With Federal election campaigning underway, it’s possible that meningococcal B vaccination could be an election issue (as HPV vaccination was in the lead-up to the 2007 Federal election, and meningococcal B vaccination in the last South Australian government election), i.e. with politicians falling over themselves to be seen to be ‘doing something’ and supporting the lobbying pharmaceutical industry…
- The Bexsero meningococcal B vaccine product was originally rejected for the national vaccination schedule in the UK, a decision that was overturned after intensive lobbying by vested interests, and when a person involved with the development of the GlaxoSmithKline Bexsero vaccine product, Andrew Pollard, became Chair of the UK committee approving vaccine products, the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation (JCVI).
- In South Australia, a Bexsero meningococcal B vaccine trial funded by GlaxoSmithKline is underway, involving up to 60,000 students. An article published in the Murdoch Advertiser newspaper (in December 2016) says “It is hoped the findings will provide a strong push to get the vaccine on the taxpayer-funded National Immunisation Program”. Helen Marshall, a member of the Australian Technical Advisory Group on Immunisation (ATAGI) is the lead investigator on this GlaxoSmithKline-funded trial, which appears to be biased from the outset. Given her role on vaccination policy influencing ATAGI, Helen Marshall has a serious conflict of interest.
- Robert Booy, who is an avid promoter of meningococcal B vaccination, and who is associated with the vaccination policy influencing National Centre for Immunisation Research & Surveillance, is also medical advisor for Meningococcal Australia, an organisation which promotes meningococcal B vaccination and which receives funding from meningococcal B vaccine product manufacturers GlaxoSmithKline and Pfizer, funding information which was not publicly disclosed until after I contacted Meningococcal Australia and Robert Booy directly on this matter in late 2016. Robert Booy is also Chair of the Immunisation Coalition which is funded by meningococcal B vaccine manufacturers GlaxoSmithKline and Pfizer, and other vaccine and medical product promoters, i.e. Merck (MSD), Seqirus, Sanofi, Roche and Apotex. It is alarming that vaccine/medical product manufacturers have apparently unfettered and unexamined access to influencing national taxpayer-funded vaccination policy.
Hi, please see below an email on the topic of aluminium and vaccine safety, forwarded to Professor Kristine Macartney, Director of NCIRS.The matters raised are relevant to vaccine products and revaccinations recommended by members of the PBAC for the taxpayer-funded coercive National Immunisation Program Schedule.Can you please bring this correspondence to the attention of members of the PBAC and appropriate Australian Government officials.
Thank youElizabeth Hart
For the attention of:Professor Kristine MacartneyDirector, National Centre for Immunisation Research & SurveillanceProfessor MacartneyClaims for the safety of aluminium-adjuvanted vaccine products made in an Australian Government publication updated by NCIRS staff, e.g. Dr Sally Ioannides, Professor Peter McIntyre and yourself, are open to question.I request that urgent steps are taken to review this publication as I suggest the reference cited to justify the safety of aluminium-adjuvanted vaccine products is scientifically unsound.This is an important matter as there are now 12 aluminium-adjuvanted vaccine injections for children on the taxpayer-funded and coercive National Immunisation Program Schedule, with an additional three doses of aluminium-adjuvanted vaccine for children in South Australia (i.e. the GlaxoSmithKline Bexsero meningococcal B vaccine product), making a total of 15 aluminium-adjuvanted vaccine injections for children in South Australia. (Please see below at reference 1 for a list of the aluminium-adjuvanted vaccine products and revaccinations on the current schedule.)The Australian Government Department of Health publication Questions about vaccination notes:There is no evidence that the small amount of aluminium salts contained in vaccines causes any long-term harm……Aluminium salts have been added to some vaccines, in small amounts, for about 60 years. A recent review of all the available studies of diphtheria, tetanus and pertussis (whooping cough) vaccines that contain aluminium found no evidence that the aluminium salts cause any serious or long-term harm.(Emphasis added.) Reference: https://beta.health.gov.au/resources/publications/questions-about-vaccination (See highlighted sections of pages 67 and 68 in attachment.)
The ‘recent review’ cited to justify the safety of aluminium-adjuvanted vaccine products is Tom Jefferson et al’sAdverse events after immunization with aluminium-containing DTP vaccines: systematic review of the evidence, The Lancet Infectious Diseases 2004;4:84-90.In their review Jefferson et al say: “We found no evidence that aluminium salts in vaccines cause any serious or long-lasting adverse events.”However, Jefferson et al also admit that “Overall, the methodological quality of included studies was low. Few reports gave details of the randomisation process, allocation concealment, reasons for withdrawals, or strategies to deal with them in analysis. Inconsistencies in reporting, lack of clarity on numerators and denominators, variability of outcome definitions, and lack of outcome definitions led to much loss of data.”In their abstract, Jefferson et al conclude: “Despite a lack of good-quality evidence we do not recommend that any further research on this topic is undertaken.”Professor Macartney, I suggest that Jefferson et al’s 2004 systematic review on aluminium and (DTP) vaccine safety is scientifically unsound and should not be relied upon to justify the safety of the many aluminium-adjuvanted vaccine products and revaccinations on the current schedule.Jefferson et al admit that “Overall, the methodological quality of included studies was low”, and that there was “a lack of good-quality evidence”. In my opinion, Jefferson et al should have concluded there was not sufficient evidence to come to conclusions about the safety of aluminium in vaccine products, and that further research was needed on this subject. Instead, Jefferson et al recommended against any further research on this topic, a bizarre recommendation which has had far-reaching effects.Professor Macartney, it is extremely concerning that the justification for the safety of all the aluminium-adjuvanted vaccine products and revaccinations on the National Immunisation Program Schedule is resting on the conclusions of what I suggest is Jefferson et al’s scientifically unsound 2004 Lancet Infectious Diseases systematic review.At this time we have no idea of the long-term cumulative effects of all the ever-increasing number of aluminium-adjuvanted vaccine products and revaccinations on the schedule, and the additional doses on the South Australian schedule, this is an experiment that is underway in the community, without ‘informed consent’.Professor Macartney, I have attached a highlighted copy of Jefferson et al’s 2004 review for your consideration.It is also a matter for concern that Jefferson et al’s 2004 review, which is influencing Australia’s taxpayer-funded and coercive No Jab, No Pay vaccination policy, is not open access to the public, but has been published behind the paywall of The Lancet Infectious Diseases journal.I request your urgent consideration of this matter and your response.SincerelyReferences:1. Aluminium-adjuvanted vaccine products on the Australian National Immunisation Program Schedule (black text below, vaccine supplier’s name in bold): (See online at: https://beta.health.gov.au/health-topics/immunisation/immunisation-throughout-life/national-immunisation-program-schedule )(There are also additional aluminium-adjuvanted vaccines doses for ‘medically at risk children’, particularly Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children living in high risk areas – QLD, NT, WA and SA.)
Hepatitis B (H-B-Vax II Paediatric (bioCSL) or Engerix B Paediatric (GlaxoSmithKline))
South Australia only: Meningococcal B (Bexsero – GlaxoSmithKline) *
2 months:Multicomponent combined injection for diphtheria, tetanus, whooping cough (pertussis) hepatitis B, polio, Haemophilus influenzae type b (Infanrix hexa – GlaxoSmithKline)Pneumococcal (Prevenar 13 – Pfizer)(Note: Oral drops for rotavirus are also given at this time (Rotarix)4 months:
Multicomponent combined injection for diphtheria, tetanus, whooping cough (pertussis) hepatitis B, polio, Haemophilus influenzae type b (Infanrix hexa – GlaxoSmithKline)Pneumococcal (Prevenar 13 – Pfizer)South Australia only: Meningococcal B (Bexsero – GlaxoSmithKline) *(Note: Oral drops for rotavirus are also given at this time (Rotarix)6 months:Multi-component (combined injection) diphtheria, tetanus, whooping cough (pertussis) hepatitis B, polio, Haemophilus influenzae type b (Infanrix hexa – GlaxoSmithKline)12 months:Pneumococcal (Prevenar 13 – Pfizer)South Australia only: Meningococcal B (Bexsero – GlaxoSmithKline) *(Note: Other vaccine products given at this time are:A multicomponent combined injection for measles, mumps and rubella (M-M-R II (Seqirus) or Priorix (GlaxoSmithKline)
An injection for meningococcal ACWY (Nimenrix – Pfizer)18 months:
Multicomponent combined injection for diphtheria, tetanus, whooping cough (pertussis) (Infanrix (GlaxoSmithKline) or Tripacel (sanofi-aventis))
(Note: Other vaccine products given at this time are:
A multicomponent combined injection for measles, mumps and rubella (M-M-R II (Seqirus) or Priorix (GlaxoSmithKline)
An injection for Haemophilus influenzae type b (Hib) (Act-HIB – sanofi-aventis)
Multicomponent combined injection for diphtheria, tetanus, whooping cough (pertussis), polio (Infanrix IPV (GlaxoSmithKline) or Quadracel (sanofi-aventis))10 to 15 years:HPV (human papillomavirus) x 2 doses (Gardasil 9 – Seqirus)
Multicomponent combined injection for diphtheria, tetanus, pertussis (whooping cough) (Boostrix – GlaxoSmithKline)* Meningococcal B Immunisation Program in South Australia: