COVID-19 vaccination: an uninsurable experimental medical procedure?

The COVID-19 vaccine is in fact an experimental medical procedure and because of this insurance companies have made void any claims relating to this “vaccine”.

The experimental trial in Australia runs until 2023 and thus it is only available due to an emergency use clause. Insurance companies are linking adverse reactions and deaths to this trial. As companies won’t pay out for injury and death due to experimental treatment it follows that such events following COVID-19 vaccination are not covered by hospital or life insurance.

Not a word of the above is true. Yet this notion is circulating on social media in the usual and predictable places. Despite it being demonstrably false and something one can refute for themselves in a few minutes, it is a notion with active supporters. Many others go further and contend that consent has not been given to be part of this experiment. Thus a breach of the Nuremberg Code is happening right before us.

Ethically relevant but not legally enforceable the Nuremberg Code remains semantically powerful. As such it is regrettably abused by anti-vaccine activists who have for years peddled the false claim that vaccines are not tested for safety and efficacy. It just so happens that global scrutiny of the development of COVID-19 vaccines also provided firm evidence of Phase III trials. This again refutes the anti-vaccine position and I touched on this last September. Yet as antivaccinationists are apt to do the facts have been twisted into falsehoods to support ongoing attacks on the COVID-19 vaccine rollout and to boost claims of further breaches of the Nuremberg Code.

Now, whilst this post isn’t focusing on Meryl Dorey and the Australian Vaccination-risks Network, it just so happens that she can assist us. On March 13th during an error-packed Under The Wire, Dorey presented a detailed performance outlining the absurdities that constitute the Nuremberg Code fallacy specific to COVID-19 immunisation. You may download the MP3 here, or listen below.

All of the points above popped up today in a thread on a COVID freedom fighter’s Facebook page. Elle Salzone is a feverishly active defender of anti-science beliefs. Elle moves from business to business, scheme to scheme and presently pushes ClearPHONE. Salzone and buddies sell the phone, claiming it provides the privacy necessary for today’s freedom fighters. How reliable a service it provides is uncertain. Elle fights with and also films police over her refusal to wear masks or remain in quarantine when necessary. But that’s okay if you decide to be a Sovereign Citizen. Elle is anti-COVID related responsibility. You can peruse her page for details on these pursuits.

Today one of her posts [Update: quietly deleted on 8 April] was screenshot by a tireless defender of reason, and thus came to my attention. It turned out to be an obvious forgery from this Allianz Product Disclosure Statement (PDS) and could be promptly demonstrated as such. The slideshow below is of the Allianz forgery and the two original parts of the document that were used in making it.

Salzone posts the forgery and states;

THIS IS EXTREMELY CONCERNING!!!! 😱

Imagine getting the experimental shot thinking you’re protecting your health, then getting seriously injured and having no private health cover to help you and not being to sue because all vaccine manufacturers have been indemnified…

All to maybe protect you for a virus with a 99% Survival rate..

You literally can’t make this shit up..

“You literally can’t make this shit up”. In fact you can and in this case someone literally did. A quick search yielded the document in question. Even before presenting the original, un-cropped and pre-defaced, pages the text itself was screaming forgery. Insurance companies do not tend to torment font in that fashion. Apart from the caps lock, no policy section is referenced. Then there is the sneer at “vaccine” and the impossible consent self-infliction. Ouch! Finally at risk of boring you there’s that nagging bit about posting this most important development in the glossary.

Suffice it to say the above points were mentioned and a discussion took place.

Verified by multiple sources eh? The original source was “easily found” (comment now deleted) but Elle couldn’t find it. So screenshots of the original source were provided along with a link.

This resulted in an admission that it was posted in the knowledge it was a fake. Apparently however the information it conveyed is not only true but would be confirmed by Allianz if I checked;

For the record this forgery consists of four different screenshots from the original document pasted in a sequence that creates a misleading ‘preamble’ aiming to justify the bogus claims made beneath in added red font. The added text further presents existing terms from the Allianz PDS to construct a fraudulent disclosure statement. A significant amount of time and forethought has gone into this. It is a calculated work of disinformation that has succeeded in misleading vulnerable recipients of its message. The preparation date of the current Allianz Life Plan PDS is 5 march 2021. The date in the forgery is 31 July 2020, suggesting it could have been in circulation for some time.

Perhaps the most important aspect to look at is the claim that COVID-19 vaccines are part of an experimental “medical procedure”. This is frequently peddled by anti-vaccine activists and was also pushed by Meryl Dorey in the audio above. It is linked to other claims that the vaccine is not actually a vaccine. One contention is that mRNA vaccines are DNA modifying agents. Another is that viral vector vaccines [CDC] are completely experimental and also alter DNA. Despite available data on the molecular action, development, safety and efficacy of Pfizer, Moderna and AstraZeneca vaccines, antivaccinationists ignore this in favour of a conspiracy theory.

Viral vector vaccines are well understood due to decades of research and do not alter DNA. mRNA vaccines are also well understood and are incapable of altering DNA. The claim that COVID-19 vaccination is an experiment is often presented with the contention that the experiment will go on until 2023. Like all persistent falsehoods this has an element of fact to it. The reality is that in Australia both Pfizer and AstraZeneca vaccines have provisional approval from the TGA. The approval is valid for two years and the AstraZeneca vaccine will require review in February 2023. On 16 February 2021 the TGA stated;

The Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) has granted provisional approval to AstraZeneca Pty Ltd for its COVID-19 vaccine, making it the second COVID-19 vaccine to receive regulatory approval in Australia.

COVID-19 Vaccine AstraZeneca is provisionally approved and included in the Australian Register of Therapeutic Goods (ARTG) for the active immunisation of individuals 18 years and older for the prevention of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) caused by SARS-CoV-2. […]

Provisional approval of this vaccine is valid for two years and means it can now be legally supplied in Australia. The approval is subject to certain strict conditions, such as the requirement for AstraZeneca to continue providing information to the TGA on longer term efficacy and safety from ongoing clinical trials and post-market assessment.

Reading the final paragraph above we can see also how the claim that data is still being collected for the experimental trial is peddled around with such confidence. Yet post-market assessment is a vital part to better understand all drugs and vaccines. There’s no trial, no experiment. It’s worth noting this fallacy is at times linked to another false claim. That of emergency use provision for the vaccine. This was a contention made by one Clive Palmer, deconstructed handsomely here by ABC corona check. Palmer has not alleged the COVID-19 vaccine rollout is an experimental medical procedure. Although he has pushed fear over the absence of one, three and five year safety data.

When it comes to hospital cover, insurance companies will not cover treatments for which no Medicare Benefits are payable. This includes cosmetic surgery, experimental treatments or experimental pharmaceuticals. Medicare will cover certain clinical research studies. For insurers if the device, trial or treatment is not recognised by Medicare or the Medical Services Advisory Committee it will be excluded from standard hospital cover. Still, there is insurance and indemnity available for clinical trials. This helps us understand why the term being used to misrepresent the COVID-19 vaccine is “experimental”.

Allianz also have a strong supportive position on the COVID-19 vaccine and like Bupa offer a comprehensive series of answers to possible questions. In a May 2020 article Allianz cover in depth the importance of research in developing a COVID-19 vaccine and the role of insurance for subjects in clinical trials. This is not what we would expect from a company that would deny insurance cover for adverse reactions post COVID-19 vaccine. Thus the claim by Salzone that refusal to cover is “verified by multiple sources”, in conjunction with the initial and consequent screenshot, appears to be disinformation. Insurance companies across Australia cover illnesses requiring hospitalisation following vaccination.

This leaves the obsession with claiming a 99% recovery rate as some type of stamp of insignificance. It is a rather tired trope having emerged about a year ago. This may also be linked to the frankly appalling claim that people die “with COVID, not of COVID”. Thus fatalities are incorrectly labelled an overestimation. Given this is pushed often by those who falsely insist vaccines kill and injure on a large scale it reflects a rather bizarre lack of compassion. As pointed out by USA Today the COVID-19 fatality rate is ten times that of influenza. More so it may be a serious diagnosis depending on age and health. To this we must add the emerging problems of ‘long haul’ symptoms perhaps in as many as 32% of those who have recovered from COVID-19.

In an interesting twist it was another wannabe COVID conspiracy-freedom-fighter who provided confirmation from Bupa that adverse reactions requiring hospitalisation are covered if their policy covers the treatment provided. It’s a bit of a story so another slide show is needed.

In the first image we see Bupa’s reply to anti-vaccine activist and COVID conspiracy theorist Matt Lawson, on social media. It outlines quite clearly that treatment covered by policy is available for adverse reactions post COVID-19 vaccination. In the next we see Lawson has engaged in a chat with ‘Cheryl’ from Bupa and presented this to Bupa on Instagram to challenge the prior response. The last screenshot was uploaded by Elle Salzone in the thread we’re discussing as another example of an insurance company denying cover to injury or reaction after COVID-19 vaccination.

Yet viewed in context we can see that during the chat Lawson supplied his policy number (image 3). So ‘Cheryl’ was answering in a specific sense, relative to his policy. This is absolutely in line with the claim made by Bupa in image 1 and also with feedback I’ve received from Bupa Australia. Still, image 2 reveals Lawson’s ill-informed, provocative reaction. The theme of acting with aggressive predetermined agendas is ingrained in the new age COVID conspiracy theorists. Matt Lawson reveals his conspiracy theory thinking when he writes;

Do you cover injuries caused by the convid19 experimental biological injection or not?

This comprehensive article reveals Bupa’s support for the COVID-19 vaccine and is in line with the position of global health authorities. There is no suggestion Bupa view the vaccine as experimental. Quite the opposite.

The letter mentioned in Lawson’s Instagram chat with Bupa Australia is circulating in social media within Australia. Within the Elle Salzone’s Facebook thread the image was uploaded twice, in support of the Allianz forgery. One commenter stated, “Another example shared of a void policy”. The second observed, “I think Bupa were one of the first…”. The image is below.

The text is as follows;

23 March 2021

Dear [redacted]

Thank you for speaking to me.

I confirm that side effects arising from the COVID-19 vaccine are not covered under our exclusion for: Complications from excluded or restricted conditions/treatment and experimental treatment exclusion.

If you are injured whilst doing COVID-19 swab yourself, cover would be available towards the injury.

I hope this information is helpful. If there is anything else we can help you with, please call our team on the above helpline number.

Yours sincerely

[signature]

Even if genuine, this letter has no impact on Australians. Peering at the Bupa letterhead we can confirm it is from Bupa Place in Salford Quays, Manchester U.K. Anti-vaccination activists will contend that the first paragraph confirms that side effects and complications from the COVID-19 vaccine are excluded from cover because it is an experimental treatment. The second paragraph conveys that insurance cover is available if one is injured, “whilst doing COVID-19 swab yourself”. In the U.K. home test kits are available.

Australians can also dismiss this as here it is illegal to advertise testing kits for serious infectious diseases. The TGA have a very clear warning to consumers and advertisers on their website. Thus there is no reason for Bupa to even consider such cover in Australia and Bupa members can disregard the letter and its claims.

Still, anti-vaccine claims are global in their reach, as is social media. If we take a cautious and in depth look into the origins of this letter there are different possible conclusions. It is a poorly written fake or a badly written follow up with a customer. Neither confirm the claim of an uninsurable experimental vaccine.

Bupa U.K. explain excluded and restricted cover in this Bupa Membership Guide [Archived]. This document provides a likely source for the information that the author presents with notably poor grammar. The opening paragraph is difficult to grasp. It may be that English is not the author’s first language.

With respect to the terminology used in the letter, on page 35 of the U.K. Bupa Membership Guide we find;

Exclusion 7 Complications from excluded conditions, treatment and experimental treatment

We do not pay any treatment costs, including any increased treatment costs, you incur because of complications caused by a disease, illness, injury or treatment for which cover has been excluded or restricted from your membership. […]

We do not pay any treatment costs you incur because of any complications arising or resulting from experimental treatment that you receive or for any subsequent treatment you may need as a result of you undergoing any experimental treatment.

On page 38 we find under Exclusion 16 Experimental Drugs and Treatment, this paragraph;

Please also see ‘Complications from excluded conditions/treatment and experimental treatment’ […]

There we have it. The text could have been copied and pasted in an extremely poor customer follow up, and that’s it above. Or copied and cobbled together in a dodgy forgery. The antivaccinationist lie of an uninsurable experimental vaccine is quite vocal on social media in the U.K. Yet under the glare of fact it is a demonstrably pointless effort.

In the U.K. COVID-19 vaccine side effects are covered under the Vaccine Damage Payments Scheme, established in 1979. This provides no-fault compensation for Adverse Events Following Immunisation. It is possible that offering cover is not an option for insurance companies. Either way, side effects are not covered by Bupa U.K. So it may well be that treatment of complications is classified as restricted and/or excluded regarding hospital cover.

The most important point here is that the COVID-19 vaccine is not an experimental treatment. Yet this letter is being pushed in Australian anti-vaccine circles to contend insurance companies are of the view it is experimental. Whilst a bogus claim, the overall forgery scam is reinforcing that claim in COVID conspiracy circles.

Bupa Australia are aware of this letter and have taken the chance to assure those who ask (such as the argumentative Matt Lawson) that cover is certainly available. When I raised this specific issue I was informed by Bupa Australia;

Private health care in the UK and Australia can vary greatly. But rest assured that our members will be covered for any hospital admission following an adverse reaction to the COVID vaccine, as long as the service is included in their cover, and any waits have been served.

Ultimately all the anti-vaccine points put forward by Elle Salzone and others on her Facebook page are demonstrably false. A search for insurance cover and COVID-19 vaccine adverse events yields results from around the world, not just Australia. For example cover for AEFI after the COVID-19 vaccine is available in Singapore whilst there’s a WHO compensation fund for people in developing nations suffering side effects. In general, insurance companies are involved in many areas specific to the COVID-19 vaccines, including in China where they are looking to cover adverse reactions.

Sadly some Facebook visitors to Elle Salzone’s page, who take her word on trust, are absolutely convinced of the dark side as this reply to me, packed with five pieces of misinformation, confirms. [Note – this is not from Salzone but a vulnerable visitor].

Sigh. Still all hope is not lost. As the well-known phrase from the X Files reminds us:

The truth is out there.


Last update: 8 April 2021

♠︎ ♠︎ ♠︎ ♠︎

How the Oxford trial pause challenges anti-vaccine conspiracies

Recently the Oxford COVID-19 vaccine trial was paused due to a possible case of transverse myelitis in one of the subjects. Today (Saturday UK time) it was announced that the trial would resume following advice from from safety experts.

Confirmation Update: Transverse myelitis has not been diagnosed in the subject [1], [2], [3], [4].

The news of the pause had the anti-vaccine lobby reacting with as much composure as dozing picnickers who have awoken to find they are laying atop a large nest of very active fire ants.

There is the urge to proclaim we told you so. Yet this includes the realisation that forfeiture of key pegs in anti-vaccine conspiracy is required. What has followed as we see below appears to be confusion, the inability to comprehend events, fabrication of fallacy and bogus reinforcement of elements of the Big Pharma conspiracy.

It’s important not to underestimate how disturbing genuine challenges to an individuals world view can be. In the case of the Oxford trial announcement, the anti-vaccine conspiratorial view of the world is threatened by a distressing reality. For the dedicated anti-vaxxer this leads to uncomfortable cognitive dissonance. In fact anti-vaccine conspiracies must exist in the first place to resolve the cognitive dissonance that arises when scientific evidence and epidemiology overwhelmingly refute the myth of dangerous vaccines and manufactured claims of vaccine injury and death.

In this case there are three main challenges to current anti-vaccine beliefs.

  1. The MSM (mainstream media) presented a transparent account of the Oxford trial pause.
  2. The pause in the trial itself shows that the safety aspect of Phase III clinical trials is working well.
  3. Cursory reading of the situation confirms the efficacy component of Phase III clinical trials and the use of a placebo.

The anti-vaccine lobby contend that mainstream media are biased against the “truth” of vaccine horror because what is reported is not anti-vaccine. If the mistake of giving anti-vaccine identities air-time to push unsubstantiated disinformation is made, criticism swiftly follows. Yet primarily it is the industry requirement to fact check that keeps anti-vaccination views from being presented unchallenged.

It’s more likely that their antics make tabloid or news segments because they are dishonest and at times vindictive. This attracts regular criticism of the Australian Vaccination-risks Network. A scheme by anti-vaxxer Kyia Clayton to interview AVN president Aneeta Hafemeister on ABC Hobart was met with outrage. It was justly criticised on Media Watch which yet again led to Meryl Dorey urging members to bombard the ABC and ACMA with complaints.

Rather than rise to the occasion and present evidence that meets the standard of scientific consensus the AVN has instead accused the media of being part of the larger conspiracy. Attacking mainstream media and articles that are based on vaccine fact is a substantial activity for Australian anti-vaxxers.

A constant claim of anti-vaxxers is that vaccines are never tested adequately for safety. This is partly due to the erroneous belief that vaccines are so full of dangerous chemicals and biological matter that they cannot possibly be safe. Ergo, any genuine monitoring for adverse reactions in large samples would reveal that a high percentage present with such reactions. As this is not the case their only conclusion is the biased testing conspiracy.

Another claim is that vaccines are never tested for efficacy. They don’t work and we have all been deceived. Herd immunity is a fake concept. Vaccines were introduced after improved sanitation and hygiene eliminated most disease and thus deserve no credit. This claim is made with the help of deceitfully crafted graphs plotting mortality, not morbidity, in such small numbers it appears that vaccines had no impact. The two claims specific to Phase III clinical trials are often made together.

This was clear when the AVN responded to an August 2019 SMH article by Liam Mannix, Anti-vaxxers live in an online bubble this scientist wants to burst. Their response is a strange collection of “propositions” the author angrily contends must exist, whilst citing pseudoscience and articles relating to medication, not vaccines.

The AVN piece included this under “Proposition 4”;

…there have never been double-blind, placebo-controlled prospective studies done on either the safety or efficacy of vaccines, not even when a new vaccine is introduced.

Oh my. This persists despite accessible evidence to the contrary and available WHO recommendations. More so, in line with all anti-vaxxers the AVN argue their definition of a placebo (such as saline) is what should be used in vaccine trials. In fact it is used in many trials but the AVN choose to ignore this. This may include shifting the goal posts. Virology Down Under discuss this no true Scotsman anti-vax fallacy related to placebos.

In some vaccine trials a saline placebo is not ethically suitable and the placebo used is not inert. With respect to the urgency COVID-19 presents this article argues that placebos aren’t needed for vaccine challenge trials. In the Oxford trial a non-saline placebo functions as a more effective control as Dr. Norman Swan explains below. The AVN have always objected to Gardasil studies which used AAHS (the amorphous aluminium hydroxyphosphate sulphate adjuvant) as a placebo.

Without citing any reference the AVN offer their definition of a vaccine trial placebo;

By definition, a placebo must be a totally inert substance which will never provoke a response.

In a recent Coronacast episodeThe Oxford vaccine’s troubles. Why it’s not doomed (yet) Norman Swan talked about efficacy and safety in this vaccine trial. Whilst the USA are using a saline placebo, the other participant countries are not. Swan explains;

A few weeks ago, phase 2, phase 3 studies, that’s dose finding and whether or not the vaccine works in large numbers of people and whether it safe, started in Brazil, South Africa and the UK, and they were aiming to recruit 17,000 people. There was also a phase 3 study just beginning in the United States in about 80 sites, trying to recruit about 30,000-odd people. The aim is to have a trial of about 50,000 people.

And interestingly it’s a placebo-controlled trial but the placebo is not saline. It is in the United States, but in Brazil, South Africa and the UK it’s actually not a dummy drug, it’s not saline, it’s a meningococcal vaccine, and they are doing that so that people don’t recognise whether or not they’ve had a placebo. It’s very important in a placebo-controlled trial that you don’t know that you are in the placebo arm. And if you get a shot in your arm and nothing happens and it’s pretty mild you think, well, maybe I’m in the placebo group.

The presenters talk about the seriousness of transverse myelitis and Norman Swan offers this context;

However, there was a study not so long ago which looked at 64 million vaccine doses and really found very little evidence, if any, that transverse myelitis is caused by immunisation. Out of 64 million doses they found seven cases or eight cases that may be associated with it. And they look really widely. They didn’t just look at the week after you’ve had the immunisation or the month after, they looked at almost any time after you’ve had the immunisation, and they conclude that transverse myelitis, unless in very rare circumstances, is not caused by a vaccine. […]

So what they’ve got to find out with this person is are they in the placebo arm, are they in the active arm, is it really transverse myelitis, what are the antibodies that have actually been shown? Are there any other symptoms? And did the person actually get infected with real COVID-19 after the trial had started…

I recommend reading the transcript or listening to this episode of Coronacast. Tegan Taylor and Swan talk more on Phase III trials and discuss the specifics of the Oxford vaccine. It’s an adenovirus carrying genetic material into cells to instruct the cells to produce fragments of COVID-19 virus. It is these fragments that induce an immune response. With respect to the use of placebos in vaccine trials a July 27th episode examines the ethics associated with the fact that subjects in the placebo arm of Phase III trials are not receiving a vaccine.

By the time the Oxford podcast was published on Thursday the AVN was already suggesting on Facebook that there may be more adverse reactions hidden from the public.

AVN Facebook post

Dubious message on AVN Facebook

“It does raise questions”? The problem with the above post is the apparent interpretation by an AVN Facebook administrator that one of the “close friend daughters” who took part in the Oxford trial “is in the Royal” [London Hospital], “diagnosed with Transverse Mylytis” (sic). There is an unverified claim that, “they have asked to keep this quite (sic) as they don’t want the public to know”. The AVN admit the information may not be true.

Yet is this really evidence of a covert case of transverse myelitis? Perhaps Karen McNab is referring to a) her friend’s daughter and also b) the “volunteer” mentioned in the WhatsApp message. The trial subject who had the presumed adverse reaction is a woman who is in hospital.

Of course my interpretation could be wrong. There is however no clear statement that one of the friend’s daughters has transverse myelitis.

Some AVN members were justifiably suspicious.

AVN FB members question source

Rixta Francis, a long term AVN member prone to simply inventing disinformation published her predictably outrageous fallacy of the Oxford trial. This is an excellent example of an immediate, and  feverish attempt to slap at the fire ants of cognitive dissonance. Fellow members are supportive.

Facebook: Rixta Francis misleads over Oxford COVID vaccine trial
Self published author of The Fiction of Science Rixta is prone to reinterpret reality in the manner above. To appreciate this we need to explore her approach more fully. In an interesting example of how things come round in circles Francis is infamous for her abuse of the memory and parents of baby Riley Hughes, who featured in the SMH article I mentioned above.

Riley died from pertussis in March 2015 before he was old enough to be vaccinated. Feeling a need to educate parents about immunisation Catherine Hughes began the Light For Riley campaign. She now runs the Immunisation Foundation of Australia. Ten months after the death of Riley, Francis falsely claimed Catherine was a member of Stop the AVN, suggested Riley and his pertussis had never existed or that the parents killed infant Riley themselves.

The post below suggests the Oxford adverse reaction has been staged. It includes dismissal of genuine media intention, dismissal of safety and dismissal of efficacy helped by quoting Australia’s CSIRO. Again this is textbook management and minimisation of cognitive dissonance.

AVN Facebook post

Other comments in the thread follow a similar theme and manage to reveal quite ridiculous thought processes. The reason people placed themselves at such risk is because they were offered “a small fortune… it all comes down to money”. Vaccines always cause “horrific injuries”. We “can’t cure cancer but we can make a vaccine in six months for a disease we don’t understand?”.

It will be interesting, but not surprising, to see how this group reacts to the news that the trial has resumed.


Further reading:

Oxford Vaccine Group

Oxford vaccine trial – University of Oxford

How Vaccine hesitancy could undermine Australia’s COVID response – The Guardian, September 12th 2020

Fact Check: Mastercard partnership on vaccination records is unrelated to finances – USA Today, September 9th 2020

Halting the Oxford vaccine trial doesn’t mean it’s not safe – The Conversation, September 9th 2020

Vaccine testing and approval process – CDC

♠︎ ♠︎ ♠︎ ♠︎

Wearing masks does not cause staphylococcus infection or CO2 toxicity

On August 20th I was passing through AVN Facebook territory and noticed the image below had been posted in the comments section of a post citing a Daily Telegraph news article. The article was about the likelihood of a free COVID-19 vaccine in Australia.

It included this shin kick for anti-vaxxers;

Can there be anything more satisfying than the dangerous, hypocritical and unspeakably cruel anti-vaxxer mob in full self-combust mode at news that the rest of us — the sensible Australians — are delighted to hear?
The only national glimmer of hope in this coronavirus war on our bodies, livelihoods and mental health has been the promise of a free vaccine available eventually to all Australians, writes Louise Roberts

The post urged readers to include their thoughts. One of which was this image;

image falsely linking skin conditions to mask wearing

Fake “Mask Induced Staphylococcus” scam

Firstly the claim of lung infections and loss of consciousness due to restricted airflow from masks has been debunked. This claim as pushed on social media relies on the belief that masks cause CO2 toxicity, known as hypercapnia.

In very, very rare cases with an open wound and a dirty mask contaminated with staph bacteria one may develop a staphylococcus infection from masks. Nonetheless, what’s important is dealing with the claim in the context of the images above. Simply put the claim is that these are examples of “staphylococcus from masks”.

This claim of staphylococcus infection from masks is as offensive as it is bogus. It is a textbook example of what goes wrong when one trusts social media as a source of news or facts. Particularly social media outlets of groups that use the term “fake news” to describe genuine media presenting facts they disagree with. Yes indeed, verily this describes the Australian Vaccination-risks Network.

Staphylococcus infection is described by the Mayo Clinic in these opening paragraphs as follows;

Staph infections are caused by staphylococcus bacteria, types of germs commonly found on the skin or in the nose of even healthy individuals. Most of the time, these bacteria cause no problems or result in relatively minor skin infections.

But staph infections can turn deadly if the bacteria invade deeper into your body, entering your bloodstream, joints, bones, lungs or heart. A growing number of otherwise healthy people are developing life-threatening staph infections.

The article continues to list symptoms, types of infections, causes, invasive devices and treatment.

Merck Manual also has an excellent article by Larry Bush M.D. which was updated just over a year ago. The important point here is that consulting articles on staph infection reveals facts specific to the diseases that result and the lack of any information confirming that the wearing of surgical masks is responsible. So this nonsense is predetermined disinformation designed to sabotage public health measures.

When it comes to challenging an image “collage” like the above taking a screenshot of each image and doing a reverse image search via Google or TinEye yields ample insight into the mind of COVID-19 conspiracy promoters. Taking the middle right image we find pages of results devoted to articles on exhausted doctors wearing PPE and working long hours during the height of Italy’s struggle with COVID-19. The initial post of Italian nurse Valeria Zedde was made by her on Instagram. Other photos capturing the impact of long term PPE use can be found online including these on Twitter.
italian doctor after long shift with covid patients

Italian nurse after hours wearing PPE

The face above the hard working nurse is from a Wikipedia post on Eczema herpeticum. This infection may be caused by a herpes simplex virus, coxsackievirus or vaccinia virus. The image file was uploaded on April 11th 2018 as is clear on this Wikimedia commons page. The image is cropped in the scam staphylococcus collage above to give the appearance of a mask infliction but more importantly to hide the eyes which help confirm this child is certainly under five years of age.

The WHO have published a Q&A on children and mask wearing due to COVID-19. They clearly state;

In general, children aged 5 years and under should not be required to wear masks.

Ah well, nice try. Still, no amount of cropping can hide the fact this image was uploaded 18 months before the first case of COVID-19 in Wuhan in December 2019.

Eczema herpeticum on childs face

Eczema Herpeticum

On the subject of cropped images we can trace the image at bottom right to an article in Medical News Today describing Malar rash. In the case of this subject the rash is caused by a condition known as rosacea. More so the lady appears in a large number of Alamy stock photos with a caption plainly stating her condition is rosacea characterised by facial redness, small and superficial dilated blood vessels.

Whilst determining the exact origin of Malar rash is difficult due to a large number of candidate causes, turning into a strange looking case of staphylococcus due to wearing a surgical mask is not one.

case of malar rash

Malar Rash – Source Medical News Today

The condition in the image at bottom left may well have been determined by you as the case of varicella (chicken pox) that it is. The Getty images iStock photo also appears on Pinterest with no watermark where anyone with an account can take a screenshot of the image at not cost.

It’s interesting that with this image the cropped version used in the scam collage also removes any helpful identifying features to help one conclude this is a young child.

child with chicken pox pimples/varicella

Chicken Pox / Varicella pimples on female child

The final image is the one at top left. In fact this image is the only one that may have substance. The French teenager in the image claims to have had an allergic reaction to wearing a sheet mask for a prolonged period of time.

With help from Google Translate we see that Le Monde newspaper reported;

According to the mother, the 12-year-old wore a sheet mask for several hours on vacation: “This is the first time she has worn this mask provided by her college for so long. We went on a camping holiday for a week, and the mask was mandatory in closed areas, so she had to put it on every day”. […]

Beware of hasty conclusions, however. “There may be intolerance reactions to the mask that are not allergic reactions. The mere fact that it is red is not enough to say that a mask contains an allergenic substance”, tempers Brigitte Milpied, dermatologist at Bordeaux University Hospital and member of the French Dermatology Society (SFD). “Whenever something goes wrong, people tend to call it an allergy. However, the allergy remains exceptional. To be sure, you have to do a test” she adds.

Doctor Hervé Masson, allergist in Bordeaux, shares this opinion: “In the image, it looks more like a burn than an allergic reaction, but as long as the child has not been examined, we cannot tell”. […]

allergic reaction to wearing the same surgical mask for extended time

Claimed allergic reaction – prolonged mask wearing

The importance of wearing a proper, clean mask and discarding of disposable masks when they are moist or soiled can’t be understated. If a genuine allergic reaction, the image above raises questions about just how well informed this teenager and her parents were about hygienic mask wearing, maintenance and disposal.

It’s important to wash cotton masks before wearing them and to not exceed recommended duration of wear. Individuals prone to allergies may have to test materials and take extra precautions. Information as to how to avoid allergic reactions from wearing masks should be clearly conveyed by health authorities in all languages used in the release of other COVID-19 information.

The good news is that this particular effort to scare the unsuspecting into believing masks cause staph infections or CO2 toxicity has been thoroughly debunked. Either through sourcing the images or combining this with facts about CO2 toxicity and mask wearing. Please check the excellent sources below

No doubt COVID-19 related scams and disinformation will continue in the foreseen future.


♠︎ ♠︎ ♠︎ ♠︎

Government cuts to ABC harm quality journalism

Sky News Australia, owned by News Corp, has a well earned reputation for denying the evidence of climate change and the need for reducing carbon emissions, which host Chris Kenny recently referred to as “leftist climate policies”.

The occasion was indulgence in what has earned the outlet another, equally concerning reputation. Regular attacks directed at the Australian Broadcasting Corporation based on the contention that they promote biased leftist ideology. That the ABC leads unwarranted leftist media campaigns, the most significant recently being an apparent “attack” on Cardinal George Pell, although it was News Corp which first reported charges brought against Pell. Since Pell’s High court acquittal of historical child sexual abuse charges the tone and pace from Sky News seem to have increased.

More so a specific amount is levelled at ABC Media Watch and its host, Paul Barry. Yet they fail to mention it was Paul Barry on Media Watch who tackled the claims that Pell was not innocent because he had been found not guilty due to reasonable doubt. Barry insisted that Pell was innocent until proven guilty. As he was now not guilty, has was innocent.

The brazenness combined with the shoddiness of these attacks has been percolating for years. Accusations in the main are made with no real evidence, simply opinion. This is doubly true when it comes to attributing motivation to the ABC or its journalists. The present environment that allows the confidence for Sky to present what is often junk journalism often with the aim of smearing the ABC exists in very large part thanks to successive Coalition governments.

Australian Government criticism of the ABC has a long history and its tone reflects what party is in power at the time. Yet moves to manipulate the ABC through budget cuts and misleading verbal attacks about “ideological bias” have proven to be from the game book of the Coalition. Despite a pre-election promise to maintain budgets of both the SBS and the ABC, the Howard government targetted both. His governments 1996 budget included a 2% ($55 million) annual cut to ABC funding beginning in 1997-98. And an independent review of the ABC was commissioned to be led by Bob Manfield.

Howard continued to verbally attack the ABC over his four terms. His former Chief-of-Staff Graeme Morris described the ABC as “our enemies talking to our friends”. Dennis Muller (Senior Research Fellow in the Centre for Advancing Journalism, University of Melbourne) noted in The Conversation in February last year that Howard himself labelled the ABC nightly news as “Labors home video”.

And that;

Howard’s communications minister, Richard Alston, kept up an unremitting barrage of complaints that the ABC was biased. This culminated in 2003 with 68 complaints about the coverage of the second Gulf War. An independent review panel upheld 17 of these but found no systematic bias.

I could not agree more with Muller that;

This playbook – repeated funding cuts, relentless allegations of bias, and recurring inquiries into the ABC’s efficiency and scope – has been followed to the letter by the Abbott-Turnbull-Morrison administrations.

Interesting then that The Howard Years, in which he worked at shaping his legacy, was a successful ABC-TV event.

But I really wonder if Howard could have foreseen what he’d put in motion. Yes Howard was conservative. Morally, socially and politically. His fawning to the Australian Christian Lobby left behind inestimable damage in that it swung the gates wide for organised bigoted fundamentalism. His record of demonstrable apathy in response to climate change and his capitulation to the Greenhouse Mafia was inescapable. Less than eight months ago in a keynote speech to mining industry representatives he criticised “climate change zealots” and perhaps foolishly said he was “agnostic” when it came to climate change.

But John Winston Howard was not anti-science as were those around him. Of course, when we look at the evidence of climate change there is really no room for agnosticism. Yet Howard was defending his legacy and the contribution Australia’s mining industry had made to economic stability during the GFC of 2008. He didn’t deny the existence of climate change or label it a leftist conspiracy without foundation.

Certainly he was not an enemy of reason. Climate change aside he understood the importance of evidence and the risk of turning ones back on it. Perhaps he wondered at the wisdom of the Liberal Party Council. On June 16th 2018 they voted to privatise the ABC, despite this going against the very pursuit of journalistic independence that led to the founding of the ABC. The Institute of Public Affairs was delighted with the prospect of privatising the ABC. Two members of the IPA had published a book on “how to do it” just a month before.

This wasn’t a sudden decision in conservative politics. By then the Abbott-Turnbull administrations had already cut $338 million from ABC funding since 2014. The 2018 Budget handed down by then Treasurer Scott Morrison included a three year freeze on ABC funding beginning in June 2019. He said at the time, “everyone has to live within their means”. The tied funding of $43.7 million will cost the broadcaster $83.7 million in budget cuts over three years, on top of the cumulative $254 million in cuts since 2014. There was no better news in the 2019 budget.

It was reported in The Conversation in April last year;

This has resulted in an accumulated reduction in available funding of A$393 million over a five-year period, starting from May 2014. According to current budget forecasts, this also means the ABC stands to lose A$783 million in funding by 2022, unless steps are taken to remedy the situation.

Earlier this month Opposition leader Anthony Albanese asked the PM to reconsider the ABC budget freeze in respect of their essential role over the bushfire season and now the coronavirus pandemic. SBS reported;

“Will the Prime Minister restore funding so the ABC can keep doing its job so effectively?” [asked Albanese]

Mr Morrison responded: “The ABC is doing an excellent job and they’ll continue doing that job with the resources that have been provided to them.”

“Like all agencies, like all Australians, they will all do the best job they can with the resources they have available to them.”

The funding cuts are brutal and are a clear sign of the federal government’s aim to restrict the journalistic vision of the ABC. The ABC was clear in stressing that the most recent cuts threaten delivery of the ABC Charter requirements. More so 800 staff have lost their jobs. As I noted above, I wonder if Howard would be comfortable with this. Leading up to the last Federal election Labor promised to reverse the budget freeze and ensure the $83.7 million the ABC stood to lose. They also promised $60 million to the ABC and SBS.

Writing about the Young Liberals call in late June 2018 to sell the ABC, Vincent O’Donnell noted;

But most members of the conservative movement are hostile to the ABC because it is said to be biased. Accusations of bias are useful tools to undermine confidence and support for the ABC…

[…]

…there are folk whose political beliefs are so far to the right that just about all of Australia, and most of the world, is to the left. Any media that reflects this reality is necessarily left wing and biased.

Intermingling of the Coalition government and right wing conservative journalists criticising the ABC goes back some time. In August 2014 a parliamentary library research paper noted (part 4: Disbanding the network);

Following its victory in the 2013 election, the Abbott Government became increasingly critical of the Australian Network for what it argued [were] overly negative representations of Australia. In addition, Prime Minister Abbott was critical of the ABC’s overall reporting stances; the Prime Minister claiming the ABC took everyone’s side but Australia’s.

The same paper reported in Box 5: Spy scandal and the role of the media that the ABC had reported on Edward Snowden’s leaked information that Australian intelligence officials tried to tap the phones of Indonesian president Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono and his wife. The ABC also reported on asylum seeker claims that they had been abused by members of the Australian Navy. In respect of the Indonesian phone tapping incident Chris Kenny, “accused the broadcaster of embarrassing Australia and Indonesia, undermining co-operative relations and diminishing national security”.

Andrew Bolt contended that the ABC, “was ‘not just biased. It is a massive organ of state media, strangling private voices and imposing a Leftist orthodoxy that thinks it fine to publish security secrets’.” The ABC apologised with respect to the asylum seeker claims, saying it was sorry if the report had led people to assume they believed the claims. Their intention was to present the material “as claims worthy of further investigation”.

The government continued to criticise the ABC, accusing it of “maligning Navy personnel”. Defence Minister at the time, David Johnston claimed the ABC had “maliciously maligned” the Navy and contended that their reporting justified an investigation. In March 2014 the ABC reported evidence supporting abuse of asylum seekers in Indonesian detention centres. The then Immigration Minister, Scott Morrison, argued the claims had no credibility and that the ABC should “move on”.

The same research paper includes in Box 1 – One man’s satire another man’s distress, which covers a 2013 Chaser segment wherein a photoshopped image of News Corp journalist Chris Kenny having sex with a dog was shown. Initially the ABC refused to apologise arguing that viewers were, “adequately warned by an onscreen classification symbol and accompanying voice over of the likelihood of seeing potentially offensive content”.

The point I wish to make here is relevant to the opening paragraphs. Kenny did have a defender. On Media Watch Paul Barry firmly disagreed with the ABC and The Chaser view of satire, arguing it was neither satirical nor clever. The saga rolled on for a time with further developments, some serious, some frivolous. Ultimately the ABC did apologise to Kenny.

These examples deal almost exclusively with TV journalism. Of course Media Watch ranges across radio, internet, social media, printed news and TV. Ongoing criticism and bullying of the ABC by the Coalition government is quite telling. As Muller wrote in Constant attacks on the ABC will come back to haunt the Coalition government;

The bipartisan political vision for the ABC was that it should not be vulnerable to sectional interests or commercial pressures, but should exist to serve the public interest in the widest sense

The ABC cannot do this without financial and factual support from governments. More so attacks on the ABC from unapologetic right wing ideological bastions such as Sky News are indicative of a wider social problem. A lack of critical thought and an inability to understand and respect the impact of evidence.

It may well be worth looking more closely at that soon.

 


 

No reason to not vaccinate but anti-vaxxers continue to resist sound health policy

On April 17th last year Paul Offit was interviewed by Christiane Amanpour of CNN on the fact that there is “no legitimate reason” for not vaccinating.

This video very recently accompanied a February 21st article by U.S. pediatrician Dr. Edith Brancho-Sanchez, entitled Several vaccines at once might be too much for parents, but kids are just fine. The article reinforced the fact that the misinformation regarding the safety and efficacy of vaccines causes variations of anxiety in parents who take their children to be vaccinated.

It was reported that a 2014 USA National Immunization Surveillance Survey indicated that;

… over a third of parents of children ages 19 to 35 months followed delayed immunization schedules. Of the parents surveyed, 23% followed an alternate schedule that either limited the number of shots per visit or skipped at least one vaccine series altogether. Another 14% followed an unknown or unclassifiable schedule that did not follow a pattern and was not in line with national recommendations. Children who followed an alternate pattern were four times as likely not to be up to date on their vaccines and those who followed an unclassifiable pattern were over twice as likely not to be up to date.

Regrettably pediatricians are in a Catch 22 situation. They need to build parental trust. A 2015 study published in Pediatrics indicated that 93% of 534 pediatricians had been asked by parents of children under 2 to spread out vaccines. 82% believed complying with the parent’s request would build trust, whilst 80% thought if they declined, this may lead to parents leaving their practice.

In Connecticut, USA state lawmakers “narrowly advanced a bill” this week that seeks to ban religious vaccine exemptions for children. Despite reports of a 25% increase in religious exemptions from last year anti-vaccine opposition to the bill was fierce including protests in Connecticut’s Legislative Office Building. One Democrat representative, who seemed to have abandoned any pretense of basing his decision on evidence, referred to vaccination as “injecting a witches brew of chemicals”.

Here in Australia the leading anti-vaccine disinformation group The Australian Vaccination-risks Network has called on members and fellow anti-vaxxers to heed another infamous Action Alert. They are targetting Victoria and South Australia. In Victoria the Health Services Amendment Bill 2020 seeks to provide for mandatory vaccination of healthcare and ambulance workers with specific immunisations. Ten days ago the Victorian Minister for Health published this media release outlining the logic behind the decision.

The vaccines included are the flu vaccine, whooping cough, measles, chicken pox and hepatitis B. It is astonishing, as we witness the evolving impact of COVID-19 in the absence of a vaccine, that groups such as the AVN seek to multiply these negative effects. They have teamed up with the anti-science, anti-medicine group, Health Freedom Victoria helping to disseminate their “generic letter” for anti-vaxxers to mail to “all Victorian politicians including your local member”. Of course one may pen ones own. Be sure to stress you “vehemently oppose this draconian overreach of the Andrews’ government”.

They also advise to follow up with phone calls. Following that, they basically suggest harassing Martin Foley who is Minister for Mental Health, Minister for Equality and Minister for Creative Industries. Martin Foley’s mental health portfolio sees him quite active in reducing discrimination for Victorians living with mental health challenges. Health Freedom Victoria want anti-vaxxers working in the health sector to email and call Mr. Foley to;

Tell him you are appalled that he would change the Discrimination Act to get away with forcing you to take an untested and unwanted medical procedure in order to keep your job

In the material they have disseminated to encourage targetting Martin Foley, Health Freedom Victoria refer to him as, “the Minister for amongst other things, Mental Health and Discrimination”.

South Australia introduced No Jab No Play legislation on September 30th 2019. Again there is a “generic letter” ready to go. In both cases the AVN seek to motivate loyal anti-vaccine followers to engage in pestering letter and/or email writing campaigns, asking those involved to follow up with a phone call, in this case “within half an hour but at least by the end of the day”. This is to confirm they have received your email and will be sending a Decision Regulatory Impact Statement (RIS). Of course one should inform the person you’ll call back in two weeks to chase up that RIS. And why?

In the words of the AVN themselves;

Phone calls increase their workload, so they’re more likely to do their job to avoid getting repeat calls.

Yep, you read that right. Wasting the time of your local members already busy and hard working staff is ensuring they “do their job”.

Now, it’s over to Paul Offit…