The ongoing moves to censor citizens’ discussion of vaccination policy and citizens fighting back

Hi All, FYI see below, keeping you in the loop re ongoing moves to censor citizens’ discussion of vaccination policy…and citizens fighting back…
Elizabeth
For the attention of:
Professor Paul Wellings
Vice Chancellor
University of Wollongong
Dear Professor Wellings, the recent attack on Judy Wilyman’s PhD thesis by individuals associated with the National Centre for Immunisation Research & Surveillance and the University of Sydney (published in the Vaccine journal*), coupled with ongoing attempts by the Murdoch media (News Corp) and members of lobby groups SAVN and Friends of Science in Medicine and others to discredit Judy Wilyman’s research, are indicative of a network endeavouring to stifle any criticism of vaccination policy and protect the vaccine industry from scrutiny. (*Kerrie E. Wiley, Julie Leask, Margaret A. Burgess, Peter B. McIntyre. PhD thesis opposing immunisation: Failure of academic rigour with real-world consequences, Vaccine 37 (2019) 1541-1545.)
Ironically, Wiley et al criticise Judy Wilyman’s thesis and still acknowledge: “The thesis legitimately highlights the importance of transparency and accessibility in the processes by which vaccines are assessed for inclusion on any national immunisation schedule. It also raises the importance of perception about conflicts of interest among contributors to immunisation policy development, and the need for open conversation about policy decisions among all immunisation stakeholders, including the public. These considerations are important for countries seeking to improve established National Immunisation Technical Advisory Groups (NITAGs), as noted by the Supporting Independent Vaccine Advisory Committee (SIVAC) initiative. Areas of public health importance such as immunisation are legitimate topics for scrutiny. It is important to question long-embedded policies and practices, however such scrutiny must be rigorous, disciplined, and draw on the full range of appropriate expertise.” (Emphasis added.)
Wiley et al note “the importance of perception about conflicts of interest among contributors to immunisation policy development, and the need for open conversation about policy decisions among all immunisation stakeholders, including the public”, and yet fail to disclose their own conflicts of interest in their article. For example, the National Centre for Immunisation Research & Surveillance, until recently headed by author Professor Peter McIntyre, is very influential on vaccination policy, and has also been involved in vaccine industry-funded research, although now it declares “NCIRS does not accept any funding from pharmaceutical companies or other for-profit industry sources. NCIRS has a policy governing the interactions of staff-members with the pharmaceutical industry.”: http://www.ncirs.org.au/about-us/funding-and-governance
This is a matter which requires clarification as previous Funding and Governance information about NCIRS noted: “The Clinical Research group within NCIRS undertakes a mix of investigator-driven and industry-sponsored research. Investigator-initiated research includes both competitive grant-funded studies and studies supported by vaccine manufacturers.” (See attached NCIRS Funding and Governance pages dated 2016.) Professor Robert Booy was Head of Clinical Research at NCIRS (see attached NCIRS Executive pages), and is now listed as a Senior Professorial Fellow, NCIRS, and is an observer on the NCIRS Advisory Board and Scientific Advisory Committee. It is notable that Robert Booy is also currently Chairman of the Immunisation Coalition lobby group funded by vaccine manufacturers GlaxoSmithKline, Pfizer, Sanofi Pasteur and Seqirus Australia. People such as Judy Wilyman and myself have worked diligently to discover such information which is indicative of the network supporting the vaccine industry.

 

 
The relationships between policy influencers such as NCIRS and the vaccine industry are not clearly disclosed for the public, certainly it is well over-due for transparency and accountability in this area.
Wiley et al also note: Areas of public health importance such as immunisation are legitimate topics for scrutiny. It is important to question long-embedded policies and practices, however such scrutiny must be rigorous, disciplined, and draw on the full range of appropriate expertise.” 
Indeed. Scrutiny of “areas of public health importance such as immunisation” and “long-embedded policies and practices” is well over-due, and all citizens should be grateful to Judy Wilyman for producing a PhD thesis which raises legitimate questions about taxpayer-funded vaccination policy. I suggest vaccination policy, and particularly the ever-increasing coercive National Immunisation Program Schedule, should be independently and objectively reviewed as a matter of urgency, this area is awash with conflicts of interest.
Professor Wellings, I suggest taxpayer-funded vaccination policy is an absolute conflicted mess. There are problems emerging now with vaccine products, e.g. the effectiveness of pertussis, measles and mumps vaccines, globally controversial fast-tracked HPV vaccination, annual and possibly even bi-annual flu vaccination, and vaccine safety, e.g. with the use of aluminium adjuvants. Vaccines for rare diseases such as meningococcal B are being pressed upon the community amidst media fear-mongering, and in this regard there is much to be investigated about the aggressive lobbying for the GlaxoSmithKline Bexsero meningococcal B vaccine to be added to the coercive national taxpayer-funded schedule…
 
