Tag Archives: Ian Frazer

Petition against HPV vaccines – please consider signing this petition!

The Institute for the Protection of Natural Health (Institut pour la Protection de la Santé Naturelle), based in Brussels, in conjunction with French oncologist and surgeon Professor Henri Joyeux, has launched a French petition against the HPV vaccines Gardasil and Cervarix.

This petition has currently raised 359,840 signatures. Originally, the goal was to reach 500,000 signatures then submit the petition to government authorities in France. However, interest in this petition has expanded to other countries where medical professionals, scientists and medical consumers are also seriously questioning universal HPV vaccination programs.

Due to so many requests from people outside France who wish to sign the petition, Professor Joyeux and the Institute for the Protection of Natural Health have agreed to open their petition to every country in the world.

If you are concerned that HPV vaccines are of questionable value, please access and sign the petition via this link: http://petition.ipsn.eu/papillomavirus/?utm_source=VIDEO&utm_medium=Newsletter-gratuite&utm_campaign=201409-29-HPV_VdT

The petition is in French, but an English translation is available, see below.

You need only fill in four boxes: Your first name, last name, postal code (or country if you do not live in France) and your email address.

More information is available on the SaneVax website, including details of concerns raised by Professor Joyeux: http://sanevax.org/french-petition-hpv-vaccines/

Also refer to my previous post HPV vaccine promotion and government interference for more background on the questionable implementation of HPV vaccination in Australia

Please consider signing the French petition against HPV vaccines, we need to challenge questionable HPV vaccination on an international basis.

_____________________________________________

English translation of the French petition against HPV vaccines:

Sign the petition by clicking on this link

Institut Pour La Protection de la Santé Naturelle

The right to alternative treatment

NO to widespread vaccination of children against HPV

Petition

For the attention of The President of the French Republic, The French Minister of Health and Social Affairs, and the French Minister of National Education

Mr. President, Mme Health and Social Affairs Minister, Mme. National Education Minister,

On the 15^th of September 2014, the French High Council for Public Health published a statement recommending that:

HPV (human papillomavirus) vaccination should be introduced in French schools in an attempt to prevent cervical cancer and other sexually-transmitted diseases;

If necessary, the starting age for vaccination of both young girls and young boys would be lowered to 9.

This plan has aroused very deep concern in the French people and the medical profession.

There are a very large number of us who fear that our schools are being used as a front for a widespread HPV vaccination campaign targeting our children, without providing families transparent information on the effectiveness and risks of this vaccine and without allowing them to consider the pros and cons.

May we remind you that the analysis of pharmacovigilance data revealed 26,675 cases of serious adverse effects connected with these vaccines, including 113 cases of multiple sclerosis.

May we also remind you that the only method which has been proven to prevent cervical cancer is the Pap smear. If precancerous lesions are found, they can then be treated.

The vaccine however does not confer 100% protection, far from it. All medical sources concur on this point. It is a very dangerous situation if vaccinated individuals go off thinking that they are fully protected.

We the undersigned therefore demand that the plan for widespread HPV vaccination in French schools be stopped:

Until reasonable vaccine effectiveness has been proven;

Until we are aware of and can control all the adverse effects of these vaccines;

Until we can be assured that such widespread vaccination will not cause a drop in Pap smear screening, the only proven method of preventing cervical cancer.

This is the only way to protect a large number of children from unnecessary accidents and considerable suffering. You will also be making a step towards maintaining the trust of parents and keeping necessary peace in our schools.

Yours sincerely,

Number of Signatures

Request for retraction of the Cochrane Vaccines Field systematic review re vaccine safety and aluminium

Further to my previous posts re my letters to Professor Peter Gøtzsche challenging a systematic review prepared by members of the Cochrane Vaccines Field, i.e. Adverse events after immunisation with aluminium-containing DTP vaccines: systematic review of the evidence.

I have now forwarded a letter to Mr John McConnell, editor of The Lancet Infectious Diseases, suggesting this so-called ‘systematic review’ should be retracted, see full letter below:

_______________________________________

11 August 2014

Mr McConnell

I write to you to challenge a systematic review prepared by members of the Cochrane Vaccines Field[1] , i.e. Adverse events after immunisation with aluminium-containing DTP vaccines: systematic review of the evidence, published in The Lancet Infectious Diseases in February 2004 (behind the paywall).[2]

I have already forwarded letters on this matter to Professor Peter Gøtzsche, co-founder of The Cochrane Collaboration. Please see attached letters dated 8 July 2014 and 17 July 2014. My letters to The Cochrane Collaboration are also published on my website: https://over-vaccination.net/cochrane-collaboration/

I request that The Lancet Infectious Diseases take urgent action to re-evaluate this review prepared by members of the Cochrane Vaccines Field.

In my opinion this so-called ‘systematic review’ should be retracted by The Lancet Infectious Diseases.

I suggest this review has facilitated poorly evidenced acceptance of the safety of aluminium-adjuvanted vaccines. As a consequence, an increasing number of aluminium-adjuvanted vaccines are being added to vaccination schedules around the world e.g. multiple doses of diphtheria, tetanus and pertussis vaccines, and multiple doses of human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine, amongst others. The meningococcal B vaccine is the latest to be promoted.[3] The long-term cumulative effects of the ever-growing list of vaccine products are unknown.

In their systematic review, authors Tom Jefferson, Melanie Rudin and Carlo Di Pietrantonj state: “We found no evidence that aluminium salts in vaccines cause any serious or long-lasting adverse events.” They also admit that: “Overall, the methodological quality of included studies was low”. Bizarrely, Jefferson et al conclude: “Despite a lack of good-quality evidence we do not recommend that any further research on this topic is undertaken.”[4]

From my layperson’s perspective, Jefferson et al’s ‘systematic review’ is an example of ‘garbage in, garbage out’.

Professor Christopher Exley of Keele University has raised this matter with your journal previously. In a letter published in The Lancet Infectious Diseases in June 2004[5] (behind the paywall) he noted:

“I was surprised that the authors were able to conclude from their review that further research in this field was unnecessary. It would seem to me that this conclusion did not adequately reflect the findings of the limited resource base underpinning the review. The authors criticised the quality of the data they had available to them and yet these data were still deemed sufficient to support such a strong conclusion. In addition, the authors made no reference to the fact that aluminium-based adjuvants contribute to the recipients systemic body burden of aluminium. We now know that aluminium in adjuvants is dissolved and transported throughout the body, including the brain[6] and we cannot discount the biological availability of this aluminium. It is a sobering thought that aluminium adjuvants have not had to pass any of the safety trials that would be expected of any drug or treatment. Their application is historical and this should not necessarily be equated with their safety. There is no consensus as to whether it is safe to introduce aluminium in prophylaxis or otherwise, and until the requisite research is carried out it is misleading to conclude that aluminium adjuvants are safe for all to use.” (My emphasis.)

Professor Exley followed up with another letter published in The Lancet Infectious Diseases in April 2006[7] (behind the paywall) in which he stated:

“In 2004, I commented in The Lancet Infectious Diseases that it was too early to conclude that aluminium adjuvants were safe for all to use.[8] This opinion has been strengthened by recent research highlighting delayed hypersensitivity to aluminium in children who have received aluminium-adsorbed vaccines.[9]^,[10] Contact allergy to aluminium has been known for some time[11], although delayed hypersensitivity to aluminium is a recently recognised phenomenon of unknown aetiology. The observation that the body retains a “memory” of previous exposure to aluminium (as an adjuvant) is intrigiuing and may support research that reported the development of anti-aluminium monoclonal antibodies.[12] Delayed hypersensitivity to aluminium raises a number of issues relating to the biological availability of this environmental toxin, perhaps not least of which, and pertinent to this moment in time, is the plan to improve the immunogenicity of (bird) flu vaccine by using aluminium-based adjuvants.[13] It is my opinion that substantially increased use of aluminium-adsorbed vaccines should be put on hold until research has demonstrated their safety, if not to all then to most individuals.” (My emphasis.)

It appears to me Jefferson et al’s systematic review was biased from the outset, and that the goal was to defend the use of aluminium adjuvants, i.e.: “Assessment of the safety of aluminium in vaccines is important because replacement of aluminium compounds in currently licensed vaccines would necessitate the introduction of a completely new compound that would have to be investigated before licensing. No obvious candidates to replace aluminium are available, so withdrawal for safety reasons would severely affect the immunogenicity and protective effect of some currently licensed vaccines and threaten immunisation programmes worldwide.”[14] (My emphasis.)

This Cochrane Vaccines Field review plays into the hands of vaccine manufacturers who are keen to develop a mass market for lucrative vaccine products. A World Health Organisation presentation acknowledges that vaccines are “becoming an engine for the pharmaceutical industry”, creating a global market with a “spectacular growth rate”, growing in value from US$5 billion in 2000 to almost US$24 billion in 2013, and projected to rise to US$100 billion by 2025.[15]

Aggressive vaccine marketing by the pharmaceutical industry and conflicted industry-affiliated ‘experts’ is threatening citizens’ bodily autonomy. It’s time there was an objective look at the burgeoning vaccine market and independent consideration of whether mass vaccination with all these lucrative vaccine products is justifiable. The potential conflicts of interests of academics working in the areas of vaccine development and promotion, and the influence of these academics on government policy, needs to be examined.

We need an investigation into the relationships between governments, the vaccine industry, and the industry’s handmaidens in the scientific/medical establishment, but who can we trust to do that? The mainstream media has generally been completely useless on this matter, and incapable of providing critical analysis, merely supporting the status quo.[16]

Likewise medical journals appear to be stalwart promoters for the pharmaceutical industry, and are beset by their own financial conflicts of interest in selling the literature and advertising medical products. The Lancet’s editor, Richard Horton, has confessed that: “Journals have devolved into information laundering operations for the pharmaceutical industry”.[17] In his book Deadly medicines and organised crime: How big pharma has corrupted healthcare, The Cochrane Collaboration’s Peter Gøtzsche notes: “Sadly, and although there are notable exceptions, our medical journals contribute substantially to the corruption of medical science.”[18]

But of course even The Cochrane Collaboration is not above reproach. It is mystifying that an organisation which promises “to promote evidence-informed health decision-making by producing high-quality, relevant, accessible systematic reviews and other synthesised research evidence”[19] could give its name to a ‘systematic review’ of such poor quality as Adverse events after immunisation with aluminium-containing DTP vaccines: systematic review of the evidence. Can the public rely on Cochrane?

Mr McConnell, I again request that The Lancet Infectious Diseases take urgent action to re-evaluate this review prepared by members of the Cochrane Vaccines Field.

In my opinion this systematic review should be retracted by The Lancet Infectious Diseases.

I request your urgent response on this matter.

Sincerely

Elizabeth Hart

https://over-vaccination.net/

*Please note, in addition to the cc list below, this letter will be circulated to other parties, and has also been published on my website.

cc:

Professor Richard Horton, Editor, The Lancet
Professor Peter Gøtzsche, The Cochrane Collaboration
Dr Tom Jefferson, Cochrane Vaccines Field
Mr Mark Wilson, CEO, The Cochrane Collaboration
Professor Paul Glasziou, Bond University
Professor Chris Del Mar, Bond University
Mr Ray Moynihan, Bond University
A/Professor Peter Doshi, University of Maryland
Dr Fiona Godlee, British Medical Journal
Professor Peter Collignon, Australian National University
Professor Christopher Exley, Keele University
Professor Chris Shaw, University of British Columbia
Dr Lucija Tomljenovic, University of British Columbia
Professor Warwick Anderson, NHMRC
Professor Ian Olver, NHMRC Australian Health Ethics Committee
Professor Ian Frazer, University of Queensland
A/Professor Ruiting Lan, University of New South Wales
Professor Lyn Gilbert, University of Sydney
Dr Linjie Zhang, Federal University of Rio Grande
Professor Ronald Schultz, Vaccination Guidelines Group, World Small Animal Veterinary Association
Professor Michael Day, Vaccination Guidelines Group, World Small Animal Veterinary Association
Professor Brian Martin, University of Wollongong
Ms Bea Mies, Independent Vaccine Investigator
Ms Monika Peichl, Independent Vaccine Investigator

References: (All links accessible as at 11 August 2014. It may be necessary to copy and paste long links into a web browser.)

[1] Cochrane Vaccines Field: “It is the intention of the Cochrane Vaccines Field to contribute to a greater global understanding of vaccine quality by facilitating the identification, assembling, analysis, synthesis, dissemination and updating of information on the effects of vaccines from single studies into reviews.”: http://vaccinesfield.cochrane.org/aims-and-activities

[2] Jefferson T, Rudin M, Di Pietrantoni C. Adverse events after immunisation with aluminium-containing DTP vaccines: systematic review of the evidence. Lancet Infect Dis. 2004 Feb; 4(2):84-90: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14871632 This review is also listed in the Cochrane Vaccines Field Bibliography: http://vaccinesfield.cochrane.org/bibliography-2003

[3] The Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation originally rejected the Bexsero Meningitis B Vaccine see for example: Meningitis B vaccine rejected by UK – Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation says there is not enough evidence to justify routine jabs with Bexsero, The Guardian, 24 July 2013: http://www.theguardian.com/society/2013/jul/24/meningitis-b-vaccine-rejected-uk This decision was subsequently overturned after a “determined campaign by doctors, health charities, a public petition and a wave of letters to Health Secretary Jeremy Hunt”: Babies to get jab on NHS against lethal meningitis B – A life-saving vaccine against deadly meningitis B will be introduced on the NHS for all babies from two months old in a dramatic U-turn announced yesterday, Express, 22 March 2014: http://www.express.co.uk/life-style/health/466236/Jeremy-Hunt-changes-NHS-baby-vaccine-policy-after-huge-letter-campaign Also refer to the JCVI position statement on use of Bexsero meningococcal B vaccine in the UK. March 2014: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/294245/JCVI_Statement_on_MenB.pdf

[4] Jefferson T, Rudin M, Di Pietrantoni C. Adverse events after immunisation with aluminium-containing DTP vaccines: systematic review of the evidence. Lancet Infect Dis. 2004 Feb; 4(2):84-90: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14871632

[5] Exley C. Aluminium-containing DTP vaccines. Lancet Infect Dis 2004; 4: 324.

[6] Flarend R. Absorption of aluminium from antiperspirants and vaccine adjuvants. In: Exley C. ed. Aluminium and Alzheimer’s disease. The science that describes the link. Amsterdam: Elsevier, 2001: 75-96.

[7] Exley C. Aluminium-adsorbed vaccines. Lancet Infect Dis. 2006; 6: 189.

[8] Exley C. Aluminium-containing DTP vaccines. Lancet Infect Dis 2004; 4: 324.

[9] Bergfors E, Trollfors B, Inerot A. Unexpectedly high incidence of persistent itching nodules and delayed hypersensitivity to aluminium in children after the use of adsorbed vaccines from a single manufacturer. Vaccine 2003; 22: 64-69

[10] Bergfors E, Björkelund C, Trollfors B. Nineteen cases of persistent pruritic nodules and contact allergy to aluminium after injection of commonly used aluminium-adsorbed vaccines. Eur J Pediatr 2004; 164: 691-97.

[11] Bohler-Sommeregger K, Lindemayr H. Contact sensitivity to aluminium. Contact Dermatitis 1986; 15: 278-81.

[12] Levy R, Shohat L, Solomon B. Specificity of an anti-aluminium monoclonal antibody toward free and protein-bound aluminium. J Inorg Biochem 1998; 69: 159-63.

[13] Wadman M. Race is on for flu vaccine. Nature 2005; 438: 23.

[14] Jefferson T, Rudin M, Di Pietrantoni C. Adverse events after immunisation with aluminium-containing DTP vaccines: systematic review of the evidence. Lancet Infect Dis. 2004 Feb; 4(2):84-90: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14871632

[15] Miloud Kaddar, Senior Adviser, Health Economist, WHO, IVB, Geneva. Gobal Vaccine Market Features and Trends: http://who.int/influenza_vaccines_plan/resources/session_10_kaddar.pdf (Powerpoint slides 5 and 6.)

[16] For example in Australia debate on vaccination has been polarised between avidly ‘pro’ and ‘anti’ forces. The media in Australia is generally supportive of the avidly ‘pro’ vaccination camp and appears to be incapable of providing objective analysis on the worth of individual vaccine products. Also refer to my letter to Professor Warwick Anderson, CEO of the National Health and Medical Research Council, which includes reference to News Corp Australia’s extraordinarily crude pro-vaccination campaign: http://users.on.net/~peter.hart/Letter_to_Warwick_Anderson_NHMRC_re_MMR_vaccination.pdf

[17] Horton R. The dawn of McScience. New York Rev Books. 2004; 51: 7-9. (As noted in Peter Gøtzsche’s book below.)

[18] Gøtzsche PC. Deadly Medicines and Organised Crime: How big pharma has corrupted healthcare. London: Radcliffe Publishing Ltd, 2013. See Chapter 6, Conflicts of interest at medical journals.

[19] The Cochrane Collaboration – About us: http://www.cochrane.org/about-us

UPDATE: Vaccine safety and aluminium – a challenge to Cochrane

Re my previous post about my letter to Professor Peter Gøtzsche, challenging a systematic review prepared by members of the Cochrane Vaccines Field, i.e. Adverse events after immunisation with aluminium-containing DTP vaccines: systematic review of the evidence.

Professor Gøtzsche has responded to my letter, encouraging me to “submit a criticism” on this important matter.

I have forwarded a follow-up letter in this regard, which includes reference to my previous correspondence with Dr Tom Jefferson, and also draws parallels between human and animal vaccination, please see below:

______________________

17 July 2014

Professor Gøtzsche

RE: Vaccine safety and aluminium adjuvants

Thank you for your response[1] to my letter dated 8 July 2014 which challenges a systematic review prepared by the Cochrane Vaccines Field i.e. Adverse events after immunisation with aluminium-containing DTP vaccines: systematic review of the evidence.[2]

In your response you encourage me to “submit a criticism” on this important matter to The Cochrane Collaboration.

As noted in my previous letter, the systematic review in question was prepared by members of the Cochrane Vaccines Field, i.e. Tom Jefferson, Melanie Rudin and Carlo Di Pietrantonj, and was published in The Lancet Infectious Diseases in 2004 (behind the paywall). The review is listed in the bibliography on the Cochrane Vaccines Field website, but is not accessible online on The Cochrane Collaboration website, so I am unable to make an online comment.

Professor Gøtzsche, as you have encouraged me to make a submission, can you please clarify how I should do this?

For your information, I originally contacted Dr Jefferson directly about this matter in March 2013. (I had previously contacted Dr Jefferson on other vaccine-related matters. He is also formally copied on my submissions re controversial ‘gain-of-function’ research[3] in the influenza industry, see my letter to the NSABB Jan 2012 and my submission to the US CDC/HHS Dec 2012.)

Please see below the contents of my email forwarded to Dr Jefferson on 24 March 2013 in regards to his systematic review of adverse events after immunisation with aluminium-containing DTP vaccines. (Given my previous correspondence with Dr Jefferson, the tone is informal. I have added some references in the endnotes):

Tom

I’m reading your review: “Adverse events after immunisation with aluminium-containing DTP vaccines: systematic review of the evidence” (The Lancet Infectious Diseases. Vol. 4 2004.)

The summary of your review concludes: “Despite a lack of good-quality evidence we do not recommend that any further research on this topic is undertaken.” (My emphasis.)

Your review notes: “The results of our review should be interpreted within the limited quantity and quality of available evidence. Within these limits, we found no evidence that aluminium salts cause any serious or long-lasting adverse events…”

So, you admit the quantity and quality of the evidence in your review was limited, but you still say that “we do not recommend that any further research on this topic is undertaken“.

Why would you say that?

I suggest you did not have enough information to say “we do not recommend that any further research on this topic is undertaken.” Your review just plays into the hands of vaccine manufacturers like GlaxoSmithKline and Merck etc who are pushing repeat revaccinations with aluminium adjuvanted vaccines of questionable value.

Vaccines with aluminium adjuvants such as DTaP (repeat ‘boosters’ being recommended for all ages) and HPV x 3 shots for children, etc are now being pushed on the population. Who knows what the cumulative effect of this repeated vaccination with these vaccines might be? Have there been any long-term studies? I would suspect no…

My investigation into companion animal vaccines has led me to be very concerned about vaccines with an aluminium adjuvant. Do I have masses of material in the “peer-reviewed literature” to back me up? No, and neither have I had the time to do a full-blown literature search, what with spending so much of my time investigating questionable MMR ‘boosters’, HPV, flu, pertussis vaccination, etc, because of all the misinformation spread by the ‘scientific’ establishment… Who would fund such research anyway?

Experts in veterinary medicine have been calling for a decrease of live and inactivated vaccination of companion animals because of the risk of adverse reaction to vaccines.[4] I’m becoming more concerned about the non-infectious/inactivated vaccines with aluminium adjuvants, (e.g. bordetella bronchiseptica with aluminium) that are given to many dogs every year, and now humans are being pressed to have regular revaccinations with aluminium adjuvanted vaccines (e.g. DTaP and HPV).

For information, see attached a presentation by Michael J Day[5], from a World Small Animal Veterinary Association Congress (2004) in which he says: “We now recognize that vaccines (particularly multicomponent, modified live products) appear to be able to trigger a range of immune-mediated and autoimmune diseases. For example, much attention has recently focused on vaccines as an initiator of immune-mediated haemolytic anaemia in the dog. The mechanism by which this effect occurs is not well investigated. In theory, three separate components of the vaccine might be involved. Many vaccines contain adjuvant (particularly alum), the function of which is, in part, to non-specifically activate the immune system. It is theoretically possible that this activation might include autoreactive lymphocytes, and as alum is very effective at stimulating antibody responses, the activation of B cells and their particular helper T cells (Th2 cells) might readily arise….” (My emphasis.)

Ref: 29th World Congress of the World Small Animal Veterinary Association October 6-9 2004, Rhodes, Greece. Michael Day is an author of the WSAVA Guidelines for Dogs and Cats, 2010: http://www.wsava.org/sites/default/files/VaccinationGuidelines2010.pdf

Also, here’s a quote from a DVM roundtable of vaccine experts, (December 1988)[6], which included Ron Schultz, Jonas Salk, Ian Tizard and others during which Ian Tizard said: “And yet, the use of poorly understood adjuvants has a long and distinguished history in vaccinology. We’ve been using alum since the 1920s and are still not sure how it works. It’s also fair to say that we’ve been very conservative in our use of adjuvants. To the best of my knowledge, alum is still the only adjuvant used in human vaccines…” (My emphasis.)

In 2013, do we yet know how alum works in vaccines?

It is interesting to note that pregnant women are currently being urged to have DTaP revaccinations because of the resurgence of pertussis. However, it has been reported that the pertussis circulating is a new strain, so what is the point of revaccinating with the existing vaccine?  Also, I don’t buy this idea of a vaccine that ‘wanes’. Either a vaccine immunises for life or forget it, we have been conned big time with these annual flu vaccinations and repeat DTaPs etc.

On the topic of pregnant women and the DTaP, it is interesting to note that vaccination guidelines for dogs say: “Should a pregnant dog be vaccinated?  Vaccination with MLV (attenuated) and/or killed (inactivated) vaccines during pregnancy should be avoided, if possible, to avoid potential injury to the fetus. There are exceptions, especially in shelters, where vaccination would be advised if the pregnant dog has never been vaccinated and there is risk of exposure to a highly pathogenic virus (e.g., CDV, CPV-2). (My emphasis.)

Reference: 2011 AAHA Canine Vaccination Guidelines: http://www.aahanet.org/PublicDocuments/CanineVaccineGuidelines.pdf

Are pregnant women being properly informed about pertussis, about the ‘new strain’, and about questionable vaccines that wane? Have the possible long-term deleterious effects of vaccination of pregnant women with aluminium adjuvanted vaccines been properly researched?  I suspect not…

Tom, I suggest your Cochrane Review of aluminium-containing DTP vaccines is a bit of a worry in that it may have created a poorly evidenced acceptance of the safety of aluminium-adjuvanted vaccines.

Cochrane Reviews don’t always get it right, as we know from Hayashi / Tamiflu…[7]

I would appreciate your response on this matter.

Regards

Elizabeth

Dr Jefferson responded to my email saying: “Very simple: it is not a Cochrane review”.[8] Obviously this brief reply was an inadequate response to the serious matters I had raised. I was also bemused by his statement that the systematic review prepared by the Cochrane Vaccines Field was “not a Cochrane review”. The review as published in The Lancet Infectious Diseases clearly identifies the authors as members of the Cochrane Vaccines Field, so surely The Cochrane Collaboration has a responsibility to be accountable for the recommendations of this review?

Professor Gøtzsche, as you have encouraged me to “submit a criticism” on this important matter, I would appreciate your advice as to how I can successfully make a submission to The Cochrane Collaboration.

I look forward to your response.

Sincerely

Elizabeth Hart

https://over-vaccination.net/

*Please note, in addition to the cc list below, this letter will be circulated to other parties, and has also been published on my website.

cc:

Dr Tom Jefferson, Cochrane Vaccines Field
Mr Mark Wilson, CEO, The Cochrane Collaboration
Professor Paul Glasziou, Bond University
Professor Chris Del Mar, Bond University
Mr Ray Moynihan, Bond University
A/Professor Peter Doshi, University of Maryland
Dr Fiona Godlee, British Medical Journal
Professor Peter Collignon, Australian National University
Professor Christopher Exley, Keele University
Professor Chris Shaw, University of British Columbia
Dr Lucija Tomljenovic, University of British Columbia
Professor Warwick Anderson, NHMRC
Professor Ian Olver, NHMRC Australian Health Ethics Committee
Professor Ian Frazer, University of Queensland
A/Professor Ruiting Lan, University of New South Wales
Professor Lyn Gilbert, University of Sydney
Dr Linjie Zhang, Federal University of Rio Grande
Professor Ronald Schultz, Vaccination Guidelines Group, World Small Animal Veterinary Association
Professor Michael Day, Vaccination Guidelines Group, World Small Animal Veterinary Association
Professor Brian Martin, University of Wollongong
Ms Bea Mies, Independent Vaccine Investigator
Ms Monika Peichl, Independent Vaccine Investigator

References: (All links accessible as at 17 July 2014. It may be necessary to copy and paste long links into a web browser.)

[1] Email from Professor Peter Gøtzsche, 9 July 2014.

[2] Jefferson T, Rudin M, Di Pietrantoni C. Adverse events after immunisation with aluminium-containing DTP vaccines: systematic review of the evidence. Lancet Infect Dis. 2004 Feb; 4(2):84-90: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14871632 This review is also listed in the Cochrane Vaccines Field Bibliography: http://vaccinesfield.cochrane.org/bibliography-2003

[3] A recent editorial in Nature provides an update on this controversial research: Biosafety in the balance. 25June 2014 (corrected 4 July 2014): http://www.nature.com/news/biosafety-in-the-balance-1.15447

[4] For example the World Small Animal Veterinary Association Guidelines for the Vaccination of Dogs and Cats state “we should aim to reduce the ‘vaccine load’ on individual animals in order to minimize the potential for adverse reactions to vaccine products”. The Vaccination Guidelines Group also acknowledges that “there is gross under-reporting of vaccine-associated adverse events which impedes knowledge of the ongoing safety of these products” Day MJ, Horzinek MC and Schultz RD. Journal of Small Animal Practice. Vol. 51. June 2010: http://www.wsava.org/sites/default/files/VaccinationGuidelines2010.pdf Also refer to the WSAVA Vaccination Guidelines webpage: http://www.wsava.org/guidelines/vaccination-guidelines

[5] Day MJ. Infectious Triggers of Immune-Mediated Disease. 29^th World Congress of the World Small Animal Veterinary Association. October 6-9 2004, Rhodes Greece: http://www.vin.com/proceedings/Proceedings.plx?CID=WSAVA2004&Category=&PID=8599&O=Generic

[6] Safety, efficacy heart of vaccine use; experts discuss pros, cons. DVM roundtable. DVM December 1988.

[7] Tom Jefferson. Hayashi’s Problem: Dr Keiji Hayashi’s question re Cochrane’s Tamiflu/Oseltamivir review: “We have some questions on the conclusion in your Oseltamivir review especially about the prevention of complication. You described that “Oseltamivir 150 mg daily prevented lower respiratory tract complications (OR 0.32, 95% CI 0.18 to 0.57).” (in abstract). However, we have found that this conclusion is based on the other review (Kaiser2003) and not on your own data analysis. The authors of the review were four employees of F. Hoffman-La Roche Ltd, one paid consultant to F. Hoffman-La Roche Ltd and Kaiser. We cannot find any raw data about this conclusion from your review. Kaiser’s review included 10 RCTs; two RCTs (Nicholson 2000 and Treanor 2003) were published as articles in the peer-reviewed medical journal (JAMA and Lancet), but other 8 RCTs were proceedings of congress (5 RCTs), abstracts of the congress (one RCT) and meeting (one RCT) and data on file, Hoffmann-La Roche, Inc, Nutley, NJ (one RCT). The lower respiratory tract complication rates of these articles were summarized on table: there was no significant difference between Oseltamivir and placebo, and their Odds Ratio’s (ORs) were 1.81. But ORs of other 8 RCTs were 4.37. We strongly suppose that the reviewer’s conclusion about the complications was mainly determined by these 8 RCTs, we should appraise the 8 trials rigidly. Without this process it’s difficult to conclude that oseltamivir can prevent lower respiratory tract complications.” (Powerpoint slide 12): http://chmg.cochrane.org/sites/chmg.cochrane.org/files/uploads/Jefferson_Hayashi’s%20problem.pdf

[8] Email from Tom Jefferson, 24 March 2013.

Vaccine safety and aluminium – a challenge to The Cochrane Collaboration

Internationally, The Cochrane Collaboration undertakes systematic reviews of primary research in human health care and health policy, including reviews of the effectiveness of vaccine products.

The Cochrane Collaboration declares its mission “is to promote evidence-informed health decision-making by producing high-quality, relevant, accessible systematic reviews and other synthesised research evidence”.

See below my recent letter to Professor Peter Gøtzsche, co-founder of The Cochrane Collaboration and Director of the Nordic Cochrane Centre, challenging a systematic review prepared by members of the Cochrane Vaccines Field, i.e. Adverse events after immunisation with aluminium-containing DTP vaccines: systematic review of the evidence. I suggest this review has facilitated poorly evidenced acceptance of the safety of aluminium-adjuvanted vaccines.

_____________________

8 July 2014

Professor Gøtzsche

I write to you to challenge a systematic review prepared by members of the Cochrane Vaccines Field [1] , i.e. Adverse events after immunisation with aluminium-containing DTP vaccines: systematic review of the evidence.[2]

I request that The Cochrane Collaboration[3] take urgent action to re-evaluate this review prepared by members of the Cochrane Vaccines Field.

I suggest this review has facilitated poorly evidenced acceptance of the safety of aluminium-adjuvanted vaccines. As a consequence, an increasing number of aluminium-adjuvanted vaccines are being added to vaccination schedules around the world e.g. multiple doses of diphtheria, tetanus and pertussis vaccines, and multiple doses of human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine, amongst others. The meningococcal B vaccine is the latest to be promoted.[4] The long-term cumulative effects of the ever-growing list of vaccine products are unknown.

The systematic review, co-authored by Tom Jefferson, Melanie Rudin and Carlo Di Pietrantonj, and published in The Lancet Infectious Diseases in 2004 (behind the pay-wall), concludes in the abstract: “We found no evidence that aluminium salts in vaccines cause any serious or long-lasting adverse events. Despite a lack of good-quality evidence we do not recommend that any further research on this topic is undertaken.” (My emphasis.)

More detail on this conclusion is provided in the discussion, i.e. “Our meta-analysis of the outcome data has enabled us to reach firm conclusions on the limited amount of comparative data available. Since there was no association with severe adverse events in young children or with induration in older children, we believe any association with chronic outcomes to be unlikely. The results of our review should be interpreted within the limited quantity and quality of available evidence. Within these limits, we found no evidence that aluminium salts cause any serious or long-lasting adverse events. We found no comparative evidence assessing any possible associations between exposure to aluminium adjuvants and rare and hitherto little known outcomes such as macrophagic myofasciitis.” (My emphasis.)

In their review Jefferson et al admit that: “Overall, the methodological quality of included studies was low.” And yet “despite a lack of good-quality evidence” Jefferson et al advise “we do not recommend that any further research on this topic is undertaken”.

This recommendation is bizarre, particularly as in an interview with The Telegraph in 2002 titled “Vaccines expert warns studies are useless”[5], Tom Jefferson candidly stated: “Most safety studies on childhood vaccines have not been conducted thoroughly enough to tell whether the jabs cause side effects”. Dr Jefferson said: “There is some good research, but it is overwhelmed by the bad. The public has been let down because the proper studies have not been done.” Perhaps reluctant to “anger public health officials in Britain and elsewhere, who fear that any discussion will undermine parents’ confidence in national vaccination programmes”, The Telegraph article reports Dr Jefferson “emphasised that there was no evidence to suggest that any vaccine now in use was dangerous” but said “there was a “dearth” of sound studies on the risks and benefits” and “as a result, the information available on the safety of vaccines that are routinely given to babies and toddlers was “simply inadequate”.” It was reported Dr Jefferson “was especially concerned…because future vaccination programmes were likely to involve giving children “five, six, even seven vaccines all at once”.” Which of course is exactly what happens now, see for example vaccination schedules in the US[6], the UK[7] and Australia[8] .

