The powers that protect vaccination interests
Michael Wooldridge was no friend to either myself or the AVN. In his tenure as Minister for Health of Australia, when faced with 5 reported deaths from vaccination during a 19 month period (6/6/97-1/1/99), he stated that, 'It's more likely your child will die because of a meteorite falling from space than die from immunisation'.
When interveiewed recently (October 2009) by the Australian, 'A FORMER federal health minister has dismissed as "crackpots and conspiracy theorists" those who would actively discourage Australians from having their swine flu vaccine.' In the same interview, he was quoted as stating that, '"Their message is poisonous and insidious ... they sow seeds of doubt in the public's mind about what is essentially the single greatest advance in public health in the last 200 years,"
Wooldridge is probably more famous for the way in which he left government then for anything he actually did whilst in office. Immediately upon resigning his position, he took up a very lucrative position as a paid drug company lobbyist whose job it was - yes, believe it or not - to lobby government on behalf of big pharma. As a result of his actions, new regulations were put into place to require a minimum time period between when a public official leaves office and when they are allowed to work for someone whose business fell within the purview of their former portfolio.
The reason I bring this up now is because I received a very interesting phone call yesterday from one of our members - a health professional.
This gentleman was in the audience at a talk that Minister Wooldridge gave in the late 199os. During the question and answer session, he asked a question of the Minister regarding medicare coverage for those who see natural health practitioners.
Instead of answering the question, Wooldridge stated, I warn you. If you people oppose vaccination, it will be very bad for you in the future.
How is that? EVERYTHING seems to relate back to vaccination.
When the medical community becomes so powerful that government representatives appear to be doing their bidding, Ministers seem to be lining up cushy jobs with them before they've even left office, there is a real gap in trust and a need for transparency.
We are surrounded by pharmaceutical interests. It is bad here in Australia. It is even worse in the US.
I recently purchased a woman's magazine that I used to love when I lived in America - Woman's Day (not the same as the Australian version - this is a weekly publication). This particular edition was 122 pages plus cover (volume 73, Issue 4)
Out of those 122 pages, 20 pages are devoted to advertisements for prescription-only medications. If we include the ads for over-the counter drugs, that would add on approximately 10 more pages of advertising (not all of the OTC drug ads are full page - all of the prescription drug ads are at least 2 pages - there is one massive 6-page ad for SeroquelXR - a drug to treat bipolar disorder - the new disorder of choice). So almost 20% of this magazine that is read by millions of Americans is completely devoted to pushing drugs. And when I was in the US recently, I would guess than 50% of the ads on TV are for drug products as well.
What are the chances that these magazines would run an honest and unbiased story about drugs or vaccines and risk that amount of income? What are the chances that, were a drug company to submit an article about the benefits of one of their drugs, these magazines would say no? Or the TV stations? Or the radio networks? Where can we get honest reporting to help us make health choices when the mainstream media is owned - lock, stock and barrel - by big pharma?
Something has got to change. People have got to wake up.
Alarm bells are ringing but 90% of those who live in the developed world are sound asleep.
Guess those drugs are working the way they are meant to.