think that's probably one of the reasons why there is such a strong backlash against organisations like the AVN in Australia, like the organisations that are in the United States. I know that those organisations cop an awful lot of flak, and we've been under attack, under serious attack, for three years. I've had death threats, I've had violent pornography sent to me, I've had people coming to say that they're going to come to my house and kill me. And this is not a normal response when you have a disagreement on a scientific issue. And there are organisations out there, including the health departments in several states, who believe that we shouldn't have the right to speak on this issue, that we should be silenced, that we should be gagged. And, you know, like the United States, Australia purports to be a democracy but, you know, the fact that there can be government officials actually saying that people should not be allowed to talk about certain issues is pretty amazing. I'm Jewish by birth and I remember back [dropout] American Civil Liberties Union back in the... god, I think it might have been the early 80's, late 70's, when there were neo-nazis wanting to march in Skokie, Illinois. And I totally disagree with anyone who is a neo-nazi but I felt that it was their right to speak and to make fools of themselves. And people are smart enough to decide after hearing information whether they support what the person is saying or not. So why is it different when someone is speaking about vaccination. Why can't we say what our evidence shows and why can't we allow people to see both sides and to make a decision based on what they think is right for their own family.
Shawn: Yeah. Fortunately, the uncivil behaviour on the part of the people and it's horrendous that what you just described as being targeted towards you is horrendous. But it's actions like that, that will alert people who are genuinely interested only in the health of their children. Because when they see the mean-spirit, it's got to make them hesitate. And that's what we see a lot on what we call the pro-vax sites too, there's often... and it's not that "antivaxxers" aren't guilty of it sometimes too, but there's a greater preponderence of it on the pro-vax side where there's so much, basically, hate and mean-spirit that's spewed, that in a sense it is beneficial because if less people who are genuinely interested see the tone and bounce off of it will look for information elsewhere. We're going to come back for one more segment here with Meryl Dorey, and this is The Vaccine Myth: An Issue of Trust, and we are certainly discussing a slew of issues of trust today. They're all genuine, they're all real. Anyone you know that maybe having a baby or has kids that's getting vaccinated, please ask them to listen to this show, there's lots they need to find out.
Shawn: Welcome back to The Vaccine Myth: An Issue of Trust, speaking with our co-host, Nancy Novax, here on the Logos Radio Network, and Meryl Dorey, in Australia. You want to pick up and give us some more information about, basically, the attacks that you've been subjected to over this last year or so?
Meryl: Yeah, you know, the attacks have become quite vicious and we've been around since 1994 and for the first 15 years we had none of this. Yeah, there were people who disagreed with us - it's great to disagree and to discuss issues - but it's only in the last three years that we've been under a real attack. And I think that one of the reasons for that is because people are genuinely now starting to question vaccination, where before that wasn't happening. So in a way it's almost a victory, but it's a very difficult victory for me, personally, and for the organisation. Like I said, you know, because we weren't able to do any fundraising I had to get rid of all of our office staff and I've been doing everything by myself for a long time. I'm working 12 to 14, sometimes 16 hours a day, 7 days a week, and it's very difficult.
These people who are doing the attacks, I don't know if you guys are familiar with the term, "internet trolls", but many of them are absolute trolls. Now, we had a situation in Australia last week where a woman who was on Australia's Top Model, it's very much like the show you have in the US, who is very opposed to trolls was attacked by a bunch of them and she tried to commit suicide. And the police came in and they are trying to find who the people were because of course they weren't using real names and they say they're going to use the full authority of the law to make sure that these people are brought to justice, because what they did was illegal. Well, I've been subjected to this for three years, and the police haven't really done anything.
There is a police investigation going on right now and I have filed some, just last week, some AVO's - they are Apprehended Violence Orders - against some of the people who are doing these things because they are becoming more threatening towards me personally and I'm afraid for my family. But until this happened, we didn't have this sort of controversy. Now, like you said, there is a very small group of incredibly vocal and vile people who are, you know, committing these atrocities, basically, against anyone who chooses not to vaccinate or even anyone who chooses to ask questions about vaccines. And it is very indicative of the fact that they have no information to back up what they're saying. Because if you are informed and you believe strongly that you have facts on your side, then you have a conversation, you have a debate; you do not attack people personally. You do not try to shut them up and say they don't have the right to speak. You only do that if you have nothing. Nothing to back up what you're saying.
If you are acting on fear or if you are paid to do what you're doing, and I think that many of these trolls - the ones who are in it for the longest period of time - are actually being paid and possibly have links to pharmaceutical interests. Some of them send out tens of thousands of posts on Facebook, on Twitter, on blogs, every single year and the only way they can do that is if they're doing it full-time. And I believe the only way they can do it full-time is if they're being paid to do it. So people who are looking at this, even if they are pro-vaccine and vaccinated their children, are being turned off in droves because nobody likes to see anyone speak that way to other people, let alone to the mother of a vaccine-injured child.
Shawn: I totally agree. It's callous, it's mean, it's vulgar and it's obvious. And I'm glad you spoke to that because I was about to ask you if you had any inkling as to the support for these people, the SAVN and the folks who have been sending you personally these derisive comments and threats.
Meryl: I don't have any proof of funding, but I can tell you that they've had several Facebook ads that have run for long periods of time. And we've advertised on Facebook and I know how expensive it is. And they've had several ads all at the same time. I gave a talk last year at a big folk festival called Woodford. in Queensland, and they were so opposed to it they tried to get Woodford to cancel and Woodford refused to cancel my talk. But they hired an airplane, it was really funny, they hired an airplane to circle the venue during my talk. So, for two hours this airplane circled and it had a banner coming out of the back saying, "Vaccines Save Lives". And they paid for that, it cost $2800-. And you don't just pay for things like that off the cuff unless you've got the funding to pay for it. So I think there's enough evidence that there probably is some funding involved there, but there's no proof.
Shawn: How large a group do you think this is? We talking about under 50 people, kind of?
Meryl: The Stop the AVN is associated with an organisation called the Australian Skeptics. They're very much linked with the group in the United States that I think is called Quackbusters or Quackwatch, I can't remember.
Nan: Yes, yes.
Meryl: They have thousands of members, probably. We have thousands of members, too. But I don't know how many of their members are actually even aware of what they've been doing. Yet most normal people - and I use the word normal in quotes because, you know, who's normal, really - most people who were raised to believe that in a civil society you behave in a certain way - you don't try and hurt, stop or kill people, I mean, that's basically how we've been taught - would not agree with what these people are doing or with the way they're doing it. So, I think that their core is very small, but they do have membership of thousands of people.
Nancy: And I agree, I think their core is very small and then they get some hangers-on who just want to fight for the sake of argument and, you know, they have good debate skills, or maybe not good debate skills, but they have some debate skills, and they can find an audience on Facebook and other places, and we've seen a number of people, myself included, get attacked. But your situation sounds pretty bad and when you have to take out a five million dollar life insurance policy to do a scientific study, that's pretty telling.
Meryl: He asked me to take out the policy, I didn't ask him, which shows that he is aware, at least in the back of his mind, that there is a potential that these vaccines can harm him if he takes the weight-adjusted doses. And I do have to say one thing to what you just said, where you said thta they have the ability to debate. I have been asking for a public debate on this issue for 15 years; I have challenged the Minister for Health, I have challenged the head of the AMA - the Australian Medical Association - any immunologist, any paediatrician, any GP, any scientist, to come out and debate me, in public, on the scientific benefits and risks of vaccination and they refuse to. And one of the reasons they give is, they say that I will gish-gallop them. Now, I've never heard of that term gish-gallop before, but it basically means that I have so many facts at my fingertips that I will present facts in a quick nature and they will not be able to refute them.
Shawn: You're going to spam them in person.
Meryl: [laughing] And that's the thing. Like, they can gish-gallop me if they had the data at hand, but [dropout] because they don't. And I think that that's really telling too, because if you are so sure that you have the right on your side then you will not worry about someone else gish-galloping, whatever that means. You will have [dropout] facts there, and you will be able to present them in a manner that will mean that people who are listening to you will believe what you are saying. If you can't do that, if you can't make people believe what you are saying, then you are not able to actually prove your point of view. And that's why they refuse to debate because they don't have the information on their side. And these are the supposed experts on [garbled].
Shawn: Yeah, there is nothing like having confidence in your argument and that sounds exactly like, nothing like confidence in their argument.
Nancy: Sounds like a lot of excuses.
Shawn: Yeah. We have the same kind of... I'm mean, I'm sure it's going on globally, the same kind of adversity here. National Vaccine Information Center, NVIC, put out a Times Square ad on the large Times Square screen and it wasn't really anti-vaccine, it basically said educate yourself, find out more about vaccines before you agree to them, that type of thing, better worded than my wording just was. And they copped flak from the AAP, folks tried to get the sign not put up in the first place, and once it was put up, I think around for a good month or two, they tried very very hard to get it taken down. And yeah, there's lots of money behind it.
And I asked about the size of the group because, you know, there's a campaign here in the US, a billboard campaign, that's called the "No Shots, No School? Not True" campaign and indeed we put up signs slowly but surely everywhere around the country and it's paid for as well but by many, many, many people, everywhere from... some folks who'll donate 500 or 1000 dollars, a lot of people will send in 5, 10 or 15 dollars to get these signs put up, just to let folks know that their tax-funded entities, like public school systems, are misrepresenting the law when they put out the signs in front of their school to say "no shots, no school", because the exemptions are indeed available. So, yeah, but what a difference in spirit, you know, in talking about just, relatively speaking, a few people putting lots of money, it raises serious questions. We'll be back for one more segment, a part of which will be, certainly, a continuation of our conversation with Meryl Dorey from Australia. We sure appreciate her being here. She's a fountain of knowledge and, certainly, experience, she's been fighting the good fight as far as vaccine awareness information goes for going on 15 to 20 years, it sounds like. And almost tantalising, I can still hear your New York accent coming out now and then. We'll be back, this is The Vaccine Myth: An Issue of Trust, on the Logos Radio Network. We'll be back here in just a few minutes for some closing words and the end of our conversation with Meryl Dorey. Hang on.
Shawn: Welcome back to The Vaccine Myth: An Issue of Trust, on the Logos Radio Network. Before we go any further, two things, 1) I want to give out the call-in number in case anyone wants to call during this final segment to speak to any one of the three of us, Meryl Dorey, or Nancy Novax, or myself. It's 5126461984. All questions are... or comments, are welcome. Not long ago in Australia, a fellow named Dr Archie Kalokerinos, passed away. He was well-loved by many because he during the past 4, 5, 6 decades was a faithful servant of the tenets of medicine, of healing, and served a bunch of the outback Aboriginal Australians. And in that process - now once again, this is another example of a doctor who when he started out had full faith and credence in the vaccine paradigm - but because of his experience over a period of years, changed his mind. He had an interview in 1995 with the International Vaccine Newsletter and I just want to read some of this, this is from the interview:In his book, Every Second Child, Dr Kalokerinos pinpointed the increase in vaccination campaigns as the reason why that a certain point up to half of the vaccinated aboriginal infants died obviously from an acute vitamin C deficiency provoked by the vaccination. He says, "I observed that many infants, after they received routine vaccines like tetanus, diptheria, polio, whooping cough or whatever, became ill. Some became ill, and some, in fact, died. With some of these reactions which normally resulted in death, I found I could reverse them by giving large amounts of vitamin C intramuscularly or intravenously. One would have expected, of course, that the authorities would take an interest in these observations that resulted in a dramatic drop in the death rate of infants in the area under my control, a very dramatic drop. But instead of taking an interest their reaction was one of extreme hostility. This forced me to look into the question of vaccination further, and the further I looked into it the more shocked I became. I found that the whole vaccine business was indeed a gigantic hoax.
That's quite interesting. If you remember last week we listened to a seminar, a video, given by neurosurgeon, Dr Russell Blaylock. It involved vaccines, it involved the use of fluoride in the dental toothpaste and, more importantly, in the municipal water supplies, and he spoke to eugenics. Eugenics, the study of... in essence, the superiority of certain races, certain moral beliefs, certain intelligence and certain societal placement as to the validity of the quality of a human being. An absurd and dangerous and horrid set of tenets that obviously were fulfilled to an egregious extent by Adolf Hitler during World War Two. I just want to read one more point. At one point, Dr Kalokerinos says,I think the most obvious example of the harm that vaccines can do is demonstrated by what happened when I received a phone call from a politician. He was concerned because the infant death rate in the Northern Territory had doubled in one year, and looked as if it was going to double again. He said in an endeavor to improve the Aboriginal mortality we stepped up the vaccination campaigns. And that is what had done it. They were actually immunising sick kids. The next day I took off by plane to go to the Northern Territory and I was excited by the realisation that at last I had the answer to the problem, but I was naturally concerned because I did not know how to communicate it. Well I went to the Northern Territory. No one would listen to it I was regarded as a total utter redbag. But I found that they were visiting the reservations, the outlying camps of Aborigines in the desert, and if for some reason a mother didn't want her child to be vaccinated they would simply grab the child and forcibly vaccinate it. I saw them chasing them on foot, and chasing them in Landrovers and grabbing the kids and vaccinating them. Now, a lot of these kids were terribly sick. They were malnourished and everything else. And if they survived the first vaccine, In a few weeks they would come back with booster shots. And then with more and more, and then they would come around with polio shots and so forth. It is a wonder that any kid survived really, not that the death rate had just doubled. It is a wonder that any one survived.
I just wanted to read that. He goes on literally and says that he ultimately considered that the vaccination paradigm at the very top of the pyramid of the industrial control of the vaccine industry was basically malevolent in nature. It's tough to hear this kind of thing, it's hard, it's one of the most basic paradigms to trust your government and the authorities that have you've relinquished control of your life to, especially when it comes down to diseases and your well-being and your health. But, I had to read those because he was what we call immense, he stood up for what he saw, he didn't back down from it and he obviously, he never cowered from saying what he found to be the truth.
Meryl, did you not know Dr Kalokerinos?
Meryl: I was very lucky in that I did know him. And many times he was of great help to me and to many people in the community. He was such an ethical and moral man, such a good doctor, and he cared deeply about his patients. And he was an example, I think, of what a good doctor should be, because he didn't just take what he learned in school and then close his mind to anything else that he found afterwards. When he saw these children dying, he didn't just say why is this happening, nobody knows so we'll just keep going and doing what we're doing, he actually investigated it. And for the ten years that he was the doctor at Collarenebri - which is a very regional area of New South Wales with a large Aboriginal population - they went from having, basically, almost a 50% infant mortality rate to having close to a zero rate of deaths amongst his patients' children. And as you said, you'd think the government would have considered or wondered why has he got such a strong, healthy population amongst those he cares for as opposed to those in communities nearby who are seen by other doctors but, no, they didn't. And again we see that the government and the medical communities responsibility is not necessarily to keep us healthy because they just ignore or actively suppress things like this. He'll be greatly missed, Archie, very greatly missed.
Shawn: Yeah, it's hard to believe the descriptions of kids being run down with cars, with landrovers, and forcibly taken and innoculated. And yet, realistically, that could happen anytime in the United States if a pandemic or an emergency were called because the laws that would allow that, are in place.
Nancy: What's happening in West Virginia right now isn't quite, isn't quite to that scale, but there's some serious problems with some of the states and as you know, West Virginia has no exemptions other than medical. And these parents now are facing having their kids taken away from them and forcibly vaccinated, taken away from them for neglect for not vaccinating their children because they don't [interrupted]
Shawn: [garbled]... sorry, go ahead.
Nancy: It's amazing to me that this is happening in the US, but there are a lot of things happening that we should all be concerned about.
Shawn: Yes, and we should be aware of. And I want to point out that anybody interested, there is a vaccine awareness portal, vaccine advocacy portal, that is part of the National Vaccine Information Center, nvic.org, and if you register with that you will get automatic emails whenever any legislation that relates to vaccines in anyway comes up in your state, even when it's about ready to go to committee. Let me say a few words because we're coming down literally to the last couple of minutes of the show about next week's show. We're going to have Dr Lorraine Day as a guest on this show, another outspoken M.D. about the dangers of vaccines, and we're also going to have a slight diversion, we're going to go to, turn to the nutritional side, the positive side of the dangers of vaccines which always brings you down to, well, if vaccines don't prevent disease, which they don't, then how do you prevent disease and, lo and behold, it has to do with nutrition, good diet, good health habits, and good sleep, good play, etc. All the natural things that one should logically assume do play in overall health. You come down to diet, there's a lady that has a Facebook page, her name is Donna Voetee, she calls herself Granny Good Food, and she's well aware of nutrition, and she has used alternative medicine to help heal her own son of some serious illnesses when allopathic care was not working. And she's a firebrand in herself, she will also be with us next weekend. I really want to thank Nancy Novax for being on as co-host, it's been a delight.
Nancy: Thank you, Shawn:, it's been great fun.
Shawn: Yeah, and we'll do it again. And Meryl, thank you very much. I hope this gets some support and some dissemination of the knowledge you've given all of us about the Australian Vaccination Network.
Meryl: Thank you so much, Shawn: and Nancy, I really appreciate being here.
Nancy: Thank you, Meryl, it was so great being able to talk to you.
Shawn: Ok folks, so we're coming down to the last minute. What is there left to say that the vaccination paradigm is so thick, the publicity is so intense from every direction, and what I like most about, I think, about this last couple of hours with Meryl, was when she said that the, in essence, the mainstream media really may not be mainstream after all. More and more people on a daily basis are starting to realise they're not getting the truth, they're not getting the information that really is important to them, from the mainstream media. What is now the minorstream media, I guess you could call it, the Facebook pages and other social networks and other avenues of truthful vaccine information dissemination are becoming the mainstream media and I hope they continue.
This has been Shawn: Siegel, The Vaccine Myth: An Issue of Trust, and we'll talk to you next Sunday.
Posted: 18 Nov 2012
Last update: 17 Jun 2014