Tag Archives: vaccines

Vaxxed III: Unmitigated disinformation

Posted in Anti-Vaccination Lobby, COVID-19, COVID-19 Vaccine, Health, Immunisation, Media, Vaxxed by

On 23 August this year, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. suspended his independent US presidential campaign in ten battleground states, choosing to endorse Donald Trump. He cited the same causes, “that persuaded me to leave the Democratic Party and run as an independent”, according to AP News. Namely, free speech the war in Ukraine and “a war on our children”.

Kennedy: Anti-vaccine activist

There is, of course, no war on American children. Nor a war on any children in developed nations, in the sense Kennedy is alluding to. In fact as the chairman of Children’s Health Defense (CHD), Kennedy has himself waged a long battle against one of public health’s most important pillars; childhood immunisation. As with every anti-vaccine activist, COVID-19 presented Kennedy with an opportunity to manipulate and exploit a growing pool of misguided and misinformed individuals. Those who blame COVID-19 vaccines for virtually every illness or cause of death. Let me stress, I’m not referring to the known side effects but rather, those pushed by COVID conspiracy theorists and tireless anti-vaxxers. Ultimately, Kennedy’s profile expanded markedly, as did CHD revenue.

So comfortable with deceit, when he began his independent trot toward the White House, Kennedy insisted he was not anti-vaccine. This, despite telling a supportive crowd in December 2021, “It is criminal medical malpractice to give a child one of these vaccines”. Despite his influence in bringing about the measles tragedy in Samoa. He worked hard at the presidential pretence, even temporarily stepping down from his position as CHD Chair. Still today, the “chairman on leave” video message on every CHD website page lacks any reference to vaccines. Yet Kennedy mentions “unnecessary injuries” suffered by children, includes studies of autism and developmental disorder rates and packs in 16 snippets of autistic individuals – mostly with pronounced symptoms. Children are chronically sicker than ever before, “wandering around in a toxic soup”, Kennedy tells viewers. In search of the cause he will die with his boots on, fighting for them. Kennedy originally wrongly linked vaccines to autism in a, now removed, 2005 Rolling Stones article. This fact check piece offers an excellent deconstruction of the misconceptions used to make that link.

Vaxxed

Kennedy’s Children’s Health Defense has been hard at work targeting vaccine evidence during the COVID pandemic. This includes the making of the third Vaxxed film, Vaxxed III: Authorised to Kill, by CHD Films. True to the Vaxxed brand, it is a slick cornucopia of fear-mongering and falsehood. A key figure in this ghastly enterprise is interviewer and co-producer Polly Tommey, who has been involved with the first two Vaxxed films. Readers may remember Tommey was banned from Australia for three years following her antics in promoting the original Vaxxed film here in 2017. Trundling about with the (then) Australian Vaccination-skeptics Network, Tommey, who wrongly believes the MMR vaccine caused her son, Billy, to develop autism, told Australian audiences “doctors were murderers”. The Tommey named as producer of Vaxxed III and Vaxxed II: The people’s truth, is her other son, Tobias. The second and third Vaxxed films have been directed by Brian Burrowes. The first Vaxxed was directed by Andrew Wakefield and produced by Del Bigtree.

In doing some basic research for this post, I noted that Polly Tommey has changed not at all. On 6 September she used CHD’s X account to peddle the falsehood that “an experimental” oral polio vaccine is being used in Gaza. She added the sweeping claim that “the oral polio vaccine” is responsible for the poliovirus infecting “hundreds each year”. Like most persistent anti-vaccine lies there is a kernel of truth here. A prior oral polio vaccine caused disease in ~1 in 2.9 million. However, the new oral vaccine in Gaza does not contain the vaccine-derived strain responsible for past infections. More so, it is the lack of vaccination and the presence of poliovirus in human waste causing the problem. In addition, removal of the problematic weakened virus in 2016, in an attempt to prevent vaccine-derived outbreaks, resulted in greater infection rates. Citing a draft report for the World Health Organisation, AP News explain:

The polio strain in question evolved from a weakened virus that was originally part of an oral vaccine credited with preventing millions of children worldwide from being paralyzed. But that virus was removed from the vaccine in 2016 in hopes of preventing vaccine-derived outbreaks.

Public health authorities knew that decision would leave people unprotected against that particular strain, but they thought they had a plan to ward off and quickly contain any outbreaks. Instead, the move resulted in a surge of thousands of cases.

Suffice it to say, facts are anathema to CHD and Tommey. Which brings us to the quality of Vaxxed III: Authorised to Kill. As with the prior two films the main content is of people interviewed about so-called “vaccine injuries”, deaths and negative health system experiences, filmed in a Vaxxed bus driving across the USA. Like all Vaxxed buses this one was wrapped in Vaxxed brand colour and font. This time the message was Vax – UnVax: The People’s Study. The journey took nine months. All the COVID-19 anti-vaccine tropes are there. Countless testimonies of “life-altering injuries and deaths”, frightening symptoms, scans of brain tumours and pulmonary bleeds, suicidal tendencies and futile hospitalisations. Whistleblowers, medical professionals and lawyers apparently serve to legitimise what is unmitigated disinformation. Viewers are primed to accept that any response to COVID was a “fundamental violation of human rights”.

Vaxxed films are slick productions. Well edited to give the impression of government and health-authority deception, feeding viewers a misleading narrative that casts vaccines as harmful toxins pushed onto an unsuspecting public for nefarious reasons. A conspiracy to hide the truth is always present. As with all Vaxxed buses the names of the “vaccine injured” and dead are written on the outside of the bus. The dedication page for these most recent names contains over 1,350 entries, many of which list autism from MMR or “childhood vaccinations”. Apart from harm done to perception of vaccine safety and public health, individuals exploited and coaxed into a victim mindset, experience genuine pain and distress. Nothing good comes from these films.

Message on the CHD Vaxxed bus

This latest Vaxxed chapter raises a few questions for those of us in Australia who followed the antics of The Australian Vaccination-risks Network (AVN) and their much troubled journeys in their own Vaxxed II: The People’s Truth, bus. The AVN hit the road in July 2020 in their bus, sticking closely to the Vaxxed script. They clocked up seven seperate tours in two buses, as the first was irreversibly damaged in NSW flood waters. On 8 July 2020, AVN founder Meryl Dorey revealed parents “will be filmed for an up-coming Australian documentary”. Five weeks earlier president Anita Hafemeister had boldly claimed, “This will be the Australian version of Vaxxed II, I assume”. All that excitement led this humble author to speculate that the Vaxxed II bus tour would yield material for Vaxxed III. In fact the AVN was still advertising the bus, with sponsorship requests, in February this year. One can only assume that the reality of CHD dollars, Kennedy’s backing and the ambition of Polly Tommey has for now, kept content from Down Under off the big screen.

Polly Tommey and CHD are pushing to fill theatres in the US for an 18 September screening. A host of graphics are offered to assist fans to spread the word on social media. All contain the image of a driverless bus emerging from the mist in the dead of night. The film is being advertised with an unabashed call for donations. Or if you’d like to be an associate, co-‘ or executive producer with a minimum donation of $10,000, that privilege is a mere phone call away. No doubt Vaxxed III will make a profit for Kennedy’s CHD.

Of more concern, is that acceptance of COVID vaccine misinformation has grown in developed nations under the labour of anti-vaccine activists. The USA is currently experiencing a growth in the belief of COVID vaccine falsehoods and this film, along with the discussion that follows, may well worsen that trend in the US and elsewhere. Australian anti-vaxxers will have to wait for an online release.

Polly Tommey and Co discuss pre-release debunking of Vaxxed III

Fidge v Pfizer: The constitutional complaint

Posted in Anti-Vaccination Lobby, COVID-19, COVID-19 Vaccine, Health, Immunisation, Legal, Science by

In the last post I ran through the finding by Justice Helen Rofe in the case of Fidge v Pfizer. This was the third case brought by individuals and legal representatives with strong anti-vaccination links; both ideological and active. The applicant, Dr. Julian Fidge was found to lack standing. The case was dismissed.

As I previously began to discuss, within a day of the ruling, a follower of Julian Gillespie prompted him to do some digging into Justice Helen Rofe’s career as a barrister. You see, dear reader, as a barrister Helen Rofe had represented Pfizer in cases of intellectual property and patent law between 2003 and 2006. To the antivax mindset, this was proof of corruption because she did not reveal this prior to hearing the case. As a perceived “conflict of interest” existed, Rofe should have recused herself or allowed parties to request her recusal, they argued.

Now again, I am not a lawyer and I cannot qualify the importance of the duty of disclosure in this instance. But my thoughts on this development are straightforward. Is there any evidence Justice Rofe could not have acted impartially, or did not act impartially? Or rather, did her experience make her an ideal choice to hear the case. In 1988 Helen Rofe completed a Bachelor of Science with a major in genetics. Justice Rofe states on LinkedIn:

Prior to being appointed to the Federal Court I was a commercial barrister and Queen’s Counsel specialising in science and technology related matters.

Constitutional Complaint

On 22 March 2024, PJ O’Brien and Associates filed a constitutional complaint against Justice Rofe citing not only her prior work as a barrister but also “affiliations and extended family”. According to the media release (below) Justice Rofe “concealed her connections to Pfizer and the pharmaceutical industry”.

Constitutional Complaint Media Release

I should point out that contact for the complaint, Katie Ashby-Koppens, is on the steering committee for the World Council for Health (WCH). The WCH is renowned for promoting misinformation linking COVID-19 vaccines with death. Wikipedia describes the group:

The World Council for Health is a pseudo-medical organisation dedicated to spreading misinformation to discourage COVID-19 vaccination, and promoting fake COVID-19 treatments.

The organization’s online appearance is that of a mainstream health organization. It appears to have been formed in September 2021 and its published leadership contains people which an Australian Associated Press fact check described as “figures who have promoted unfounded conspiracy theories”.

Now, better equiped to understand motivation, let us examine the complaint.

The accusations in the complaint are impressive to say the least. They require substantial “reasonable assumptions”, both numerous and convoluted. This reasoning begins by pointing out that Justice Rofe has majored in genetics, and the Fidge case involved genetics, genetically modified organisms and allegations that mRNA vaccines are GMOs. Also, we’re reminded that Justice Rofe held prior membership of the Bolton Clarke Human Research and Ethics Committee. Her cousin Sir Andrew Grimwade supported research there with grant monies from the Felton Trust. He was a member of the Felton Bequest for 50 years, and served 19 years as chairman of the bequests committee. He was a guest at the ceremony to welcome Justice Rofe to the federal court. Rofe “enjoyed a good relationship with Sir Andrew” sharing his “interest in science and scientific research”.

Sir Andrew was the great-grandson of Frederick Shepherd Grimwade who, “founded the Grimwade family pharmaceutical industry fortune in Australia”. The complaint goes on to state, Sir Andrew also “served as the honorary President of the Walter and Eliza Hall Institute (WEHI) for 14 years before retiring in 1992″ and had been on the Board since 1963. He “appears” to “have maintained a close relationship with WEHI right up until his death”, purportedly evidenced by a public guestbook obituary from WEHI.

As Australia’s leading biomedical research institute, the WEHI “may have” received billions of dollars from Australian governments. The WEHI have received $30 million from The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. Pfizer, BioNTech and Moderna have received six times that from the same Foundation, which has also promoted COVID-19 products. It’s “also reasonable to assume the WEHI supports all of the efforts of Mr Gates and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation in respect of their support of the COVID-19 products of Pfizer and Moderna.” WEHI received $13.5 million in Australian government funding for “COVID related projects”.

In mere paragraphs we’ve leapt from the failure of Justice Rofe to reveal that she had represented Pfizer some 18 to 21 years ago, to the apparent significance of her cousin’s commitment to scientific research and the involvement of the premier anti-vax enemy, Bill Gates. The complaint continues, targeting the Australian and Victorian governments’ partnership with Moderna. “It is reasonable to assume that the WEHI stands to possibly receive significant monies” from this partnership. The Victorian government has given $600,000 to WEHI as part of mRNA Victoria. “It is entirely reasonable, in light of enduring family ties and her Honour’s own scientific background and interests”, that Justice Rofe has “long been aware of the sources of funding… and the public statements in support of mRNA technologies” made by state and Commonwealth ministers and the Prime Minister.

The complaint rolls on in alleging that affiliations “reaching back four decades for her Honour personally, and over a century when extended family interests of great significance are factored in”, in fact mean a reasonable observer would accept J Rofe holds “Big Pharmaceutical interests, both domestic and international”. More so, Justice Rofe has “meaningfully and significantly assisted to protect, grow, and further establish in Australia [the interests of Pfizer]”. It is further alleged extended family ties nefariously influenced Justice Rofe’s decision-making to favour funding for WEHI, mRNA technology and “further significant sums of research monies” for both, as they’re supported by The Australian PM. Finally we reach paragraphs 42 and 43:

A reasonable observer can conclude from the above that it was more likely than not her Honour would seek to see the science and technology promoted by Pfizer and Moderna, and Australian governments, that stand to significantly benefit medical research institutes like the WEHI, survive and flourish in Australia.

Judicial proceedings of the type brought by Dr Fidge would, if successful, strike a damning blow against all the above interests, and much more.

The complaint continues with Case Implications, outlining what they believe would happen if Fidge had won the case. It not only reads like an anti-vaxxer day dream, yet reveals in black and white, the unabashed sabotage of vaccine public health initiatives and related vendettas, that this group deems justified. Australia would see injunctions and “serious criminal charges” for Pfizer and Moderna. Initiation of investigations into the “operations, processes and personnel of the OGTR, Department of Health and Aged Care” and (of course), “In particular the former Secretary of Health, Brendan Murphy due to his being responsible for provisional approval [of COVID-19 vaccines]”. In addition would be initiation of an examination to determine if the absence of GMO licences led to failure to provide proper informed consent, and medical negligence implications.

There would also be potential civil liability in the Commonwealth government for failing to enforce GMO licensing, and civil liability for Pfizer and Moderna for failing to undertake GMO licensing. The complaint also refers to “possible confirmation” of injuries and deaths caused by genetically modified properties of mRNA vaccines. Yet there is no body of work identifying such adverse outcomes. It is a misinformed notion linked to the same suite of decades old research, mRNA-critical pre-print papers, animal studies, SARS-CoV-2 infection studies and related articles that buoy this anti-vaccine belief. I’m not criticising the research, but strenuously reject the invented link to “injuries and deaths” fabricated by the anti-vaccine lobby.

Another implication of a Fidge victory, is vaccine hesitancy due to a loss of trust in Australian health authorities. Yes, they’re serious. However, vaccine hesitancy is in fact due to constant misinformation spread about vaccines, by groups such as this. Then on p. 13 we read the implication under 44 J:

The necessity to initiate many forms of clinical studies to assess the real world damage, disease, or fatal outcomes associated with the GMO products of Pfizer and Moderna, and any observed medium-to-long term disease and adverse reproductive health outcomes associated with the GMO products of Pfizer and Moderna, for those Australian citizens who were not informed they were receiving GMOs.

Astonishing. The complainants apparently believe an entire body of clinical research would evolve following a Fidge victory. One may ask, quite rightly, as to why such research into this vaccine induced disaster is not already underway. The answer being of course, that the “damage, disease and fatal outcomes” do not exist.

We then read that the complaints provided list is not exhaustive and that the implications suggested, pose severe and long lasting reputational damage and financial consequences “for all Australian political parties and their lead members in power throughout the COVID period”. Particularly for those introducing Pfizer and Moderna vaccines.

They finalise the implications by contending that these, or other implications not even listed, may have served to motivate Justice Helen Rofe to dismiss the case brought by Julian Fidge. The complaint then moves onto Judicial Conduct, and examines the Guide To Judicial Conduct with respect to J Rofe’s “failure to discharge her duty of disclosure concerning her prior dealings with Pfizer.” The complaint submits in paragraph 48:

As detailed under the section above…, her Honour Justice Rofe had significant prior dealings with Pfizer when a barrister, and through her science learnings and the interests of her extended family, significant professional and personal interest in seeing the continued success of those institutions her extended family and science colleagues had been involved with, and perhaps continue to be involved with.

The remainder of the complaint utilises the Guide to Judicial Conduct and the various summations of active bias that the complainants allege motivated J Rofe’s decision-making, in an attempt to argue she is in breach of sections of the Guide. Focusing on the principle of Impartiality and sections such as Personal Relationships, the complaint references seven “slightly different positions [reinforcing] the same common-sense view”:

Where there is a prior relationship with a party, the judicial duty is to disqualify oneself or disclose the relationship before all the parties. If in doubt about disqualification, disclose the relationship before all the parties and invite submissions.

Again, impartiality should be determined by “a fair-minded lay observer who might reasonably apprehend that the judge might not [be impartial]”. Whilst perception of bias and conflict of interest sufficient for disqualification from a case “is to be judged by the perception of a reasonable well-informed observer”. Parties should be informed by the judge of facts which might give rise to perceptions of bias, but the judge must decide on the appropriateness to sit on a case.

Conclusion

For this author, looking through the complaint is like reading any text peppered with the red flags of anti-vaccine beliefs combined with an entrenched distrust of medical, legal and government authority. I can see nothing wrong with the legal team of Julian Fidge raising concerns over Justice Rofe’s failure to disclose her past history representing Pfizer. I don’t believe there’s much substance to it but respect their right to raise concerns. However, the constitutional complaint itself relies on typical anti-vax tropes such as distrusting J Rofe’s respect for science and research, and her affiliations with individuals or organisations linked to vaccine technology and/or its funding. Indeed the complaint made a number of connections that whilst exhaustive, are difficult to respect, much less accept. To argue that J Rofe acted with corrupt intent, primarily to avoid the dawn of the post Fidge-victory era as the complaint described it, is simply fantastic.

I can only conclude by wishing Justice Helen Rofe all the very best.

Professional Conduct Rules for Lawyers

As a footnote, it’s worth pausing to consider that lawyers and solicitors are also subject to professional conduct rules. Katie Ashby-Koppens and Peter O’Brien & Associates must keep in mind their duty to the court and the administration of justice.

Lacking professional distance from your client (or their cause) risks distracting you from this duty, which is paramount and prevails to the extent of inconsistency with any other duty. Your objectivity, your independence and your forensic judgement – on which the court relies – may be reduced.

The duty to avoid any compromise to integrity and professional independence:

Your integrity and trustworthiness are fundamental to your reputation as a lawyer and to your relationships with clients and other parties in the justice system. When a lawyer fails to act with integrity because their professional boundaries are compromised, the integrity of the justice system as a whole is undermined.

Wise words.

The Secret Santa

Posted in Anti-Vaccination Lobby, climate change, COVID-19, COVID-19 Vaccine, Immunisation, Science, Skeptic by

Very late on Christmas Eve 2023, Santa had just dropped me a rather special present.

I more or less knew what it was by feeling the packaging, but still fumbled hastily until it sat gleaming in my hand. There it was. A brand new COVID-19 infection.

I could hear him jingling happily into the distance, with the words “naughty” and “nice” echoing on the breeze. Then, “falsifiable hypotheses” wafted back.

Of course! I suddenly remembered a discussion years ago, soaking our blistered feet in cured reindeer urine, when he told me anything that could be falsified was inherently “naughty”. Wrongly, I thought I had properly explained things to him.

This time, I’d sort him out. “Santa, Santa. I just KNOW we’ve had this conversation before”, I yelled in his direction.

I continued.

” 🎼 Making a list, 🎶 and checking it twice 🎵, gonna find out 🎶 who’s naughty and nice… does not a falsifiable hypothesis make. I just… I mean, I can’t even….”.

He answered with a vague reference to falsifying anti-vaxxer claims and something even more vague about my feet needing another urine soak. Next thing an apparition-like, misty glob of reindeer, a sleigh, a fat, smelly-chap, sacks of presents and boxes of Rapid Antigen Tests was in front of me. Santa folded his arms and confidently started his defence.

I responded,

“Wait! What?! Say that again. I’ve been ‘naughty’, because I revealed falsification, and therefore I can’t enjoy Christmas this year? No, no dude, you’re attributing subjective emotional qualities to the entire notion of the falsibility hypothesis. Yeah I get it – you’re saying if I hadn’t showed things were totally false that I’d have been ‘nice’, particularly because you were 🎶 checking it twice🎵. But if I may, with respect old chap, it simply doesn’t work that way.”

He laughed, pointing at me, and asked, “Why the fud not?”

I was feeling far from well but managed.

“Well because, my long-bearded, voluminous-bellied friend. The very notion that the hypothesis can be falsified, is what lends it such robust integrity in the first place. Suggesting falsifiability is ‘naughty’ and anything not shown to be false is ‘nice’, is likely a position arrived at via a sequence of logical fallacies.

He said I was making some sense but sounding very lah-de-dah. So, I went on.

“Okay, let’s agree your position is that honesty or not ‘being false’, can be labelled very simply as ‘nice’. Cool? Righto then. And that dishonesty, or being deliberately false can be labelled as ‘naughty’. So, deliberate falsehoods coming from, ooh let’s say anti-vaxxers, are ‘naughty’. In fact they are known for providing so-called data based on fabrication, and fraud. So, let’s say ‘very naughty’.

Now, that all sounds okay, but it can’t really be tested beyond the scope of opinion. It also takes unnecessary work and lends credence to fraudsters. Better then, that the theory or hypothesis is one that can be tested and logically refute the idea being questioned, particularly if the falsification can be based on empiricism (what we see or experience).”

Santa asked if empiricism was like the Black Runes-of-Empiricism that Senator Malcolm Roberts used, to make a mockery of climate change.

“Why yes, you’ve heard of him then? A total… whoa, okay… sorry, yes, yes I did see the pontoons strapped to the sleigh. Bit sloshy up North… I can grasp that. Reality and Roberts don’t get on, Santa. Not a fan are we? No Ho, eh? Ah, well… er, no we can’t do the sword thing anymore. No, no the Blood Eagle never did take on down South. Sorry. Free speech and such. Oh? Well, um, I’d prefer to say we’ve become, “civilised” but “as sturdy as walrus diarrhoea” will do for any justified criticism in this case, old chap.”

Santa mumbled on about colourful torment to Roberts for a while, many involving objects I had never heard of, then he then gradually worked his way back to chatting about falsifying arguments and hypotheses.

I jumped in.

“So, see it’s simple really. If you can devise a method to falsify an argument that someone is proposing, then it is held to a greater standard of proof because it is possible to falsify it. Even if it has never been falsified. It just means it is possible to imagine or construct an argument to falsify it.”

I was by now feeling pretty crook and thought I might try my luck at swapping my present.

“Now Santa. Maaate, buddy, bloke. I realise we’re a long way from naughty and nice but I hope this clears things up, and clafifies the obvious error of this rather unique present you’ve dropped off. I guess this is one test I’d like to have seen falsified as it were… Nudge, nudge. Any chance you can wave the magic stocking..?

