“No balance possible between facts and non-science”

The title of this post is taken from a statement by Dr. Norman Swan, presenter of The Health Report on ABC Radio National.

Dr. Swan was responding to the failure by ABC Radio Hobart to meet ABC editorial standards as a result of the airing of uncontested and demonstrably bogus claims from anti-vaccine lobby group, Australian Vaccination-risks Network. An interview with the current president of the group, Aneeta Hafemeister was broadcast on the evening of December 4th. Hafemeister spoke with Kyia Clayton, who is producer of the programme in question: Evenings with Paul McIntyre.

This absolute debacle featured on the next edition of Media Watch on December 9th wherein viewers were informed by presenter Paul Barry that listeners to the ABC Hobart interview “were furious”. The evening following the interview, Paul McIntyre admitted he had broadcast an interview which “failed the pub test”. He also acknowledged that the anti-vax claims needed to be interrogated and fact checked by a medical expert. We’re told on Media Watch;

And so to fix the damage, McIntyre invited vaccine researcher Dr. Jessica Kaufman to debunk the anti-vaxxer message

You can listen to the audio (© ABC Media Watch) below, which contains outtakes from the original interview, or read the segment transcript. The video and transcript of the relevant Media Watch segment are available here.

 

In his statement Norman Swan observed;

This story hides behind a misplaced view of ABC’s need for balance

Indeed. More to the point, this is not the first time that the ABC has been under fire for use of the AVN (and at the time) its founder, actual leader and frequent spokesperson, Meryl Dorey. Use of the AVN does not provide any genuine balance on the topic of vaccination. Rather false balance is what the result is.

In December 2011 two complaints to the ABC regarding Dorey and editorial standards were upheld.

So this is a problem that the ABC is familiar with. In fact with the same anti-vaccine organisation.

In her exploitation of the measles tragedy to strike Samoa, Hafemeister peddled the nonsense of vaccine shedding. In response to these claims Dr. Jessica Kaufman said;

… there’s not a risk of actually catching the measles from being around someone who has been vaccinated with a live vaccine.

… that’s just an overstated and misrepresented argument …

Vaccine shedding was initially the subject of a post here in October 2011. Hafemeister sounds confident in pushing the false claim that MMR and varicella vaccines are “shed” by the recently vaccinated and can thus infect others, particularly the immune compromised.

The difficulty with this anti-vaccine trope is that after vaccination with a live virus such as Oral Polio Virus, a weakened form of the virus may be present in faeces. An immunosuppresed person who comes in contact with the faecal material might be exposed. Whether viral transmission occurs and what effect this may have cannot be predicted and indeed not generalised. These events are extremely rare and specific to certain vaccines only – such as OPV.

Sadly the anti-vaccine lobby distorts the reality and wrongly spreads fear specific to other vaccines on the general vaccination regime. Please check the references below.

The issues being misrepresented here are viral shedding and viral transmission. Notice anti-vaxxers don’t use these terms. Why? Because these terms have a body of evidence that define them. And evidence brings facts. And facts scare anti-vaxxers. Because they like to make stuff up. And facts get in the way of making stuff up. Facts like these…

Janet R. Serwint, MD referred to both MMR and varicella vaccines in Vaccines in immunocompromised patients.

MMR, varicella, and rotavirus vaccines, although live viral vaccines, are recommended for immunocompetent household contacts because transmission of the virus is rare. The lack of viral shedding with MMR eliminates concern regarding transmission. Because the varicella virus rarely can be shed through a postimmunization vesicular rash that may develop, recommendations include avoiding contact until the rash resolves. For the rotavirus vaccine, avoidance of contact with the stools by the immunocompromised patient and good hand hygiene measures by all family members for at least 1 week after vaccination should be implemented.

Some authors have advised that severely immunocompromised children should not receive live vaccines due to the risk of disease. However they do not mention “vaccine shedding”. Rather ensuring vaccination of those with “altered immunocompetence” is important.

In general, severely immunocompromised children should not receive live vaccines, either viral or bacterial, because of the risk of disease caused by vaccine strains.

[…]

Household contacts and other close contacts of persons who have altered immunocompetence, however, should receive all other age-appropriate vaccines, including the live oral rotavirus vaccines.

[]

In fact in their abstract Campbell and Herold stress the importance of vaccinating transplant candidates;

The administration of vaccines to transplant candidates earlier and more rapidly than in the healthy child will improve vaccination rates among transplant recipients while not compromising immunogenicity. The recommended vaccines and vaccine schedule are discussed in detail.

The ABC released a statement with respect to the one sided anti-vaccine interview. They note in part;

The program also failed to upwardly refer the decision to devote a segment solely to an anti-vaxxer. Had it done so, the interview would not have taken place.

This must refer to programme producer Kyia Clayton. Indeed in a voice oozing anti-vaccine empathy Clayton finishes the interview with;

Thank you so much for giving me your time and for speaking to me about this challenging issue across the planet. I think everyone’s voice needs to be heard.

“… this challenging issue across the planet”? Coming on the back of anti-vaccine waffle? Utter. Damn. Piffle. Kyia Clayton had decided that “everyone’s voice” includes the lies and misinformation of the anti-vaccine lobby.

Making a bullshit executive decision she “failed” to refer it upward for consideration. If proper procedure was followed, Aneeta Hafemeister’s take on vaccine shedding would never have gone to air.

So another concern here is that the bogus vaccine claims originally, potentially made it to air thanks to the intentional cunning of an ABC staff member.


  1. The Myth of Vaccine Shedding – SBM
  2. Vaccine Shedding – Wikipedia
  3. Understanding live vaccines and vaccine shedding
  4. Shedding of live vaccine virus…
  5. Can vaccines cause or spread diseases?
  6. What is vaccine shedding? Here’s what you really need to know

Measles in Samoa: Thank the anti-vaccination lobby

The manner in which members of the anti-vaccination lobby have leapt upon the measles tragedy in Samoa identifies their awful, predatory cult quite well.

To completely understand why anti-vaccine activists promote such intellectually vicious lies and indeed hatred regarding an epidemic that Samoa has labelled a state of emergency I’d argue we need to first look back. Back to July last year when headlines reported the deaths of two infants following the MMR vaccination. Or rather, what we now know was thought to be MMR vaccine. We need to look back dear reader because antivaccinationists reacted in an “I told ya so” manner that was almost glee.

Despite there never being a recorded death due to vaccination or a vaccine in Australia, anti-vax profiteers who have peddled lies for years contend that death and disability after vaccination not only happens but are widespread. A vaccinologist was quoted in evidence to the No Jab No Pay Bill hearing that in Australian injuries serious enough to require compensation range between zero and five per year. I do apologise for referring to that occasion yet again. I also recommend the government publication Questions About Vaccination.

We must look back because regrettably it was the bogus causation peddled by anti-vax identities that gave them the confidence to begin commenting on this measles outbreak that hit Samoa in October this year (2019). As for facts, genuine health professionals and epidemiologists would be familiar with adulterated, out of date and counterfeit medications and vaccines causing harm in nations with health systems and infrastructure less developed than in New Zealand or Australia. Yet these events occur far less today due to safety procedures instigated across the globe.

Following investigations into the infant deaths in Samoa evidence was collated concluding “a tragic outcome from error preparing MMR vaccine”. The Immunisation Advisory Centre of New Zealand reports;

On 4 June 2019, both nurses pleaded guilty to negligence causing manslaughter. On 2 August, both nurses were sentenced to five years in prison. During the sentencing hearing, it was confirmed that one of the nurses mixed the MMR vaccine powder with expired muscle relaxant anaesthetic instead of water for injection supplied in a vial with the vaccine. Eight Samoan speaking New Zealand nurses visited Samoa in June to provide training for vaccinating nurses at district hospitals.

The same reference informs us there has never been a death associated with this vaccine in N.Z. It also has a helpful timeline and includes under August 3rd;

Report on RNZ website: The two nurses, who pleaded guilty to negligence causing the manslaughter of two infants, have been sentenced to five years in prison.

The Samoa Observer published a detailed account of the sentencing hearing, where it was confirmed that one of the nurses mixed the MMR vaccine powder with expired muscle relaxant anaesthetic instead of water for injection supplied in a vial with the vaccine.

The entire event effected parent confidence in immunisation. These doubts were magnified by antivaccinationists resulting in a further realisation of their aim: a reduction in vaccination. The Guardian recently reported that the WHO blames the “anti-vaccine scare” for the rise in cases and of course deaths. Kate O’Brien, director of the WHO immunisation department stressed that the rapid spread of measles in Samoa was due to the “very low coverage” of immunisation.

This resulted in the temporary suspension of the country’s immunisation programme and dented parents’ trust in the vaccine, even though it later turned out the deaths were caused by other medicines that were incorrectly administered.

O’Brien said that an anti-vaccine group had been stoking these fears further with a social media campaign, lamenting that “this is now being measured in the lives of children who have died in the course of this outbreak”.

Misinformation about the safety of vaccines, she said, “has had a very remarkable impact on the immunisation programme” in Samoa.

At least 42 fatalities can be attributed to this measles epidemic at time of writing. In the video below anti-vaxxer identity Taylor Winterstein is mentioned as having visited Samoa in June with diehard anti-vaxxer Robert Kennedy Jnr. Winterstein described herself as “pro-science” the narrator tells us. Oh, my.

Please spend some time reading up on this woman who is presently making a living scamming Wellness devotees and the ill out of their money.

Given the harrowing situation in Samoa and the speed at which measles morbidity and mortality is increasing the government has made the measles vaccine compulsory and warned those preventing community members from being vaccinated to stop.

Such as Fritz Alaiasa Neufelt, the oh-so-savvy businessman selling filtered tap water as the measles fighting “Kangen Water”. Lying as he plays with the lives of ill Samoans he claims that after a spray of his magic water;

“They’re feeling good,” he said. “The measles are already … not cured, but it’s already back to normal”.

The ABC recently reported that the “pro-science” Winterstein was a tad concerned about the governments position. No, not the position of vile Fritz spraying measles sufferers like office plants but the government.

In fact her rational, objective, pro-science mind has applied Godwin’s Law. The ABC cite her calm demeanor;

… Australian-Samoan influencer Taylor Winterstein made recent posts on Facebook and Instagram comparing Samoa’s compulsory vaccination program as akin to “Nazi Germany”.

“Forcing a medical procedure on an entire country, especially one that is proving to be ineffective, dangerous and making the virus more deadly, is straight up barbaric,” she wrote on Facebook.

So um, check it out, right. A “pro-science”, so-called “influencer” who peddles herself as a health guru has a tantrum claiming that the only known safe and effective preventative for measles is “proving to be ineffective, dangerous and making the virus more deadly”. And yeah, Nazi Germany. Pfft. Oh I’m influenced Tay. Trust me.

I’d say you can’t make this stuff up but that’s exactly what they do. Consider the increase in cases below and the time frame it covers.

© Source: virologydownunder.com

Data: Samoan Government Facebook and Ministry of Health websites and media comments. Last update 27/11/19

Preparation: Ian M. Mackay, PhD

Immunisation rates were previously far higher in Samoa. Four years ago MMR coverage was 84%. By 2017 it had already dropped to 60%. Last year (2018) it had fallen to 31%.

There is no doubt. A drop in MMR vaccination has brought Samoa to a tragedy of shocking proportions. Two doses of MMR is the recommended, clearly life saving, dose.

But still, Meryl Dorey of The Australian Vaccination Risks Network tweeted this dishonest evidence free nonsense (left) just recently. Just as Winterstein pushes the piffle that the vaccine makes the virus more deadly, Dorey tries to convince her cult that malpractice is the cause.

I would urge Meryl Dorey to have another look above at the facts and follow some of the links. Revisit what is known about these deaths. Understand that it was not the expected MMR vaccine they received before dying.

Accept two nurses are now serving five years in prison for negligence. Know it was a negligent error in preparing the adulterated mixture that led to the deaths, then an eight month suspension of MMR. Admit the facts, admit the reality. Stop your lies.

Stop your negligence.

Immunisation: Why we do it and how ‘herd immunity’ works

Denial of community immunity or herd immunity is a common feature of antivaccinationists.

In fact groups that spread harmful disinformation, such as the Australian based Australian Vaccination-risks Network (AVN), have for years been refining the denial of this evidence based fact. Notably they misrepresent what herd immunity is, primarily by referencing an aspect of herd immunity or an expected result of herd immunity.

The Australian Government Department of Health offer this definition;

If enough people in a community are immunised against an infectious disease, there is less of the disease in the community, which makes it harder for the disease to spread.

Immunisation protects both people who are vaccinated and also helps the entire community. It helps protect those who are too young to be vaccinated and those who can’t be vaccinated for medical reasons. This is known as community (herd) immunity.

Claiming that the “laws” of No Jab No Pay and No Jab No Play “are based on herd immunity”, Meryl Dorey of the AVN contends;

The theory claims that the unvaccinated are more likely to contract and transmit diseases than their vaccinated peers.

Travel to a largely unvaccinated country, get shots and you’re apparently in a protected bubble. Back home and they’d have us believe we need a 95 per cent plus vaccination rate to be protected and that a lone unvaccinated individual can be responsible for an epidemic.

Indeed rather than “claim” that unvaccinated community members will contract and transmit disease, herd immunity provides greater protection for the unvaccinated. Nonetheless herd immunity cannot protect any particular unvaccinated individual and is very important with respect to protection from measles infection.

This is why individuals who cannot be vaccinated for specific reasons or those with weakened immune systems will be better protected in a community that has a vaccination level of 95% or above. In certain communities where vaccination levels are low, herd immunity and the cluster of immune individuals doesn’t exist. In this instance measles can easily spread from an infected individual to unvaccinated individuals.

If not for herd immunity providing protection to those who refuse vaccination and deny their children the protection of vaccine induced immunity, many of the false beliefs held by antivaccinationists could not persist. The success of so-called natural remedies, homeoprophylaxis and so on persist simply due to the protection of herd immunity.

  • The video below was produced by the BBC and provides an accurate summary of vaccination and herd immunity.

Immunisation: Why we do it and how ‘herd immunity’ works – © BBC News

Discredited anti-vaccine conspiracy theorist Judy Wilyman has even used denial of herd immunity in her ongoing attacks on Australia’s successful vaccination policy. Wilyman wrongly contends that only public health reforms such as sanitation led to the control of vaccine preventable diseases.

Vaccines did not create herd immunity to control infectious diseases, is an open letter on her website. The monumental flaw in her fallacious claim begins with her use of only mortality, and no morbidity data.

Also, Wilyman refers to changes in public health occurring before 1950. This ignores more modern vaccines such as that for Haemophilus influenzae type b (Hib) used in Australia from 1993 and later in Kenya from 1999.

Only vaccination can explain the control of Hib and the emerging success of the HPV vaccine.

Risky Business

Recently the Australian Vaccination-skeptics Network emailed members to announce their change of name to Australian Vaccination-risks Network.

The author of the email took the opportunity to falsely attack Australian Skeptics Inc., thoroughly misrepresent the global Skeptics movement and reinforce baseless fears about the risk benefit ratio of vaccines. The email also misrepresented the circumstances via which the Australian Vaccination Network came to have the word “skeptics” inserted into it’s name. As will become clear below the word “risks” could have been chosen by this anti-vaccine group four to five years ago.

The word “risks” was suggested along with “skeptics” by the NSW Administrative Decisions Tribunal as a means by which the group could satisfy a request by the NSW Department of Fair Trading. NSW Fair Trading had written to the AVN referencing;

…an increasing number of requests to have NSW Fair Trading amend the name of the Australian Vaccination Network Inc., based on the contention that the name is misleading and deceptive, and therefore undesirable.

The full letter dated August 28th, 2012 is below.

 

There were ample histrionics from the AVN. Despite the clarity of the correspondence they claimed only the AMA had complained, “- an industry lobby group who obviously feels threatened by the idea that parents might choose not to vaccinate – costing them money”. This was “anti-competitive behaviour” on the part of NSW Department of Fair Trading. Democracy and truth were threatened. The matter was an “abuse of process”. Skeptic blogs began to report on the issue about one hour before media outlets did. Thus, Meryl Dorey conspiratorially queried;

Is there a direct line of communication between the Australian Skeptics, Stop the AVN (SAVN) and government departments?

Which brings us back to the groups’ most recent email, the very tiring attacks on skeptics and the even more tiring contention that Australian Skeptics Inc. is linked to Stop The AVN. It’s worth noting that because of confusion with the official sounding Australian Vaccination Network, the volunteer citizens group Stop The Australian Vaccination Network had prior to the time of NSW Department of Fair Trading involvement changed their name to Stop The Australian (Anti) Vaccination Network.

Now, above I mentioned attacks and misinformation on the part of the Australian Vaccination-risks Network. Let’s continue to call them the AVN. Below is a snap from their email;

It seems quite clear the connotation of the email is that NSW Fair Trading “forced” the AVN to adopt the noun skeptics as part of their name. Worse the noun skeptic is purposefully misrepresented in the context in which it is used, which leads to such ridiculous name calling as “anti-skeptics”.

Let’s examine the misrepresentation of a very basic definition of the word “skeptic” with the term as it is understood by the Skeptic movement first. Then by examining the evidence that Ms. Dorey discarded the option of “risks” to instead choose “skeptics” after losing an appeal against NSW Department of Fair Trading, we will appreciate the deceptive argument that is laid out.

The noun cited above is a very basic, indeed rather limited understanding of the term. In fact by citing this and then immediately referring to the global skeptic movement Ms. Dorey (whom I have little doubt wrote this unsigned email) confirms she is ignorant of the difference between a skeptic and the Skeptic movement. She has completely ignored the importance of evidence and scientific consensus to the Skeptic movement.

Her view of a skeptic as used to attack genuine scientific skeptics would seem to be someone who doubts reality. I have written about this childish abuse of science and philosophy in addressing her blog The Real Australian Sceptics. At that time – May 2012 – Dorey used the exact same definition of the noun “skeptic” as in the email above. The article examines why Dorey and the AVN are in fact pseudo-skeptics, despite her antagonistic habit of using that term to describe skeptics who request she prevent current, reproducible, peer reviewed evidence.

I imagine the inventive ‘those who do not question accepted opinions and attack those who do’, may well reflect the anti-SAVN work of Brian Martin who was initially contacted and misled about apparent attacks, by Ms. Dorey herself. He then published a number of extremely biased pieces, which laden with conspiracy theory, appear to repeat the same conclusion from various angles. Namely that the SAVN and skeptics have bullied and attacked Ms. Dorey. Yet there is absolutely no mention of Dorey producing convincing evidence.

The Skeptical Movement page hosted at Wikipedia has far more suitable definitions under Scientific Skepticism. Note the importance of evidence as opposed to opinion and ideology.

What skeptical thinking boils down to is the means to construct, and to understand, a reasoned argument and, especially important, to recognize a fallacious or fraudulent argument. The question is not whether we like the conclusion that emerges out of a train of reasoning, but whether the conclusion follows from the premises or starting point and whether that premise is true.

— Carl Sagan in The Demon-Haunted World, 1995, p. 197

Science is […] a way of skeptically interrogating the universe with a fine understanding of human fallibility. If we are not able to ask skeptical questions, to interrogate those who tell us that something is true, to be skeptical of those in authority, then we’re up for grabs for the next charlatan, political or religious, who comes ambling along.

A skeptic is one who prefers beliefs and conclusions that are reliable and valid to ones that are comforting or convenient, and therefore rigorously and openly applies the methods of science and reason to all empirical claims, especially their own. A skeptic provisionally proportions acceptance of any claim to valid logic and a fair and thorough assessment of available evidence, and studies the pitfalls of human reason and the mechanisms of deception so as to avoid being deceived by others or themselves. Skepticism values method over any particular conclusion.

“Skepticism is a provisional approach to claims. It is the application of reason to any and all ideas—no sacred cows allowed. In other words, skepticism is a method, not a position.”

Back to the possible choice of “risks” to add to their name. Verily did the AVN appeal the NSW Department of Fair Trading request after proclaiming in the July 20th, 2012 email “The AVN Asks – What’s In A Name”;

The Australian Vaccination Network has no intention of changing its name and any group or government department that believes it has the right to try and force us to do so will find themselves strenuously opposed.

The AVN lost the appeal [ABC]. The full Administrative Decisions Tribunal finding can be found here.

I’d like to draw your attention to the Introduction of Reasons for Decision. A section of Part 3 has been emphasised;

1) The Australian Vaccination Network Inc (AVN) has been directed to change its name. The main reason the Director General of the Department of Finance and Services gave for making that direction was that the name is likely to mislead the public in relation to the nature, objects or functions of AVN. The Director General found that AVN’s message is anti-vaccination and that the name does not reflect that message. Two other reasons the Director General relied on were that the name is “undesirable” and that it suggests a connection with the Commonwealth government.

2) AVN applied to the Tribunal for a review of that decision. I have decided that the decision to direct AVN to adopt a new name is the correct and preferable decision. But my conclusion is not based on a finding that AVN’s message is exclusively anti-vaccination, that the name suggests a connection with the Commonwealth government or that the name itself is undesirable.

3) AVN’s main object is the dissemination of information and opinions that highlight the risks of vaccinations. AVN is sceptical about vaccinations. The existing name, Australian Vaccination Network Inc, suggests that the association is pro vaccination or, at least, is committed to providing comprehensive information and opinions about the pros and cons of vaccination. The name should be changed so that it is not likely to mislead the public in relation to its main object. Although I do not have to decide this issue, a name that includes the word “risk” or “sceptic” such as Vaccination Risk Awareness Association Inc or Vaccination Sceptics Network Inc would, in my opinion, be acceptable. The name could also include the word “Australia” or “Australian” without suggesting a link to government.

Still the choice made by Ms. Dorey and others was the word “skeptics”. They were not forced to use the term. Far from not wanting to be associated with the Skeptic movement it is more likely, given the online attacks by the AVN toward skeptics, that they enjoyed insisting that a true skeptic doubted everything. Their mistake of course is that members of the Skeptic movement are far more interested in seeking evidence and actively exposing charlatans, fraudsters and those who care little for discarding ideology in place of evidence.

Nonetheless there we have it. One simple email and once again members have been lied to. Unfortunately the group will continue to mislead the same members and readers about the risks of vaccines, which are very minor indeed.

  • Please speak to your GP about any safety concerns regarding immunisation
  • Department of Health – Immunisation

“Sacrificial Virgins”: Misinforming viewers about the HPV vaccine

Recently the Australian Vaccination skeptics Network (AVN) announced via email that it intends to run a “Sacrificial Virgins tour” from QLD to Victoria. This, we are told, follows on “from the incredible success of last year’s tour of VaxXed; from coverup to catastrophe“.

Vaxxed has been comprehensively debunked, fraudulent tricks such as the manipulation of the so-called “whistleblowers” phone call audio exposed and the far reaching dishonesty of conspiracy theorists who promoted that venture is clear. It appears we can expect the same once again with another fraudumentary from the creative folk at SaneVax and UK Association of HPV Vaccine Injured DaughtersSacrificial Virgins: Not For The Greater Good.

Whilst this conclusion can be drawn from researching reputable source material and understanding the AVN’s misuse of the USA’s Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), Australians have a unique means by which to judge the AVN.

A public health warning about the AVN from the NSW Health Care Complaints Commission was published in 2014 and includes;

The investigation found that AVN provides information on vaccination that is misleading to the average reader because it is either incorrect, inaccurately represented or because it has been taken out of context. Specifically:

  • AVN makes specific assertions about the efficacy of the Gardasil vaccine used to prevent cervical cancer caused by the Human Papillomavirus (HPV). It states that:
    • the connection between HPV and cervical cancer is tenuous at best and incomprehensive at worst
    • the vaccine contains only four of the 100 strains of HPV and therefore its use is a “shot in the dark”
    • it is an experimental vaccine with no proven record of safety or effectiveness.
  • AVN does not qualify that:
    • Gardasil contains the four strains of HPV that have the greatest potential to cause cancer
    • the link between HPV and cervical cancer has been established beyond reasonable doubt
    • significant research went into assessing the probable safety and efficacy of Gardasil before it was ever used in humans
    • since its use, extensive worldwide data on its safety and efficacy has been collected supporting its safety.
    • […]
    • AVN uses data from the United States Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) on its website, without qualifying that no cause-and-effect relationship has been established. This is because VAERS collects data on any adverse event following vaccination and it is specifically stated that any report of an adverse event to VAERS is not a causal link that a vaccine caused the event.

By running a “tour” the AVN also stand to make a profit. Rather than inform members and followers that they could watch the film for free on YouTube, the AVN will charge $25.00 per head and follow up with a Q&A session. Meryl Dorey is the founder, past president, spokesperson and ever-present driving force of the AVN. Her anti-vaccination fervor and singular ability to deny the scientific consensus that upholds evidence based medicine has persisted for decades. These qualities are matched only by her focus on making money from an unsuspecting public.

If one cannot attend any of the seven screenings of Sacrificial Virgins, “(or even if you can), you can also help with a sponsorship – no matter how small – to assist the AVN in providing these sorts of high-quality events into the future.” More to the point any gathering of similar minds encourages attendees to spend. In this case to purchase anti-vaccine material and possibly AVN membership. Although the AVN, and particularly Meryl, insist they/she are/is not anti-vaccine.

Then again, recently on Twitter (Meryl = @nocompulsoryvaccines)…

Could the video be anti-vaccine?

The email included;

IS THIS DOCUMENTARY ANTI-VACCINATION?

No. This documentary presents information from scientific experts about known risks of this medical procedure. It simply suggests that in order to make a vaccination choice, all available information should be made available to parents and those considering taking the HPV vaccine.

Which brings us back to the source of their information. The reason you haven’t heard of these “sacrifices”? In an AVN email yesterday promoting today’s “vaccination conference”, The Censorship of the Vaccination Debate in Australia Today unverified contentions in the form of questions were included.

Originally posed on the “conference” site they are;

Why can’t we talk about vaccines?

Why are the media, pharmaceutical companies and industry lobby groups dictating government vaccination policies?

More importantly can mandatory vaccination policies actually protect our health?

This is utterly ridiculous, offensively misleading and completely inline with the earning of a public health warning. It therefore says much about Australia’s larger anti-vaccine lobby and particularly those who spoke today. They were;

  1. Australian INDEPENDENT vaccine policy expert, Judy Wilyman PhD. (I kid you not)
  2. Brian Martin, Emeritus Professor, University of Wollongong.
  3. Elizabeth Hart.
    Author of the website ‘OVER-VACCINATION. Challenging Big Pharma’s lucrative over-vaccination of people and animals.’
  4. Jamie Mcintyre
    Author of ‘The Great Vaccine Con.’
  5. Meryl Dorey AVN
    Founder of ‘The Australian Vaccination Skeptics Network,’ 1994.
  6. Helen Lobato
    Author of ‘Gardasil: Fast-Tracked and Flawed.’

So back to our question. Why haven’t you heard of these “sacrifices” at the end of an HPV vaccine needle? As the second question above ludicrously suggests, the media in part “dictate” Australian vaccine policy. Apparently we can’t talk about vaccines but do have, so-called “documentary” screenings attacking vaccines and vaccine schedules. Also this sentence in the email promoting Sacrificial Virgins. Bold mine;

2019 will be the year of the seminar so your help today will ensure that we are able to bring this message to as many locations in our huge country as we possibly can.

It seems it’s more a case of not being able to talk about vaccines in the way the AVN would like. Which includes spinning the conspiracy that the media and lobby groups “censor” this imaginary “vaccine debate”. Back to the email promoting Sacrificial Virgins;

Unintended adverse reactions have blighted and even ended the lives of girls, young women, men and boys around the world. Despite this fact, pharmaceutical manufacturers and many health authorities have refused to acknowledge there is a problem and the medical community continues to aggressively market this vaccine.

We must ask, where do these agents of deception get off rocking the stones to so casually pin together this many lies about one of the world’s safest vaccines? Many will parrot the nonsense spread by identities such as the six above who erroneously believe vaccine policy discussion is censored. Yet consider the example below, which in various forms, has for so many years fed the notion that VAERS provides the truth that mass vaccination is “a problem”.

This “problem” is created in part from the abuse of self reported adverse reactions to VAERS and non-established side effects. More so, serious conditions, including death, that have not been established as side effects are misrepresented in a quantifiable sense. For example the unverified claim that Chronic Regional Pain Syndrome (CRPS) is triggered by the HPV vaccine, may be followed by a verified claim that side effects occur in “four out of five HPV vaccinations”. Without proper explanation a casual reader may conclude that 80% of HPV recipients go on to develop a serious, disabling, chronically painful neurological condition. Similarly unverified claims may be made for Premature Ovarian Failure (POF), and/or Postural Orthostatic Tachycardia Syndrome (POTS).

So what has the anti-vaccine devotee done to mislead readers? As we see in Question 8 of this NCIRS FAQ sheet;

Overall, there is no strong scientific or epidemiological evidence to suggest that the HPV vaccines can induce POF, POTS or CRPS. These diseases of unclear aetiology, unfortunately, do occur in adolescents and young people, whether they are vaccinated or unvaccinated, and there is no evidence that they occur more frequently in HPV vaccinated populations.15,21,32-35

Whilst evidence doesn’t support the HPV vaccine as a cause or trigger or likely toxin for these conditions it is true that four out of five HPV vaccines produce a side effect. What are these side effects? Bold mine;

All medicines, including vaccines, can have side effects. The reactions people have had after the HPV vaccine have been similar to reactions after other vaccines.

The most common side effects of vaccination are pain, redness and/or swelling at the site of injection. These symptoms occur after around 4 in 5 vaccinations but are temporary and show that the immune system is responding to the vaccination. These symptoms can be treated with a cold pack or paracetamol if needed.

Side effects such as anaphylactic reaction are very rare occurring at around three per one million vaccinations.

Antivaccinationists really have no excuse to continue to abuse VAERS to form their constantly shifting narrative against vaccination. If you are baffled by the power those against vaccines have imbued to vaccine package inserts, you’re not alone. In Understanding VAERS the FDA include;

VAERS scientists look for unusually high numbers of reports of an adverse event after a particular vaccine or a new pattern of adverse events. If scientists see either of these situations, focused studies in other systems are done to determine if the adverse event is or is not a side effect of the vaccine. Information from VAERS and vaccine safety studies is shared with the public. Throughout the process of monitoring VAERS, conducting studies, and sharing findings, appropriate actions are taken to protect the public’s health.

For example, if VAERS identifies a mild adverse event that is verified as a side effect in a focused study, this information is reviewed by CDC, FDA, and vaccine policy makers. In this situation, the vaccine may continue to be recommended if the disease-prevention benefits from vaccination outweigh the risks of a newly found side effect.

Information about newly found side effects is added to the vaccine’s package insert that lists safety information. Newly found side effects also are added to the Vaccine Information Statement (VIS) for that vaccine. If serious side effects are found, and if the risks of the vaccine side effect outweigh the benefits, the recommendation to use the vaccine is withdrawn.

Also included is a succinct explanation of how an adverse event becomes a side effect. What is crucial, and constantly ignored by the anti-vaccine lobby, is that adverse events may or may not be caused by a vaccine. Significant follow up, research and investigation is needed before the event can be coupled to a vaccine in the form of a side effect.

Australia’s Therapeutic Goods Administration has a thorough explanation for visitors to the Database of Adverse Event Notifications.

So, returning to the video. What about the name – Sacrificial Virgins? In his September 2017 piece, Another antivaccine film disguised as a documentary, this time lying about HPV vaccines, Orac correctly notes;

Anyone who’s followed the antivaccine movement can guess immediately which vaccine this is about, namely the HPV vaccine, which is administered to preadolescent girls. That age is chosen because it is before the vast majority of girls become sexually active, and HPV is primarily a sexually transmitted disease. So the best time to achieve immunity is before girls (and, according to the latest recommendations, boys too) become sexually active. The term “virgin” is clearly designed to play on this timing. If a woman is immune to the proper serotypes of HPV before she becomes sexually active, then the cervical cancer caused by those serotypes can be prevented. That’s how HPV vaccines work, and they are very effective.

I recommend reading the entire article. There is an excellent example of abusing VAERS to push fear of Gardasil. HIV/AIDS denialist and board member of Rethinking AIDS, Christian Fiala, offers;

Officials report that there have been 17,500 or more “adverse” incident reports that have been made over the last few years because of the use of the vaccination.

Actually anyone can report adverse incidents and whilst VAERS is the official reporting system, until extensive trends and further research establishes a side effect linked to a HPV vaccine, Fiala’s claim is simply meaningless.

One target of antivaccinationists is summed up in this sentence from the AVN email;

Originally released as a method for preventing cervical cancer in women, its use has since been expanded to include young men and boys despite the fact that its effectiveness as a cancer preventative is medically unproven.

Others have noted this pointless argument as disingenuous, and I’d agree. Not enough time has passed for those initially vaccinated with the HPV vaccines for valuable data to be gathered on changes in cervical cancer epidemiology. Still, it makes a nice straw man if your goal is to convince others that the real aim is to make money and the only demonstrable action is many thousands of adverse reactions.

I’d also recommend reading Gardasil facts – debunking myths about HPV vaccine safety and efficacy, by Skeptical Raptor for further insight into the vaccine’s efficacy.

Earlier this year the HPV vaccine was improved to cover more strains of HPV. Readers may remember Judy Wilyman for criticising the vaccine because it targeted an insufficient number of HPV strains. No doubt she will soon acknowledge this change. In September 2017 the ABC wrote;

Doctors are hailing the development of a new vaccine as an important victory in the fight to protect women against cervical cancer. The vaccine is an improved version of Gardasil, which already protects women against some strains of HPV, the virus that can cause the cancer. The new formula of the jab has been shown to prevent 93 per cent of HPV strains.

“It’s a real bonus, whereas we previously had protection for cancer-causing types, which were 16 and 18, which made up 70 per cent.”

Professor Garland said the other benefit of the new vaccine is that it only requires two, instead of three doses.

From the NCIRS HPV FAQ document;

  • Why has the HPV vaccine been replaced in Australia? What is different about the new vaccine? (Page 2)

There are many HPV virus types, some of which are considered to be ‘high-risk’ because infection with these types is associated with the development of cancer (HPV types 16, 18, 31, 33, 35, 39, 45, 51, 52, 56, 58, 59 and 68),1 and some of which are ‘low-risk’ because they result in less serious disease like genital warts (HPV types 6 and 11).2 The high-risk HPV types can cause a variety of cancers in both males and females, including cancers of the vagina, cervix, anus, penis and head and neck.3 In unvaccinated people in Australia, HPV types 16 and 18 account for about 77% of HPV-positive cervical cancers, and HPV types 31, 33, 45, 52 and 58 for another 15%.4 […]

The new 9vHPV vaccine, available in Australia since early 2018, protects against all the 4vHPV types plus an additional five high-risk HPV types, 31, 33, 45, 52 and 58.

It is well worth reading through the NCIRS FAQ document. It covers a large amount of relevant information and already covers many of the deceptive themes that are found in Sacrificial Virgins.

  • How do we know HPV vaccines are safe?

Overall, the HPV vaccines have an excellent safety profile, similar to that for other vaccines routinely used in the National Immunisation Program. Monitoring done around the world in millions of people across many countries has found no credible evidence that there is any illness that occurs more frequently among people who have had HPV vaccine compared to those who have not.15,16 […]

According to the World Health Organization (WHO), to date over 270 million doses of the vaccine have been distributed worldwide, with many countries monitoring vaccine safety post-licensure (i.e. after the vaccine is in use).17

Clinical trials have shown that the 9vHPV vaccine is safe and there are no significant concerns regarding its safety in Australia. Studies have showed that the 9vHPV vaccine has a similar safety profile to that of the 4vHPV vaccine and that it is generally well tolerated in adolescent girls and boys as well as women and men.

The document goes on to address whether the vaccine causes autoimmune disease (No), cancer (No), fainting, CRPS (No), POTS (No), POF (No) or infertility (No). It is not a genetically modified vaccine. Questions include whether Gardasil addresses enough strains of HPV, or as cervical cancer is rare, whether it is necessary at all. Data specific to the importance of HPV vaccination in Australia is very promising. Can we trust vaccine trials sponsored by manufacturers? Why is their information claiming the vaccine is dangerous, if it isn’t? And so on.

No doubt Sacrificial Virgins will prove somewhat interesting. The difficulty for antivaccinationists is that the evidence refuting their claims is available in abundance. More so it continues to grow pushing the chorus against the HPV vaccine further into the realm of conspiracy theory.

Further reading: