Reporting of the Adverse Reactions 24.04.10
The following guest blog is from Judy Wilyman, PhD researcher at Murdoch University. Please read this information and wonder why the Telethon Institute and the WA Government did not let parents know this information before urging them to get their children vaccinated. They also did not let them know that they were part of a study - you would not expect this sort of lack of morality in a developing country - let alone in Australia.
The West Australian
It is stated on p.8 that there was widespread fear in the community when 3 sick babies and toddlers died from influenza. This is not the full story. The media created fear by reporting the deaths of 3 children to influenza even though 2 of the children were not confirmed to have died from influenza. The deaths were subject to a coroner’s report whilst the media used their deaths in an advertising campaign for the flu program in WA that was sponsored by the pharmaceutical companies. (This is covered in my article). This program is not being run in other states.
It is stated that vulnerable groups need disease-fighting vaccines (p.8). This could be argued if there is a large percentage of children that are at risk of a disease and if you have a vaccine that is proven effective. The information in my paper does not support this situation for children and influenza. The government must provide support for this statement to the public.
It is stated that unvaccinated children benefit from the low rates of diseases because the rest of us vaccinate (p.8). Again this is an unsupported statement. There is no evidence that this is true. If it was true, governments would provide the public with the vaccination status of children who get these diseases. The government has never done this. It is well documented that vaccinated children are still getting these diseases so until parents are informed about how many still get the diseases then parents should not be coerced into this policy.
The Weekend Australian
In the first statement parents are told not to get the flu vaccine until further advice. Underneath this statement, the Chief Medical Officer (CMO) states ‘there are no concerns about the safety of the swine flu vaccine’. This is untrue. Why is the CMO not telling the public the truth?
The paper states “Clinical tests were never carried out on the latest seasonal flu vaccine – a first time combination of seasonal flu with the feared swine flu H1N1”. Why have parents not been told this before they vaccinate? And why are they not told the ingredients of vaccines? This amounts to experimentation.
Free flu vaccine has not been offered to children in other states in the same way that it has been offered in WA. There has been heavy media advertising of the dangers of flu to children and the need to get under 5’s vaccinated. Adverse reaction data from other states will therefore not be comparable.
The CMO claims “for the first time in the world the flu shot ….combined 2 strains of seasonal flu as well as H1N1”. This is untrue. Either the journalists have misreported it or the CMO has made a mistake. The seasonal flu vaccine has contained AH1N1, AH3N2 and type B for many years. Perhaps the reporters meant to say swine H1N1 2009. It is important for the public to know that H1N1 is a strain humans have been exposed to for many years and the new strain of H1N1 contains a combination of AH1N1 and genetic material from birds and swine. (This is covered in my article.
It is stated that the combined flu shot – Panvax was not subjected to any clinical trials but tested on 400 children before it was released. This is information parents need to know before they vaccinate. The genetic variation in the population is completely unrepresented by 400 individuals and genetics plays a large role in adverse reactions and pre-disposition to disease. Introducing vaccines without testing on animals or in clinical trials and not informing parents of this is an unethical practice. No other drug is allowed to be introduced onto the market without proper clinical trials yet this is standard practice for vaccines – a drug for healthy individuals.
It is then stated by A.Prof. Peter Richmond that “As with each seasonal influenza vaccine this year’s vaccine isn’t subject to specific trials in children before it is used”. I would suggest that parents would like to know this and are entitled to know this before it is heavily promoted to children in a campaign funded by the pharmaceutical companies. Again this is unethical and it breaches the trust parents have in the government and medical profession.
The above statement is supported by the highest authority at the government immunization surveillance unit (NCIRS). Prof. Booy says the new seasonal flu vaccine was tested in adults. Is this good science? Chemicals and foreign protein in vaccines are 10 times more reactive in children than adults – testing the vaccine in adults and then giving it to children is not providing scientific evidence for the safety of the drug. This article states repeatedly that ‘this vaccine is safe’ but provides no evidence to support it. Prof. Booy even states “the combination of flu strains could not be the cause of the problems”. Really? Is this a scientist speaking as the director of the NCIRS. The public expects scientific evidence not unsupported statements.
Judy Wilyman
PHD researcher Murdoch University.