Wed, Jan 20, 2021 at 3:37 PM
Dear Professor Shine, in the Academy’s recent media release*, you say: “Australians are looking for trustworthy information and answers about COVID-19 and vaccination. With much misinformation in the public domain, we urge Australians to continue to consult reputable sources of evidence-based information such as the Commonwealth and State Departments of Health, our Chief Medical Officers, the Australian Academy of Science, as well as our Learned Academies such as the Australian Academy for Health and Medical Sciences”.
Professor Shine, I’ve been investigating taxpayer-funded vaccination policy for the past 12 years, and I’m appalled at the conflicts of interest that engulf this area of public health. Vaccination policy has been effectively colonised by the vaccine industry, resulting in an ever-increasing vaccination schedule. In my view, there is an over-use of vaccine products and this must be reviewed.
I’ve sought transparency and accountability for vaccination policy and individual vaccine products, but have been stonewalled at every turn. People like me who question vaccination policy are reflexively labelled ‘anti-vaxxers’, a blatant means used to discredit and marginalise people who have legitimate questions about taxpayer-funded vaccination policy and practice.
In the past I’ve enquired about conflicts of interest at the Australian Academy of Science, in correspondence raised with Sir Gus Nossal, Professor Suzanne Cory and Professor Andrew Holmes. I’ve been less than impressed with the response.
Professor Shine, you suggest Australians should “consult reputable sources of evidence-based information”. How ‘reputable’ are sources that refuse to be accountable and open to scrutiny?
For example, I’ve sought disclosure of conflicts of interest of members of the Australian Technical Advisory Group on Immunisation (ATAGI), having some success with disclosure of brief information emerging after I wrote to then Prime Minister Tony Abbott in 2015. But the information on ATAGI members is still grossly deficient, and there is no historical information publicly accessible for previous members of this group who oversaw the addition of vaccine products to the taxpayer-funded schedule.
There’s also a lack of disclosure of conflicts of interest for other influential people, for example members of the vaccine industry-funded Immunisation Coalition, who are frequently in the media promoting vaccine products and associated matters on the back of their credentials, people such as Robert Booy, Raina MacIntyre, Margie Danchin, Katie Attwell, Mary-Louise McLaws, Rodney Pearce, Paul Van Buynder, and Tony Bartone, former AMA President. But these people seldom disclose that vaccine manufacturers Pfizer, CSL/Seqirus, GlaxoSmithKline, Sanofi and MSD (aka Merck) fund the Immunisation Coalition, a conflict of interest which should be disclosed in their media articles.
Professor Shine, taxpayer-funded vaccination policy is a conflicted shambles, and the current handling of the coronavirus situation brings this matter to the fore. In this regard, please see below my email to Professor Allen Cheng, one of the major influencers on taxpayer-funded vaccination policy in Australia.
In my email to Professor Cheng, I challenge the implementation of mass coronavirus vaccination in Australia, a medical intervention which politicians are threatening to coerce people to accept. I’ve attached a copy of the article in The Australian referred to in my email, it’s likely to be behind the paywall, like so much material impacting on vaccination policy, e.g. in the blessed ‘peer-reviewed literature’…
This matter is relevant to people around the world, with everyone under threat of this poorly thought through vaccination response.
Please consider this information carefully Professor Shine, it’s time to shine a light in this dark corner of the scientific establishment. This email will also be circulated to other parties for information.
Independent person investigating the over-use of vaccine products conflicts of interest in vaccination policy.