What’s that? Yes, yes, I did expose a bunch of anti-vaxxer arguments as false. They were false – fabricated in fact. In fact they were all bad. Thanks for noticing – it’s quite a long way for news to travel up North. What do you mean I’m still naughty? Er, yeah, okay… sure… But dude, I don’t CARE how many times you’re 🎼 making a list, 🎶 and checking it twice 🎵. Didn’t you understand a single thing we just discussed?

So, I’m what now? I’m too Skeptical? So I’m naughty because I’m too Skeptical? Oh, righty-Ho-Ho! What? Well, yes I’ve had a few COVID vaccines. Oh, I see that’s what this is. But I never said they were 100% protective; that’s an anti-vax logical fallacy. Gawd, Santa! Vaccines do reduce symptoms though. What? Well, er pretty sh*t actually. I’m running a temp of 39 C. But tomorrow I won’t be.”

Incredible! Santa seemed to be warming up to Gish gallop. Time to wrap this up.

“Anyway bloke. It’s getting late. Shouldn’t you be flying toward the West by now? Time zones and all that. You’re what?! You’re not flying!? Oh?

You’re Travelling!?”

Oh my.

A week is a long time in social media

Posted in Anti-Vaccination Lobby, Australian Vaccination-risks Network, COVID-19, COVID-19 Vaccine, Health, Meryl Dorey, Social Media by

These days social media is seething with COVID related disinformation and misinformation. The last week however brought out the best of the worst in those intent on denying reality.

Without a doubt last weekend’s protests in Melbourne, Sydney and Brisbane left some as excited as a lonely school kid might get after their first school dance in long pants. That does not explain the nonsense that followed however. That comes down to the antivaxxer, COVID conspiracy theorist trait of seizing a splinter of fact and presenting it in a way to support a broader deceit. The week’s carry on was unique for a couple of reasons. Firstly only a meagre understanding of the subject matter was needed to grasp the reality. Also corrections and clarifications were available in almost real time.

NSW, COVID-19 and Vaccination

When it comes to grasping the situation with Australia’s COVID-19 vaccine rollout, things are simple: it’s well behind schedule. More to the point, the delay in shipping Pfizer vaccine has been a constant hum in our news cycle for months. This has been amplified by confusion around advice from the Australian Technical Advisory Group on Immunisation, which has seen changes in the recommended age groups for receipt of the AstraZeneca vaccine. In six weeks over June-July it changed from 50 years and above to 60 and above. ATAGI advice held firm when Scott Morrison suggested all Australians should consult their GP to consider getting it, then ultimately the age was lowered to 18 years and above in view of the raging Delta variant in Sydney.

There was the backlash over an 11 July COVID-19 advertisement which carried the text, “Covid-19 can affect anyone… Book your vaccination”. The woman featured in the ad’ was in the age group for which Pfizer vaccine was recommended. But supply wasn’t there. Last Friday NSW health minister Brad Hazard made a plea to other states for Pfizer vaccines. He was left disappointed. The point to this brief and tedious history lesson is that a meagre (that word again) attention span is enough to grasp that NSW is in serious need of COVID-19 vaccines. Until last Saturday that had to be Pfizer for under 60s. Additionally, the impact of COVID-19 vaccination in keeping people out of intensive care has been making news across the developed world. When NSW Health gave updates on COVID-19 hospitalisations during press conferences we quickly learnt the same success is evident here.

When Dr. Jeremy McAnulty misspoke

As we moved into last weekend a trend of sorts emerged as senior NSW Health physician Dr. Jeremy McAnulty presented his reports. On 22 July the seriousness of the Delta variant was underscored by the fact that of 118 in hospital, 28 were in ICU of whom 14 were ventilated. He reported that forty two were under 55 years of age and fifteen were under 35. On 24 July Dr. McAnulty reported that 139 people were in hospital. There were fifty five patients under 55 years of age and twenty eight who were under 35. He noted that of 37 patients in ICU, 17 required ventilation, 36 were unvaccinated and one patient had received one dose of AstraZeneca. It was a disturbing trend. Young Australians were being hit hard by the Delta variant and hospitalised in increasing numbers. In the intensive care unit nobody was fully vaccinated. One person was partially vaccinated.

This was what we had feared may come of a slow vaccine rollout. Without the protection of vaccination COVID-19 was making adults of all ages very ill indeed. On 25 July Dr. McAnulty had the awful task of announcing two COVID related deaths. A woman in her late thirties, and another in her seventys had died. One could see the softly spoken public health expert struggle over the words. He moved on to report 141 people were in hospital of whom 43 were in ICU, with 18 requiring ventilation. Continuing with the same data sets of previous press conferences he reported that sixty of those hospitalised are under 55 and twenty eight are under 35. He noted that of the 43 in intensive care one was in their teens, seven were in their 20s, three in their 30s, fourteen were in the 50s, twelve were in their 60s and six were in their 70s.

At this point viewers keeping track of the new disturbing trend knew what was coming. Dr. McAnulty will report on the vaccinated status of those in ICU. Which he did. However he misspoke and said, “All but one are vaccinated, one has received just one dose of vaccine”. It was however clear what was meant: all but one are unvaccinated. The ICU patient numbers had increased by six and there had been two deaths. Even for viewers not catching sequential daily updates (I know I wasn’t), it was clear this was a slip of the tongue. As outlined above, Australia has had a sluggish vaccine rollout. On that day only 15.8% of NSW residents were fully vaccinated. Being vaccinated was not the norm and certainly not for Aussies under 60. Yet it wasn’t until journalists were asking questions around half an hour later, that Dr. McAnulty was able to correct himself.

Here’s the two relevant clips run together.

By then no doubt anti-vaccine activists had edited out the few seconds they needed and gleefully hit social media. Taylor Winterstein who makes a living from bad influencing on Instagram posted this the next day.

You might have noticed how she struggles with numbers. Dr. McAnulty was referring to forty three people in intensive care when he misspoke. Not 141. This same mistake is repeated elsewhere in the antivax rabbit hole. As is the response that his correction was false. Either bogus or doctored or whatever they can grab to avoid the facts. No surprise there. Although there was one surprise. Del Bigtree was swift to tweet the video with a message to see the point where Jeremy McAnulty misspoke, proclaiming that, “all were vaccinated but one”. The reality was pointed out to him. An hour later his first tweet was deleted and he tweeted a correction acknowledging his mistake. “Since he made a correction I must too”, Bigtree offered.

This is reasonably significant in light of the fact Del Bigtree is responsible for a copious amount of disinformation and misinformation regarding both vaccines and COVID-19. He is firmly convinced COVID-19 vaccines are ineffective or worse. Credit where it’s due however. After all, Dr. Dan Wilson of Debunk the Funk is a former conspiracy theorist. The same credit can’t be given to Del’s Twitter followers. Most reacted like the proverbial End of World cult faced with a world that didn’t end. Their justifications covered all bases including denial and even transforming a correction into a retraction! Then there was that darn antivaxxer problem with the number 141.

This scene was played out in social media rabbit holes everywhere. Replies to Taylor Winterstein were equally stupid. Which is an achievement as Winterstein controls who can comment on her Instagram account. Fact checking followed. AAP published a review of the fake claim, an analysis and supporting evidence of COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness. CoronaCheck included it in their weekly update and AFP Fact Check published a comprehensive slap-down of numerous misleading sources. Nonetheless such calculated disinformation has the potential to harm Australian public health and even cost lives.

When it comes to pumping up disinformation like this, it’s always hard to pass by Meryl Dorey, founder of the Australian Vaccination-risks Network. She too had trouble with the 141 number and even re-employed Dr. McAnulty as a “politician”. Dorey also claims COVID hospitalisations and deaths globally and specifically Israel, the USA and Europe are fully vaccinated. That’s another version of the carefully crafted mistake seen courtesy of Alan Jones and Craig Kelly who failed to grasp a statistical reality, and were splendidly refuted by Paul Barry on Media Watch. It is an example of base rate bias or base rate fallacy. This video explains it very well.

You can grab the mp3 here or listen below.

The CDC announcement about COVID-19 PCR testing

A look back at this week isn’t complete without highlighting the COVID PCR kerfuffle. On 21 July the CDC alerted laboratories that they would retire-with-a-gold-watch the CDC 2019-Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV) Real-Time RT-PCR Diagnostic Panel. What most of us know as the COVID-19 PCR test. Polymerase Chain Reaction testing is highly accurate. The process identifies the genetic material of a specific virus. It does this in a way that is similar to providing a yes or no answer to the presence of X virus. It cannot give a this or that answer to the presence of X, Y or Z viruses.

Since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic the anti-science conspiracy lobby has pushed two absurd claims about the detection of COVID-19. The first is that it has never been isolated. False. The second is that the PCR test is so fantastically unreliable that it produces only false positives. False. What’s interesting about these claims is that if one believes the first, then the second is true no matter what test is used. This however didn’t stop COVID-19 deniers from trying to discredit the technology of the test as a means to more or less blame it for positive results they didn’t like hearing about.

Because of the closed nature of the PCR test, further resources and expense are needed to test for other viruses. This is ultimately why the CDC want to discontinue the PCR test at the end of 2021. This is done by removing its request for emergency use authorisation for the test from the FDA. The CDC still support the accuracy of the test. However by encouraging the use of multiplex tests single samples can be tested for a variety of viruses. For example influenza A, B and COVID-19.

Echoes from social media rabbit holes erupted. The claim was that the CDC withdrew support for the COVID-19 PCR test because it couldn’t distinguish between influenza and COVID-19. This then, and not closed international borders was why influenza cases had dropped dramatically. Links to the CDC alert were published with pride. Concepts of vindication were liberally mixed in with this sudden inability to read. G&B Lawyers’ conspiracy theorist Nathan Andrew Buckley made the news. Ali Haydar, Will Connolly (aka ‘Eggboy’) and Reignite Democracy Australia featured amongst many to spread falsehood. AAP published another great takedown and analysis. FactCheck have a particularly comprehensive SciCheck article on this. CoronaCheck included a debunking in the same piece that debunked the abuse of Jeremy McAnulty’s slip.

“There’s a little bit of misinformation going around”

I’m perhaps pressing my luck with the Fixated Persons Unit, but I’d like to share some vintage Meryl Dorey Gish Galloping about the CDC’s recent PCR alert. Delightfully she kicks off by warning that, “There’s a little bit of misinformation going around”. Well I hadn’t noticed, so I’ll be on the lookout. At one point Dorey fancies herself as a lab technician telling her audience, “Because we are using a cycle rate of forty to forty five, every single positive is a false positive”.

There’s an mp3 here for your collection, or you can use the player below.

Conclusion

The COVID conspiracy, anti-vaccination activist movement that thrives on social media continues to deceive. The last week saw two fresh examples of disinformation. One of which callously exploited an obvious error, corrected shortly thereafter, during a NSW Health press conference.

Please get vaccinated. It can save your life.

References

ATAGI Statement re AstraZeneca – 17 June 2021

ATAGI advice on AstraZeneca remains unchanged – ABC 12 July 2021

ATAGI Statement re AstraZeneca – 24 July 2021

NSW Health press conferences

NSW Health 22 July

NSW Health 24 July

NSW Health 25 July

No, hospitalised COVID-19 patients in NSW aren’t all vaccinated – AAP

Posts mislead on proportion of vaccinated Covid-19 victims in Australian state’s hospitals – AFP Fact Check

Facebook post – Dr. Brytney Cobia tells of dying patients wish to be vaccinated

Israel, 50% of infected are vaccinated, and base rate bias

RMIT ABC Fact Check

Viral Posts Misrepresent CDC Announcement on COVID-19 PCR Test – FactCheck

Wild claims about CDC PCR alert don’t pass the test – AAP

Originally published as A week is a long time in social media disinformation

Latest update: 1 August 2021

♠︎ ♠︎ ♠︎ ♠︎

The Nuremberg Code and COVID-19 vaccines

Posted in Anti-Vaccination Lobby, Australian Vaccination-risks Network, AVN, COVID-19, COVID-19 Vaccine, General, Health, Human Rights, Legal, Media, Meryl Dorey, Social Media by

Following the development and subsequent global rollout of successful COVID-19 vaccines one particular anti-vaccine trope has been delivered with increasing gusto. Namely that the administration of these vaccines is in breach of the Nuremberg Code.

This isn’t the first time the Nuremberg Code has been used by the anti-vaccination lobby in an attempt to argue against the legality of vaccination. It is however the most widespread use of this piece of disinformation to date. It also includes the threat that health professionals will be tried as war criminals. To arrive at the conviction that COVID-19 vaccination is in breach of the Nuremberg Code, a triumph of non-critical reasoning is necessary. Specifically that the vaccine rollout is an ongoing experiment and that recipients have not given informed consent.

The latter is a misguided application of the first point of the Code. Global, real time scrutiny of the COVID-19 vaccine rollout means recipients are better informed when giving consent than for any other vaccine in history. Whilst the first point of the Code includes the most lengthy accompanying explanation of all ten points in the Code, it opens with the requirement:

The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential.

Background

An early claim that vaccine recipients are denied informed consent can be found in a 1997 NBC interview with Barbara Loe Fisher and her related article on the NVIC website [Archive]. Loe Fisher provides five bullet points contending there is inadequate knowledge of injury, death, side effects, vaccine failure and that vaccination, “could reasonably be termed as experimental each time it is performed on a healthy individual”. The postulation at play here is that if such uncertainty exists then informed consent cannot be given. Another ambitious claim is that post-marketing surveillance of vaccines is “a de facto experiment”.

Further on in the article the Nuremberg Code itself is addressed and the deception immediately begins apace. Loe Fisher exploits the words of physician and ethicist Jay Katz. His work is included in Nazi Doctors and The Nuremberg Code – Human Rights in Human Experimentation. Loe Fisher selectively chose in part:

The rights of individuals to thoroughgoing self-determination and autonomy must come first. Scientific advances may be impeded, perhaps even become impossible at times, but this is a price worth paying.

As the tone indicates, this is a quote about human experimentation, not vaccination as Barbara Loe Fisher is suggesting. The article trots on to mislead readers that, “bioethicist Arthur Caplan concurred when he said”:

The Nuremberg Code explicitly rejects the moral argument that the creation of benefits for many justifies the sacrifice of the few. Every experiment, no matter how important or valuable, requires the express voluntary consent of the individual. The right of individuals to control their bodies trumps the interest of others in obtaining knowledge or benefits from them.

Jay Katz passed away in 2008. Arthur Caplan is a professor of bioethics at New York University and in June last year informed FactCheck.org that the NVIC use of his quote is “completely erroneous” and reflected “ignorance of history and ethics”. He also observed that it is:

… a gross disservice to the victims of brutal Nazi experiments to distort my words for lame anti-science that will kill people if this bilge is taken seriously.

The above quote is no doubt not lost on those familiar with the harm anti-vaccine activists ultimately achieve and the disrespect they so often reveal in doing so. It also brings to mind the reality surrounding the Nuremberg Code. It is the result of one of the Nuremberg trials that followed the Second World War. The Doctors’ Trial (USA vs Brandt) focused on 23 German doctors and administrators who performed unethical, inhumane experiments in concentration camps and 3.5 million sterilisations of German citizens.

The Nuremberg Code itself has a controversial history surrounding authorship and was largely ignored for 20 years following the Nuremberg trials. In The Nuremberg Code and the Nuremberg Trial: A Reappraisal, Jay Katz wrote that careful reading of the judgement indicates it was written:

…for the practice of human experimentation whenever it is being conducted.

The vaccine ‘experiment’

This helps us appreciate the importance of, and the rationale behind, insisting that the COVID-19 vaccine rollout is an experiment. In the last post I covered another reason as to why the anti-vaccine lobby pushes this line. Namely to wrongly claim that hospital cover for adverse events following immunisation will be withheld by insurance companies on the basis that the vaccine is an “experimental treatment”. The trial it is alleged runs until 2023.

Helped by a widely disseminated video from the UK (here), misinformation regarding the Pfizer Phase III clinical trial is sustaining the belief that a long term “experiment” involves all vaccine recipients. This is demonstrably false. In fact the clinical study description cited in the video refers to the original participants who will be followed on a post-marketing basis until 6 April 2023. In a comprehensive 10 December 2020 article Pfizer report under Adverse Events:

Safety monitoring will continue for 2 years after administration of the second dose of vaccine.

In Australia Meryl Dorey of the Australian Vaccination-risks Network has been quite vocal about Nuremberg Code breaches. She contends the “experiment” is admitted to by the TGA, FDA and European Medicines Agency. In fact the Australian TGA provisional approval of the AstraZeneca vaccine is valid until February 2023. This is almost certainly a source of added confidence regarding the false claim of an ongoing experiment.

On 13 March 2021 during Under The Wire (Source) Dorey spoke about, “crimes against humanity as determined by the Nuremberg Code” due to COVID-19 vaccine administration and the so-called ‘vaccine passport’. At one time she challenged, “if you even believe that COVID exists”. Download the MP3 here or listen below.

Meryl Dorey followed this with a firm message warning medical professionals. MP3 here or listen below.

War crimes

During the same episode Dorey presented a flyer (below) warning “all medical practitioners” involved in the COVID-19 vaccine rollout that they will be on trial for war crimes and held accountable. These flyers continue to be letter dropped, faxed and placed on car windscreens to reach doctors and nurses.

To suggest that medical practitioners will be subject to war crimes is as baffling as it is offensive. The claim is international and again hints at a massive break down in critical thinking. Only cursory reflection is needed to realise that administering a vaccine during peacetime cannot possibly constitute a war crime regardless of the human rights issues one may think apply. The Nuremberg Code reflects not only what happened during the Second World War but also the ethical standards that existed in Germany before the war.

Nuremberg Code and ‘No Jab No Pay’

Use of the Nuremberg Code as an argument against vaccination legislation was honed in Australia in response to the Social Services Legislation Amendment (No Jab, No Pay) Bill in 2015. The legislation ensures a childcare benefit, rebate and a tax benefit supplement will be withheld from parents of children under 20 years of age who are not fully immunised. This legislative amendment followed community concern in response to “conscientious objection” to immunisation.

Submissions to the Senate Standing Committee on Community Affairs arguing against the Bill focussed often on the argument that informed consent would be denied. There are a number of examples and the following are indicative. Submission 511 offers further insight into the first point of the Nuremberg Code. Namely that consent should be:

…without the intervention of any element of force, fraud, deceit, duress, over-reaching, or other ulterior form of constraint or coercion.

And:

By refusing welfare payments to family’s (sic), this is a clear form of financial duress and coercion (and also over-reaching by Government). Some families rely on welfare payments to enable or assist them to provide for their family. To deny access to welfare payments is coercion of parents to subject their children to a medical procedure. 

Submission 508 also refers to the first point of the Nuremberg Code and suggests that the Australian Immunisation Handbook, in its section on consent, reflects a hitherto unknown aspect of the Code. The author notes:

The Australian Immunisation Handbook reflects the Nuremberg Code is requiring valid consent as a pre-cursor to vaccination.

Another submission combined the My Will command with reference to the Nuremberg Code, the Australian constitution, the Immunisation Handbook and the 2005 Universal Declaration of Bioethics and Human Rights, Article 6, Section 1. Despite the use of so many references to rights and ethics (Submission 511 also cited the AMA code of ethics and the Victorian Charter of Human Rights) the submissions highlight a common flaw. No Jab No Pay is an incentive. Indeed to see it as active coercion and ignore the harm caused by vaccine preventable diseases is uniquely selfish.

As a testament to how the anti-vaccine lobby manage to keep alive the notion that vaccines constitute grave abuses of human rights we can see that Article 6 of the UDBHR has also been trotted out today for COVID-19 vaccines. A striking LTE in the Elko Daily alluded to the Pfizer clinicaltrials.gov information, the Nuremberg Code and the UDBHR. Article 6, section 1 states:

Any preventive, diagnostic and therapeutic medical intervention is only to be carried out with the prior, free and informed consent of the person concerned, based on adequate information. The consent should, where appropriate, be expressed and may be withdrawn by the person concerned at any time and for any reason without disadvantage or prejudice.

Despite the vocal insistence of an experiment being run without consent the main antagonists of the anti-vaccination lobby are aware this is a false claim. Enter the inane insistence that the COVID-19 vaccine is set to be mandatory in developed nations. The AVN still push the tired line that Scott Morrison aims to make it “as mandatory as possible”, despite his very clear walk back of that unfortunate statement. The next “march against mandatory vaccination” is set for 29 May 2021.

Nuremberg Code Today

As for the Nuremberg Code itself an adequate critique is beyond the scope of this post. Nonetheless, whilst it does reflect important ethical standards it is likely not legally enforceable. It has not been adopted by any government and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is more readily recognised. Of major importance in this regard is the CIA post 9/11 experimental torture programme that utilised unwilling human subjects. Critiques of the Code raise justifiable concerns from its acceptance of animal experimentation to the arguably ridiculous item five which states:

No experiment should be conducted, where there is an a priori reason to believe that death or disabling injury will occur; except, perhaps, in those experiments where the experimental physicians also serve as subjects.

Today the recognised standard for medical ethics is the World Medical Association’s Helsinki Declaration. It may be considered superior to the Nuremberg Code for one simple reason. That of regular revision. It has been amended seven times since June 1964. The most recent occasion was in October 2013.

Conclusion

The claim that COVID-19 vaccination is in breach of the Nuremberg Code is the most recent manifestation of an anti-vaccine deception that is probably over 25 years old. It is a falsehood that relies on calculated disinformation. Namely that vaccine recipients are denied informed consent and that the COVID-19 vaccine rollout is an experiment. Social media has aided the dissemination of this claim and a genuine COVID-19 vaccine Phase III trial document is being misrepresented as confirmation of a global trial.

The Nuremberg Code was written at the time of the Nuremberg War Crime trials. As such, baseless threats that medical practitioners will be tried as war criminals are being circulated. The Nuremberg Code clearly refers to experimentation on human subjects and says nothing about vaccination. Submissions to state and federal parliament in Australia opposing the No Jab No Pay/Play Bill 2015 unsuccessfully tested the veracity of the Nuremberg Code in this respect.

As an ethical statement and historical document the Nuremberg Code is sullied by anti-vaccine disinformation. The claims are absurd, serving no purpose other than disruption of sound public health policy. The most recent incarnation targetting COVID-19 vaccines is rightly viewed as a conspiracy theory.

References

Nuremberg Code

Nuremberg Code – Experimentation not vaccines

AMA Code of ethics for doctors

Staff administering COVID vaccines are not war criminals

Do vaccinations violate human rights under the Nuremberg Code?

WMA Declaration of Helsinki

Nuremberg Betrayed: Human Experimentation & the CIA Torture Program

Last Update: 2 May 2021

♠︎ ♠︎ ♠︎ ♠︎