AVSN: The Voodoo Children webinarTranscript of webinar.
Host: Dr Mayer Eisenstein, International Medical Council
Co-host: Karen Eisenstein
Guest: Meryl Dorey, Australian Vaccination Network
Mayer: Good evening everyone, this is Dr Mayer Eisenstein, and I'm very, very excited tonite because we are really going global, because with us this evening, or Meryl I think by you it's day, isn't it?
Meryl: It is, it's about 11 o'clock in the morning.
Mayer: I have with us Meryl, and Meryl is the president of the Australian Vaccine Network. Their website is absolutely outstanding, and my wife Karen here is helping us with the controls. She will put down the website address, not sure we have it here on the front page. I'll ask Meryl to not only tell us about some of the issues in Australia but also tell us a little bit about her family, you know. Meryl we are incredibly honoured to have you with us tonite on our vaccine webinar series. Good morning to you, or late morning to you, and welcome.
[image of Meryl Dorey with her children - redacted]
Meryl: Good morning, Mayer. Thank you so much. I really am so grateful to you for giving me an opportunity to bring some of the information about what's happening in Australia to the U.S. I'm from the U.S. orginally, but I've been in Australia for 21 years. And this picture, I guess, says why I do what I do. These are my two youngest children, I don't have a picture of all us together. I have two older children as well, and my eldest son [redacted] was vaccine injured, and that's why I became interested in this subject, just a bit over 20 years ago. And at the time, as a young mother, like so many young mothers, I did what I thought was best for my family. I didn't even question. I studied biology at high school and I was a true believer, I guess, that vaccinations were safe and effective, and that any parent who cared about their child would fully vaccinate them. And it was bit of a shock to the system when my son had his first reaction at two months of age. He had high pitched screaming, sleep apnoea, he would stop breathing in his sleep which is not a common reaction but one that I certainly hear a lot of now. And severe growth problems after his vaccination and even though that happened also immediately after his vaccine, within the first 24 hrs, I still didn't associate the reaction with the vaccination and that's what happens with so many people. It wasn't until I went back to the doctor when he was four months old to get his next round of vaccines, that I found out that there might be a connection. The doctor said to me "How did he go after that first shots". And I said "well, it's funny you should ask because this is what happened, and I explained the situation". He said "oh, we might just the whooping cough portion out of the next vaccines." And that was the first time I thought "hey, hang on second, you saying that there could be a connection between that vaccine I gave him and the reaction". And it took me a good 12 months after that to get enough information on vaccination to actually decide that I was going to stop vaccination. And, even so, when my son got his measles, mump, rubella vaccine at the age of 18 mths, he was hospitalised 10 days later with what they called gastroenteritis, but which I believe now was actually encephalitis and he developed some autistic symptoms right after the measles, mump, rubella vaccine, and that was his last vaccine, the last vaccine that I gave.
So, I guess the vaccination issue has been a bit of a journey for me and my family. This is [redacted], who is now 16, and [redacted], who is 13, and they are unvaccinated and very, very healthy, and this is something that we see at the AVN, the Australian Vaccination Network, with a lot of families. They start vaccinating because they believe in it, and then they stop vaccinating and they find that their unvaccinated children are so much healthier than their vaccinated children and, um, its one of the reasons that we feel that parents really need to look at this issue before they make a decision, to investigate before they vaccinate, and not just go ahead and do it because they're told to or because they think it's the right thing to do. It's a medical procedure and all medical procedures have risks and benefits, so we need to know them before we make that choice.
Mayer: Well, let me tell you something, what a great, great introduction and start. Here's the question I have for you, and I've had for all of our panelists and our guests. See, for my wife and I it was very simple because in my third year of medical school, I was about to drop out of medical school, I really wasn't interested in anything, it didn't catch my attention until I met Dr Robert Mendelsohn, and he gave up on vaccines while I was still a medical student. And we just, were just enamoured with him. And it's my wife actually who said, you know, "if Dr Mendelsohn says so, then that's what it is". So, life has been very easy in a sense, with our six children and our ten grandchildren. But Meryl, how did you, this is a hard decision because it's like everyone starts off by saying "Well, if every doctor in the country believes in this, who am I to question them?" What makes you different, what makes you tick?
Meryl: Well, I guess having a bit of a science background helped a little bit, and that word belief is one that I get all the time. Belief is something to do with religion, its nothing to do with science. Science is reproducible, it's verifiable, and its never closed to question. And what happens with vaccination is that it is not proven, it is not scientific, and we are told by mainstream western medical doctors, by the government, that there is no question about vaccination. We are told that there is no vaccination debate because vaccination is proven. And what I started to find out, and I felt very betrayed when I started to do this research, because I believe strongly in science, I mean, I guess I was a fan of science for a very long time, and I still am. I think that the science of vaccination is what we need to be debating, not the emotion, and certainly not the way that people are being treated if they even ask a question about vaccination. Why should people be treated as pariahs for saying "I have my doubts and I need to find the proof first". That's what medical science is supposed to be all about and that's whats left out in vaccination.
So, when I started doing the research, I didn't go, there was no internet then, it was nineteen ninety..oh gosh 1990 or 91, there wasn't even an internet in Australia. So I started looking through the medical journals and I actually went to the hospital near here and went to the medical library and started getting information out and there weren't any books that I could get. It wasn't until about 12 mths after I started looking at this that I found the book "DPT A Shot in the Dark" that was written by Harris Coulter and Barbara Loe Fisher, and that was a real eye-opener. And I recommend that people get that. But when I started finding the information about vaccination and looking at the medical journal articles, I suddenly realised that the information about the risks of vaccination was there, it's written down in medical journals. The information about the ineffectiveness of vaccination is also there, and parents just aren't given that information when they're trying to make a decision. They're told the benefits of vaccination far outweigh the risks. This is how almost every article in medical journal starts out when they talk about vaccination - the benefits far outweigh the risks. But then when you actually read the article you find that the benefits are overstated and the risks are ignored. I can't tell you how many articles I've read where they supposedly tested vaccines and instead of actually having a true control group where they give a placebo, which will be a sugar pill or saline solution injection, they'll always have a second group which they call a control but they get an actual vaccine, or a vaccine adjuvant, which is a poisonous substance that's put into vaccines. They don't have a real control group. (08:33)
And despite that, there are a large number of serious reactions and either those reactions are, we're told the reactions are not related to the vaccination or there not more reactions than they would have expected. Well, if you are the person who reacted to that, or the parent of the person who reacted to that, I don't think you expected that. If you have a child that becomes brain damaged after vaccination or paralysed or develops autism or has siezures, I don't think you were expecting that because if you were expecting that you never would have put your child up to have that vaccine. The science behind vaccination shows that first of all, no vaccine immunises. I refuse to call them immunisations because they are not immunisations.
And if it's ok with you, I might flip through to one of the slides that I have here that talks about this.
Mayer: Please go ahead. Please.
Meryl: Thanks. Ok, now, this is the Australian situation, but there are graphs very much like this for the United States, so even though this is the Australian, umm I guess, evidence, the United States has exactly the same evidence, it just goes back a little bit further, because in the US they actually started most of these vaccines before we did in Australia. Now the top graph shows the deaths from whooping cough. Now we use deaths, most graphs use incidences, but we use chose to use deaths because usually when someone dies there will be a pathology report afterwards. It's a lot more accurate to look at the deaths from the disease than the incidence. And there are two arrows in the whooping cough graph that show where the vaccine. The first one shows where the vaccine first became available and the second arrow shows where it was added to the Australian vaccination schedule. We didn't really have a vaccine schedule until that point. So, you can see that from about 1880 there was a steady and pretty precipitous decline in the death rate from whooping cough. The vaccine was introduced around 1938 in Australia and added to the schedule in the mid-1960s. And the death rate from whooping cough had declined by more than 95% before the vaccine was introduced to the childhood vaccination schedule. Diptheria exactly the same. Polio's a bit problematic because it wasn't even a reportable disease until 1950. And when the vaccine was introduced there was almost no deaths from whooping cough. We actually did have a blip, an upturn in the deaths from polio, right after the vaccine was introduced, and a similar thing happened in Australia because the vaccine was actually causing polio.
And measles is the one of the most interesting ones because in 1970, when the measles vaccine was introduced in Australia, there were 3 deaths reported from measles. Since the vaccine was introduced we have an annual rate of death from measles at about 12. So, I don't see that the measles vaccine has done anything for Australia.
And we've included the bottom 2 graphs, scarlet fever and typhoid fever, because there's never been a vaccine for scarlet fever and it used to kill a lot of people in Australia. And typhoid fever, very similar, there has been a typhoid fever vaccine but its never been used on a widespread basis. It's been used in the aboriginal populations, and it was advised for travellers for awhile. But these diseases, scarlet fever and typhoid, we've never had vaccines for them and yet if you look at the decline in the death from these diseases, it mimics the decline in the deaths from the diseases that we do vaccinate against. There is no evidence that vaccination has done anything to help with deaths from these diseases. In fact, I spoke with a public health official recently who said that engineers were more responsible for the decline in deaths last century than vaccines or medicine ever have been. Just through the use, through the, I guess, advancements of clean water and better living conditions. So, I feel that when we look at developing countries and see what's happening there with these deaths from the diseases, if we went in there and dug wells and made sure that they had good living conditions the people living there, and made sure that they had enough food to eat, and clean water, I think we would see exactly the same decline in deaths. Its got nothing to do with vaccination and everything to do with living conditions.
Mayer: You know, Meryl, let me tell you that in the United States, the graphs look exactly the same, the ones that you're showing here. There's no, and we can even add one more to that, and that's tuberculosis, which in the U.S. we don't vaccinate for, and virtually non-existent anymore. And all the graphs look exactly the same. So, this is beautiful material, thank you.
Meryl: Yeah, no worries. It's an eye-opener because everybody says that, you know, if you stop vaccinating you're going to see a huge increase in these diseases, and its far from the case because as you can see the vaccines did nothing to actually speed the decrease or the decline of these diseases. Only better living conditions have done that. And tuberculosis is a great case in point because the only communities in Australia where we actually see tuberculosis are the aboriginal communities and many aboriginal communities are as bad as any third world country community you would ever see. No clean water, no fresh fruits and vegetables, no idea of nutrition, and a lot of vaccination. And despite that, or maybe because of that, they have very high levels of tuberculosis in those communities and a lot deaths from it.
