Diluted Thinking

in Australian healthcare

AVSN: Vaccinations - Do They Really Save Lives

This is a transcript of the talk "Vaccinations - Do They Really Save Lives" presented by Meryl Dorey of the Australian Vaccination-Skeptics Network at the Healthy Lifestyle (You Can Heal Yourself) Expo held in Caloundra, Queensland, on 25 May 2014.

WARNING

The 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.

I highly recommend you read the following rebuttal to some of the misleading and inaccurate information that was presented by Meryl Dorey: The Anti-Vaccination Network's talk at the Healthy Lifestyle Expo.

NOTE: editor's comments are notated in the transcript using [ ] brackets.
I would like to thank the very generous people who provided me with the audio and transcript (but who wish to remain anonymous).

[begin transcript. Speaker: Meryl Dorey]

Thanks everyone, um, I’d like to first of all thank Wayne and Annie both for inviting me to speak here. Originally this was supposed to be a debate with both sides of the issue being shown, ah but unfortunately nobody from the other side could be found to defend the vaccination issue so I get the stage to myself which is a bonus and hopefully um some of the questions that you ask when I finish speaking will help to bring out some of the aspects of vaccination that might have been covered otherwise.

Um, I wanted to ask if at all possible can, I understand that some people have babies and some broken limbs and stuff but if it’s at all possible for you to move a little closer to the front that would be great. My voice is loud enough that I can break the glass at the front of the expo centre without even trying but my hearing is not very good and by question time I may not be able to hear what you’re asking so if it’s possible to move forward that would be great but if you can’t I understand as well.

I’d like to just introduce myself very briefly, um, as Wayne said my name is Meryl Dorey and I started the Australian Vaccination Network as it was known in 1994. I have my first child Matthew who was injured by his vaccines at 2 months and at 18 months of age, um at 2 months he developed obstructive sleep apnoea and he would stop breathing in his sleep, he had growth problems, severe breathing problems, uh and we didn’t really know that it was the vaccination and we were more afraid of the diseases than we were of the vaccines, so we continued to vaccinate because we couldn’t find any information, also it was very difficult at that point. When he was 18 months old he got his measles, mumps, rubella vaccine and ended up in hospital for three days. We believe that he had encephalitis but the hospital really couldn’t tell us what was wrong with him, and it was after that reaction that I decided that if I was going to vaccinate any further I needed to know why I was doing it. What was in the vaccines? What the diseases were that I was trying to prevent and what the science said about this information and it started me on a journey that’s lasted for nearly 30, well 25 years and I don’t see that it's going to end any time soon. The more I learn about vaccines the more I realise I need to learn more, and there’s no way that today’s talk is going to give you all the information you need to know about vaccination, but hopefully it will give you enough so that you decide that you want to learn more. Because like all medical procedures, vaccinations may have benefits but it also may have risks. And you as a parent for your child, and as an adult for yourself, need to be aware of those before you make a decision.

Now one of the mantras or the catch phrases that we always hear about vaccination is that vaccines save lives. I spoke at Woodford a few years ago and um, the group that’s been targeting this event also targeted Woodford in very much the same way and while I was talking they had hired a plane at a cost of several thousand dollars to circle the venue with a banner out the back that said "vaccinations save lives". Now that is what we’re told but as I said vaccination is a science, so where is the evidence? I hope I can help answer that question, where is the evidence in my talk today.

Um, the AVN has been around since 1994 and it’s the Australian Vaccination Network except it’s not anymore. The NSW government decided that calling ourselves the Australian Vaccination Network was somehow confusing to people um even though we are Australian, we discuss vaccination and we are a network of people who support and work together. So we were forced to change our name and we are now the Australian Vaccination-skeptics Network which actually is a fantastic name for us because we are very sceptical about vaccination in the true sense of the word sceptical. We don’t accept what we’re told by the government and by the medical community. We want proof, we want evidence and we want the ability to investigate for ourselves. So that’s what this organisation is. We support informed health choices. We don’t care what you do. You can choose to vaccinate fully, you can choose to not vaccinate at all, you can choose to be selective with your vaccines. The only thing we care about is that you are provided with enough information to make that informed choice. And that that information is freely available. Nobody should be censoring it. Nobody should be suppressing it, and nobody should be subjecting you to bullying or abuse because you’re asking questions. Asking questions is intelligent and by being here today um and hopefully answering some questions that you may have had, you will be increasing your intelligence because you can never know too much about this issue. Take it from me.

Um, we protect the rights of our members just the way that we have been targeted, our members are targeted. Not just by the groups that are out there um been vilifying people, I’m trying to think of a nice word, but um, vilifying people, but governments and medical um authorities can also um infringe on the rights of parents who have chosen not to vaccinate. Schools can. You need to know your rights in order to protect them. So we are contacted on a regular basis by members who have found that they are put into a situation where they are being discriminated against and we help them.

Um we provide referenced information and not everything that we have on our website or our literature comes from peer-reviewed reference material, but a great deal of it does. Our questions come from the science and uh, that is an important thing to understand that we are not controversial simply by asking questions because these questions are being asked by scientists, doctors, immunologists, paediatricians. We are not alone. It’s just that unfortunately the media does not tend to report this point of view, this side of the debate and there is a debate. We oppose any form of compulsory vaccination or medication. You have the right to decide what’s going to go into your body and into your child’s body. Nobody has the right to tell you that you have to take vaccines or that your child has to be vaccinated. And we will fight to the death to make sure that you retain that right.

And we tried very hard to work cooperatively with the government and with medical authorities. It’s not always easy um because we are very much sidelined, we’re considered fringe. Um we feel that we are taking a very middle of the road path here, we are just saying become informed but somehow becoming informed um equates in the minds of some people to... I’m not sure how many of you read the article where Dr Herdy on the Sunshine Coast said that we were like Al Qaeda so some people think of us as terrorists but I don’t see where that comes from because we really and truly do just want to support your right to informed choice.

Now qualifications is something that comes up regularly. I’m not sure how many of you heard Alvin DeLeon’s talk this morning which was excellent and he talked about how um some people think that you need to have a string of letters after your name, an alphabet soup, uh before anybody should be allowed to listen to you. Uh we don’t believe that. We believe that anyone who is trying to make a decision about vaccination has the qualifications to do so. They need to have a brain to research, the ability to read, and the ability to understand and ask questions. Um, the medical community and I’m not, I’m saying the medical community in general and it’s not generalised because there are many people in the medical community who don’t believe this but in many sections of the medical community and also in many sections of government uh there is a belief that we should just be listening to our doctors, trust your doctor, just do what they say and above us is the doctor and above the doctor is this thing called science, and both of those are infallible and we are not capable of, nor should we be questioning them. And what that is, that is not medicine and that is not science. That is a religion. You take things on faith in religion, you don’t take things on faith in science. In science you investigate, you research, you test and you make sure and that is what all of us can do. We can’t go out and do the vaccine studies but we can read the studies that have been done, we can read the information, we can ask questions and we can make an informed choice for our families. And that's what the AVN supports.

Now a very, very basic question, if you listen to the media and also to the government they use the words vaccination and immunisation as if they were the same thing, they’re interchangeable but they’re not. They are quite different and that difference is key in understanding why some people question vaccination. To be immunised, in the real sense of the word, is to be protected from a disease. Uh it’s the process by which a person or an animal becomes protected and this definition comes from the Centers for Disease Control in the United States. So if I contract measles um without ever having been vaccinated, I am immunised against measles because I’ll never get it again. Same thing with rubella. Um the same thing with most of the other viral diseases. I am immunised by contracting and recovering from the disease. Vaccinations is simply a medical procedure; it’s the injection of killed or weakened infectious organisms, and I love this 'cause it disregards all of the other ingredients of vaccines, the adjuvents, the preservatives, the contaminates, but let’s go with their definition "the injection of a killed or weakened infectious organism in order to prevent the disease". Vaccines do not convey immunity because anyone who is vaccinated can, and may be will, at some point in the future contract the disease that they have been exposed to. So, you cannot be immunised by being vaccinated and calling them both the same is, is a misnomer.

Now many of us have heard about how vaccines are supposed to work. What they do is they take a small amount of a virus or bacteria, mix it up, sometimes they attenuate it or change it chemically so that it won’t cause the infection and they inject it into the body or we take it orally through our mouth. And what that’s supposed to do is to alert the immune system and make it recognise that this virus or bacteria can cause disease without actually causing the disease. That’s the theory behind vaccination. So you’ve been vaccinated against measles today, your immune system will say okay, that’s a measles virus I’m not going to get measles from the vaccine, but at some point in the future if I’m exposed to measles I will recognise that, and I will already have what’s called “antibodies” against measles because I got that from the vaccine. And those antibodies will prevent me from getting measles once I'm exposed. So that is the theory behind vaccination and all vaccines are meant to do and the only way that they are tested to see if they are effective is after being vaccinated people develop what is called the protective level of antibodies to the disease. And that sounds all well and good except we have known for over 70 years that the presence of antibodies do not mean that you are immune to the disease, in fact all it means is that you’ve been exposed because many people can have absolutely no antibodies to a disease and be immune to it and many other people can have very high levels of protective antibodies and not be protected. Um this is an obituary for Dr Meryl Chase, a man Meryl, and he is called the father of modern immunology and he discovered in the 1940s that it is not antibodies alone that protect us. The immune system is incredibly complex and uh a balanced, a wonderfully balanced system that, that, has been developed over millions of years in order to help protect us from the environment; from toxins, from diseases in the environment. And what Dr Chase found is that antibodies are only a small part of that process, they’re not the be all or the end all and that can explain why people who have very high levels of antibodies still get the disease. So the whole purpose of vaccination is to create these antibodies, to cause our bodies to create these antibodies, and yet that doesn’t mean that we’re going to be protected at all.

So back to the mantra, "vaccines save lives". This is from Medicines Australia: “Immunisation and the provision of population wide vaccination programmes remains one of the most effective and cost effective public health measure to prevent disease. With the exception of clean safe drinking water, no treatment rivals immunisation in reducing mortality rates.” The mortality is deaths from disease. So this is a government authority saying that aside from clean water, which they're admitting is very important, um vaccines are what have saved so many lives. And you would think that a government department with all of their money, and all of their research and all of the experts they’ve got working there, would not make a statement without having the evidence to back that statement up.

So how do we prove that vaccines have actually saved lives? Well let’s take a look at some information. Now these next three slides that I’m showing you are from an excellent book, I highly recommend that you look at this book, it is called "Fooling ourselves: on the fundamental value of vaccines" and it’s written by Greg Beattie and he actually got the data from the Australian government. This is all Australian government data and it was approved by the government. I will spend a few seconds explaining what the graphs mean for people who are not that graph-friendly. I was not that graph-friendly, I can understand graphs now, not the really complex ones, but on the left hand side, um it goes from zero to 250 and that’s the actual deaths per 100,000 that were being diagnosed as related to these diseases so uh, it goes all the way up to almost 250 people dying per 100,000 uh down to zero. The bottom line is the years. So this graph goes from 1870 to 1970 uh which is a 100 year period, it’s quite a good look. And there are two lines here. The solid line is scarlet fever and the dotted line is measles. So these are deaths from scarlet fever and measles and as you can see scarlet fever actually killed more people than measles did and yet the death rate, the decline in death between the two of them is quite similar and you can see by about 1945/1950 there were very few deaths from either one of those diseases. The vaccine for measles was introduced in Australia in 1970 at which point we had almost no deaths from measles. But what’s really interesting about this graph is that we've never used a vaccine for scarlet fever and yet scarlet fever disappeared. Basically the deaths from scarlet fever disappeared without a vaccine. Scarlet fever is a bacterial illness so it can be treated with antibiotics but if you look at the graph, by 1940, looking at this even before 1940 there were very few deaths from scarlet fever and we weren’t using antibiotics at all or very little in 1940. So we can’t say that it was either vaccines or antibiotics that had anything to do with this decline, and measles being a viral illness you can’t use antibiotics to treat it. So it doesn’t look from this, to me anyway, as if vaccines had anything to do with causing the decline in deaths from these diseases. So for measles and scarlet fever, I wouldn’t say that we have any evidence that vaccines save lives.

Next graph is whooping cough and this one's a little more complicated only because the whooping cough vaccine came in a bit earlier than the measles vaccine. So we were still seeing deaths from whooping cough but if you again go back to 1870 you’ll see that there are almost 100 deaths per 100,000 in 1880 or 1875, I can’t really see up and down that well, um and it went down to a very low, about 10 per 100,000 by the time the first vaccine came in in 1945 and in 1953 when mass vaccination was introduced in Australia with diphtheria, tetanus and whooping cough vaccine, by that point there was again almost no deaths. So can we say that the earlier vaccine that came in around 1945 contributed to that decline, small decline in deaths? We can’t rule it out but if there was an effect from this earlier whooping cough vaccine it was very small and it would not explain why when the mass vaccination started in 1953 the death rate was close to zero.

And the last graph I’ll show you is a more recent vaccine, actually three vaccines. These are deaths from meningitis. Now meningitis is a terrible disease, you don’t want anyone to have meningitis. Meningitis can be caused by bacteria, it can be caused by viruses. Generally when it’s caused by a virus it’s not as bad but it can be, and meningitis can kill. It kills a percentage, a fairly large percentage of the people who get it. So you do, if you could prevent it um you’d probably want to, if you could. But we’re being told that the introduction of vaccines for meningitis, the Hib vaccine came in first in 1992 and then later in the 1990s we got the meningococcal and pneumococcal. We’re told that the introduction of these vaccines led to a huge decline in deaths from meningitis but you can see from this that the vaccine was brought in when the deaths from meningitis were already very very low, and according to what I’m looking at here, I can’t see that vaccination did anything to reduce the deaths from this disease.

So when the government says that vaccines save lives, what are they basing that on? Are we supposed to trust them just because they’re the government, or do we have the right to demand proof of what they say? I think that we have the right to demand proof. Now just very quickly over the next three graphs - I’m not going to spend a lot of time on them - I just want to show that this is not only in Australia that this information is available. Every developed country that has this information about how the mortality rate or the death rate declined. You can see that before vaccines were introduced the bulk of the decline in deaths had already taken place. This is the United States mortality and there are five diseases here in different colours, it’s probably not that easy to make them out. Um the two highest death rates are from typhoid and diphtheria, they killed more people than anyone else. And the three that are infectious diseases, the three along the bottom are whopping cough, scarlet fever and measles.

Typhoid and scarlet fever never had mass vaccination. There was a typhoid vaccine available, and still is, for travellers but it was not used routinely so it can’t really be claimed to have reduced the deaths from typhoid and scarlet fever. In the Unites States they did develop a vaccine for scarlet fever but it killed so many people that they never brought it out into mass use. So neither scarlet fever or typhoid um, can claim that vaccines caused their decline. And with the other diseases, with the exception of diphtheria, um you can’t really say that the decline was because of the vaccination. So again we don’t have that evidence and I’ve been reading some information online saying that it’s only because we live in a rich developed nation that we have the ability to question or to say that we want to refuse vaccines; if we lived in developing countries then we would be begging for vaccines, we would be out there on the streets saying vaccinate our kids please. Now this information comes from the World Health Organization and the two lines you need to look at are the blue one and the red one. The blue one is infant mortality, so in other words, deaths of children under the age of one, and the red one is childhood mortality, so deaths of children from 12 months of age to five years of age. And you can see that there is this steady decline from the left which is 1960, to the right which is about 2010, I’m guessing. I think it's 2009/2010. And what these other lines are, these squiggles that are going up and down the screen, those are the different vaccines: when they were introduced and the vaccination rate. It went from about zero in 1980 to as high as 82/83 percent in 2010. Now if vaccines,... oh and I do want to point out one thing, um there is no doubt that in developing countries their childhood and infant mortality rate is extremely high, 250 deaths per 100,000 in the five years and younger, and 150 in the infant mortality under 12 months of age, so it’s a big problem.

If, if vaccines were to take credit for this decline which you see here, definitely declined, then you would expect to see the introduction of vaccines, the vaccination rate increases and boom, the death rate goes down. But the change, there is no change basically, it just continues along the same path. So according to this, which is World Health Organization information, vaccines did not save lives, and the next graph is the same information from India. It’s very similar. You see that same decline, very steady, without any change whatsoever when the vaccines came in and you can see that the rate goes up to almost 90 percent for vaccination. We’re always being told that developing countries, they don’t really vaccinate because they can't afford it. Well, they vaccinate and they vaccinate well and in the case of some vaccines, like polio, they over-vaccinate. Some of these kids are getting the vaccine 18, 20, 30 times and um, that in itself could be causing problems. So we don’t really have evidence to say that vaccines save lives. And that’s a big issue because the life-saving effects of vaccination are how they are sold. It’s how we are made to feel that we need to vaccinate because we want our children to live. All parents want their children to be happy, healthy and to live long lives. And if we think that vaccines will give them that benefit then of course we’re going to vaccinate. But we need the evidence.

The real reasons for the decline in mortality is not vaccination, and not as far as we can see from the evidence anyway. The real reasons, and there are other reasons than this, but these are the main reasons. Clean water: clean water is so essential; better living conditions: as living conditions improve, infectious disease mortality goes down; improved sanitation: um, typhoid, the huge typhoid outbreaks that took place when they had open sewers, as soon as the sewers started to be built, typhoid went away; and improved nutrition: having enough food to eat is really important. So, one has to wonder if we, instead of spending hundreds of millions of dollars sending vaccines to developing countries - and I believe that in 2012 the federal government spent over 200 million dollars providing vaccines to developing countries - um if we had put that 200 million dollars into digging wells, and um making sure that people could grow good food and improving sanitation, digging sewers, one has to wonder if we would have seen a huge drop in mortality that we would have expected to see after vaccination, but didn't, but we may never know the answer to that question.

Um, this is - I love this picture, sorry - um this is herd immunity. How many of you have heard of herd immunity? Ah that’s good then. Yeah, ok, almost all of you, almost all of you. Um, the theory behind herd immunity came about in the 1930s. There was a researcher called Hedrich and he was studying measles and he found that if a certain percentage of the young people in the community had developed and recovered from measles that there would be a period of time, the interepidemic period, where nobody, or very few people, would get measles. You'd have sporadic cases but you wouldn’t have an epidemic. So, he figured that that level that you needed for children to have measles was around 65-68 percent and he said, that if you get that many children who’ve had measles then you won’t have an outbreak for a few years. He never intended the term herd immunity to describe wiping out a disease or eradicating disease. That just didn’t enter into the equation. All he was trying to do was describe, or explain, why most infectious diseases are cyclical in nature and almost all of them are. You have one year that you could consider an epidemic year where you have lots of cases reported and then you'll have a few years where it'll be quite low number of cases and then it’ll go up again. And what Hedrich did was use the term herd immunity to describe why that happens. And a very important thing about Hedrich's Herd immunity is that he was looking at true immunity, not vaccine induced sensitisation which is totally different. Never, vaccines don’t immunise.

So, um right now - and this has probably happened in the last four or five years since 2009 - um the government has changed the conversation when it comes to vaccination. I’m not sure how many of you have noticed this, but I think it’s quite clever in a horrible kind of way. When my children were young they were, it was admitted that there were cases of vaccine failure. If a vaccinated person got a disease that they were vaccinated against, it was because the vaccine wore off and they needed to get more boosters, but that was considered a vaccine failure. Now, and for the last four to five years, when a vaccinated person gets a disease that they were supposed to be vaccinated against it’s no longer a vaccine failure. Now, they get that disease because there were unvaccinated people around them and what the government says is vaccines only work if everyone does them. And I’m not making that up, that is what the federal government, the health department says. Now, I’m not Einstein but does that make sense to you because it doesn’t make any sense to me. If a vaccine can’t protect an individual then how can you blame the fact that that vaccinated person was not protected on another person who’s near them. Especially if you can’t describe that person then you can’t say that okay person X was not vaccinated against whooping cough and he gave whooping cough to person Y who was fully vaccinated, and person X was the first one to get the disease. You can’t say that. I see it all the time in the newspaper, um there is an outbreak of whooping cough at the school, it was started by an unvaccinated child. They don’t name the unvaccinated child, they don’t say the child was in that school but it’s an assumption that’s made because vaccines only work if everyone does them. And I’ve gotta tell you that’s a load of sheep poop, it really is. [audience applauds]. Thank you.

This is from, I think it’s a text book, it’s called "Herd Immunity: History, Theory, Practice" and it’s from 1993 uh and it describes the theory of herd immunity. Now, herd immunity is a theory, it has never been proved. um it is referred to as if it is a fact but again that’s just faith, that’s, that's science up here, we’re praying to it, we don’t have any evidence. Um what this study says, or what this book says, is that several authors have written of data on measles which challenge the principle of herd immunity and others cite widely divergent estimates from 70 to 95 percent of the magnitude of the herd immunity threshold required for measles eradication. In other words, some studies say you need 70 percent to be immune and other studies say you need 95 percent. I have to tell you 2008 was the first year in Australia that our childhood vaccination rate against whooping cough surpassed 95 percent. We had the highest vaccination rate we’d ever had. 2008 was the biggest epidemic year we’d ever had up to that point. The following five years make 2008 look mild and we have not had a decline in vaccination; what we have had is an increase in the number of fully vaccinated children and adults who are getting whooping cough. So um, if herd immunity worked and our vaccination rate was increasing you should expect to see the recorded incidence of disease to be going down, not going up. The fact that it’s gone up so much is evidence that the vaccine is simply not working and it’s got nothing to do with the herd, it’s got to do with the vaccine not working.

Um, and the whole thing with herd immunity is, if enough people in the community are vaccinated against a disease they won’t be able to spread it. So if everyone in a classroom is vaccinated, then even if there is bacteria or virus around, somehow there’s a stop there and you can’t spread from one person to another because vaccines put up this magic wall that somehow prevents that from happening. Um this is from Dr Larry Palevsky. Let me point out that all my slides will be available after the talk so if you haven’t taken notes, you've got a question about something, just email me, I’m happy to send you the slides because you may not be able to read these that quickly. Um, Larry Palevsky is a paediatrician in New York who questions vaccination safety and efficacy and he doesn’t get death threats for it believe it or not, um and he says the fact is vaccination does not stop you from carrying bacteria or viruses in your nose, in your throat, in your intestines, in your airway, on your skin or in your body. You can’t vaccinate believing that your children are protected and then feel that your children, woops sorry, are not protected because somehow, someone, sorry, some non-vaccinated child is carrying some secret organism that no one else is carrying. It just doesn’t make any sense. And he’s right, it doesn’t make sense. If you believe that vaccines are protective and you vaccinated your child then why are you worried about other unvaccinated children next to you? You shouldn’t, you're childred are protected right? If your children aren’t protected from vaccines why are you doing it? Because if vaccines don’t prevent disease, then all the issues about side effects and deaths from vaccination, and allergies and autism and all these other things go out the window because if we can show that vaccines haven’t actually saved lives, if we can show that the vaccinated people are still susceptible to getting the disease and there is an amazing interview, it wasn’t an interview it was a video online the other day uh from an Australian doctor, and he said, as a matter of fact vaccinated children are more likely to get the diseases it's just that they will have a milder case, um than the unvaccinated would. I’ve never actually heard a doctor say that and he’s quite a pro-vaccine doctor and I'm wondering if he actually meant that or he made a mistake, but um. That’s what he said, he said you’re more likely to get it if you’re vaccinated but you’ll have a milder case of it. Haven’t seen evidence for that.

And this is a very important - I’m only going to cover this briefly because there are more points to this issue that a porcupine - um for infectious diseases where immunisation can offer a lifelong protection uh and we don’t know of any, but they are obviously saying that some can, a variety of simple mottos can be used to explain how herd immunity works, basically. Um, and the fact that you get lifelong immunity from the vaccine means that you won’t be spreading the disease and therefore in your case herd immunity works. But vaccinations can have a range of unexpected consequences when they wear off, because when they wear off then you can have new epidemics breaking out amongst fully vaccinated people and that is something that we haven’t factored into the equation and that is something we are seeing in Australia, we’re seeing it in the United States, we’re seeing it in Europe. In fact we’re seeing it everywhere that uses mass vaccination. Um, we have outbreaks of measles, we have huge epidemics of whooping cough and it’s in the vaccinated, so we have not considered the possibility that actually mass vaccination may cause newer and larger epidemics of infectious diseases than we had before we started mass vaccination.

Uh and this is a very recent article from "Science Now". There was an outbreak of measles in Europe and they actually tracked the index case, or the first person who got measles in this outbreak and um, they found out that he was fully vaccinated. He received two vaccines and I believe that his second one was actually not that long before he got measles, I could be wrong there but I think I remember that. And what he did was he infected other people with the measles, and almost all of the other people were also vaccinated. Not all of them, but almost all of them were vaccinated so they said hang on, this is weird, this is surprising, we didn’t expect this even though we’ve been seeing it for years. Um why is it that a fully vaccinated person should be starting an epidemic of measles? And the only possible answer is that the vaccine didn’t work to protect them.

So how did we get into this situation? I'm asked this question all the time. Why would the government tell us that vaccines are safe and effective when we don’t have enough information to actually prove that vaccines are safe and effective? Does the government want our children to die? Do they, you know, really not care about us? And I don’t think that’s true, I think that the government is only as good as their advisors and unfortunately when it comes to the government advisors who approve vaccines and drugs for Australian consumption, the fox is truly in charge of the henhouse. And what do foxes do with hens?

Um, all drugs and all vaccines go through an interesting process to be approved by the Therapeutic Goods Administration. Since 1998 the TGA which licences all drugs and vaccines and medical devices in Australia have operated under a system called cost recovery and what that means is that they get no money from the government at all, even though they are a government department they are funded totally - lock stock and barrel - by pharmaceutical manufacturers, device manufacturers and in a few cases where natural products require licence or registratio,n they have to pay a fee as well. Without licencing new drugs and new vaccines and new devices, the TGA would have to close their doors. So they are totally beholden on the companies whose products they’re supposed to be regulating. Can anyone see a problem there? I think so. Um there is no independent testing of vaccines, drugs, devices. What the TGA says is, you have to spend 40,000 dollars, you have to run a couple of studies, and then you have to come back and give us the results and if the results look good, we’ll licence it. If they don’t look good, we won’t licence it. Now you’ve just spent 500 million, a billion dollars developing, research and development on this drug or this vaccine or this product and you’re being told to go and test it and the results come back not good. What do you do? You do another study. You design it. You use another researcher. You tell them upfront the results that you want, and you get them. And then you bring those studies to the TGA and the TGA says yep, approved, go ahead and sell it. And that’s how we have situations like the situation with Vioxx where tens of thousands of people died of strokes after taking this drug that was approved by the TGA as being safe, or Advandia, which is the diabetes drug, that gave so many people dementia and also killed so many people. Where we have situations like the um rotavirus vaccine, the first rotavirus vaccine, that had to be withdrawn, not in Australia, but in the United States their system is very similar, because there were all of these children needing surgery and dying because their intestines were wrapping around themselves called intussusception. So we don’t find out about these problems until after the drugs or the vaccines are licenced and it’s [inaudible] something called post-marketing surveillance where they'll do a small trial, small scale trials before the drug or vaccine is licenced and then they licence it, put it out to millions of people and say uh, do me a favour, if anything goes wrong let us know. And that doesn’t always work. In fact it very rarely does.

Now with the pharmaceutical companies, especially with vaccines - I can’t say that this happens with all drugs, but it happens with vaccines - there is no real control group. And that means no group that actually does not get any treatment, no placebo. Um, if you’re testing a drug to find out if it works or is safe, what you do is you have one group who gets the drug and one group who gets a sugar pill or placebo, something that has no effect on the body, it's totally inert. And you follow these people and you say, okay this group got better, this group didn’t, this group got the drug, this group didn’t, it worked. Vaccines they don’t do that. And our government has actually said that it's intentional that they don’t do that because vaccines are assumed to be safe and effective and therefore it would be considered unethical to leave one group unprotected for the sake of testing them. So if everything that we know about vaccine safety and effectiveness is actually conjecture because they’ve never undergone these true scientific gold standard trials. Um, the drug companies as I said pay for the uh trials to be conducted and the government has refused consistently to do the one study that would set my mind at ease and I think would set most of our minds at ease, and that is a study comparing the overall health of the fully vaccinated as compared to the fully unvaccinated. We’re one of the few counties in the world who could do that almost at the push of a button, because we have something called the Australian Childhood Immunisation Register, which tracks who is vaccinated and who's not. That register is linked with the Medicare database. The Medicare database says who gets autism, who gets asthma, who gets diabetes. We can compare, we can say okay we’ve got this group of children who are unvaccinated and um, they are less likely to get this or they are more likely to get that, and we have this group of children who are vaccinated and this is their health status. Simple study. Wouldn’t cost very much at all and yet the government refuses to do it, and you have to wonder why? It’s something that needs to be done, it’s never been done anywhere in the world. And in addition most reactions when they do occur are discounted or ignored. Um, the big expression is correlation does not equal causation and that means that just because something happens close to another event doesn’t mean the event caused it. Um, the Food and Drug Administration in the US put out a booklet that said 98 percent of people who have car accidents would have eaten bread in the previous 24 hours. You can’t say that bread caused the car accident and that’s true. But just because correlation doesn’t equal causation does not mean that it never equals causation and when you see correlation happening time and time again, when you see the same reactions happening to the same drugs or the same vaccines time and time again, you have to start asking whether the two are connected and it is assumed with vaccination that they are not. With drugs, it’s not, and I was talking to someone today who said that they read an article in a vet magazine about animals that, that they accept that vaccinations cause cancer in animals and right now vets are choosing to inject vaccines in the tail of a cat or a dog because if they get cancer there, at the site of the injection which happens a lot, then they can just remove the tail and they don’t have to worry about major surgery in the other part of the cat's body. So it’s admitted with animals, but the same thing with humans and it's totally coincidental.

Can you tell me what time it is please? Okay, I’ve got 15 minutes, I’m going to very quickly go through these. Um this is a study that only just came out and it’s called "Poor results don’t get published". That’s not the name of the study, that’s what I’ve called the slide. Um and what this study looked at is 384 trials and they found that when a drug company or a pharmaceutical company sponsors a trial of a drug or a vaccine um, if the results are not complimentary towards that drug or vaccine there can be a very long delay before it’s published. Uh but if it’s independently funded then there's very little delay and it comes out much quicker. In addition they found that only 2 percent of the industry sponsored trials came out saying that the drug didn’t work or wasn’t safe, and there was a 4.42-fold increase in the number of uncomplimentary drug trials that were published if they were funded independently. So when you look at trials and they say this was a wonderful drug, it worked beautifully, it was perfect, it’s everything we wanted, look down to find out what conflicts of interest have been reported. And if the drug company has actually sponsored that trial in whole or in part, which happens most times, then take that result with a grain of salt because if it had said something else it may not have been published. And for every article that gets published there can be many that never see the light of day. They’re trying to pass a law in the US right now that all studies by pharmaceutical companies must be published but there’s a lot of, um, a lot of people on Capital Hill who don’t want that, a lot of lobbying money goes into Congress uh because of pharmaceutical interest.

Now, I’m not sure how many of you have heard the news last week that a study came out that proved once and for all, hands down, vaccines don’t cause autism. There you are. Not everyone, about half of you have. It was front page news, it was everywhere, we had journalists calling the AVN asking so are you going to close your door now? Are you going to close down, it’s all done and dusted, that's it. Um, and it’s pretty amazing that they have had that attitude because autism is just one of many problems that have been associated with vaccinations and this one study is just one study. And we welcome any studies into any vaccination issue because we need a lot more studies, we need good quality studies, and I don't believe this was a good quality study but it’s certainly not going to answer the question and it does not prove once and for all that vaccines don’t cause autism.

Um, the title of the study is "Vaccines are not associated with autism: An evidence-based meta-analysis of case-control and cohort studies". Now a meta-analysis is a special type of study, they don’t do any new research, it doesn’t bring anything new to the table. What they do is they look at previous research and they try and get lots and lots of information and they compare it, they combine it, they try and get some sense out of it that can make it more palatable by combining all these studies they can get a better result. So it’s a good thing. A meta-analysis is a really good thing; if it’s done properly. This one was a very weak study, indeed. They started out with, from memory, 1193 studies that looked at vaccines and autism. Or looked at mercury and autism, or looked at one of those issues with autism. Out of that 1193 studies they widdled it down to 10: five cohort, five case control. They didn’t explain why they got rid of all those other ones, which is a problem. And then they made the front page news, they made the headlines on the TV at night, they made the radio news for days. The person who did this study is being lauded, he's been interviewed everywhere. In comparison we can look at a study that came out a few years ago from the Cochrane Collaboration, it was another meta-analysis. Now, the Cochrane Collaboration is the largest database of scientific research, medical research in the English language. And they did a meta-analysis using 90 studies. And out of that 90, 69 of them were control studies, control trials, and control is just about the top kind of study you can have. Randomised control is probably better, but, but controlled trials are very good. So almost all of the trials that had were controlled trials. This autism study had no controlled trials. Um and in the autism study that was just published, actually it’s not even published yet, it’s in pre-publication, um, the media is reporting that 1.2 million children were studied but almost all those children, the lions share of them, came from two studies. And both of those studies have been criticised for many years, 2003 and 2004 I think from memory, that they were published, and they’ve been criticised for bias and selection, in other words, the way that they chose who was going to be studied and the way they looked at that information. And here's one of the most interesting things, if you go to our Facebook page you can read this, 'cause I actually put it up there, um the author whose name is Guy Eslick, um he’s an epidemiologist, he wrote an epilogue to his meta-anaylsis. Now I don’t know if that’s common, I think it’s fairly unusual to have an epilogue to a study like this, but what was even more unusual is that the epilogue was a personal story of his and that is really weird, to put a personal story into a scientific study. And in this epilogue he says something along the lines - I don’t have the exact wording here - um he understands why parents are concerned about vaccination. He has 3 children himself and his first two had serious reactions. They had seizures after their vaccinations and they were hospitalised. One of them was hospitalised I think for 10 days, or unconscious for 10 days, I can’t remember, I just read it this morning. Um very sick for 10 days and then a few days later the other one um had another vaccine and reacted to it. And what he said is just because his children had these really terrible reactions and seizures after vaccinations was no reason for him not to vaccinate his third child. What he did was he made sure he gave him Panadol before he gave him the vaccine and everything was okay.

Now I question that. I really question that. I think that these symptoms that our children are showing, they’re trying to talk to us the only way they can. Their bodies are telling us that something we’re doing is not really good for us. And the whole idea of being vaccinated is to be healthy, right? If vaccines aren’t supposed to make us healthier why are we using them? And if something that we’re using to make us healthy or our child healthy actually gives them seizures and puts them in the hospital and makes them unconscious, we should be as a responsible parent saying hang on a second, let’s take another look at this. What are the benefits when I see these risks in front of my own eyes? And he admitted outright that the vaccines caused the seizures, there was no conjecture there. And what he said at the end is even more interesting, because he said if a parent notices that their child had a change in behaviour or some change in their status, that it should be reported to VAERS, which is the Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System, and that is an American reporting body, not an Australian body. And yet in his own study, he excluded any information from VAERS. VAERS contains hundreds of thousands of reaction reports, many of them dealing with autism and he just ignored them completely.

What he included, this was the inclusion criteria that actually made the final cut, was extremely narrow, very, very narrow um number of studies, he started with 1200 and got down to 10. Um, and none of them were studying vaccines in total. Children get 16 vaccines, um these studies only looked at mercury-containing or thiomersal-containing vaccines and the measles, mumps, rubella vaccine. Um nothing else really. There were some studies that may have included a little bit of information about Hep B, a little bit of information about another vaccine but in general it was just those two things. So it excluded rotavirus, Hib (haemophilus influenzae), uh pneumococcal, poliovirus, influenza, chickenpox or varicella, Hepatitis A which we don’t use in Australia, Human Papilloma Virus and partial meningococcal, sorry we use it but only for adults and for travel. Um and the biggest problem as far as I’m concerned is that there was no unvaccinated cohorts. So in other words there was no group of children or adults who had been completely unvaccinated. And as I said before, if you want to get an honest result you have to have one group that doesn’t get the treatment. Without that you’re not comparing um, you’re not comparing properly. You won’t get a proper result. Now his exclusion criteria or the studies that didn’t make the final cut were extremely broad. Any study that focused on, so mostly concentrated on those other vaccines that I mentioned were taken out, um even if they directly said that they were studying the relationship between vaccines and autism. So when the articles came out and said this proves that vaccines don’t cause autism, the studies that looked at that were not even included in this meta-analysis. And as I said, all VAERS data, the hundreds of of thousands of reactions in the vaccine reporting system were excluded. He didn’t explain why the studies were excluded which is extremely unusual also and leaves you open to wondering if there could have been some bias involved here.

Um, and he didn’t look at one of the biggest and most important unpublished studies. Now a meta-analysis is supposed to look at published and unpublished studies. And there was a study done, um in 1999 I believe, by a doctor by the name of Bruce Stratton and um he was doing this on behalf of the American Government, the Centres for Disease Control, and he came out showing this huge increased risk of a child developing autism/ADHD if they were vaccinated with mercury-containing vaccines. Seven times higher for autism and eight times higher for ADHD, it’s actually higher than that, I’ve rounded it down. But um that study was never published. What Bruce Stratton did - and this came out under freedom of information - is that he was begging the government, how do I make these terrible risks look like they don’t exist? We don’t know what they did, we have no idea because that information hasn’t come out. But what we do know is that he massaged and massaged and massaged until the final study came out and said that there was no increased risk of autism if you use vaccines that contain mercury. So um, that may have been a very important study to have included in this one if Eslick was honestly looking at trying to find whether or not vaccines cause autism.

Um, one of those major studies. Remember I said there was only two studies that contained the lions share of the children in this big meta-analysis. One of them is Matson et al that was published in 2002. I’ve only listed a few reasons why we think there are problems with that study being included here. Um Paul Thorsen is listed as one of the authors. Paul Thorsen is one of the 10 most wanted people in the United States. He absconded with over two million dollars from the Centers for Disease Control and um, we believe that his papers were fraudulent. 23 out of the 26 studies that the United States government relies upon to show that vaccines don’t cause autism included Paul Thorsen as one of the authors. So can we believe the studies that a known thief and a fraud was involved in? I don’t think we can. Um this study, again, had the figures, I believe, massaged. Um the results of the study said there was no increased risk of autism if you were vaccinated, but that was only after they changed an awful lot of things in the study when they adjusted for what are called confounders, or reasons, things that might affect the outcome in a biased sort of way. But the confounders that they used didn’t really seem to make a difference because the raw data was included there, or the tables with data was included in the study and these are things that didn’t make any difference to the outcome and yet when you took them out they got rid of the actual increased risk which was 45 percent. In this study children were 45 percent more likely to be autistic if they were vaccinated. And the average age for diagnosis of autism, this is interesting, today a child is being diagnosed with autism between 12 and 18 months of age, sometimes two years but usually much earlier. Back then in 2002 children were diagnosed with autism at four to five years of age. Now, this particular paper studied all children who were born between 1991 and 1998. Now you would think that if the average age of diagnosis was four to five years, that you would continue to study these children until 2004 because by 2004 all the children would have been at least five years of age so you would have picked up any cases of autism. But they stopped following them in 1999, so the last three years of children, if they had gotten autism after vaccination we’d never know it.

And that’s a really big weakness in this study, and they only looked at the measles, mumps, rubella vaccine which is another problem. I have some other information that I was going to cover about the flu vaccine in Western Australia but I really want to get to your questions. I do want to also urge you to um, whenever and wherever possible, uh, if you know information about vaccination, I know it’s really politically incorrect to talk about it, but there are ways of talking about this issue that hopefully won’t put other people off. It’s really important that all of us speak up and support our choices, because if we don’t do it the other side is going to continue to believe and to say quite effectively that it’s only a small fringe group of people who are too ignorant to understand the science who actually question vaccines. And that’s not true. There are a large number of Australians who question vaccination and there are a small but growing number of Australians who are choosing to reject them. We just need to speak up. We need to own our choices and not allow ourselves to be bullied. We need to stand up for our own rights because if we don’t, nobody else will.

[end of presentation; sign-off not transcribed]

[Question and Answer session]

[Introduction to session not transcribed. Greg Beattie of the Australian Vaccination-skeptics Network joins Meryl Dorey on stage to answer questions.]

Question: Hi Meryl, thanks for coming along, Lee is my name. Uh I once worked with a bloke who had a severe allergy to peanuts, sesame oil and seeds. He had one mouthful one day, grabbed his throat and dived to his pocket for a pill. It was that quick, it fixed him but I only recently read something about the alleged cause of it but I don’t fully understand it, can you explain it in simple terms, something about the oil being used as a carrier to keep it effective for longer. Sorry on the um, um placebo, uh can you explain if I’m allowed to explain why, how many studies on vaccination effectiveness use uh adjuvants and you know, thiomersal as the placebo.

Meryl Dorey: Um, the peanuts, peanut oil we believe has been included in vaccines since the late 1960s. I am 56 years old, I was born in 1958. I never knew anyone with peanut allergies until I started having my own children. So for a long time, 30 years, I never knew about peanut allergies, now you don’t know anyone who doesn’t have them. And um, there’s an excellent book that I can recommend called "The Peanut Allergy Epidemic", Heather Fraser I think is the name of the author, and she discusses it. Um they have evidence that peanut oil is used as a carrier in many vaccines and to this day it’s used in many vaccines. And because, probably too long to go into, but because vaccines are intended to alert your immune system to the fact that there is an invader in there, and if you attach a peanut oil, let's say, or an oil, a lipid of some kind to uh, a virus or a bacteria and then you inject it into the body, the body can look at that and say, okay I see measles and I know that measles is an enemy - this is the theory and I don’t know if it’s true but this is the theory - I know that measles is an enemy and attached to that measles I've got this weird oil. Now I’ve got something in my body that looks just like that, uh, I have all of this myelin wrapping around my nerves, and other oils that my brain uses, so I’m going to attack this because it’s attached to measles and when I see this oil in something else, in something that I eat or in my body I’m going to attack that too. So I’m going to develop a peanut allergy, I’m going to develop anaphylaxis and I can die after peanuts.

The interesting thing is that in Asian countries, some Asian countries, peanuts are not common but um sesame seeds are, they use sesame seeds in their food, so in those countries we’ve been told that they use sesame oil in their vaccines and just the way that we have these peanut oil allergies, they have sesame allergies as well. So whether there’s proof of that, I don’t know, but it’s certainly interesting and it should be studied.

The other question was about placebos. Almost all vaccines say that they use a plac..., sorry, vaccine trials, say that they use a placebo but what in general they use, almost everytime, is either a vaccine adjuvant which is a toxic ingredient that’s added to induce a reaction in the body so that the body sees the vaccine, or a preservative of the vaccine or another vaccine. So if they’re testing diphtheria, tetanus and whooping cough vaccine they may give one group that vaccine and one group the diphtheria, tetanus, whooping cough and polio. So both groups get an active substance, so you can’t really compare the two and say yes it works or, you can determine that it works I don’t know, but you can’t determine that it’s safe that way, there’s just no way. [4:17]

Question: Hello, I’m Danielle, how are you going. Nice to meet you. Um, I have got two beautiful, healthy, unvaccinated children, um the eldest of which who is deaf and has bilateral cochlear implants. Previous to surgery there's a big push for most cochlear implant recipients to receive pneumococcal/meningococcal vaccines, which we didn’t, um yeah. And I was wondering whether you knew any of the research behind, or statistics behind, children that are cochlear implant recipients that are, yeah, unfortunately getting these diseases. I haven’t met many who haven’t had the vaccine, I’m probably one of the first in the hospital because everyone tried to push for that, so I’m just interested to see yeah, whether there’s any studies around that.

Meryl Dorey: Um I don’t have a lot of information on that. We have run into cases where people have had their spleens removed and um, they’d been told that they have to have vaccines before they have surgery for anything else because being asplenic they tend to be more susceptible to infections. But why being deaf would make you more susceptible to infections and why meningococcal is the infection to worry about, I honestly don’t know. Um, you know I can certainly see why they would worry about hospital-borne infections, but as far as I know meningococcal is not a hospital borne infection so I honestly don’t understand that. So I’m sorry I can’t answer that question.

Question: Good afternoon, my name is [inaudible]. Um, just a question about Paul Walker, do you have any information about his death? What happened in America? Is there any link between uh, Bill Gates and Paul Walker possibly?

Meryl Dorey: I don’t even know who Paul Walker is, sorry.

Question: Uh okay he was the president of American Vaccination Network. He just died several months ago.

Meryl Dorey: No I'm sorry, I haven’t heard anything about that I can’t help you. Do you know anything Greg? No, never heard of him, sorry. Question: Hi, I’m Krystal. I don’t know if you’ve heard that they were trying to introduce the idea, I don’t know if they’ve actually followed through with it, but the idea of vaccinations for stress and headaches and chronic headaches and stuff, and the idea that behind vaccinations being antibodies and making a resistence, in that sense. How do you resist something that isn’t a disease like that. Do you know the idea behind that, what it’s meant to be?

Meryl Dorey: Fabulous question. I know that there are over 250 separate vaccines that are currently in development and that includes vaccines against cocaine, vaccines against tobacco, so other things that aren’t um infectious diseases. Now, I know that I’ve heard with the cocaine vaccine what they’re doing is they’re trying to induce antibodies to cocaine so that if you get uh, if you take cocaine you actually end up getting sick from it. But that’s just what I’ve heard, I haven’t studied it. It is a very good question, I honestly don’t understand how that’s supposed to work. Uh, yeah.

[Request from the audience for Dorey to talk about the WA flu] [7:51]

Meryl Dorey: That’s what I was going to talk about but I broke it off because I thought you’d have heaps of questions. So I’m not sure how many of you follow our blog but if you don’t you should be. It’s called No Compulsory Vaccination.com and we have fantastic information, if I do say so myself, coming out there, we’ve got a whole stable of writers who contribute to it. And in the last few days we’ve been publishing a series that was actually probably precipitated by Dr Jeanette Young who's the Chief Health Officer in Queensland. I’m not sure how many of you read the article but Jeanette Young said that I shouldn’t be allowed to speak here and that the um, the expo was not thinking clearly when they invited me, that the AVN’s information was all misinformation, it was unscientific and we would only mislead and frighten people. And there is no debate, the science is in on vaccination, we take it on faith and there is no debate so there shouldn’t be two sides shown.

So um, there is a freedom of information claim, it’s called an RTI in Queensland, um, can’t remember what that stands for, something, right to information request that was done regarding the uh, the flu vaccine. Now how many of you remember what happened in 2010 uh with the flu vaccination in Western Australia when hundreds of children were hospitalised, one of them is brain damaged, seriously brain damaged. And a little girl in Brisbane died from the vaccine. Not many of you heard about it, and I’m not actually that surprised. In our area, which is northern New South Wales, in 2009 a little girl died from whooping cough and to this day, it was just a few days ago there was a big feature about her parents and what they’ve gone through and nobody is going to downplay what they went through, losing a child, I’ve never known what it’s like and I hope I never do. But um, there is a real double standard at work here and a real effort to suppress information.

So what happened was, in Western Australia there was a study being done and it started in 2008, so two years before this, studying the use of flu vaccine in children as young as six months of age, because children haven’t been targeted for flu vaccines before. And on the back of this study which was being run by the Telethon institute which is a big charity out there that was totally funded by the pharmaceutical companies who made the vaccine, uh we had a swine flu epidemic in 2009. So in 2010 the government of Australia decided that they were going to add the H1N1 which is the swine flu virus to the vaccine, um for children. I think for adults as well, it was the same.

But they hadn’t ever done that before, they had an extra virus uh that they added to the vaccine and the Western Australian government sent letters home to all the parents whose children were within that age bracket saying we’ve got a brand new vaccine, it is safe, it is effective, we recommend everyone gets it because there’s a really bad flu coming and children are going to die. So none of the other state governments actually did that but they used the same vaccines, but in Western Australia they really pushed it, and that’s why there were so many and obvious reactions. Um, I have written about this and Greg has written about this on our blog.

Um first an article about the effort to stop the debate in relation to what happened in Queensland. On the 8th of April the Epapara family that lives in Mt Gravatt um took their children and themselves to be vaccinated. I don’t think the father got vaccinated, I’m not sure about the mother but they had twins, twin daughters and um, an older son. And they got the vaccine and that evening they were all sick. One of the daughters was vomiting and the son was quite sick as well. The next morning, the 9th of April, when they woke up, unfortunately their daughter Ashley had passed away at the age of two, less than 12 hours after getting the vaccine. And um, Channel 10, I’m not sure how but Channel 10 in Brisbane got hold of this information and they contacted the Chief Health Officer's office and the Minister for Health's office to try and get confirmation. And they were told that there was no information about this.

And they ran a very short story um, to say that a child had died within a short time of being vaccinated, actually I remember now how they got the information, the police told them. The police who attended the Epapara's told them that the only suspicious circumstance in this death was that the child had been vaccinated shortly before dying. So um, the police were contacted by the Minister for Health’s office and the health officers office, and Channel 10 was also contacted and they were told in no uncertain terms that if they continued to say this there were going to be problems because people were going to stop vaccinating and of cause act judicious. So the information was suppressed and nobody knew about it except anyone who happened to be there on the 9th of April in that two-minute time slot when they reported it on Channel 10 news, which wasn’t many people. Almost immediately after that, and slightly before that in Western Australia, the health department was receiving lots and lots of reports of children having seizures and being very ill with high fevers after vaccinations. And they handled the situation very badly. They didn’t report them to the federal authorities so nobody in the rest of the country knew about it and they also didn’t report it even to their own authorities.

And during this time the Australian Vaccination-skeptics Network actually received calls from two people, one was a health professional and the other one was a parent. So the health professional from Western Australia reported that they knew of a child who was turning one on ANZAC day and had gotten the vaccine the week before and was now brain-dead and they were going to be turning off his life support. And the other one from Newcastle reported that a 19-year-old boy who was given the vaccine - don't quote me on the days - got the vaccine on Monday, hospitalised on Wednesday, died on Thursday. It was definitely within a three day period. And the 19-year-old's death was put down as being pneumonia even though he was perfectly healthy when he had the vaccine and as far as we’ve been able to tell the one-year-old child in Western Australia has never had their death reported as being associated with the vaccination. So, we know about those two deaths when nobody really knows about us, there were probably many more deaths and many more serious reactions.

So um one of the really big problems with the government trying to suppress the debate and saying that there is no debate is that the fact that if there is no debate, this information will never get out there. If it wasn’t for people raising a stink and getting upset about the fact that all these children were reacting and nobody was doing anything about it, the children in Western Australia probably would have continued to be vaccinated for weeks or months afterwards. And if it wasn’t for the fact that the Queensland government suppressed the death of Ashley Epapara, um Saba Button who is permanently brain damaged may not have gotten the vaccine, because Ashley’s death occurred on the 9th of April and Saba got her vaccine on the 19th of April, and at that point there was nothing in the media at all about problems with the vaccine even though they’d had weeks and weeks of um problems that were being reported from Western Australia but never made it to the media. So that information is up on our blog and I really recommend that you read it.

The flu vaccine was studied by the Cochrane Collaboration, again large study, they looked at 40 years of research into flu vaccines and they found that in children under the age of two there was no benefit to flu vaccines. For children over the age of two the benefit was very slight and it makes you wonder whether it was even of any benefit. And for adults it was very similar. So, I don’t know if I’ve covered that well enough but I really do recommend that you get some more information about that and if you are considering a flu vaccine make sure you look into it carefully.

Question: Hello, I’m Anna. Just with the flu thing, I just find it a bit surprising that now they’re having like uh a price war, like on the radio they actually say you go to Chemist Warehouse for like fifteen dollars so, like, what do you think about that? It’s a bit bizarre.

Meryl Dorey: I wasn’t aware of it. Um it’s interesting. See, the flu vaccine is different every year and if they don’t use the vaccine by the end of the winter they have to throw it away or they send it to developing countries past its use by date. Um, there were I think something like a hundred million dollars worth of swine flu vaccine that was just discarded at the end of the swine flu epidemic because most of it didn’t get used. So that’s the only thing it might get put down to but that’s an absolute guess, I don’t know.

Question: Uh they changed it so that the chemists can now administer the flu vaccines in Queensland [inaudible] so Terry White chemist has one price and another has a different price, so I can go down to the chemist and get a flu vaccine.

Meryl Dorey: Yeah so what you said Anna was that it's the chemists who are now able to administer the vaccines and I’d forgotten about that. In the US, chemists have been administering vaccines for ages and there is a price war there. They’ve got big signs outside of their shops saying get your vaccine here! We will beat any price! It’s um, pretty amazing actually because if it’s good for you you’re going to pay for it anyway, so but if you have this price competition you kind of wonder what’s behind that. And I think it is just competition because now the doctors have competition and the chemists can administer it so they’re all trying to get their dollar. Uh.

Question: Hello Meryl, thank you so much for coming today. We’ve really enjoyed your talk. Um, I was just wondering what was the name of that book? Fooling Ourselves?

Meryl Dorey: "Fooling ourselves: on the fundamental value of vaccines" and I think we should still have a few copies at our stand, you can get it as an ebook, downloadable or in hard copy and I believe that the hard copies we’ve got on our stand are the last hard copies available right now until Greg updates it and reprints it. So, yeah, if you wanna grab one I suggest doing it before you leave today. [19:05]

Question: Would you actually have data on um the side effects and deaths from vaccinations? Any or all vaccinations. Do you have any information or data?

Greg Beattie: Are you talking about in that book? No, there’s no vaccination side effects in that book, um in fact you can’t get reliable information on the side effects of vaccines anywhere. And the closest you can come is the VAERS database in the United States where people are supposed to record information on side effects but who knows how complete that is? It could be quite complete or it could be like, less than one percent complete. It’s, you know, who governs the collection of this stuff? That’s one of the difficult things with vaccination is getting accurate data on the side effects. About the only accurate data we have to do with vaccinations is mortality rates. It’s complete. Everyone who dies, in developed countries, get their death recorded and hopefully the cause of death is fairly accurate. Side effects, that’s one of the problems.

Question: My name is Veronica um, is there any um, connection with SIDS?

Meryl Dorey: Yes, sudden infant death, it’s interesting. I’ve done a little bit of research into this over the years and sudden infant death was not even described until the late 1950s. That’s not to say that children didn’t die in their sleep before that but um, it certainly wasn’t common and there was no name for it. Uh and there have been several studies that were published in the late 1970s that actually looked at the relationship between sudden infant death and vaccination and found a very strong correlation between the time of vaccination and death. There's a book written by an Australian PhD scientist, Dr Viera Scheibner, called "Vaccination", I think it’s out of print but she had another theory about how vaccinations cause SIDS through stress on a child.

Uh, the most telling, I think, uh piece of information I’ve seen is a study that was a supplement to the Journal of Paediatrics and it was published in 1992 by James Cherry. And in Japan um, the vaccination schedule was changed from two months of age to no earlier than 24 months, I think, I think it [inaudible] but I don’t, I think it was 24 months of age. So, no children were allowed to be vaccinated before two years of age and what James Cherry said is, it is interesting to note that the entity of sudden death disappeared when the vaccination age went from two months to 24 months of age. And what he meant by that was that in Japan they’d never denied that vaccines cause death and they would pay compensation if your child died, uh after a vaccination. So he meant that the compensation claims disappeared but if compensation claims disappeared then we can be pretty well sure that the actual incidence of SIDS disappeared. And it wasn’t just SIDS that they looked at; it was SIDS, it was seizures, it was meningitis, it was a lot of these other reactions and they found that when vaccination ages were increased you didn’t find these things in infants.

Uh yeah I think there’s a strong link but go and find a study published today to show that.

Question: Hi Meryl, my name’s Lisa. I’ve got two questions, uh, the product insert um describing the, I guess, possible adverse reactions and the ingredients for the uh vaccine, how can you access that? How can you find that um, I guess, without going and buying a vaccine or something like that?

Meryl Dorey: You don’t have to buy the vaccine to get the package inserts, you can find a lot of them online but you have to be careful to make sure that you’re getting the health professional package insert and not the one that’s aimed at the public, because the one that’s aimed at the public is all pretty pictures and not much information. The one that goes to health professionals is usually 20 or 30 pages long, maybe not that long but pretty long, and um it will be much more complete. And keep in mind when you’re looking at the ingredients of a vaccine on the package inserts, um that not all the ingredients will be listed. If you buy a loaf of bread and the machine that made that loaf of bread six years in the past was used to grind nuts, they have to say on that loaf of bread “may contain nuts and seeds”, but the vaccines don’t have to list a lot of the ingredients and I think it’s the same for drugs, as well. If something is put in there without being for a therapeutic purpose they don’t have to list it, and if it falls below a certain amount, a certain percentage, they also don’t have to list it. So you wont get a complete picture but you’ll get a pretty good picture anyway.

Question: My second question is the cause of death, I mean with the infant mortality rates they’ve obviously put, you know, that measles or scarlet fever or SIDS. Do they actually, do you know if they have a provision for saying well this girl in Mt Gravatt, like vaccine death or do they um, attribute it to something else like pneumonia or whatever?

Greg Beattie: Strangely enough I can actually answer that one. Um the only reason why I can is because on the ABC radio a couple of weeks ago um, they were doing an article on SIDS and how SIDS has sort of dropped off the radar as far as charity and fundraising and all that sort of stuff went, and within the article that they were actually mentioning on the radio, it said that every child that dies of unexplained death, every child that dies of an unexplained death under the age of 12 months is automatically assumed to be SIDS related.

Meryl Dorey: I didn’t know that but I know that we have had several um reactions that have been reported to us. One that sticks in my mind is a little boy by the name of Dylan in Western Australia and his parents. Dylan was born premature and we know that premature babies tend to have more breathing problems after vaccination, that’s not a matter for conjecture, that’s been studied. And um, Dylan was born, I don’t know how premature, but he was healthy, he was feeding um, his mother took him for his first lot of vaccines which was DPT and polio when he was two months old and Dylan cried from the day he got his vaccine until the day he died, five days later. His mother took him to three doctors in between and they just said it was a virus, don’t worry about it. And when he died they put his death down as SIDS. Now, the medical definition of SIDS is a sudden and unexplained death in a previously healthy child. Now a child that cries day and night for five days is not a previously healthy child. So SIDS is sort of like a waste basket where the too hard cases are put. Things that the medical community can’t or don’t want to explain.

Question: ADHD, I was listening to a radio programme, two psychiatrists, one was saying that the kids that they’ve diagnosed with it now, he could diagnose his cat. Meryl Dorey: Sorry, I didn't hear that.

audience member: He said that the symptoms they used for diagnosing ADHD, he could diagnose his cat with it. Now vaccination and ADHD [inaudible] what information do you have? What information do you have on the vaccinations causing ADHD?

Meryl Dorey: I believe that ADHD is a made-up diagnosis. Uh that’s not to say that there aren’t a lot of children with behavioural problems, we’re seeing a lot of children with behavioural problems. But even the person who first coined the term ADHD has said that it’s being over-used terribly in order to medicate children. Um I think there’s something over ten percent of American children who are on Ritalin right now and I don’t know what the statistic is in Australia but it’s pretty high. So uh I don’t really know what the connection is between vaccination and ADHD because I don’t really believe that ADHD is ADHD.

But behavioural problems, autism symptoms, those sorts of things, um there is - I guess I should be unequivocal, no I shouldn’t be - um there is a lot of evidence to indicate that vaccinations can affect the behaviour and the brain of children and anything that affects the brain can affect the behaviour and even more than the brain, vaccines can affect the gut. And about 80 to 85 percent of our immune system resides in our gut. They call it the second brain. So anything that affects the gut can also affect the brain. So there are so many different paths by which vaccines can cause behavioural problems. One child in six in the Unites States right now is learning disabled. One child in six. And the thing that just amazes me, like, we just, I got contacted by the uh West Australian newspaper a couple of days ago because there were 18 cases of measles reported in Western Australia and they were all excited and the whole health department put out an alert, they traced where these people had been so they could contact anyone who was there and they were very worried. 18 cases of measles and in the five years before the measles vaccine was introduced I think there was one death in Australia? I’m not sure but it was something around that, one death.

We have one child in 50 right now who is on the autistic spectrum and that is children who were born in the year 2002 or later. They say that by 2015 it will be 1:2. So we’re panicking about 18 cases of measles but where is the panic for autism? Where is the panic for a generation of children who’ve been stolen? Who’ve had their health and their future stolen away from them? Where are our priorities and why aren’t we demanding that the government do their due diligence they should be doing before they push ever more vaccines into our children? If there’s any doubt, they need to look at it.

Question: Hi, I was wondering with the SIDS, I’ve heard that a lot of fathers, sometimes mothers, have actually been jailed for, I guess, been said that they were the ones that caused the deaths from shaking when their babies were sleeping or something, because the vaccinations actually cause bruises as well as the instant death. Do you have any statistics on that or something? [inaudible]

Meryl Dorey: I don’t have statistics but there is a book, we carry it, and it’s called "Sudden Infant Death", now I can't remember the whole name 'cause it’s quite long. It’s written by Howard Buttram who’s an MD, a GP, who's been studying this for a long time and he has actually engaged an engineer of some kind, a mechanical engineer I think, to test what sort of force is needed to shake a baby in order to cause brain damage and bleeding behind the eyes, which are basically the symptoms they look at with shaken baby, and it is impossible according to this expert, it is impossible to shake a baby hard enough to cause that sort of damage without breaking their neck. I mean, even if you hold the babies head and body at the same time and shake them, the neck has to break.

So shaken baby syndrome, again like SIDS, is a waste basket. It is a way of blaming the family for what may have been caused by the medical community. And bleeding behind the eyes, retinal bleeding, is something that has been known to follow vaccination, it has been known to follow hypoxia or lack of oxygen. There are so many things that can cause that symptom and um, in Australia there was a doctor by the name of Archie Kalokerinos who also put a lot of those symptoms we’re looking at with shaken baby down to lack of vitamin C. He believed that vaccinations caused uh, ah a deficit of vitamin C and that those would cause the bruising and the broken bones that a lot of people were seeing in these babies as well. Uh yeah, shaken baby syndrome is being used, so is Munchausen’s Syndrome by Proxy, being used to blame parents.

Question: Hello, my name is Melanie. Thank you for your talk, Meryl, it was really informative. I did some research recently about human foetus cells being used in vaccines and I got some information off you. My question is - and as you know a lot of aborted foetuses are sold to the pharmaceutical industry each year - if the mother is vaccinated of that foetus will any of that carry into the foetus negative or positive? [inaudible]

Meryl Dorey: I just want to make sure I have that question right. The question is uh, the foetuses of mothers, mothers who abort their foetus, hospitals sell those foetuses to vaccine and drug companies, right? Okay, and that’s true. Would vaccines that the mother have received actually be uh the antibodies from those vaccines be in the baby and I’m saying yes, they would because um, the aborted foetuses that were used to make the rubella vaccine and the other vaccines that use aborted foetal tissue, chicken pox and others. The reason they were selected is because their mother had had rubella or chickenpox and the antibodies were present in the foetus. So yeah, they would be I think, as far as I know.

[end of session; sign-off not transcribed]