Given Dr Jefferson’s apparent appreciation of the ‘dearth’ of sound studies on the risks and benefits of vaccine products, and his concern about future vaccination programmes including “five, six, even seven vaccines all at once”, it is unaccountable that he and his colleagues could conclude in their strategic review “we do not recommend that any further research on this topic is undertaken”.

From my layperson’s perspective, Jefferson et al’s ‘systematic review’ is an example of ‘garbage in, garbage out’.

It appears to me this systematic review was biased from the outset, and that the goal was to defend the use of aluminium adjuvants, i.e.: “Assessment of the safety of aluminium in vaccines is important because replacement of aluminium compounds in currently licensed vaccines would necessitate the introduction of a completely new compound that would have to be investigated before licensing. No obvious candidates to replace aluminium are available, so withdrawal for safety reasons would severely affect the immunogenicity and protective effect of some currently licensed vaccines and threaten immunisation programmes worldwide.” (My emphasis.)

In 2009, Associated Press reported: “Vaccines now are viewed as a crucial path to growth, as drug companies look for ways to offset a slowing of prescription-medicine sales amid intensifying generic competition and government pressure to restrain prices under the federal health-care overhaul”.[10] An article published in New Scientist in late 2011 says: “No longer the unprofitable runt of the pharmaceutical family, vaccines are fast becoming the industry’s breadwinner…While the rest of the pharmaceutical sector struggles to keep afloat as expiring patents send profits plummeting, the vaccine industry has become remarkably buoyant.”[11] In 2012, FierceVaccines noted: “Thanks in part to the adult influenza market and vaccines such as Gardasil and Prevnar, the global vaccines market has enjoyed a decidedly solid boost in revenue.”[12]

Vaccine products of dubious value are being pressed upon the community. For instance, Merck and GlaxoSmithKline are pushing universal vaccination with the questionable human papillomavirus vaccines Gardasil and Cervarix, despite the fact the co-inventor of the technology enabling the HPV vaccines, Professor Ian Frazer, has acknowledged that the risk of cancer associated with the HPV virus is very low. (Refer to my webpage on HPV vaccination[13] for more background.)

Similarly multiple revaccinations with the diphtheria, tetanus and acellular pertussis vaccines are also being ‘recommended’, which means they are effectively mandated for children.[14] For example, according to the US vaccination schedule, as well as the primary vaccination series at two, four and six months, this vaccination combination is ‘recommended’ again between 15-18 months, a fifth shot between 4-6 years, and another shot between 11-12 years.[15]

In regards to pertussis/whooping cough outbreaks, in March 2012, the UNSW Newsroom reported: “Australia’s prolonged whooping cough epidemic has entered a disturbing new phase, with a study showing a new strain or genotype capable of evading the vaccine may be responsible for the sharp rise in the number of cases…The new genotype also has been detected in other countries, suggesting it has the potential to spark epidemics elsewhere and should be closely monitored…”[16]

One of the researchers, A/Professor Ruiting Lan said: “The vaccine is still the best way to reduce the transmission of the disease and reduce cases, but it appears to be less effective against the new strain and immunity wanes more rapidly. We need to look at changes to the vaccine itself or increase the number of boosters”. (My emphasis.)

I wrote to A/Professor Lan[17], asking him to clarify how increasing the number of ‘boosters’ of the existing vaccine protects against the new strain. Professor Lan did not deign to respond to my enquiry. I subsequently tried to contact his colleague Professor Lyn Gilbert[18] but again received no response.

I also raised the matter with Dr Linjie Zhang[19], an author of the Cochrane Review: Acellular vaccines for preventing whooping cough in children.[20] Dr Zhang also failed to respond, yet another example of the lack of accountability of the academic community to the concerns of citizens re the promotion of vaccine products.

In the US[21], the UK[22] and Australia[23] pregnant women are being urged to be vaccinated with a dose of diphtheria, tetanus and pertussis vaccine, even though it is admitted that “specific safety data are limited”.[24] Other close contacts of young infants are also encouraged to be vaccinated, i.e. the ‘cocoon strategy’.[25] What evidence is there to support this strategy? Certainly repeated ‘boosters’ throughout life with these vaccines must be a profit boost for vaccine manufacturers.

Meanwhile others are raising questions about the safety of aluminium adjuvants in vaccine products, e.g. Professor Christopher Exley[26], Dr Lucija Tomljenovic and Professor Chris Shaw.[27]

I suggest it is time to critically consider the ever-growing list of vaccine products and revaccinations being added to vaccine schedules.

Is it possible an over-use of vaccine products may have long-term repercussions similar to the over-use of antibiotics?[28] Who can we rely upon to objectively review the burgeoning global vaccine product market? Certainly I have no confidence in the international ‘vaccination claque’ which pushes an ever-growing list of vaccine products.[29] As I outline in my recent letter to Professor Warwick Anderson, CEO of Australia’s National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC), the ethical spotlight needs to be shone on the way vaccination policy and practice is being implemented.[30] In my letter I provide examples of the lack of transparency and accountability in the vaccination bureaucracy, including the potential conflicts of interest and lack of disclosure by people involved in vaccination policy in Australia. My arguments are also relevant internationally.

Professor Gøtzsche, The Cochrane Collaboration’s stated mission is “to promote evidence-informed health decision-making by producing high-quality, relevant, accessible systematic reviews and other synthesised research evidence”.[31] The Cochrane Collaboration has a reputation to maintain and it doesn’t always get it right the first time, as we know from Hayashi/Tamiflu.[32] [33] I suggest The Cochrane Collaboration cast a more critical eye on the growing list of lucrative vaccine products.

I request your urgent attention to the matters I have raised.

Sincerely

Elizabeth Hart

https://over-vaccination.net/

*Please note, in addition to the cc list below, this letter will be circulated to other parties, and has also been published on my website.

cc:

Dr Tom Jefferson, Cochrane Vaccines Field
Mr Mark Wilson, CEO, The Cochrane Collaboration
Professor Paul Glasziou, Bond University
Professor Chris Del Mar, Bond University
Mr Ray Moynihan, Bond University
A/Professor Peter Doshi, University of Maryland
Dr Fiona Godlee, British Medical Journal
Professor Peter Collignon, Australian National University
Professor Christopher Exley, Keele University
Professor Chris Shaw, University of British Columbia
Dr L Tomljenovic, University of British Columbia
Professor Warwick Anderson, NHMRC
Professor Ian Olver, NHMRC Australian Health Ethics Committee
Professor Ian Frazer, University of Queensland
A/Professor Ruiting Lan, University of New South Wales
Professor Lyn Gilbert, University of Sydney
Dr Linjie Zhang, Federal University of Rio Grande
Professor Ronald Schultz, Vaccination Guidelines Group, World Small Animal Veterinary Association
Professor Michael Day, Vaccination Guidelines Group, World Small Animal Veterinary Association
Professor Brian Martin, University of Wollongong
Ms Bea Mies, Independent Vaccine Investigator
Ms Monika Peichl, Independent Vaccine Investigator

References: (All links accessible as at 7 July 2014. It may be necessary to copy and paste long links into a web browser.)

[3] The Cochrane Collaboration: “Cochrane is a global independent network of health practitioners, researchers, patient advocates and others, responding to the challenge of making the vast amounts of evidence generated through research useful for informing decisions about health. We are a not-for-profit organisation with collaborators from over 120 countries working together to produce credible, accessible health information that is free from commercial sponsorship and other conflicts of interest.”http://www.cochrane.org/about-us

[4] The Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation originally rejected the Bexsero Meningitis B Vaccine see for example: Meningitis B vaccine rejected by UK – Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation says there is not enough evidence to justify routine jabs with Bexsero, The Guardian, 24 July 2013: http://www.theguardian.com/society/2013/jul/24/meningitis-b-vaccine-rejected-uk This decision was subsequently overturned after a “determined campaign by doctors, health charities, a public petition and a wave of letters to Health Secretary Jeremy Hunt”: Babies to get jab on NHS against lethal meningitis B – A life-saving vaccine against deadly meningitis B will be introduced on the NHS for all babies from two months old in a dramatic U-turn announced yesterday, Express, 22 March 2014: http://www.express.co.uk/life-style/health/466236/Jeremy-Hunt-changes-NHS-baby-vaccine-policy-after-huge-letter-campaign Also refer to the JCVI position statement on use of Bexsero meningococcal B vaccine in the UK. March 2014: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/294245/JCVI_Statement_on_MenB.pdf

[5] Lorraine Fraser. Vaccines expert warns studies are useless. The Telegraph, 27 October 2002: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1411417/Vaccines-expert-warns-studies-are-useless.html

[6] Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Immunization Schedules. Birth-18 Years & “Catch-up” Immunization Schedules, United States 2014: http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/schedules/hcp/child-adolescent.html

[7] The NHS vaccination schedule: http://www.nhs.uk/Conditions/vaccinations/Pages/vaccination-schedule-age-checklist.aspx

[8] National Immunisation Program Schedule from 1 July 2013: http://www.immunise.health.gov.au/internet/immunise/publishing.nsf/Content/nips-ctn

[9] Miloud Kaddar, Senior Adviser, Health Economist, WHO, IVB, Geneva. Gobal Vaccine Market Features and Trends: http://who.int/influenza_vaccines_plan/resources/session_10_kaddar.pdf (Powerpoint slides 5 and 6.)

[10] Linda A Johnson. Vaccines become drugmakers’ profit boosters. Pharmaceutical companies drawn to development of vaccines for variety of diseases. The Columbus Dispatch, 30 November 2009: http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/business/2009/11/30/vaccine_revolution.ART_ART_11-30-09_A10_7NFQQE7.html

[11] Deborah MacKenzie. Vaccines enjoy a healthy return. NewScientist, 28 September 2011: http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn20877-vaccines-enjoy-a-healthy-return.html#.U7Np2vmSz-s

[12] Alison Bryant. 20 Top-selling Vaccines – H1 2012. FierceVaccines, 25 September 2012: http://www.fiercevaccines.com/special-report/20-top-selling-vaccines/2012-09-25

[13] Human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination: https://over-vaccination.net/questionable-vaccines/hpv-vax/

[14] I suggest vaccination ‘recommendations’ are effectively vaccination mandates. For example, in the US the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) makes vaccination ‘recommendations’: http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/schedules/downloads/child/0-18yrs-child-combined-schedule.pdf which translate into vaccination ‘requirements’: http://www2a.cdc.gov/nip/schoolsurv/schimmrqmt.asp In Australia, parents of children have to “meet certain immunisation requirements” to obtain “immunisation related payments for parents”: http://www.immunise.health.gov.au/internet/immunise/publishing.nsf/Content/related-payments

[15] Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Immunization Schedules. Birth-18 Years & “Catch-up” Immunization Schedules, United States 2014: http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/schedules/hcp/child-adolescent.html

[16] UNSW Australia Newsroom. Sharp rise in cases of new strain of whooping cough, 21 March 2012: https://newsroom.unsw.edu.au/news/health/sharp-rise-cases-new-strain-whooping-cough

[17] Email to Associate Professor Ruiting Lan, 4 December 2012: http://users.on.net/~peter.hart/Enquiry_re_JID_Report_pertussis_epidemic.pdf

[18] Email to Professor Lyn Gilbert, 11 December 2012: http://users.on.net/~peter.hart/Whooping_cough_enquiry.pdf

[19] Email to Dr Linjie Zhang, 11 December 2012: http://users.on.net/~peter.hart/Enquiry_re_pertussis_vaccination_Cochrane.pdf

[20] Zhang L, Prietsch SOM, Axelsson I, Halperin SA. Acellular vaccines for preventing whooping cough in children. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2012, Issue 3. Art. No.: CD001478. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD001478.pub5. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD001478.pub5/abstract

[21] Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Tdap Vaccine – What You Need to Know. “Pregnant women should get a dose of Tdap during every pregnancy, to protect the newborn from pertussis.”: http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/hcp/vis/vis-statements/tdap.pdf

[22] Whooping cough vaccination in pregnancy. NHS Choices. “Pregnant women can safely help protect their babies by getting vaccinated against whooping cough (pertussis) when they are 28-38 weeks pregnant.” http://www.nhs.uk/conditions/pregnancy-and-baby/pages/whooping-cough-vaccination-pregnant.aspx#safe

[23]4.12 Pertussis. The Australian Immunisation Handbook 10^th Edition 2013. “dTpa vaccine is recommended as a single dose, given either during pre-pregnancy planning, or as soon as possible after delivery of the infant (preferably before hospital discharge). Alternatively, dTpa can be given to women during the third trimester of pregnancy…”: http://www.immunise.health.gov.au/internet/immunise/publishing.nsf/Content/handbook10-4-12

[24] 4.12.8 Pregnancy and breastfeeding (re pertussis vaccination). The Australian Immunisation Handbook 10^th Edition 2013. While attempting to justify vaccination of pregnant women, this section also acknowledges “…specific safety data are limited”: http://www.immunise.health.gov.au/internet/immunise/publishing.nsf/Content/handbook10-4-12

[25] 4.12.7 Recommendations (re pertussis vaccination). Persons in contact with infants and others at increased risk from pertussis: http://www.immunise.health.gov.au/internet/immunise/publishing.nsf/Content/handbook10-4-12

[26] See for example: Exley C et al. A role for the body burden of aluminium in vaccine-associated macrophagic myofasciitis and chronic fatigue syndrome. Medical Hypotheses. Vol. 72, Iss. 2, Feb. 2009, pp 135-139.

[27] See for example: Tomljenovic L and Shaw CA. Aluminium Vaccine Adjuvants: Are they Safe? Current Medicinal Chemistry, 2011, 18, pp 2630-2637; and Shaw CA and Tomljenovic L. Aluminium in the central nervous system (CNS): toxicity in humans and animals, vaccine adjuvants, and autoimmunity. Immunologic Research, 2013, July 56 (2-3) pp 304-316.

[28] In regards to overuse of antibiotics see for example: PM’s plan on antibiotics not urgent enough, reports says, BBC News Health, 7 July 2014: http://www.bbc.com/news/health-28165152 This is a topic to watch very carefully, particularly in regards to vested interests, as apparently the solution to overuse of antibiotics is…more antibiotics, e.g. “What this demands, according to academic and industry experts, is a new business model that rewards drug firms for developing new antibiotics even if they are rarely used.” How to fix a broken market in antibiotics, Reuters, 6 July 2014: http://in.reuters.com/article/2014/07/06/uk-health-antibiotics-idINKBN0FB0AE20140706 Also see: UPDATE1 – Cameron enlists ex-Goldman economist in global superbug fight, Reuters, 2 July 2014: http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/07/02/health-antibiotics-idUSL6N0PD25O20140702

[29] I suggest the ‘vaccination claque’ consists of the network of vaccine manufacturers, vaccination committees and groups, academics, bureaucrats, and organisations such as the World Health Organisation, US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, US National Institutes of Health, the GAVI Alliance, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, National Health and Medical Research Council etc. This is a powerful network and potential conflicts of interest need to be scrutinised.

[30] Letter to Professor Warwick Anderson, CEO, National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC), re Vaccination policy and practice in Australia, dated 15 April 2014: http://users.on.net/~peter.hart/Letter_to_Warwick_Anderson_NHMRC_re_MMR_vaccination.pdf

[31] The Cochrane Collaboration – About us – Our Mission: http://www.cochrane.org/about-us

[32] Tom Jefferson. Hayashi’s Problem: Dr Keiji Hayashi’s question re Cochrane’s Tamiflu/Oseltamivir review: “We have some questions on the conclusion in your Oseltamivir review especially about the prevention of complication. You described that “Oseltamivir 150 mg daily prevented lower respiratory tract complications (OR 0.32, 95% CI 0.18 to 0.57).” (in abstract). However, we have found that this conclusion is based on the other review (Kaiser2003) and not on your own data analysis. The authors of the review were four employees of F. Hoffman-La Roche Ltd, one paid consultant to F. Hoffman-La Roche Ltd and Kaiser. We cannot find any raw data about this conclusion from your review. Kaiser’s review included 10 RCTs; two RCTs (Nicholson 2000 and Treanor 2003) were published as articles in the peer-reviewed medical journal (JAMA and Lancet), but other 8 RCTs were proceedings of congress (5 RCTs), abstracts of the congress (one RCT) and meeting (one RCT) and data on file, Hoffmann-La Roche, Inc, Nutley, NJ (one RCT). The lower respiratory tract complication rates of these articles were summarized on table: there was no significant difference between Oseltamivir and placebo, and their Odds Ratio’s (ORs) were 1.81. But ORs of other 8 RCTs were 4.37. We strongly suppose that the reviewer’s conclusion about the complications was mainly determined by these 8 RCTs, we should appraise the 8 trials rigidly. Without this process it’s difficult to conclude that oseltamivir can prevent lower respiratory tract complications.” (Powerpoint slide 12): http://chmg.cochrane.org/sites/chmg.cochrane.org/files/uploads/Jefferson_Hayashi’s%20problem.pdf

[33] Martin Enserink. Armed With New Data, Researchers Again Challenge Effectiveness of Antiflu Drug. ScienceInsider. 9 April 2014: http://news.sciencemag.org/health/2014/04/armed-new-data-researchers-again-challenge-effectiveness-antiflu-drug

Boy given Gardasil HPV vaccine against mother’s wishes

An article in the Gold Coast Bulletin reports a 15 year old boy has been given the Gardasil HPV vaccine against his mother’s explicit wishes which were made clear on a consent form.[1]

According to the article, Ms Blakemore’s son “came home from school last Tuesday and said he had been given the vaccination after he was told to sign his own consent form”.[2]

Ms Blakemore said: “My son doesn’t comprehend that sort of stuff, they don’t actually get the other side of the story so he’s not well informed enough to make those decisions when put on the spot.” According to the article, “Ms Blakemore said 15-year-olds were too young to make decisions about their body”. She said: “They can’t vote, they can’t drink and legally they can’t have sex but yet they’re allowed to sign a form for vaccine for a sexually transmitted disease…If they don’t have consent forms from parents they should be sending a note home to say they weren’t vaccinated, not just go ‘here’s a form, we think you’re old enough to make these decisions’”.[3]

Ms Blakemore said: “From a parent’s point of view, giving us consent forms then going over our heads is just abominable and terrible.”[4]

When her son was vaccinated with the HPV vaccine, Ms Blakemore said: “He questioned the lady doing it as he was only supposed to get one vaccination, and she said ‘Your name’s on the list, so you’re getting the shot’.” The boy’s mother said when her son came home he was “really upset…He asked if there is an injection that could get rid of it and I said ‘No’”.[5] (It appears the boy was given another vaccine product at the same time, but this is not identified in the article.)

According to The Australian Immunisation Handbook, for consent to vaccination to be legally valid, the following elements must be present:

It must be given by a person with legal capacity, and of sufficient intellectual capacity to understand the implications of being vaccinated.
It must be given voluntarily in the absence of undue pressure, coercion or manipulation.
It must cover the specific procedure that is to be performed.
It can only be given after the potential risks and benefits of the relevant vaccine, risks of not having it and any alternative options have been explained to the individual.

Whether vaccination was legally valid in the case of Ms Blakemore and her son appears questionable, particularly as the Queensland Government’s information sheet on HPV vaccination states: “IMPORTANT! Consent of a parent/legal guardian is needed before any student can be vaccinated.”[7]

Ms Blakemore has complained to Queensland Health, the Gold Coast City Council and the school.[8] It remains to be seen what steps will be taken to respond to this matter.

The Gold Coast Bulletin article also acknowledged Ms Blakemore “was concerned about lack of research into the vaccine and potential side effects”. [9]

I suggest Ms Blakemore has grounds for her concern as mass populations of children around the world are currently being used as guinea pigs for this experimental vaccine, the long-term effects of which are unknown.

Indeed all citizens should be concerned about the way in which the vaccine industry, i.e. the mutually beneficial alliance of vaccine manufacturers and the medical/scientific establishment, is encroaching upon people’s bodily autonomy in pressing an increasing number of lucrative vaccine products of dubious value.

For further background on the questionable implementation of HPV vaccination, see Over-vaccination.net’s webpage on HPV Vaccination and my letter to The Australian newspaper on this topic: Is universal HPV vaccination necessary?

___________________________________________

References: (Accessible as at 23 May 2014.)

[1] Megan Weymes. Merrimac State High School student given Gardasil vaccination against mother’s wishes. Gold Coast Bulletin, 22 May 2014: http://www.goldcoastbulletin.com.au/news/gold-coast/merrimac-state-high-school-student-given-gardasil-vaccination-against-mothers-wishes/story-fnj94idh-1226926116790

[2], [3], [4], [5] Ibid.

[6] 2.1.3 Valid consent. 2.1 Pre-vaccination. The Australian Immunisation Handbook. 10^th Edition 2013: http://www.immunise.health.gov.au/internet/immunise/publishing.nsf/Content/handbook10-2-1

[7] Human Papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination. Year 8 students. Year 10 male students. Queensland Government. Immunise Australia Program – A joint Australian, State and Territory Government initative: https://publications.qld.gov.au/storage/f/2014-01-21T01%3A13%3A25.907Z/hpv-consent-form.pdf

[8] Megan Weymes. Merrimac State High School student given Gardasil vaccination against mother’s wishes. Gold Coast Bulletin, 22 May 2014: http://www.goldcoastbulletin.com.au/news/gold-coast/merrimac-state-high-school-student-given-gardasil-vaccination-against-mothers-wishes/story-fnj94idh-1226926116790

[9] Ibid.