I suggest independent and objective discussion of these matters is being hindered because vaccination policy is dominated by a clique of academics wedded to vaccination ideology, supported by lobby groups such as SAVN and Friends of Science in Medicine, and the biased and conflicted reporting of the Murdoch media/News Corp, along with biased reporting in other corporate and taxpayer-funded media (i.e. the ABC and SBS).
It is essential that citizens be allowed to freely discuss taxpayer-funded vaccination policy and emerging vaccine problems, particularly with coercive vaccination laws now being enacted by Australian Federal and State governments. I hope that the University of Wollongong will stand firm and defend the publication of Judy Wilyman’s most useful PhD thesis relevant to vaccination policy, along with her Masters thesis relevant to pertussis vaccination.
I too am investigating vaccination policy as an independent citizen, and am experiencing similar efforts to censor my perspective, for example the censoring of my interview podcast on university-owned radio 2ser on the subject of Policy and Politics Around Vaccinations, originally broadcast live on Thursday 21 February 2019.
I have now raised this matter of censorship with the Vice Chancellors of University Technology Sydney and Macquarie University, the universities which own 2ser.
In this regard, FYI, please see below my email to Professor Attila Brungs of University Technology Sydney. I have also forwarded a similar email to Professor S Bruce Dowton of Macquarie University.
Professor Wellings, it is time for retrospective critical analysis of how discussion on vaccination policy has been manipulated and hindered by a network of agents, not just in Australia, but globally. 
 
There is a growing groundswell among citizens demanding transparency and accountability for vaccination policy, we are fighting against censorship.
Please see below my email to Professor Attila Brungs on this matter.
Kind regards
Elizabeth Hart
Independent Vaccination Policy Researcher
———- Forwarded message ———
From: Elizabeth Hart <elizmhart@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, Mar 25, 2019 at 12:58 PM
Subject: Censored interview on Radio 2ser re Policy and Politics Around Vaccinations – Interview with Elizabeth Hart
To: <Attila.Brungs@uts.edu.au>
Cc: <simone.lehmann@uts.edu.au>
For the attention of:
Professor Attila Brungs
Vice Chancellor, President and Chief Executive Officer
University of Technology Sydney
Dear Professor Brungs, an interview with me on Radio 2ser on the subject of vaccination policy has been censored by 2ser Managing Director Martin Walters. I bring this matter to your attention as 2ser is owned by University of Technology Sydney and Macquarie University. I request that the webpage with my podcast titled Policy and Politics Around Vaccinations be reinstated on 2ser. 
 
Mr Walters advised me “…On reviewing the material presented, including the footnotes provided in your response, we are of the view that you do not meet our standards in having the appropriate qualifications to evaluate the science…” (Email dated 22 March 2019.)
Professor Brungs, I have a BA from the University of Adelaide, majoring in politics and philosophy. I am investigating vaccination policy from a political and ethical perspective, this is not just about ‘science’. However, citizens do not need to have any ‘qualifications’ to critique taxpayer-funded vaccination policy, this is our right in our liberal democracy.
The global pharmaceutical industry has plans afoot to increase vaccination from ‘cradle to grave’* – we must have transparency and accountability for government-mandated vaccination, and it is astonishing that this matter has received little or no critical analysis in the media. (*See for example the vaccine manufacturer Merck Sharp & Dohme (MSD) funded report: Moving the Needle – Promoting vaccination uptake across the life coursehttps://www.rsph.org.uk/uploads/assets/uploaded/f8cf580a-57b5-41f4-8e21de333af20f32.pdf )
The information I provided in my interview on 2ser was factual and provides valuable insights on the over-use of vaccine products not currently being relayed to the public by the mainstream/corporate media. Please note this is not an ‘anti-vaccination’ argument, rather I am challenging the lack of transparency and accountability for the over-use of vaccine products, a problem which can be compared to the over-use of antibiotics, opioids, anti-depressants and other medical products.
 
For your information, please see below a transcript of my interview re Policy and Politics Around Vaccinations, broadcast on 2ser on Thursday 21 February 2019.  
 
As you will note from the transcript, I raise important matters relevant to vaccination policy, including the influence of the Murdoch media (aka News Corp) on the enactment of the Australian government’s coercive No Jab, No Pay law, and refer to News Corp’s conflict of interest in also being a supporter of the Murdoch Children’s Research Institute, an organisation co-founded by Rupert Murdoch’s mother Elisabeth Murdoch, which is involved in vaccine product development.  I also raise the conflicts of interest of academics who recommend vaccine products for the taxpayer-funded vaccination schedule (e.g. members of the Australian Technical Advisory Group on Immunisation). This is information the general public is unaware of due to the grossly biased discussion of vaccination in the media, including the taxpayer-funded ABC and SBS.
 
As noted in the interview, I appreciated that 2ser provided me with the opportunity to speak, but this has now been undermined by the removal of the relevant podcast webpage from the 2ser website, see copy of webpage attached.
 
I suggest the censoring of my interview contravenes 2ser Policies, e.g. 2ser’s News and Current Affairs Policy, particularly:  
 
2. Encourage discussion, debate and exchange of ideas, which contributes to a more informed, educated, co-operative and compassionate society.
3. Adopt a genuinely critical and constructive standpoint on all issues, and encourages or provokes critical thought and analysis by our listeners.
4. Give attention to a wide range of intelligent viewpoints, and especially those under-represented in the media and social decision-making.
(My emphasis.)   Reference: https://2ser.com/policies/
Professor Brungs, the discussion in my interview is just the tip of the iceberg, there is much to be exposed here, and I suggest the research sector needs to tread very carefully in regards to censoring this information. Citizens must be allowed to discuss taxpayer-funded vaccination policy in public forums.
Please note I am an independent citizen undertaking this research. I receive no funding and have no conflicts of interest, I am a citizen trying to achieve transparency and accountability for taxpayer-funded vaccination policy, this is my right in our liberal democracy. This is particularly urgent now that the Australian government, and some State governments, are mandating vaccination to access benefits and childcare, and thereby forcing compliance to an ever-increasing number of vaccine products and revaccinations, i.e. denying the right to free ‘informed consent’ before each of these medical interventions. 
Again, please see the transcript of my interview broadcast on 2ser below – do you support this citizen’s perspective of vaccination policy being censored?
Professor Brungs, I request that the webpage with my podcast titled Policy and Politics Around Vaccinations be reinstated on 2ser. 
Please give careful consideration to this matter of public interest.
I look forward to your response.
Yours sincerely
Elizabeth Hart
Policy and Politics Around Vaccinations
Transcript of an interview with Elizabeth Hart, independent vaccine researcher
Radio 2ser – The Daily, with Victor Petrovic, 21 February 2019
 
Victor Petrovic: Well there’s rarely a time that vaccination is not a hot topic. Only last week the wife of an NRL footballer made national headlines after posting on Instagram that the couple didn’t plan on vaccinating their children[1], with a separate ABC article[2] suggesting we should share our own stories of positive experiences with vaccines, and discuss our experience with the diseases they prevent, with a friend, relative, acquaintance or someone expressing hesitancy. Our next guest, an independent vaccine researcher, Elizabeth Hart, says the transparency around conflicts of interest, as well as access to accurate, unbiased scientific information, is what’s need for people to make their own decisions, and Elizabeth joins us now. Elizabeth, good morning.
 
Elizabeth Hart: Hello Victor.
 
Victor Petrovic: So you point to a change in the vaccination schedule over the past few decades in terms of an increase in dosages…
 
Elizabeth Hart: That’s right.
 
Victor Petrovic: What do you say around that point?
 
Elizabeth Hart: Well I understand around 1960 for example, there were about 13 doses of vaccines[3], and now we’re heading towards 50 doses[4], and that’s not including the annual flu vaccinations that we’re all pressed to have as well. So children, young children, are being pressed to have up to 50 doses of vaccines, and my position is I’m questioning the over-use of vaccine products. So my position is not ‘anti-vaccination’, I’m saying that we’ve got a lot of products on the schedule now, and we need to have transparency and accountability for how these have gotten onto the schedule. And I’ve been researching this subject over the past few years, I started investigating pet vaccination after my dog became very ill after vaccination and was put down, and discovered that over-use of vaccine products in pet vaccination is out of sight[5], and we got a lot of coverage in the media, and CHOICE magazine took it up[6], and it was acknowledged that this is a problem. And something that came through very clearly when investigating pet vaccination was that specialists in that area were warning that we have to decrease vaccination of pets, because of the risk of adverse reaction[7]. And I became very interested to see that human vaccination is going through the roof, and why aren’t we worried about that?
 
Victor Petrovic: Yeah, but…a lot of people say that you know, obviously, there has been an increase, that is correct, but over that time science and medical research has discovered, you know, or created more and more vaccines that can be useful to us. Is looking at just the number of vaccines, is that relevant to how many vaccines we might need, based on the current science?
 
Elizabeth Hart: I think so, because there are so many products now, we have to see who’s recommending these vaccines? And we’re finding that a lot of the ‘science’ is funded by industry. This is not, we haven’t got infectious diseases experts in ivory towers talking about this sort of information, it’s actually industry producing this data. And the people who are on the committees making recommendations about what will go on the schedule, on the taxpayer-funded schedule, are often involved with these actual vaccine trials, this is a serious conflict of interest. And there’s been a reluctance to be transparent about this. I’ve been working on this now for the past 10 years, and it has been so difficult to try and get transparency, they want to keep this under wraps. The whole vaccination bureaucracy is awash with conflicts of interest. And a very serious matter is the No Jab, No Pay law was put in, was enacted in response to a campaign waged by the Murdoch media[8]. The Murdoch media has been doing this over a number of years, they were the ones who came out with the No Jab, No Play campaign, and the government responded to this, and has now enacted this law[9]. But what the public doesn’t realise is that the Murdoch media, particularly News Corp, is funding an organisation called the Murdoch Children’s Research Institute[10], which is involved in vaccine development[11]. Now I think you can understand, that is a major conflict of interest.
 
Victor Petrovic: Sure, but I think a lot of people within the public do support that policy because they believe that, you know, vaccines are very necessary and people should use them. Like I understand what you’re saying about a possible conflict of interest, but that is quite a popular policy around the public, the No Jab…
 
Elizabeth Hart: Yes, I understand that, I understand that the population is generally very pro-vaccine because they are getting a lot of messages from ‘authority’ – from academics, from doctors, from the vaccination bureaucracy, from politicians. There’s an onslaught of messages from ‘authority’. But the public doesn’t realise that there are problems emerging with vaccine products. Now I understand entirely, the idea of vaccination sounds fantastic, have a little bit of a disease, have a little bit of a bacteria, and then you’re immune for life, who would argue against that, it sounds like a great idea. But there are problems emerging, and these are being covered up[12]. The vaccines don’t only include viruses and bacteria, they also include other ingredients like adjuvants, and I’m particularly concerned about aluminium adjuvants[13]. There’s been an explosion of aluminium-adjuvanted vaccines in the last few years, and there are people within academia warning about the possible dangers of this. The science, the research, isn’t being done in this area, because so much research is funded by industry, and they’re not going to fund this type of research. So there’s a lot of ‘undone science’. So again, I understand, and of course the population would be behind vaccination generally, but we have to look further into this, this is not a simple matter, we have to dig further. And what we’re finding now is that citizens like myself are being labelled ‘anti-vax’. You know, I’m asking questions, this is taxpayer-funded policy, and I’m entitled to ask questions.
 
Victor Petrovic: Just to go to that, you’re not ‘anti-vaccination’, is that correct?
 