So, the whole idea of vaccinations immunising is a fallacy as well. All vaccines are meant to do, and this is how they're tested to find out if they work, is to create antibodies. Now, what they do is take a group of people, give them a vaccine, and then test their blood 3 weeks, 6 weeks, a month, two months later. And they find a protective level, a supposed protective level of antibodies. This number seems to be pulled out of a hat because there doesn't seem to be a whole lot of scientific information about what is protective when it comes to antibodies. But that's the only way that we know to measure whether or not a vaccine is effective, not how many people don't get the disease who have been vaccinated, but how many people who get the vaccine have developed antibodies afterwards. And we've known since the 1930's that antibodies don't equal immunity. You can have very, very high levels of antibodies and still get the disease that you are supposedly immune to, and have absolutely no measurable antibodies have live virus or bacteria in your body and have no symptoms. Because the antibodies are only one very small part of the immune system and I love this quote because this is actually from a medical textbook, "Many vaccines stimulate immunologic memory but do not block infection". So, in other words, you can be vaccinated, have antibodies, still get the disease, not only get the disease but pass the disease onto others. So, vaccines do absolute nothing to reduce the rate of infection or to reduce the spread of infection. The two things that we're told they're specifically supposed to do, they don't do. And I think that if parents knew this they would certainly think twice about vaccinating. And when we weigh up the benefits versus the risks of vaccination, the benefit we're told is that our chidlren will become immune to the disease. So, if you're worried about whooping cough, if your're worried about polio, take the vaccine and you'll be immune to it. And we know, science knows, that that is not the case. You are not made immune by vaccination. The only way to become immune is to develop the disease and develop natural immunity. And that's the only way to get immunity. So I think this is a really important thing because if we're weighing up the benefits versus the risks then we're told that there is no benefit, then what's the point of taking the risk.
Mayer: Why do you think, I'm just kind of curious, is everyone been bamboozled. Is it the same in Australia than in the states where you know, the paediatricians believe this as gospel, which means you take it on faith.. You said it just absolutely perfectly, is there, .. why? Why do you think so? Do you have any thoughts?
Meryl: Well, paediatricians in Australia just as in the United States. In the United States, and you probably know this because you went to medical school, but the medical curriculum is actually written by pharmaceutical companies. And the AMA, the Australian Medical Association, and the American Medical Association, get an awful lot of support from pharmaceutical companies. So, the curriculum, everything that is in medical education, is written by pharmaceutical companies. So, unless a doctor chooses to look outside of what they're taught, they won't really know. So, I really think that most paediatricians care deeply about the people that they treat, but they don't know any better. (18:05) And I say this all the time, any parent who's read a book and a few articles about vaccination, will know more about the subject than the average paediatrician. And not only will they know more than a paediatrician, they will know more than most immunologists because immunology education is shockingly bad in most medical schools. So, yeah, there's a big gap in knowledge.
In Australia what we have, and it's same thing they have in the UK, which is incredibly unethical, is that doctors are paid a bonus, or a bounty as I prefer to call it, to vaccinate your children. And they lose money if you don't vaccinate. In Australia, if a child is vaccinated according to schedule, within one month of when the vaccine is due, they get $18.50 on top of the $21.50 that the government pays them from Medicare. So, if you go to visit a doctor with your child, the doctor will get $21.50. If the child is vaccinated within one month of when the vaccine is due, they get an additional $18.50, almost doubling the cost of that visit. Then, if they report that your child was vaccinated to the Australian Childhood Immunisation Register, which is a national database that tracks who's vaccinated and who's not, they will get $6.00. And then at the end of the year if 90% of the children in their practice are fully vaccinated according to schedule, they'll get a bulk payment from the government that can be tens of thousands of dollars. They lose that if they don't reach that 90% mark. And we have a lot of families who have family physicians that they've been seeing through their generation and their parent's generation, who are now saying "don't bring your children to me because you are making me lose money". And this is incredibly unethical. No doctor should have a vested interested in a prodecure, a medical procedure, that they're recommending because they're supposed to think it's good for your child. There should be no money changing hands with that. I think anyone can see that. And this is the situation in Australia, I don't think you have it in the US.
Mayer: Oh, wait, wait, wait a minute, it's here also.
Meryl: Is it? Oh.
Mayer: Yeah, I can tell you that I'm the.. uh uh, I'm very active in the Bluecross HMO Alternative Group here in Chicago, and we have over 1000 people are participating and they give you a, one of the bonuses that's given - bonus, I hate that word also - is if your practice is exactly 90% or more vaccinated. And I have fought with them endlessly saying that if the family has a valid waiver, how could you count that against us? They said, Dr Eisenstein, everyone of your family has a valid waiver. And so, we are required to hand in the waiver, but it doesn't make a difference, we are still penalised because of that. But you know, it's slipping in also. Now I can tell you something just fascinating, which makes me think that things are going to change. When I was at the Bluecross meeting about two years ago, they were looking at why our practice had such a low incidence of asthma. The average rate of asthma in the HMO here in Illinois was about 12% in children. And they had a very good definition of asthma - it was two emergency room visits, or one hospitalisation. So you can't fudge on it, as such. And we had one case out of a thousand children. And they said to me "why is that" and I said "well, because we're great doctors", and they says "come on, Dr Eisenstein, we know the truth". This was scary, Meryl, this was really scary, ".it's because you don't vaccinate, isn't it?" How frightening is that?
Meryl: They said that?
Mayer: Yeah, they said that. I thought it would be an issue that they wouldn't want us to be part of the program if we offered families choice. They were very happy to be...you know...uh, I mean, it's very scary.
Meryl: It's criminal, it's more than scary, it really is criminal. Because children die from asthma. Adults die from asthma. And if we know that vaccines are causing asthma, and honestly, we know it because so many scientific studies have shown such a strong link between vaccinations and asthma, vaccinations in every form of allergy. And if we continue to allow this to happen, and by we I mean the medical community, the mainstream medical community and the government, then we are allowing people to die from something that's totally preventable. And that is criminal. I really think that that is incredibly criminal, and it shouldn't be allowed to take place. It's wrong. (22:53:18) And that quote, is just incredible too. That's amazing. Yeah, so, I'm sorry, you were asking me something else that I was supposed to answer?
Mayer: No no no, perfect, no I'm sorry, go ahead. You're perfect.
Meryl: OK, no worries. I did want to mention that I know that vaccination is compulsory in the United States for education and that there are exemptions available in every state, but they're not always that easy to get. Here in Australia, we don't yet have compulsory vaccination, but the government is planning on bringing it in, and I do believe that this whole swine flu episode is one of the ways in which vaccination will be made compulsory, not only for children but for adults as well. And it's one of the reasons why we have asked everyone to become active in fighting against this because the swine flu vaccine is probably the most frightening vaccine after the gardasil & cervarix vaccines, the two vaccines for cervical cancer. It is totally untested, using an adjuvant, which is a substance, a chemical substance that's added to induce a reaction. That's what it's there for; it's to make a reaction so they can use less of the virus or bacteria, and still get the same number of antibodies developed after the vaccine is administered.
And all of this has been grandfathered in, it's not even been tested, not that vaccines ever really get scientifically tested, but they're not even making a show of testing this. And in Australia, the government has pre-ordered enough vaccine for every man, woman and child, and I don't believe that they would be doing this if they weren't planning on making it compulsory because it's costing hundreds of millions of dollars. And from what I understand the US is doing very much the same thing, they have ordered over 300 million doses, I think, of the vaccine. And I think that is something that everybody needs to be aware of, that in 1978 vaccination became compulsory in the US and, once it becomes compulsory, it is almost impossible to get rid of it. And if it becomes compulsory for adults as well, it's going to be the same situation, and we are going to see death rates and adverse reaction rates that will make the deaths and adverse reactions in 1976 from the swine flu vaccine look like nothing, look like childs play. So I really think that people need to become active, it's not enough to know. You have to actually do something about it. It's part of our responsibilities as citizens of a democracy to actually take action against these sorts of attempts to get rid of our rights, to make our own decisions. Ok, off my soapbox.
Mayer: No no no no, let me, that's the most important, and I want you to also talk tonight a little bit about what we can do as an activist because one of the typical is the families that don't vaccinate are the one's who go to the libraries, (?) the internet, they're not typically ones who go out and march. I think is kind of important, to talk about what you're saying is exceptionally important.
Meryl: Yes, and I'm a child of the 60's and 70's. I mean, I'm 51 years old now, and I grew up during the Vietnam war, the very end of the Vietnam war. And I grew up with this attitude that if something wasn't right, I had to do something to change it. I did march in anti-war protests, and I did work politically behind the scenes to try and make sure that legislation could be passed that would protect rights. I really think it's important that, you know we're very lucky, very blessed to live in a democracy, and it's not just a matter of luck, it's a matter of responsibility as well. So, I think that in the United States, as in Australia, we do need to take action, and part of that action means writing letters to our elected representatives to say "here is some information on this situation. Are you aware of this, are you aware that I will not vote for you, if you allow compulsory vaccination to come in for adults". There is a fantastic new website that just started out, its called pandemicflu, oh gosh, I've just totally forgotten it, I think its pandemicflu.com.
Mayer: Yeah, Karen will find it and put it up.
Meryl: and they have facsimile letters and flyers that people can print out and distribute. They can send them to their politicians, send them to Barack Obama, to his Health Secretary, to all the different people that you can possibly think of in the government that could take action on this, both on the local level because in the United States, vaccination health policy is state, it's not federal. In Australia, a lot of it is federal. So, send this to all your elected representatives, send it to your school, the schools that your children go to, send it to your employer, send it to all your friends and family, send it to your doctor, send it to your naturopath, homeopath, chiropractor. Make sure that everyone you know is informed about this issue because if we work on the grass roots level and actually inform everyone - and this information is verifiable - if you look at the pandemicflu online, you will find a million references to everything that is said. And they're medical journal references so they can't really be argued with. If we make sure that we educate people, and that's the most important job of an activist on this issue is to educate people, then the problem is half solved right away because the education is so important. Fear is why these vaccination campaigns are effective. The only way to fight fear is with information, with education.
So, if we take our roles really seriously as advocates for our children to make sure that their health is protected, and as activists in our community to make sure that our rights as Americans, as Australians, as people living in a free society are also protected, then this situation will be solved. And that's the only way that it's going to be solved. The media's not going to do it, the biggest purchasers of advertising in the developed world are pharmaceutical and chemical companies, and in the majority the media will not cover this issue fairly. They are very biased towards whoever buys the most advertising. So, the media's not going to do it, the mainstream medical community is certainly not going to do it because they believe that what they are doing is right, and they are also getting paid to believe that. The governments not going to do it. Pharmaceutical companies - there are two pharmaceutical lobbyists for every member of congress. And they spend hundreds of millions of dollars every year making sure that legislation gets put through that will benefit them. The swine flu vaccine, they've already passed legislation to say that if anyone is injured or killed by the vaccine, neither the government, nor the pharmaceutical companies, will be held responsible. You're on your own. So that would not happen if it wasn't for all those pharmaceutical lobbyists.
So, yes, being an activist is extremely important, being an educator is also important. If you have access to this information you are in a position where you can help others, and you need to do it. It may not be considered politically correct, you may run into some flak, but you have to do it. We have, on our website, we've got a section under our taking action pages called, I think it's called, 'How to communicate your points of view' and it's written by a marketing person and he has written it about the vaccination issue because he knows that if you start talking about vaccination, a lot of times people get offside just saying the word that you might be questioning vaccination. So he gives you some pointers on how to approach other people so that you won't get this bad response back, so that you'll actually get a response that will be "oh ok, really, maybe I want to get some information about this". And that's what we want to do. You'll never convince anyone that what you're saying is right, all you have to do is plant a seed of doubt and make them want to get more information. And then maybe give them some websites, some flyers, that will allow them to get more information. And that's an important role that everyone who's listening to this can play. And that anyone who thinks that individual rights are important. Because whether you think vaccines are good, bad, or indifferent, everyone must agree, that nobody should be able to tell anyone else that they must do, or take a medical procedure, that could place their life or their health, at risk. And that's what we're saying when we say that vaccinations are compulsory. We're saying that your individual right to be healthy is not your right. That the government, or the medical community, has more right over your life, or your children's lives, than you do. And that's wrong.
Mayer: You know, Meryl, and it's umm, it's ummm, you can maybe argue it for communic, for, for infectious diseases. How do you make the argument like you said, right at the beginning, for the gardasil vaccine or the hepatitis B vaccine, you can't get them by sitting in the same room with someone. Which is a theory I don't believe in, the infectious theory of disease, but that's separate. You know, there is a legal principle, 'falsus in uno, falsus in onmibus', if someone, it's what the judge tells the jury before they deliberate, and it's an old principle, all in British law also, which means if someone in the jury lied about one thing, you can assume they lied about everything else. And that's really in my mind the crux of this whole thing, how they've snuck in vaccines that have nothing even to do with infectious diseases.
Meryl: That's right, that's right. It's pretty incredible, and there are over 200 new vaccines that are currently in testing. For everything from cocaine addiction to tobacco addiction, cancer, I mean lots of vaccines for cancer aside from cervical cancer, and all of these vaccines, once they're finished being tested according to past experience, once these vaccines have finished their testing phases, they will be introduced to the schedule, and they will become compulsory in the United States and if the swine flu epidemic allows the Australian government to make vaccination compulsory here, they will be compulsory here as well. (33:52:16) There is a doctor in the United States, Dr Paul Offit, your probably aware of him, he is, ummm, (giggle), I'm trying to think of a way of saying this without getting sued.
Mayer: He's an idiot. Plain and simple. [Both laughing]
My wife's not here, she's on the other line [Meryl still laughing in background], he is, he's a tool of the whole movement, that's all he is, he's a high-priced tool.
Meryl: He is.
He's on the committee, the Food and Drug Administration committee that approves vaccines, and he owns a patent, or owned I have to say, he owned a patent for the rotavirus vaccine which we're using here in Australia, but I don't think your're using it there, yet. And he actually sat on that committee when they voted to approve his vaccine, and he sold his share of the vaccine this year, I think it was over 40 million dollars that he got for that vaccine. And he did.. uh, I mean an incredible vested interest. He's on the committee that approves vaccines and he was on the committee that approved his vaccine that he made 40 million dollars off. But, aside from that, he did a study that was published in a medical journal. I mean, I don't want to even quote the study because it's a rag. Talking about, uh, he used computer modelling to say that children are capable of handling 10,000 vaccines at one visit without any ill-effects. Ok, 10,000. Now, I reckon, that if anybody should be getting 10, 000 vaccines at one visit, it should be Paul Offit, and I would volunteer, right now, to administer it to him. Because then we will actually see what sort of ill-effects someone will suffer from 10,000 vaccines at one time.
My son who was injured by vaccines, he's 20 now, and at the time that he was vaccinated, if he'd been vaccinated according to schedule, by the time he started kindergarten he would have received 18 vaccines. Now a child in Australia today, if they're vaccinated according to schedule, they will get between 50 and 54 vaccines, depending on whether they are caucasian or Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander. Aboriginals get more vaccines than caucasians do. So, we went in twenty years from 18 vaccines at school age to over 50 vaccines at school age, and as I said, I'm 51. When I was vaccinated I didn't get my first vaccine until just before I started kindergarten and I got diptheria, tetanus and whooping cough, smallpox and polio. That was it. That was it. Now we've gone from a schedule, and even then, people did get hurt and killed by vaccines but certainly not to the extent that they are being hurt and killed now. We went from that schedule of 5 vaccines fifty years ago to 50 vaccines now, and Paul Offit is saying 10,000 vaccines. It's hard to imagine, we are very robust, humans, so I mean I think the fact that we, that we've survived medicine for this long is evidence of that. But how much more can the human body take? How much more can an infant that doesn't even have a functioning immune system, until they are at least 2 to 3 years of age, how much more can they take? That's the question.
Mayer: Yeah, boy, you're not kidding. You know, ah, and umm, it's it's sad, it's really sad, you know, ah, that doctors aren't willing to look at the science. But you know, I want to make a point, my partners and I as you know, may know, that we've delivered babies that almost [?] do that. And the same arguments were made for hospital birth versus home birth. And, no one should think that all of us think that these diseases are good diseases. That's not the issue. But the bottom line is, you want the benefits to outweigh the risks, and what's all of a sudden you start establishing that there may be no benefits, all you're left with is risk. I think, that's a problem, you know. None of these are good diseases, you know. And I don't advocate that we should go out and try and get them, you know. But surely we need better theories than injecting needles into us with substances that don't work.
Meryl: Absolutely. And when you look at the list of ingredients in vaccinations, the list of poisons, there's no other word for them. They call them toxins, it's just another word for a poison. It's hard to imagine, ok, where did we ever get the idea that by injecting poisonous substances into the human body we're developing health. I don't understand where that idea ever came from. The only thing that poisons do, is poison. So, if you are going to be putting something that's poisonous into the human body, what do you expect to happen. You expect it to get poisoned. And, as you said, where are the benefits of vaccination? If I can go over this really quickly, I know that the United States, I think they are anyway, are you having a whooping cough outbreak in the U.S?
Mayer: Well, let me tell you something, no, not at this very moment. But every whooping cough outbreak, measles outbreak, mumps outbreak, were primarily in fully vaccinated children. That's the craziest thing.
Meryl: Yes. We are in Australia right now seeing our largest outbreak of whooping cough that we've ever had on record. I just want to go through these slides really quickly, because this is evidence of the ineffectiveness of vaccination because we talked a little bit about the risks, I want to talk about how effective vaccines are. Now, right now we have the highest number of cases of whooping cough per capita that's ever been reported in Australia. It is all being blamed on the unvaccinated. We live on the far north coast of New South Wales, a place I like to call paradise, and it is a low, we have a very low level of vaccination here. And everyone in NSW, which is one of the states of Australia, is pointing at the north coast of NSW and saying "that's where the Australian Vaccination Network is, and that's where the cases of whooping cough started out, and therefore it's the unvaccinated who are causing the problem".
Now, a couple of things. This, has yet to look at history you know, what's that saying, "those who ignore the lessons of history are doomed to repeat them", well this is one of the lessons of history. In 2001, Australia had a 71.6% vaccination rate against whooping cough. Now we're told that for herd immunity we need the rate to be 95%, and once it's 95% the disease goes away. So, we only had 71.6% vaccinated against whooping cough in 2001 - this is across the country as a whole.
Now, last year in 2008, for the very first time, we passed 95% vaccination against whooping cough. It's the diptheria, tetanus, and whooping cough vaccine that we use. So 95.1% of all Australian children were vaccinated against whooping cough as of 30 June 2008. Ok. Now this graph is really interesting. This is from the National Notifiable Diseases Surveillance System.
So these are laboratory diagnosed cases of whooping cough. In 1991, when our vaccination rate was 71%, we had 318 cases reported across Australia. In 2008 when our vaccination rate passed 95% for the first time, we had 14,500 cases. So, that was an increase of 40 times, almost 40 times, the number of cases of whooping cough reported when our vaccination rate was 95% versus when it was 71%. This is evidence that the vaccine is not working. If we have a 24% increase in the vaccination rate and an increase of 40 times in laboratory diagnosed cases of whooping cough, this is evidence that the vaccine is simply not working. And I do know that that there have been outbreaks in the US of recent years, not right now, but of recent years and that as you said the majority of those who got whooping cough were fully vaccinated against it. So when we're giving the vaccine we're thinking that we're preventing a disease, where we are keeping our children safe, but the evidence shows that that's not the case. We're not preventing anything. All we're doing is causing vaccine injuries, and maybe even causing a greater incidence in the disease, because if we see more cases once the vaccine rate goes up as compared to when the vaccine rate was low, I don't know what other conclusion you can draw to be honest.
Mayer: There is no other conclusion. That's the problem. When you have something that is so conclusive, and everyone in the world for all practicality thinks the opposite is true, we've got problems. That's why we have such serious problems.
Meryl: And again it goes back to belief. Because we don't have to think about this, we don't have to believe about it, we look at the evidence and the information. And it's all there. Vaccines don't work. Vaccines are dangerous. And people who think that when they vaccinate their child they're protecting them, unfortunately, the evidence shows that that's not the case. Vaccines don't immunise. All they do is sensitise. They make you more susceptible to allergic problems, to food allergies, to asthma, to excema, to autism, to all of these other problems that didn't used to exist, or didn't used to exist in the numbers that we see now, for sure.
And all we've done is make our children sicker. In Australia, we have a report by the Australian Bureau of Statistics, which is a government body that looks at a whole bunch of different statistics about the country, and recently, I think it was 1995, they released a report on the health of Australia's children, and they said 40%, four zero percent, of Australia's children, are now being treated for chronic health conditions. So almost half of our children are sick. And I think we don't even remember what it is to have healthy children. I met my first asthmatic when I was 26 years old. I went skiing with a friend, and she took out a puffer after a run down the hill, and she used it. And I said "what is that?" She said, "I have asthma, I have to use this when I have trouble breathing". I'd never seen that before. I'd never heard of that before. You ask any kid in school now, in Australia - Australia and New Zealand have the highest rates of asthma in the developed world - we have between 25 and 30 percent of all children are asthmatic here now. And people are saying how terrible it is, the medical community is saying let's find better treatments for asthma. What they're not asking is "why?" Why, you know, 30 years ago did we have no asthma, and now 25 to 30 percent of children are asthmatic. Why 20 years ago was one child in 20,000 autistic, and now 1 child in 67 is autistic in the United States. We don't even have a register in Australia to see how many kids are autistic, but a school is opening up about half an hour from me, and this school is specifically there to take care of autistic children. An entire school is being built just for autistic children. Now, we're seeing such huge incidences of these diseases and everybody is saying let's find better treatments but nobody is saying what's causing it. And there's no point in treating something unless you're willing to say what's causing it.
Mayer: You know Meryl, I've got a job for you. If it's right what you're saying right now about asthma and vaccines. There was a study, it was a small study that was done in Australia, and I can't find it anymore. It's not on the internet. It was an organisation that was very staunchly pro-breastfeeding organisation that looked at four groups. Breastfeeding and vaccinated, breastfeeding and unvaccinated, bottlefeeding and vaccinated, bottlefeeding and unvaccinated. They looked at respiratory illnesses. And it wasn't a very large study, but enough to be interesting. Well, the lowest incidence was obviously breastfed and unvaccinated. What was fascinating, what was second? Bottlefeeding and unvaccinated had the second least amount of asthmatic type conditions. And that was really very eye-opening, because that means if you breastfeed, it is not as protective against getting asthma/asthma-related illnesses as not vaccinating your children. This was powerful beyond belief. Because in our practice we took a look at, we had a very small number of asthmatics, and sure enough, it was only in those that were vaccinated that had it.
Meryl: Yes, well, I have a copy of that study, Mayer, and I'll get a copy of it to you. It was done by the Nursing Mothers Association of Australia, so I will get that, scan it, and send it off to you. I'll also send you a study that we did about 7 or 8 years ago, and it was.. What we did was, we surveyed our readers, at that time about 600 readers wrote back. And we asked a whole series of questions, asthma wasn't the only one but it was asking whether their children were vaccinated, how many of them were vaccinated, how many of them were unvaccinated, and what the incidence of asthma and other conditions were. And then we did exactly the same survey with an Australian parenting magazine, a mainstream parenting magazine, and we got 400 responses back from that. And when we tabulated the responses it was so telling. I think the final number was that the children who were vaccinated were six times more likely to be asthmatic than the children who were unvaccinated. And we tried to get that published in the Medical Journal of Australia, but they wouldn't publish it, they wouldn't even look at it. And it was done very scientifically, we actually had a scientist doing the entire study, writing the questions, tabulating it, used a special computer program for this so it would be fit for publication, but they wouldn't publish it. And this is what happens, unfortunately. When something comes out that questions medical procedures, it doesn't get published in medical journals. But I'll send you a copy of both of those reports and you're free to share them with anyone else.
Mayer: Oh thank you, oh I promise you, I will share it with the whole world, if I could. You know, because asthma is an extremely serious illness. It almost didn't exist 30 years ago. Virtually didn't exist. It is almost 100% in my mind, related to vaccination. You know, this is just absolutely frightening. You know, umm, I must have you back, because this has been absolutely awesome. And we have I would say in excess of a hundred questions. But let's try. You know, Karen, let's see if we can get two or three questions before we finish up, just so we can get our audience to have a little bit of input.
Karen: Ok. We have so many people with so many great questions. Oh my god, I think, I don't know where to start. But I think mainly with the idea that swine flu maybe coming back to America in the fall and winter, and this whole thing gearing up for the swine flu. And I mentioned to you before we actually started the webinar, could you address not only, you kind of touched on the issue of vaccinating and the swine flu vaccine coming up, but are people ill in Australia? Are you seeing people dying from swine flu as it is winter by you right now?
Meryl: We've had some deaths that the government has said is from swine flu. And we have a lot of cases, but I have to say just like in the United States, just like in every other country, there is no laboratory testing going on. Any time someone goes to a doctor with flu-like symptoms, that's what they call it, flu-like symptoms, they're diagnosed with swine flu right now. It's assumed that they have swine flu. So, is there, is there an outbreak of swine flu? I don't know. The medical community doesn't know. The governments don't know. This is a manufactured outbreak, I have no fear in saying that. Influenza is a disease that is, that does not kill healthy, well-nourished people who don't undergo medical treatments. Now, I know that there was a case in the United States just a couple of days ago where a brother and a sister both died, and they said that they died from swine flu. They were both in hospital. Were they given Tamiflu? Were they given Rolenza. What sort of treatments were they given? What was their diet like? There's so many things that you have to look at. There's a great book in Australia, I think it's out of print now, unfortunately, but we do have it in our library. It's called "Health, the only immunity", and what it basically says is that if your immune system is strong, then it doesn't matter what you're exposed to, you will be able to not only survive it, but to pass through it and be stronger out the other end. Because some diseases actually have a beneficial aspect to them. We're not meant to be totally well all the time. We need to have some illnesses and, but you know, fearing the flu is like fearing the cold, and what I've read recently is that only about 20% of cases that we call flu, are actually caused by an influenza virus. There are over 200 viruses that can cause flu-like symptoms. So, a large majority of what we're calling swine flu is probably being caused by something else, but because we're not doing the testing, we're not seeing it.
There's so much information coming out about influenza and I'm sure Mayer can tell a lot of people about other ways of not only preventing the flu but treating it if you do get sick that will keep you healthy. And again, I recommend, and Karen, thank you for getting that website, it's pandemicfluonline.com. There's some fantastic information there about what you should know about swine flu. Fear is probably one of the worst ways to make a decision and if you're afraid of the swine flu, well that's a sign that you actually need to be getting more information. It's nothing to fear. From all evidence, people who have been laboratory diagnosed with swine flu had a milder case of flu, than people who had been diagnosed with normal human influenza. So, I don't think that it's something that's going to be killing people, unless they treat it in a medical way. With our family, when we get sick with anything, we use garlic, vitamin C, echinacea, and zinc, and normally, it's within a couple of days we're over it. And we don't really fear these diseases, we just take care of our health as much as we can, and with good diet, good nutrition, fresh air, and just a good environment as much as we can. In this modern world we can't guarantee a completely clean environment, but as much as we can, we do. So, I think that people need to get rid of the fear and just get informed.
Oh, and Karen has just put another website that's fantastic, DrTenpenny.com That's Sheri Tenpenny, and she's probably one of the world's experts, leading experts, on influenza. So, definitely check out her website, as well.
Mayer: Might go one step further, she is the world's expert. I have not met anyone who, poor Sheri stays up all night long just researching, and just getting her information out, is just absolutely outstanding. Karen, I know we have lots more questions though.
Karen: Right, a couple of people asked regarding the chart that's on the screen right now. They wanted to know if the increase that you're seeing, was there a corresponding increase in population in Australia over this time.
Meryl: There was a small increase over this time. But, when you look at it on a per capita or per head of population basis, our rate is higher now of whooping cough infections than it's ever been before. That's a good question. In 1991, our population would have been about 18 million. Right now it's about 21 million. So, yes there was a small increase, but not enough to really say that this, would explain this huge increase in the incidence.
Karen: Ok, and since we have an international flavour to the webinar tonite, there were questions about the incidence of autism in other countries, and mainly we'll talk about Australia. I know in England they're talking about 1 in 86 boys with autism. Here in the U.S. they talk about 1 in 105, and I don't think they differentiate by gender. But, what do you see in Australia?
Meryl: In Australia we don't have a register that actually keeps track of autism. But we do have different groups and states. Autism Canberra, which is our Capital Territory, has said that they estimate one child in a hundred is autistic in Australia right now. And, you know, the government services that are given to people with autism, the money being spent on it, it has just gone up exponentially. And that's the only way we have of knowing that we actually do have an increase in the incidence of autism. We don't have a figure to give you. Unfortunately.
Mayer: You know, I've got to give you a statistic that was told to me this week, that just scared me even more. The number of children in the U.S. who are going to be diagnosed with autism 2009 exceeds the sum total of all people who have AIDS, who are going to be diagnosed with AIDS, diabetes and cancer.
Meryl: That's shocking.
Mayer: There is no doubt in my mind, there is a virtual 100% correlation, between vaccines and autism. I've made the statement over and over again, I'll be happy for anyone to refute it. No vaccines, more vitamin D, more being in the sun, no autism. The vitamin D plays a very small part relative to the vaccines.
Meryl: It's interesting, cause I have some, I'm really lucky. One of our members has been researching the DPT vaccine, the diptheria, pertussis and tetanus vaccine, for a long time. And he gave me all of his research about 10 years ago and he has medical journal articles going back to the early 1900's, from the Journal of the American Medical Association, and the New England Journal of Medicine. And, it's very, very interesting. There are articles about a condition called postvaccinal encephalitis, which is identical to autism. There was no name for autism back then. Autism wasn't named until the 1950's, I think, Kanner named it. And in the 1912, I have articles going back that far, where they describe children who got vaccinated and they developed this thing called postvaccinal encephalitis. And their symptoms were identical to autistic symptoms: lack of eye contact, spinning, stimming, all of these different things, even the gut problems they were describing are related to autism. And they didn't argue that this was caused by the vaccination. They actually called it postvaccinal encephalitis. And it's only because there was no name for autism back then, that we don't look at those studies. But the evidence was for over a hundred years that vaccines caused autism. And the evidence still is that vaccines cause autism. And it's only people who have a vested interest in ensuring that this connection is not made, who are denying it. They're the only ones.
Karen: We have some, Mayer, I just want to say that, Nick updated me, my figures on the Britain, were probably old, and it's changing very quickly. And he says 1 in 67 children has autism in the UK, that's from Cambridge University, which corresponds to 1 in 38 boys. How awful is that.
Mayer: Can you put the first slide up? The one with the groups and that, a couple of people have asked for that, please.
Mayer: I like that one. Perfect.
Meryl: I was thinking Karen, if you want to collate, I don't know if you can do this, but if you want to collate all the questions that have been asked, that you can sort of say, well you know, make a list of all the unique questions and send them to me, I'm happy to reply to them.
Karen: Ok, that would be great. I think we are considering, I have written down quite a few of them, and I think we will actually get a print out from this webinar service. But really, just a definite Q & A session where we just go through the questions one after the other, I think would be absolutely great if you're willing to come back and do this again.
Meryl: Very happy to do that, no problems at all.
Mayer: Let me tell you thank you, Karen you echoed by sentiment 100%. Meryl, I want to thank you so much. Meryl Dorey, you are spectacular. You know, I can tell you something, that one of my favourite people in business was Michael Eisner, the former CEO of Disney. He made them the mega company that they are. And he had an expression "What is the definition of quality? When reality exceeds expectation". And I want you to know, you exceeded all my expectations which were very high to start with. Thank you so, so much. And we are looking forward to you coming back.
Meryl: I'm blushing. Thank you. I really appreciate this. This is such a wonderful opportunity for me, and I really appreciate you giving me this chance to talk about this subject that I'm obviously very passionate about. So, I really appreciate that.
Mayer: Thank you. And thank all of our attendees, and Meryl's talk will be archived on the homefirst.com webinar website, and it will also be on the Medical Voices website. So, we'll have it available for everybody. Good evening everyone and thank you very, very much.
Audio only (mp3): http://www.mediafire.com/download.php?irax0n5unlkny79
Video (m4v): http://www.mediafire.com/download.php?9o9s43bczihs1tf
Posted: 18 Nov 2012