Dear Media watch

I am frustrated that a high proportion of media outlets and journalist when referring to Prof Ian Frazer state that he is the creator of the words first cervical cancer vaccine – Gardasil. This is NOT correct. He was a co-creator of a VACCINE against 2 and possibly HPVHuman papillomaviruses that may (together with some other as yet unknown trigger) lead to cervical cancer. There are some 40 variations of the virus seehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_papillomavirus  and many believe that HPV like the common cold mutates and as such there may be many other variations as yet not recognised.

Once again on Sunday morning 31st July  I heard an announcer this time on the ABC’s 630 radio program (broadcast In Sydney) at around 0830 refer to Frazer as the creator of a cervical cancer vaccine, as can be seen here this is incorrectly stated http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ian_Frazer . I have two concerns with this statement being repeated – apart from the fact that is totally incorrect, it continues to be perpetuated and as you know repeat things long enough and fact replaces reality – to whit this website from University of Queensland http://www.uq.edu.au/news/index.html?article=8853 which refers to it as  a cancer vaccine – IT IS NOT! It gets worse, even Governments are in on the act see thishttp://www.science.qld.gov.au/dsdweb/v4/apps/web/content.cfm?id=15044 But it gets worse  still, even the Cancer Council is calling a it a cancer vaccinehttp://www.cancercouncil.com.au/editorial.asp?pageid=253

So what are my concerns:

1.     Dr Ian Frazer makes no apparent attempt to correct the misimpression that Gardasil is a cervical cancer cure-all. Why, surely a man of his stature and authority would not want his vaccine misrepresented?

2.     Young women who receive Gardasil may now be under the false impression that they will never get cervical cancer – but this is not so! There are other strains of HPV that Gardasil does not impact. But even more worrying is the likelihood that many women now believing they cannot get cervical cancer will stop having regular tests and pap smears that could lead to an increase in cervical cancer in the years ahead as this form of testing, follow-up and treatment has been so effective in controlling and bringing down the rates of cervical cancer, as this and many other studies has provenhttp://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7909766

I have noted below an article in the Herald Sun which also refers to it as a cervical cancer vaccine, believe me a brief Google search will show many others.

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/more-news/skin-cancer-vaccine-hope/story-fn7x8me2-1226105165326

CANCER expert Prof Ian Frazer is on the verge of a major breakthrough in skin cancer – he hopes to develop a vaccine within a year.

The former Australian of the Year and creator of the world’s first cervical cancer vaccine, Gardasil, has developed a world-first strategy to combat the insidious disease that affects two out of three Australians.

Skin cancer vaccine hope
Herald Sun
The former Australian of the Year and creator of the world’s first cervical cancer vaccine,Gardasil, has developed a world-first strategy to combat the insidious disease that affects two out of three Australians. “In my lifetime we should be able to…

Gardasil may be a wonder vaccine (the jury remains out), but a cure for cervical cancer it is not and the media and others must stop referring to it as such.

Kind regards

Stephen Tunley

Subject: Getting the point (10/6/11)

Dear 60 Minutes

I refer to your program “Getting the point”.

My daughter is one of the victims of vaccination. In May 2009 she had her first dose of Gardasil the HPV vaccine co-developed by Dr Ian Frazer, CSL and Merck. She felt unwell immediately post vaccination. She had her second dose 4 weeks later and almost immediately had a seizure. Since that time a normal 19 year old has been severely impacted by poor health issues. So serious were these that for close to 3 weeks she was under the care of Prof Ron Penny the noted immunologist at St Vincent’s Hospital. During this time she was observed having repeated seizures, tachycardia where her heart would move from 70 to over 180 beats per minute in seconds, uncontrolled violent tremors and more.

Why did this occur? I believe that my daughter is one of up to 8% of women who have an existing or genetic predisposition to an Auto Immune Disease (she subsequently was diagnosed as having had glandular fever and being a celiac!). A list of these can be found here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autoimmune_disease as you can see it is extensive.

With regard to Gardasil, Merck was able to gain authority to release the vaccine at the conclusion of Stage One Trials (normally the trials of new vaccines extend for 3 trials). Interestingly Merck removed from the trial what it calls “certain at risk groups”, these were people that Merck determined had or were likely to suffer from a suppressed immune system. Yet despite this and the fact that Stage 2 and 3 trials were not completed, the vaccine was introduced with no warning that those who had or may have a family history of an AID should be aware of potential risks!

What makes this worse if that is possible, is that in Australia the Federal Government made this available at schools where there was no knowledge of the medical history of the recipient or their family and following this no formal follow-up to determine any adverse reactions. There is a voluntary reporting system run by the TGA but it is notorious for under – reporting of adverse reactions (as is the VAERS database in the USA where it is believe that only between 1 and 10 in 100 hundred adverse events are recorded) and by breaking the nexus between GP and patient (as was the case for some that received Gardasil) and therefore an already unreliable reporting system was further compromised. We reported the issues with our daughter to the TGA who referred it to the vaccine distributor for follow up and from whom we have had no follow up of any consequence. I imagine 60 minutes would love a story where say a person accused of a war crime by the Hague was permitted to investigate the alleged crime theirselves and report back to the Hague on the findings – yet that is what happened here and elsewhere with regard to vaccines!

I will ignore commenting as to whether Gardasil is efficacious let alone offers any cost benefits vs pap smears which have been remarkably effective in reducing the incidence of HPV and Cervical Cancer. A simple Google search will provide much evidence that challenges the benefit of Gardasil other than to Merck and the patent holders.

As I have become involved in and more aware of the issues that some young women face following vaccination I have become aware of an alarming number of young women that have been seriously impacted post Gardasil vaccination. For instance a cluster of up to 20 young women in Australia that have been diagnosed with MS post Gardasil vaccination. As recently as last Saturday I was contacted by a Mother whose daughter fell seriously ill post Gardasil vaccination and has now been diagnosed with Adult Onset Still’s Disease a very rare AID. Of concern is that as no one is warned of possible causal links between the vaccine and subsequent illness , few make the link. Yet, as the awareness of serious illnesses arise more and more people are making the connection, yet no Authority is considering this – I guess as the liability issues it may create outweigh the need for fair and honest investigation of the truth.

I want be clear I am not anti vaccines. There have been many illnesses that have been stopped by the judicious use of vaccines. I am however totally opposed to vaccines being marketed without appropriate risk warnings or introduced early with NO follow up as to issues that may be linked.

I grew up in the 80’s where 60 Minutes was a serious “must watch” and fearless current affairs show, so good that it was a Sunday evening must watch. I believe 60 minutes would be well served with a follow up “ Getting the Point – the other story” where young women, their parents and GP’s talk about the dirty side of “fear marketed” vaccines, promoted using glamorous electronic and print media. I know many of these young women and their parents and would be happy to introduce them to you … in the spirit of balanced and fearless reporting which is of course your true heritage.

I can easily be contacted on any of the phone numbers below and look forward to your contact.

Sincerely

Stephen Tunley

10 June 2011 in Australia, the news program ’60 Minutes’ aired a segment entitled, “Getting the point” by reporter Ellen Fanning. The show intended to cover the vaccine issue. The letter sent by Judy Wilyman to the show’s producers is below.

To the 60 minute team,

I would like to publicise some of the myths that you presented in your program – Getting the Point (10.6.11). This program did not provide a balanced presentation of the vaccination issue. It also did not allow for discussion or debate of the issues presented. It relied on the program directors selecting the script for the program and selecting the comments they wanted from the interviewees.

There was also no blog for this program posted on the website which does not allow viewers to provide feedback and discussion. You will also note that there is no forum for the public to discuss the topic of immunization in a two-way flow of information. This amounts to propaganda not a presentation of scientific evidence.

Myths presented in this program:

1. Vaccines are a victim of their own success. Untrue: Infectious diseases became a low risk in Australia in 1950 before most vaccines were used. This was due to improvements in sanitation, hygiene, nutrition and family sizes (1) (2).

1. There is a bottomless pit of misinformation on the internet. Untrue: a large percentage of websites are now promoting the risks of vaccines as stated in medical journals. Visit: The International Medical Council on Vaccination http://www.vaccinationcouncil.org/

1. Research the history books to observe the benefits of vaccines. Untrue: History books inform us that many outbreaks of infectious diseases have been caused by vaccines.

1. Not vaccinating a child is playing Russian Roulette with your child’s life. Untrue: Morbidity (chronic illness and disability) is as much an indicator of children’s health as mortality (death). Mainstream science states chemicals have toxic effects on human health and vaccines inject many chemicals into the bloodstream of developing infants. This correlates with the significant increase in chronic illness in this generation of children. The opposite is true – vaccinating children is playing Russian roulette with children’s lives due to individual genetics.

1. Mainstream science says there is no risk from the mercury (in vaccines). Untrue: The dangers of mercury have been known for a long time and it has been removed from all other medical products.

1. Individuals who question vaccines believe in conspiracy theories. Untrue. This is a naïve comment as industry makes large profits from vaccines and industry representatives are on government policy advisory boards. It is an institutional bias or stacked deck – not a conspiracy theory.

1. Individuals speaking against vaccines are not medical doctors. Individuals do not need medical qualifications to assess the risk from an environmental health problem. It is the government that has chosen a medical solution to an environmental health problem. Consumers are stakeholders in this issue and entitled to be informed and participate in decisions regarding their health.

1. Andrew Wakefield was discredited for falsifying his results. Untrue. Ethical arguments were used to discredit Wakefield because the government has not done the science he is attempting to do. He is one of the few scientists that has attempted to investigate the effects of combining the children’s schedule of vaccines (13 vaccines) in infant monkey’s to determine the effects. Governments are currently experimenting on children without systematically monitoring the effects of vaccines in children (3).

1. Professor Peter McIntyre (Co –Director of the government NCIRS) states “If we were concerned about something causing harm we would be the first to put up our hands to stop it”. Untrue: The NCIRS has not funded an investigation into the correlation between the increased use of vaccines and the increase in chronic illness in children because they state it is “a coincidence”.

1. Anecdotal evidence of two babies who have died of whooping cough was used in this program to support the case for vaccines. This type of evidence should not be used to promote vaccines and if it is used for this purpose, the programmers have a duty to balance the story with two babies who have been damaged by vaccines (as many were by the flu vaccine in 2010).

1. Serious adverse events from vaccines are rare. Untrue: The health department cannot make this claim because they have never actively and systematically monitored the effects of vaccines in children over a long time period Eg. months – 10 years (3) (4).

I am copying this information to many of my contacts and the Human Rights Department because it is time the public, as consumers of vaccines, were involved in the debate on this issue. This issue results from the risks of an environmental health problem and as such it does not require consumers to have medical knowledge to assess the known risks from the medical literature.

I expect that you will be able to provide discussion on these comments or provide a proper public forum for a two way flow of information on these issues. The government is not answering the questions parents are asking but they are continuing to claim ‘vaccines are safe and effective’ without the scientific evidence.

Kind regards,

Judy Wilyman MSc

References:

1. Commonwealth Department of Health, 1945 – 1986, Official Yearbook of the Commonwealth of Australia, (Com.Year) No. 37 – 72.

2. Obomsawin R, 2009, Immunisation Graphs: Natural Infectious Disease Declines; Immunisation effectiveness; and Immunisation Dangers. Published on the Gaia website www.gaia.health.com/articles101/000123-InfectiousDiseaseVaccines

3. Stokes B, Government of Western Australia, Department of Health, August 2010, Ministerial Review into the Public Health Response into the Adverse Events to the seasonal Influenza Vaccine, www.health.wa.gov.au

4. Collignon P, Doshi P, Jefferson T, 2010, Adverse events following influenza vaccination in Australia – should we be surprised? BMJ Rapid Responses Published 7 May 2010