Elizabeth Hart: No, as I’ve explained, my position is looking at the over-use of vaccine products. And you can compare this to the over-use of antibiotics, the over-use of of opioids, the over-use of anti-depressants. It’s recognised now that a lot of medical products are over-used. We have to realise that these are products, these are lucrative products, the pharmaceutical industry is making money on these products. And vaccines up to now have been held up on a pedestal, they’ve, you know, been given this sort of blessed status. But these are products too. And in recent years the pharmaceutical industry has realised that this is a place where they can really build huge markets[14]. And something that has really influenced this I understand, is in the United States, in the mid-80s, the United States gave protection from liability to vaccine manufacturers[15]. Now I think this has had a ripple effect around the world. You know, we can ask the question, if vaccines are so safe, why are they being given protection from liability? You know, they should stand on their own, without this protection. So we have to look into this, this is a lot more complicated and there are a lot of vested interests trying to suppress discussion on this matter.
 
Victor Petrovic: Vaccines have been very successful in society though, and I guess maybe that’s a reason why a lot of people want to protect them.
 
Elizabeth Hart: Well that’s what people say, but I, I think we’re not really getting a proper picture on the possible adverse events after vaccination[16]. And particularly now, in the current climate, that we’re in, this hostile climate, I don’t feel that we can trust doctors to properly recognise and acknowledge and report adverse events after vaccination. And the proper term is actually ‘adverse events’, not adverse reactions, because we don’t know, you know, if something happens maybe a day, a week, or a month, or even a year after the vaccination, we don’t know that that might not be tied to the vaccination. And so anything that happens should be reported as an adverse event, and that’s the only way that we would see patterns developing if there could be problems with vaccines. And again, I’m worried about these aluminium-adjuvanted vaccines. There are so many vaccines now with that aluminium adjuvant in. There’s also a problem with re-vaccination, we’re seeing this with pertussis vaccines, they are now being given to children, six doses, and we have to ask, why six doses? And this is aluminium-adjuvanted vaccines.
 
Victor Petrovic: Ok. And you’re calling for some sort of government inquiry into vaccinations, is that correct?
 
Elizabeth Hart: I would like a complete review of the schedule because it is awash with conflicts of interest. The people who are responsible for recommending those vaccines that are on the schedule, many of them have had associations with pharmaceutical companies[17], there has not been transparency, and the public is not aware of this. And you can understand, as I’ve explained, the Murdoch media, we expect the media to shine a light in dark places, but in this instance, the media is actually part of the whole scandal. And as you know, the Murdoch media dominates in Australia, and I’m so fortunate that you, a community radio station, has given me the opportunity to speak.
 
Victor Petrovic: And what are some examples of those conflicts of interest?
 
Elizabeth Hart: Well, as I’ve explained…there are people making these recommendations, and I’m talking about the Australian Technical Advisory Group on Immunisation[18]. Members of that committee have also worked on vaccine clinical trials[19]. They also get funding from pharmaceutical companies to attend conferences. So these are conflicts of interest. And there has been reluctance to make this transparent, and I know this because I wrote to Nicola Roxon, back in I think it was 2011/2012, you know Labor…anyway, I wrote to her and wanting clarification on this. And it took a long time for it to come out, who were the members of these groups[20]. And we’ve got academics like Robert Booy, who is the Chair of the Immunisation Coalition[21] – that is funded by Pharma, it’s funded by Glaxo, and Pfizer and Sanofi[22]. And associations, the Australian Medical Association, and other associations, are associated with this Immunisation Coalition[23], and actually the President of the Australian Medical Association, Tony Bartone, is a member of the Immunisation Coalition[24]. And the only reason why we have transparency on who are the members of that organisation is because I demanded that we have transparency on that, and that’s why we have the list of names up there now[25]….This whole thing, it’s up to citizens to do this work ourselves because the media has just been, the taxpayer-funded ABC and SBS, have been atrocious in this regard.
 
Victor Petrovic: Ok. Well Elizabeth, thank you so much for your time this morning.
 
Elizabeth Hart: Thank you very much Victor.
 
Victor Petrovic: That was Elizabeth Hart, an independent vaccination researcher, speaking about the importance of free and open debate about vaccines, and supposed conflicts of interest in this vaccine space in terms of medical professionals, and the very successful vaccines we’ve had in our society to date. 
 
For more detail on the matters raised by Elizabeth Hart, see her video presentation: Big Pharma’s hijacking of ‘over’-vaccination policy – Conflicts of interest and lack of transparency and accountability: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=atKeooIrHE8
 
 
References provided by Elizabeth Hart for points made in interview with Victor Petrovic:
1. UPDATE: Footy star’s wife defends her anti-vax views in NEW Instagram post. Practical Parenting, 13 February 2019: https://www.practicalparenting.com.au/shanelle-cartwright-defends-anti-vaccination-stance
2. You’re not going to convince an anti-vaxxer by berating them on Facebook. ABC News/The Conversation, updated 20 February 2019: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-02-20/anti-vaxxer-wont-convince-them-by-berating-them-on-facebook/10826298
3. See Significant events in polio vaccination practice in Australia: http://www.ncirs.org.au/sites/default/files/2018-11/Polio-history-July-2018.pdf and Significant events in diphtheria, tetanus and pertussis vaccination practice in Australia: http://www.ncirs.org.au/sites/default/files/2018-11/Diphtheria-tetanus-pertussis-history-July-2018.pdf
4. Breaking down individual doses on the National Immunisation Program Schedule, i.e. including multi-component vaccine products: https://beta.health.gov.au/health-topics/immunisation/immunisation-throughout-life/national-immunisation-program-schedule
5. My experience in investigating over-vaccination of pets is recorded on my website, including links to extensive correspondence with the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority, Australian Veterinary Association and the World Small Animal Veterinary Association, and others, see Over-vaccination of pets an unethical practicehttps://over-vaccination.net/questionable-vaccines/pet-vax/
6. A dog of an issue. Over-vaccinating your pet could be harmful to their health as well as costing you money unnecessarily. CHOICE, September 2010.
7. “…A second major concept regarding vaccination of dogs and cats has been the recognition that we should aim to reduce the ‘vaccine load’ on individual animals in order to minimize the potential for adverse reactions to vaccine products and reduce the time and financial burden on clients and veterinarians of unjustified veterinary medical procedures…” Guidelines for the Vaccination of Dogs and Cats, compiled by the Vaccination Guidelines Group (VGG) of the World Small Animal Veterinary Association (WSAVA) Journal of Small Animal Practice. Vol. 57, January 2016. (Note there are still problems with these guidelines, which are now sponsored by vaccine manufacturer MSD Animal Health, which is a division of Merck & Co, a well-known pharmaceutical company and vaccine manufacturer, e.g. manufacturer of MMR and Gardasil vaccine products.)
8. For example, a Daily Telegraph article titled Prime Minister Tony Abbott announces ‘no jab, no play and no pay’ policy for child vaccination, 12 April 2015, notes “The Sunday Telegraph has run an important community health awareness campaign, No Jab, No Play. 
9. No Jab, No Pay law enacted from 1 January 2016: ‘No Jab No Pay’ and other immunisation measures. Budget Review 2015-16 Index. Michael Klapdor and Alex Grove: https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/pubs/rp/BudgetReview201516/Vaccination
10. The Corporate Partners webpage of the Murdoch Children’s Research Institute notes that “News Corp Australia has supported Murdoch Children’s in many ways for more than a decade…” Foxtel has also “generously supported Murdoch Children’s Research Institute for 10 years”: https://www.mcri.edu.au/corporate-partners  The original Murdoch Institute was established in 1986, with the support of Dame Elisabeth Murdoch, her family and others: https://www.mcri.edu.au/about/history  On 2 February 2017, The Australian published an article about Rupert Murdoch praising the institute “his mother helped establish”. (Rupert Murdoch hails best investment, our kids.)
11. The Vaccine and Immunisation Research Group (VIRGo) of the Murdoch Children’s Research Institute is involved with vaccine projects and funding from GSK Biologicals, Sanofi Pasteur and Novartis Vaccines: https://www.mcri.edu.au/research/themes/infection-and-immunity/vaccine-and-immunisation-research-group-virgo
12. For example, problems with the effectiveness of the pertussis/whooping cough vaccines, and measles, mumps and rubella vaccines, e.g. waning maternally derived antibodies from measles vaccinated mothers, waning vaccine-induced immunity re measles and mumps. These are matters I am investigating from a layperson’s/citizen’s perspective.
13. A poorly evidenced systematic review on aluminium and vaccine (DTP) safety is being cited to justify the safety of aluminium-adjuvanted vaccine products. I am challenging the validity of this review, and forwarding correspondence on the matter, see for example letters and emails linked to on my website: https://over-vaccination.net/aluminium-and-vaccine-safety/
14. According to international market reports, the global vaccine market is predicted to rise from US$5.7 billion in 2002, to more than US$77.5 billion in 2024, a more than 13 fold increase. See 20 Top-selling Vaccines – H1 2012. FiercePharma, 25 September 2012, and Vaccine market size to reach (US)$77.5 billion by 2024 / CAGR: 10.3%. Grand View Research, March 2018.
15.The US National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program effectively provides vaccine manufacturers with protection from liability for vaccine products, this is a controversial area: https://www.hrsa.gov/vaccine-compensation/index.html
16. Adverse events after vaccination are likely to be under-reported. The Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) acknowledges: “Adverse event reports from consumers and health professionals to the TGA are voluntary, so there is under-reporting by the groups of adverse events related to therapeutic goods in Australia. This is the same around the world.” https://www.tga.gov.au/about-daen-medicines
21. Robert Booy is the Chairman of the pharma-funded Immunisation Coalition: https://www.immunisationcoalition.org.au/about-us/  Robert Booy is associated with the National Centre for Immunisation Research & Surveillance (NCIRS), and is involved in the promotion of vaccine products, e.g. the GlaxoSmithKline Bexsero meningococcal B vaccine product for the rare disease meningococcal B, see my presentation Big Pharma’s hijacking of ‘over’-vaccination policy mentioned above for more background.
22. The Immunisation Coalition is funded by vaccine manufacturers such as GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) Australia, Pfizer, Sanofi Pasteur, and Seqirus Australia: https://www.immunisationcoalition.org.au/about-us/
23. Medical organisations are associated with the pharma-funded Immunisation Coalition, e.g. the Australian Medical Association, Royal Australian College of General Practitioners, National GP Disease Surveillance Network, Australian College for Infection Prevention & Control, Australian College of Nursing, Australian Nursing & Midwifery Federation, Australian Primary Health Care Nurses Association, Australian College of Nurse Practitioners, The Pharmacy Guild of Australia, Pharmaceutical Society of Australia, etc: https://www.immunisationcoalition.org.au/about-us/
25. In 2016 I contacted Kim Sampson, Chief Executive Officer of the Influenza Specialist Group (now the Immunisation Coalition), requesting transparency for members of the organisation, i.e. names of members and membership of committees. After further correspondence, members names were finally made public on the Immunisation Coalition website. On 22 January 2019, I again contacted Kim Sampson at the Immunisation Coalition, requesting disclosure of potential conflicts of interest of members, but in a letter dated 29 January 2019 was advised by Mr Sampson that “…For privacy reasons you will understand that this information is not made public – which is in accordance with both legal and best practice governance for most organisations”.  Members of the Immunisation Coalition are in a position to influence Australian government vaccination policy, it is a serious matter that their potential conflicts of interest are not being disclosed. I am pursuing further the matter of conflicts of interest in vaccination policy.

One thought on “The ongoing moves to censor citizens’ discussion of vaccination policy and citizens fighting back

  1. The worlds riches are owned and controlled by the few. Some say one percent.
    These riches include the International Corporations, Banks, Media, Drug manufacturing, Weapon manufacturing to name just a few.
    It would be reasonable to assume that our elected Governments would come under the influence of these few.
    For instance, the pharmaceutical industry donates to our Political parties and as we only have two major ones it is not difficult to surmise who gets the cash.
    The Libs in their swamp of lies and deceit have been promoting Vaccines so, Sherlock, who do you think gets the cash?
    Then we have the Media swamp of lies and deceit owned by the illustrious liar Murdock who also promotes vaccines via his entourage of yes men and woman.
    One must ask, do all these liars get part of this pharma cash brown bag?
    It has been said that we all have our price!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *