Does the WA Health Department care about science or children?
On May 31st, Judy Wilyman and I were due to attend a meeting that had been arranged with representatives of the WA Department of Health. That Monday night was the only time they were available for the entire week that I was due to be in Perth and it was 1 hour after my plane was due to land - I knew that I was cutting it close but it was so important that we got to ask questions about government health policy and how vaccination decisions were made.
Due to wild weather in Sydney, my plane got in over 30 minutes late and by the time I picked up the rental car and drove to the Health Dept offices, it was 7:30. I figured that we would still have 1/2 an hour to talk, but as I pulled into the car park, Judy met me at the car and said that the meeting had lasted less than 1/2 an hour and was a complete waste of time.
Below is a letter that Judy has sent to the HCC's Michelle Kosky who attended the meeting with her. This consumer organisation will hopefully take this complaint seriously. It is time to demand accountability of our government and our media for their lack of transparency, inclusion of vested interests masquerading as stakeholders on committees that make government health policy and for the outright lies and coverups that occur around this issue on an almost daily basis.
Dear Ms. Kosky,
RE: Meeting with Paul Effler and Donna Mak 7.00pm Monday 31.5.10
I would like to express my dissatisfaction at the answers provided by the Health Department representatives at the meeting on Monday evening (31.5.10). As you were present at this meeting and witnessed the proceedings, I would like to make a formal complaint to the Health Consumers Council (HCC) to ensure that the very real community concerns that we are expressing are addressed.
The brief answers provided by Dr. Effler were unsatisfactory to the community. In summary, there are 4 main comments that I would like him to provide supportive evidence for:
He stated he did not agree that running a fear campaign in the media based on the unconfirmed deaths of 3 children to influenza was unethical. The information regarding the risk of influenza to children is anecdotal information. Parents are entitled to scientific information on the actual risk of influenza to children. This includes the deaths due to influenza per year and the risk of complications to the majority of children. A heavy media campaign was based on these deaths which, at the time, were still subjected to a coroner’s report.
Dr. Effler stated, “he did not agree this was unethical. He had a different perspective”. But he provided no supportive arguments for this statement.
The fact is that there are no long-term studies of the combined schedule of vaccines in animals or infants. Not only hasn’t the schedule of vaccination against 12+ diseases in the first 12 months of life (comprising more than 30 vaccines) been trialled in animals, but it has not been monitored in long-term child health studies such as the large studies being carried out in WA at the moment. It is unethical to be telling parents this schedule is safe without this evidence because the chemicals in vaccines have synergistic, cumulative and latent effects which can only be determined from long-term studies (10-15 years). This policy is not based upon science.
Dr. Effler and Dr. Mak suggested these studies did not need to be done. Please provide the supportive evidence to explain why not.
Dr. Effler also stated he did not agree that the immunisation policies for parents were coercive. Vaccination is an invasive medical procedure for healthy children and parents are required to fill out a conscientious objector’s form to refuse this procedure. The form is not openly advertised to parents and it must be signed by a doctor for parents to receive immunisation benefits. Many parents are led to believe vaccination is compulsory because of these requirements. A non-coercive policy is one which doesn’t require you to fill out a form to refuse the procedure. Please provide evidence to support the claim this policy is not coercive.
The community is very concerned about the Gardasil vaccine and we would like to know why girls in schools are not being informed of the risks of HPV infection and the risks of cervical cancer in Australia before they are given the vaccine. Why are schools not required to educate the girls about this disease? It is stated in the health department literature that although HPV infection is very common in women it rarely leads to cancer in Australia and this is because environmental factors are required to trigger cancer development. This disease is only a high risk in developing countries. Why are girls/women not being given this information?
Parents have a right to be fully informed about this preventative medical procedure and they also have a right to be consulted in policy development as they are a main stakeholder in their children’s health. There are no consumer representatives on vaccine advisory boards that have been chosen by consumers and there are no forums for the public to discuss immunisation or be properly educated on these policies. It is well known that many of the representatives on vaccine advisory boards have conflicts of interest that are not openly revealed to the public.
In addition, the media is being allowed to educate the public on vaccines and much of the information they provide is anecdotal evidence and misinformation. For example, the swine flu campaign and the cervical cancer campaign. This is unacceptable and provides further evidence of coercive vaccination policies for healthy individuals. The health department has stated that they cannot control how the media reports on vaccination issues yet Prof. Stanley has openly criticized non-government organisations for putting out misinformation – when in fact they are not. The public would like to know why the health department is supporting the media in putting out misinformation.
The health department is breaching its duty of care to the public by allowing the media to present misinformation on the need for vaccines. The public trusts the health department to provide accurate information about diseases.
I have provided supportive data for the issues we would like addressed in the attached documents and I would appreciate the health department addressing these serious concerns with supportive evidence.
Yours sincerely,
Judy Wilyman (on behalf of the community)
PhD researcher
Environmental Science Department
Murdoch University