France: Aluminium adjuvants and HPV vaccines up for debate

A recent press release from SaneVax reports:

The use of aluminum adjuvants and HPV vaccines’ benefit versus risk profile will be under intense scrutiny and open scientific debate on May 22, 2014.

Stakeholders from both sides of the vaccine debate will have an opportunity to present their case to members of the French Parliament, French Senate, health authorities, medical professionals and the public due to massive efforts on the part of E3M, a non-governmental organization of patients with MMF (macrophagic myofasciitis), and OSTA, a Parliamentary Office for Evaluation of Scientific and Technological Choice.

Obviously, the French government cares enough about the health and well-being of their citizens to listen to both sides of the vaccine debate – the very same ‘debate’ that government health officials in other countries claim doesn’t exist…

Read more on the SaneVax website: France: Aluminium adjuvants and HPV vaccines up for debate

International Medical Researchers Issue Warning about HPV Vaccine Side Effects

Further to my previous post Adverse events after HPV vaccination – international symposium held in Japan, February 2014.

SaneVax reports the international symposium and associated events have “sparked a high-profile debate over HPV vaccine safety, efficacy and need…”

Read more on the Sanevax website.

Vaccination committees – power, influence, and ‘conflicts of interest’…

Vaccination committees provide advice to governments on vaccine products and ‘recommend’ the addition of new vaccine products to national vaccination schedules.

These groups wield enormous power. The members of these groups are part of a process that results in effectively mandating medical interventions (i.e. vaccinations) for healthy people.

The decisions these people make affect not only children and adults in their own countries, but can also impact internationally as the ripple effect of their decisions spreads around the world.

The powerful influence of these groups raises serious political and ethical questions about their impact on the bodily integrity of citizens, particularly ‘pre-citizens’, i.e. children.

As the decisions of these vaccination committees result in massive sales of vaccine products for pharmaceutical companies, it is vital that the process of adding vaccine products to national vaccination schedules is open and transparent, and that any potential ‘conflicts of interest’ of the members of these groups are accessible for public perusal.

For example, a register detailing the history of any relationships with the vaccine industry, e.g. research grants, consultancies, honorariums, plus any shareholdings in vaccine companies, royalties received, directorships etc, must be publicly accessible. If a member indicates they have no potential conflicts of interest, this must be clearly recorded.

At this time, publicly accessible information on potential conflicts of interest for members of vaccination committees and groups is severely lacking.

This is a matter I am continuing to investigate, see for example my post: More re conflicts of interest and ‘the science of immunisation’.

Here are some committees/groups which are influential on vaccination policy:

Australia:
- The Australian Technical Advisory Group on Immunisation (ATAGI)
- Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee (PBAC)
- The Australian Academy of Science via the working group for its publication “The Science of Immunisation: Questions and Answers”

United States: The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP)

United Kingdom: The Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation (JCVI)

I am in the process of contacting these committees/groups to seek transparency and accountability for vaccination practice.

Adverse events after HPV vaccination – international symposium held in Japan, February 2014

A recent SaneVax release reports: Breaking news from Japan: International symposium on the adverse reactions experienced by those vaccinated with human papillomavirus vaccines

Well done to SaneVax for their efforts in helping organise this international symposium, and for their support for people who have suffered adverse events after HPV vaccination.

It’s time for an investigation into the government lobbying and aggressive global marketing for this very questionable and experimental vaccine product. See Over-vaccination.net’s webpage on HPV vaccination for more background.

Vaccination – a climate change commentator enters the fray…

Professor Clive Hamilton, a commentator on the climate change debate, has taken it upon himself to draw parallels with dissent on vaccination practice in his article “Climate and vaccine deniers are the same: beyond persuasion”, published on the university and CSIRO funded The Conversation website.

The Conversation promises “we only allow authors to write on a subject on which they have proven expertise…” but what expertise does Clive Hamilton have on the subject of vaccination/immunisation? There is no indication of any expertise in this area in his profile on The Conversation website.

See below my email response to Professor Hamilton, including reference to questionable HPV vaccination. My email has also been copied to a variety of other parties with an interest in this matter, including Andrew Jaspan, Executive Director and Editor of The Conversation, and Professor Ian Frazer, co-inventor of the technology enabling the HPV vaccines and his colleagues at the Australian Academy of Science.

___________________

From: Elizabeth Hart <eliz.hart25@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 5:06 PM
Subject: Your article on The Conversation referring to vaccination / immunisation

Professor Hamilton, re your article “Climate and vaccine deniers are the same: beyond persuasion”, published on The Conversation today, and your comment: “Scientifically there is no debate about immunisation, with every relevant health authority strongly endorsing vaccination.”

Are you aware that ‘vaccination’ and ‘immunisation’ are not the same?

Are you suggesting that citizens are not entitled to challenge ‘health authorities’ on the implementation of individual vaccine products of questionable value, e.g. human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccines?

On the subject of HPV vaccination, (which is currently implemented for boys and girls 10-15 years in Australia)[1], the Gardasil HPV vaccine was originally rejected by the Australian Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee (PBAC) in 2006.

An article published in The Australian newspaper at the time, “Howard rescues Gardasil from Abbott poison pill”, reports the PBAC rejected Gardasil because it was “too expensive and, just maybe, not what it was cracked up to be anyway”. According to the article, Tony Abbott, then the Australian Federal Health Minister “took to the airwaves, passing on PBAC’s concerns about the efficacy of Gardasil and even floating the bizarre idea that a misplaced confidence in the effectiveness of the vaccine might actually result in “an increase in cancer rates”.”[2]

According to Matthew Stevens’ report in The Australian, it took just 24 hours for the then Australian Prime Minister, John Howard, to “put an end to the nonsense”, delivering “sparkling prime ministerial endorsement to Gardasil along with a clear direction to Minister Abbott that the immunisation program should proceed. And pronto.”[3]

In her report “Government response to PBAC recommendations”, Marion Haas provides some commentary on the Australian government’s interference with the PBAC’s initial rejection of Gardasil, noting the then Prime Minister, John Howard, “intervened personally by announcing that the drug would be subsidised (ie listed) as soon as the manufacturer offered the right price. The PBAC subsequently convened a special meeting and recommended that Gardasil be listed on the PBS”[4] (Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme).

Haas notes the main objectives “of the PBAC are to consider the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of medicines in making recommendations to government regarding the listing of drugs for public subsidy. A perceived willingness to interfere in this process may undermine these objectives…” Government reaction which results in reversal of PBAC decisions has “the potential to send signals to manufacturers and lobby groups that a decision made by the PBAC may be reversed if sufficient public and/or political pressure is able to be brought to bear on the PBAC…this may undermine the processes used by the PBAC to determine its recommendations and hence the perceived independence of the PBAC.”[5]

Getting a vaccine on the Australian Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme must be the ‘golden goose’ for vaccine manufacturers as this assures a mass market for their vaccine product. Other countries have also adopted HPV vaccination, impacting on millions of children around the world and resulting in multi millions of dollars’ worth of sales for Merck (Gardasil) and GlaxoSmithKline (Cervarix)[6], and royalties for entrepreneurial scientist Ian Frazer from sales of HPV vaccines in developed countries[7], and for CSL which receives royalties from sales of Gardasil.[8].

In his article published on The Conversation in July 2012, HPV vaccine technology co-inventor Ian Frazer acknowledges that the risk of cancer associated with the HPV virus is very low, i.e. “Through sexual activity, most of us will get infected with the genital papillomaviruses that can cause cancer. Fortunately, most of us get rid of them between 12 months to five years later without even knowing we’ve had the infection. Even if the infection persists, only a few individuals accumulate enough genetic mistakes in the virus-infected cell for these to acquire the properties of cancer cells.”[9]

The National Cervical Screening Program (NCSP) website notes: “HPV infection is very common and in most people it clears up naturally in about 8-14 months…Genital HPV is so common that it could be considered a normal part of being a sexually active person. Most people will have HPV at some time in their lives and never know it…A few of the many types of HPV have been linked with causing abnormalities of the cervix and in some cases the development of cancer of the cervix.” The NCSP website highlights that: “It is important to remember that most women who have HPV clear the virus naturally and do not go on to develop cervical cancer.”[10]

Since the introduction of the National Cervical Screening Program, the mortality from cervical cancer has halved.[11]

Given the low risks associated with the HPV virus, the Australian government’s role in over-turning the PBAC’s original rejection of the lucrative Gardasil vaccine, and the lobbying involved, should be subjected to scrutiny. My open letter to Chris Mitchell, Editor-in-Chief of The Australian, includes more information on this matter, ie: Is universal HPV vaccination necessary? (8 October 2012.)

Professor Hamilton, people such as yourself, with your ill-informed and unhelpful generalised comments about the complex area of vaccination/immunisation are impeding transparency and accountability for the Australian government’s implementation of questionable vaccine products. Given your position as a Professor of Public Ethics at Charles Sturt University, perhaps you should think more carefully before wading in on a matter on which you so obviously know little about.

Note: I had planned to post this response on your article on The Conversation today, but I see that comments have already closed.

Sincerely

Elizabeth Hart

References:

1. National Immunisation Program Schedule from 1 July 2013: http://www.immunise.health.gov.au/internet/immunise/publishing.nsf/Content/nips-ctn

2. Howard rescues Gardasil from Abbott poison pill. The Australian, 11 November, 2006: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/archive/business/howard-rescues-gardasil-from-abbott-poison-pill/story-e6frg9lx-1111112503504

3. Ibid.

4. Haas, Marion. “Government response to PBAC recommendations”. Health Policy Monitor, March 2007: http://hpm.org/en/Surveys/CHERE_-_Australia/09/Government_response_to_PBAC_recommendations.html

5. Ibid.

6. FierceVaccines special report on the 20 Top-selling Vaccines – H1 2012 states that H1 2012 sales for Gardasil (Merck) were $608 million, and sales for Cervarix (GlaxoSmithKline) were $285 million: http://www.fiercevaccines.com/special-report/20-top-selling-vaccines/2012-09-25

7. “Catch cancer? No thanks, I’d rather have a shot!”. The Conversation, 10 July 2012: https://theconversation.com/catch-cancer-no-thanks-id-rather-have-a-shot-7568 The disclosure statement on this article by Ian Frazer states: “Ian Frazer as co-inventor of the technology enabling the HPV vaccines receives royalties from their sale in the developed world.”

8. CSL ups profit guidance on Gardasil sales. The Australian, 27 November 2012: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/companies/csl-ups-profit-guidance-on-gardasil-sales/story-fn91v9q3-1226524726672#

9. “Catch cancer? No thanks, I’d rather have a shot!”. The Conversation, 10 July 2012: https://theconversation.com/catch-cancer-no-thanks-id-rather-have-a-shot-7568

10. HPV (human papillomavirus), National Cervical Screening Program, Australian Government Department of Health and Ageing: http://www.cancerscreening.gov.au/internet/screening/publishing.nsf/Content/hpv

11. Key Statistics. National Cervical Screening Program: http://www.cancerscreening.gov.au/internet/screening/publishing.nsf/Content/facts

More re conflicts of interest and ‘the science of immunisation’…

Since December 2012 I have sought potential conflict of interest disclosures for academics associated with the Australian Academy of Science publication “The Science of Immunisation: Questions and Answers”.

See my previous posts on this subject published in May 2013 and August 2013.

On 12 November 2013, I forwarded another email on this matter to Professor Suzanne Cory, President of the Australian Academy of Science, saying:

Professor Cory

Re my previous questions about possible conflicts of interest of members of the Academy’s Science of Immunisation Working Group and Oversight Committee, and my request for disclosure statements. (Refer to email thread below.)

It is now nearly a year since I forwarded my first enquiry to you in December 2012.

In the interests of transparency and accountability, I suggest any potential conflicts of interest of members of the Working Group and Oversight Committee should be disclosed on the Academy’s Immunisation webpage: http://www.science.org.au/policy/immunisation.html I believe this would be in accordance with The Australian Code for the Responsible Conduct of Research, in particular sections 4.9 “Disclose research support accurately” and 7.2 “Conflicts of interest”: http://www.nhmrc.gov.au/_files_nhmrc/publications/attachments/r39.pdf

I have also copied the incoming President of the Academy, Professor Andrew Holmes, in this email.

Professor Cory, given the inordinate delay, I request your urgent email response on this matter.

Yours sincerely

Elizabeth Hart

On 14 November 2013, I received the following response from Dr Martin Callinan, Director Science Policy Section of the Australian Academy of Science:

Hi Elizabeth,

Thanks for your email. As discussed, including when we most recently spoke, the Academy is in the process of establishing Register of Interests to cover all our activities. Involving database, website and management system upgrades, this process has been underway for more than a year. We anticipate it being operational in March 2014. As with almost all non-government, not-for-profit organisations, our infrastructure is modest, dated and resources are increasingly scarce. We do our best.

In response to your first email, I quite agreed with you about transparency and current standards. At any one time, we have many projects and activities underway that involve 100+ Fellows and experts, all of whom contribute their time on a pro bono basis. I can assure you we are addressing our organisational need for due disclosure. It is a large systematic process being undertaken with available resources. As promised, as soon as I have a publication date I’ll give you a call to let you know in advance.

regards

martin

The lack of transparency to date on potential conflicts of interest of academics involved in Australian Academy of Science projects and activities is a serious omission.

As we are now approaching the end of January 2014, it will be interesting to see if the Australian Academy of Science’s ‘register of interests’ will finally be operational in March 2014.

HPV vaccine promotion and government interference

The co-inventor of the technology enabling the HPV vaccines, Professor Ian Frazer, has acknowledged that the risk of cancer associated with the HPV virus is very low.[1] Yet mass populations of children around the world are being coerced into HPV vaccination, while the long-term consequences of these vaccines are unknown.

We need an investigation into why these questionable vaccines are being mass-marketed, and the lack of adequate ‘informed consent’ before this medical intervention.

Let’s start by demanding an investigation into how the Gardasil HPV vaccine was fast-tracked onto the Australian vaccination schedule in 2007.

The archived fact sheet on the Australian Government Funding of Gardasil states “The Government has agreed with the recommendation of its expert advisory committee, the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee (PBAC), that GARDASIL should be funded under the National Immunisation Program, commencing in the 2007 school year…”[2]

However the Gardasil HPV vaccine was originally rejected by the PBAC in 2006. An article in The Australian at the time, “Howard rescues Gardasil from Abbott poison pill”, reports the PBAC rejected Gardasil because it was “too expensive and, just maybe, not what it was cracked up to be anyway”. According to the article, Tony Abbott, then the Australian Federal Health Minister “took to the airwaves, passing on PBAC’s concerns about the efficacy of Gardasil and even floating the bizarre idea that a misplaced confidence in the effectiveness of the vaccine might actually result in “an increase in cancer rates”.”[3]

According to Matthew Stevens’ report in The Australian, it took just 24 hours for the then Australian Prime Minister, John Howard, to “put an end to the nonsense”, delivering “sparkling prime ministerial endorsement to Gardasil along with a clear direction to Minister Abbott that the immunisation program should proceed. And pronto.”[4]

In her report “Government response to PBAC recommendations”, Marion Haas also provides some commentary on the Australian government’s interference with the PBAC’s initial rejection of Gardasil, noting the then Prime Minister, John Howard, “intervened personally by announcing that the drug would be subsidised (ie listed) as soon as the manufacturer offered the right price. The PBAC subsequently convened a special meeting and recommended that Gardasil be listed on the PBS”[5] (Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme).

After the Australian government’s interference in this matter, other countries adopted HPV vaccination, resulting in multi millions of dollars’ worth of sales for the makers of the HPV vaccines, i.e. Merck (Gardasil) and GlaxoSmithKline (Cervarix)[7], and royalties for Ian Frazer from sales of HPV vaccines in developed countries[8].

Ian Frazer has acknowledged that the risk of cancer associated with the HPV virus is very low[9]. Since the introduction of the National Cervical Screening Program, the mortality from cervical cancer has halved.[10] Given the low risks associated with the HPV virus, the Australian government’s role in over-turning the PBAC’s original rejection of the Gardasil vaccine, and the lobbying involved, should be subjected to scrutiny.

It’s time for an investigation into the establishment of the lucrative international market for the questionable HPV vaccines.

For further background refer to my previous post “Is universal HPV vaccination justifiable?”

Also refer to the Sanevax website for more information on this topic, including personal reports of adverse experiences after HPV vaccination.

_________________________________

References: (Links active as at 11 November 2013.)

[1] In his article “Catch cancer? No thanks, I’d rather have a shot!”, Ian Frazer states: “Through sexual activity, most of us will get infected with the genital papillomaviruses that can cause cancer. Fortunately, most of us get rid of them between 12 months to five years later without even knowing we’ve had the infection. Even if the infection persists, only a few individuals accumulate enough genetic mistakes in the virus-infected cell for these to acquire the properties of cancer cells.” The Conversation, 10 July 2012: https://theconversation.com/catch-cancer-no-thanks-id-rather-have-a-shot-7568

[2] Archived Fact Sheets. Australian Government Funding of Gardasil. Updated 28 November 2006: http://archive.is/pm19

[3] Howard rescues Gardasil from Abbott poison pill. The Australian, 11 November, 2006: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/archive/business/howard-rescues-gardasil-from-abbott-poison-pill/story-e6frg9lx-1111112503504

[4] Ibid.

[5] Haas, Marion. “Government response to PBAC recommendations”. Health Policy Monitor, March 2007: http://hpm.org/en/Surveys/CHERE_-_Australia/09/Government_response_to_PBAC_recommendations.html

[6] Ibid.

[7] FierceVaccines special report on the 20 Top-selling Vaccines – H1 2012 states that H1 2012 sales for Gardasil (Merck) were $608 million, and sales for Cervarix (GlaxoSmithKline) were $285 million: http://www.fiercevaccines.com/special-report/20-top-selling-vaccines/2012-09-25

[8] “Catch cancer? No thanks, I’d rather have a shot!”. The Conversation, 10 July 2012: https://theconversation.com/catch-cancer-no-thanks-id-rather-have-a-shot-7568 The disclosure statement on this article by Ian Frazer states: “Ian Frazer as co-inventor of the technology enabling the HPV vaccines receives royalties from their sale in the developed world.”

[9] See ref 1 for quote from “Catch cancer? No thanks, I’d rather have a shot!”. The Conversation, 10 July 2012: https://theconversation.com/catch-cancer-no-thanks-id-rather-have-a-shot-7568

[10] Key Statistics. National Cervical Screening Program: http://www.cancerscreening.gov.au/internet/screening/publishing.nsf/Content/facts

Controversial HPV Vaccination – Recent developments in Israel, India and Japan

For information, some links to recent media reports on controversial HPV vaccination in Israel, India and Japan:

Israel:

Israel may drop planned HPV vaccination program. FierceVaccines, 5 September 2013
HPV Vaccine: Israel Health Ministry considers cancelling vaccination due to side effects. PRWeb, 4 September 2013
Health risks push ministry to reconsider HPV vaccine for teen girls. Haaretz, 3 September 2013
Also see SANEVAX post: Citizens request ban of HPV vaccines, 5 September 2013

India:

A PATH to profit and violations. India Today, 4 September 2013
PATH defends itself against Indian criticisms of HPV project. FierceVaccines, 4 September 2013
Court glare on ‘harmful, costly’ vaccines. The Telegraph, 3 September 2013
HPV Vaccine Trials: Brinda Karat for ban on PATH. The Hindu, 3 September 2013
SC notice on PIL for HPV vaccines research details. Health, 3 September 2013
Activists hail report on HPV vaccines, but PATH says no violations. The Hindu, 2 September 2013
Parliamentary panel flays ICMR, PATH and the health ministry for illegal HPV vaccine trials. Health, 31 August 2013
Panel raps government over clinical trials, lapses. The Times of India, 31 August 2013
Also see SANEVAX post: India and HPV Vaccines: Subterfuge in a Syringe?, 5 September 2013

Japan:

Merck warns of significant drop in Japanese Gardasil sales. FierceVaccines, 1 August 2013
HPV vaccine seen differently by Japan and the U.S. The Tokyo Times
Japan withdraws HPV vaccine recommendation for girls. Medscape, 25 June 2013
Japan withdraws recommendation of Merck and GSK HPV jabs. FierceVaccines, 19 June 2013
HPV vaccine raises questions. Japan Times, 14 June 2013
Also see SANEVAX posts HPV Vaccines: Japan requires disclosure of side effects, 29 August 2013 and Breaking News: Japan and HPV vaccines, 24 August 2013

UPDATE: Conflicts of interest and ‘the science of immunisation’

Back in May I outlined my correspondence with the Australian Academy of Science requesting disclosure statements for people associated with the publication “The Science of Immunisation: Questions and Answers”.

Martin Callinan, Science Policy Manager of the Australian Academy of Science, had contacted me to advise this matter was going to be addressed. However, it is now August, and still there are no disclosure statements on the Academy’s website.

In the interests of transparency and accountability, it is important that potential conflicts of interest of academics working in the areas of vaccine development and vaccination policy are on the public record.

Academics involved with the Academy’s The Science of Immunisation publication are influential on the Australian government’s vaccination policy. For example, Professor Terry Nolan is Chair of the Australian Technical Advisory Group on Immunization (ATAGI). Professor Peter McIntyre is an ex-officio member of ATAGI. (It is notable that the identity of members of ATAGI was not accessible to the public in 2011. I raised this matter in an email to then Federal Health Minister Nicola Roxon on 26 November 2011, also requesting that details of any links with the pharmaceutical industry (e.g. research funding) should be publicly listed. While a list of members of ATAGI and their professional affiliations was subsequently published on the ATAGI website, there are still no disclosure statements listed. I also raised this matter with Federal Minister Health Minister Tanya Plibersek in an email dated 23 July 2012.)

From other sources, I am aware that Professor Ian Frazer receives royalties from the sale of HPV vaccines in the developed world, and that Dr Julie Leask is a member of the advisory group for The Vaccine Confidence Project, a project which monitors negative commentary about vaccination.

I suggest these and any other potential conflicts of interest of members of the Science of Immunisation Working Group and Oversight Committee should be disclosed on the Academy’s Immunisation webpage. I believe this would be in accordance with The Australian Code for the Responsible Conduct of Research, in particular sections 4.9 “Disclose research support accurately” and 7.2 “Conflicts of interest”.

In this regard, see below my recent follow-up correspondence to Professor Suzanne Cory, President of the Australian Academy of Science.

____________________________________

From: Elizabeth Hart <eliz.hart25@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, Aug 18, 2013 at 5:06 PM
Subject: Conflicts of interest and ‘the science of immunisation’

Professor Cory

Re my email to you dated 16 May 2013 (below) following up on progress on the Australian Academy of Science’s ‘Central Register of Interests’.

Looking at the Academy’s webpage on Immunisation, there is still no disclosure information about members of the Working Group and Oversight Committee for the publication “The Science of Immunisation: Questions and Answers”: http://science.org.au/policy/immunisation.html

From other sources, I am aware that Professor Ian Frazer receives royalties from the sale of HPV vaccines in the developed world[1], and that Dr Julie Leask is a member of the advisory group for The Vaccine Confidence Project, a project which monitors negative commentary about vaccination.[2] [3] [4][5]

In the interests of transparency and accountability, I suggest these and any other potential conflicts of interest of members of the Working Group and Oversight Committee should be disclosed on the Academy’s Immunisation webpage. I believe this would be in accordance with The Australian Code for the Responsible Conduct of Research, in particular sections 4.9 “Disclose research support accurately” and 7.2 “Conflicts of interest”: http://www.nhmrc.gov.au/_files_nhmrc/publications/attachments/r39.pdf

Given the time that has elapsed since my first enquiry to you in December 2012, I request your urgent response on this matter.

Sincerely

Elizabeth Hart

References:

[1] Ian Frazer. Catch cancer? No thanks, I’d rather have a shot! The Conversation, 10 July 2012:http://theconversation.com/catch-cancer-no-thanks-id-rather-have-a-shot-7568

[2] The Vaccine Confidence Project Advisory Group: http://www.vaccineconfidence.org/advisorygroup.html

[3] Larson, HJ et al. Measuring vaccine confidence: analysis of data obtained by a media surveillance system used to analyse public concerns about vaccines. Published online May 13, 2013:http://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(13)70108-7/abstract?rss=yes

[4] ‘Big Brother’ tracks anti-vax sentiment. 6minutes, 16 May 2013:http://www.6minutes.com.au/news/latest-news/%E2%80%98big-brother-tracks-anti-vax-sentiment

[5] Monitoring system to globally track false social media claims on dangers of vaccines. The Daily Telegraph, 13 May 2013:http://www.news.com.au/technology/monitoring-system-to-globally-track-false-social-media-claims-on-dangers-of-vaccines/story-e6frfrnr-1226640823800

———- Forwarded message ———-
From: Elizabeth Hart <eliz.hart25@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, May 16, 2013 at 12:25 PM
Subject: Conflicts of interest and ‘the science of immunisation’

Professor Cory

Re my previous questions about possible conflicts of interest of members of the Academy’s Science of Immunisation Working Group and Oversight Committee, and my request for disclosure statements, as detailed in my emails addressed to:

Professor Suzanne Cory (December 2012 and March 2013): http://bit.ly/10zAyOK
Sir Gus Nossal (January 2013): http://bit.ly/U3ygHo

During my recent discussion with Dr Martin Callinan, the Academy’s Science Policy Manager, he advised me a ‘Central Register of Interests’ is going to be established in light of my requests, but was unable to advise me when this register will be accessible to the public. As discussed with Dr Callinan, I would appreciate an update when the register is available.

Also, for your information, I have included an update about this matter on my over-vaccination website, under the title Conflicts of interest and ‘the science of immunisation’, which can be accessed via this link: http://bit.ly/13yef1a

As the people involved in the Academy’s Science of Immunisation Working Group and Oversight Committee are very influential in the areas of vaccine development and vaccination policy, I suggest transparency on this matter is of the utmost importance and well overdue.

I look forward to hearing from you about public access to the Academy’s Central Register of Interests in due course.

Sincerely

Elizabeth Hart

https://over-vaccination.net/

Challenging Big Pharma’s lucrative over-vaccination of people and animals

Conflicts of interest and ‘the science of immunisation’

In November 2012 the Australian Academy of Science entered the vaccination fray with its publication “The Science of Immunisation: Questions and Answers”

As the Australian Academy of Science has taken it upon itself to engage in this matter, it can expect to be held accountable.

For example, I have forwarded emails to Sir Gus Nossal, Chair of the Oversight Committee for “The Science of Immunisation: Questions and Answers”, enquiring if disclosure statements for members of The Science of Immunisation Working group, i.e. detailing any possible conflicts of interest, are publicly available on the Australian Academy of Science website. (January 2013.)

My emails to Sir Gus Nossal also include reference to discussion threads relevant to the topic of vaccination on the university and CSIRO funded The Conversation website.

On 5 March 2013, I forwarded another email to Professor Suzanne Cory, President of the Australian Academy of Science, again requesting disclosure statements for people associated with The Science of Immunisation: Questions and Answers.

In response to my email to Professor Cory, Martin Callinan, Science Policy Manager of the Australian Academy of Science, contacted me to advise the Academy is now going to address this matter.

On 13 May 2013, I contacted Dr Callinan to check on progress. Dr Callinan advised that a ‘Central Register of Interests’ is going to be established, but was unable to advise when the register would be accessible to the public. Dr Callinan indicated that a media release is likely to be published when the Academy’s new Central Register of Interests is available.

Developments on this matter are awaited with interest. It’s about time the public was privy to the potential conflicts of interest of academics working in the areas of vaccine development and vaccination policy.

For information, members of the Australian Academy of Science’s Science of Immunisation Working Group are:

Professor Ian Frazer (Co-Chair)
Professor Tony Basten (Co-Chair)
Professor Francis Carbone
Professor Patrick Holt
Dr Julie Leask
Professor Peter McIntyre
Professor Terry Nolan
Professor Judith Whitworth

Members of the Science of Immunisation Oversight Committee are:

Sir Gus Nossal (Chair)
Professor Ian Gust
Professor Fiona Stanley
Professor Robert Williamson

Is universal HPV vaccination justifiable?

The very questionable human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccines are being pushed upon girls and boys around the world.

Are these young people and their parents being properly informed that the co-inventor of the technology enabling the HPV vaccines, Professor Ian Frazer, has acknowledged that the risk of cancer associated with the HPV virus is very low?

In an article on the university and CSIRO-funded The Conversation website, titled “Catch cancer? No thanks, I’d rather have a shot!”, Professor Frazer stated:

“Through sexual activity, most of us will get infected with the genital papillomaviruses that can cause cancer. Fortunately, most of us get rid of them between 12 months to five years later without even knowing we’ve had the infection. Even if the infection persists, only a few individuals accumulate enough genetic mistakes in the virus-infected cell for these to acquire the properties of cancer cells”.(1)

If only “a few individuals accumulate enough genetic mistakes in the virus-infected cell for these to acquire the properties of cancer cells”, is it really justifiable to coerce mass populations of children to have HPV vaccination, particularly as the long-term consequences of the HPV vaccines are unknown?

The Australian National Cervical Screening Program (NCSP) website notes: “HPV infection is very common and in most people it clears up naturally in about 8-14 months…Genital HPV is so common that it could be considered a normal part of being a sexually active person. Most people will have HPV at some time in their lives and never know it…” The NCSP website highlights that: “It is important to remember that most women who have HPV clear the virus naturally and do not go on to develop cervical cancer.”(2)

It’s interesting to note that the Gardasil HPV vaccine was originally rejected by the Australian Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee (PBAC) in 2006.

An article by Matthew Stevens in The Australian at the time, reports the PBAC rejected Gardasil because it was “too expensive and, just maybe, not what it was cracked up to be anyway”. Apparently, Tony Abbott, then the Australian Federal Health Minister “took to the airwaves, passing on PBAC’s concerns about the efficacy of Gardasil and even floating the bizarre idea that a misplaced confidence in the effectiveness of the vaccine might actually result in “an increase in cancer rates”.”(3)

According to Matthew Stevens very interesting report in The Australian, it took just 24 hours for the then Australian Prime Minister, John Howard, to “put an end to the nonsense”, delivering “sparkling prime ministerial endorsement to Gardasil along with a clear direction to Minister Abbott that the immunisation program should proceed. And pronto.”(3)

So is this how important decisions on vaccination practice are made? On the whim of a Prime Minister in pre-electioneering mode? John Howard’s wife had cervical cancer.(4) Did this personal experience affect Howard’s decision? Was this appropriate considering the complexity of the issue in regards to low risk of cancer, controversy re appropriate age for cervical cancer screening etc?

What sort of lobbying took place to overturn the PBAC’s original decision to reject Gardasil?

This decision to add HPV vaccination to the Australian vaccination program for both girls and boys is impacting on millions of children around the world.

Getting a vaccine on the national schedule must be the ‘golden goose’ for vaccine manufacturers as this assures a mass market for their vaccine product. It also helps create a ‘domino’ effect as other countries follow suit and adopt the vaccine, creating a mass global market.

No wonder Ian Frazer was willing to forego royalties from developing countries(1) – how much profit will he reap from sales of the vaccine to governments in developed countries?

The case for universal HPV vaccination is unconvincing, and the motives for its promotion are suspect. It’s time there was an investigation into the aggressive marketing of the HPV vaccine.

For more information, read my detailed letter forwarded to Chris Mitchell, Editor-in-Chief of The Australian newspaper, on this topic: “Is universal HPV vaccination necessary?”

References:

“Catch cancer? No thanks, I’d rather have a shot!”. The Conversation, 10 July 2012: https://theconversation.com/catch-cancer-no-thanks-id-rather-have-a-shot-7568
HPV (human papillomavirus) – Australian National Cervical Screening Program: http://www.cancerscreening.gov.au/internet/screening/publishing.nsf/Content/hpv
Howard rescues Gardasil from Abbott poison pill. The Australian, 11 November, 2006: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/opinion/howard-rescues-gardasil-from-abbott-poison-pill/story-e6frg9lx-1111112503504
How the Rudds profited from Janette Howard’s cancer scare. Crikey, 22 February, 2007: http://www.crikey.com.au/2007/02/22/how-the-rudds-profited-from-janette-howards-cancer-scare/

OVER-VACCINATION

Challenging Big Pharma's lucrative over-vaccination of people and animals

Tag Archives: Ian Frazer

Request for retraction of the Cochrane Vaccines Field systematic review re vaccine safety and aluminium

UPDATE: Vaccine safety and aluminium – a challenge to Cochrane

Vaccine safety and aluminium – a challenge to The Cochrane Collaboration

International Medical Researchers Issue Warning about HPV Vaccine Side Effects

Adverse events after HPV vaccination – international symposium held in Japan, February 2014

Vaccination – a climate change commentator enters the fray…

More re conflicts of interest and ‘the science of immunisation’…

HPV vaccine promotion and government interference

Controversial HPV Vaccination – Recent developments in Israel, India and Japan

UPDATE: Conflicts of interest and ‘the science of immunisation’

Conflicts of interest and ‘the science of immunisation’

Is universal HPV vaccination justifiable?

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this: