The Safe Vaccine Debate – 1. Dr Judy Wilyman’s Report: Newsletter #208 – Part 1: The Suppression of Scientific Debate on Vaccination in Australia 2. Robert Kennedy’s World Mercury Project: Natural Measles Immunity—Better Protection and More Long-Term Benefits than Vaccines 3. Elizabeth Hart’s Overvaccination Project: Request for Cochrane Review Withdrawal for HPV Vaccine

1. Dr Judy Wilyman’s Report:
Newsletter #208 – Part 1: The Suppression of Scientific Debate on Vaccination in Australia

17 August 2018
The Perth billboard displaying the question “Do you know what is in a vaccine?” re-appeared in Perth this week with our WA Health Minister, Roger Cook, claiming that the board was put up by “anti-vaxxers” who are “providing lies, devious and deceitful misinformation about vaccines” to the public.
Roger Cook’s comments are false and he is spreading false and misleading information about vaccines to the public – and he is basing government policies on this false information.
Yesterday I did an interview with channel 9 in Perth that exposed the false and misleading information that he is providing to the public about the community’s concerns about vaccines.
Perth Channel 9 decided not to provide this 20 minute interview of the community’s concerns in its news bulletin on the Perth billboard last night.
Fortunately I 
brought my own photographer to film the interview having had several years experience with Australian journalists.

Here is a link to the 20 minute interview with Perth Channel 9 (16 August 2018) that explains the scientific evidence that supports the community’s right to choice in vaccination.

Roger Cook ignored the community’s concerns in the news bulletin last night (16 August 2018) and he is still peddling false and misleading information about vaccines in the media that will harm human health. Previously he has stated that asking about the ingredients of vaccines is a “risk to public health” which is clearly false information as the opposite is true.
He also emphasised that he “would look into legislation that would ban this type of promotion” – another measure that would harm human health.

On 24 June 2018 I wrote to the WA health minister, Roger Cook, to request answers to the community’s concerns about vaccination policies and to request that we meet with him to discuss our concerns. He did not address our concerns in his response and he did not organise a meeting. On 24 June I also wrote to the health reporter at the West Australian newspaper about the communities concerns about vaccines. I did not receive a response to this letter.
Australian health ministers and the Australian media are providing false and misleading information on the risks of vaccines to the public by claiming these risks are  “anti-vaccination material” and preventing public debate on this topic.

This is not demonstrating that they are supporting the public’s interest in government vaccination policies. It indicates that they are protecting the vested interests of the powerful medical-industry lobby groups that are advising them on vaccination policies – the Australian Medical Association (AMA), the Australian Skeptics Inc / SAVN / PHAA, the Friends of Science in Medicine – lobby group names  that are deceptive to the public because they hide the vested interests that they are promoting in government vaccination policies.

Please stand up to the abuse and bullying of powerful industry-medical lobby groups and fight for our right to choice in the use of vaccines in Australia. Here is the 20 minute interview with Perth Channel 9 (16 August 2018) that provides the academic arguments that suppport the community’s right to choice in this medical procedure.

Next week I will provide you with Part 2 of The Suppression of the Vaccination Debate in Australia which provides further evidence of how mandatory vaccination policies have been implemented in Australia – in social welfare policies and institutions (not Public Health Acts) – based on false information about the safety and efficacy of vaccines.

Judy Wilyman PhD
Bachelor of Science, University of NSW
Diploma of Education (Science), University of Wollongong
Master of Science (Population Health), Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Wollongong.
PhD in The Science and Politics of the Australian Government’s Vaccination Program, UOW School of Humanities and Social Inquiry. 


2. Robert Kennedy’s World Mercury Project: 
Natural Measles Immunity—Better Protection and More Long-Term Benefits than Vaccines

By the World Mercury Project team

Stories about vaccines in the popular press tend to be unabashedly one-sided, generally portraying vaccination as a universal (and essential) “good” with virtually no down side.
This unscientific bias is particularly apparent in news reports about measles, which often are little more than hysterical diatribes against the unvaccinated.

Although public health authorities have made a case for measles eradication since the early 1980s, 50-plus years of mass measles vaccination and high levels of vaccine coverage have not managed to stop wild and vaccine-strain measles virus from circulating.
Routine measles vaccination also has had some worrisome consequences.
Perhaps the most significant of these is the shifting of measles risks to age groups formerly protected by natural immunity.
Specifically, modern-day occurrences of measles have come to display a bimodal pattern in which “the two most affected populations are infants aged less than 1 year and adults older than 20 years”—the very population groups in whom measles complications can be the most clinically severe.
As one group of researchers has stated, “The common knowledge indicating that measles [as well as mumps and rubella] are considered as benign diseases dates back to the pre-vaccine area and is not valid anymore.”

A little history

Before the introduction of measles vaccines in the 1960s, nearly all children contracted measles before adolescence, and parents and physicians accepted measles as a “more or less inevitable part of childhood.” In industrialized countries, measles morbidity and mortality already were low and declining, and many experts questioned whether a vaccine was even needed or would be used.

Measles outbreaks in the pre-vaccine era also exhibited variable lethality; in specific populations living in close quarters (such as military recruits and residents of crowded refugee camps), measles mortality could be high, but even so, “mortality rates differed more than 10-fold across camps/districts, even though conditions were similar.”
For decades both prior to and following the introduction of measles vaccination, those working in public health understood that poor nutrition and compromised health status were key contributors to measles-related mortality, with measles deaths occurring primarily “in individuals below established height and weight norms.”
study of measles mortality in war-torn Bangladesh in the 1970s found that most of the children who died were born either in the two years preceding or during a major famine.

Moms who get measles vaccines instead of experiencing the actual illness have less immunity to offer their babies, resulting in a ‘susceptibility gap’…

Measles vaccination and infants

Before the initiation of mass vaccination programs for measles, mothers who had measles as children protected their infants through the transfer of maternal antibodies.
However, naturally acquired immunity and vaccine-induced immunity are qualitatively different.
Moms who get measles vaccines instead of experiencing the actual illness have less immunity to offer their babies, resulting in a susceptibility gap between early infancy and the first ostensibly protective measles-mumps-rubella (MMR) vaccine at 12 to 15 months of age.

A Luxembourg-based study published in 2000 confirmed the susceptibility gap in an interesting way.
The researchers compared serum samples from European adolescents who had been vaccinated around 18 months of age to serum samples from Nigerian mothers who had not been vaccinated but had experienced natural measles infection at a young age.
They then looked at the capacity of the antibodies detected in the serum to “neutralize” various wild-type measles virus strains.
The researchers found that the sera from mothers with natural measles immunity substantially outperformed the sera from the vaccinated teens: only two of 20 strains of virus “resisted neutralization” in the Nigerian mothers’ group, but 10 of 20 viral strains resisted neutralization in the vaccination group.
This complex analysis led the authors to posit greater measles vulnerability in infants born to vaccinated mothers.

The Luxembourg researchers also noted that in the Nigerian setting, where widespread vaccination took hold far later than in Europe, the mothers in question had had “multiple contacts with endemic wild-type viruses” and that these repeat contacts had served an important booster function.
One of the authors later conducted a study that examined this booster effect more closely.
That study found that re-exposure to wild-type measles resulted in “a significantly prolonged antibody boost in comparison to [boosting through] re-vaccination.”
Taking note of expanding vaccine coverage around the world and reduced circulation of wild-type measles virus, the researchers concluded in a third study that “many vaccines may eventually become susceptible to vaccine-modified measles…and consequently complicate measles control strategies.”

Bimodal distribution

With the disappearance of maternally endowed protection, what has happened to measles incidence in infants?
A review of 53 European studies (2001–2011) focusing on the burden of measles in those “too young to be immunized” found that as many as 83% of measles cases in some studies and under 1% in other studies were in young infants.

At the same time, the predictions of an increased percentage of measles cases in older teens and adults have also come true.
Reporting on a higher “death-to-case ratio” in the over-15 group in 1975 (not many years after widespread adoption of measles vaccination in the U.S.), a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) researcher wrote that the higher ratio could be “indicative of a greater risk of complications from measles, exposing the unprotected adult to the potential of substantial morbidity.”

In recent measles outbreaks in Europe and the U.S., large proportions of cases are in individuals aged 15 or older:

  • In the U.S., 57 of the 85 measles cases (67%) reported in 2016 were at least 15 years of age.
    U.S. researchers also have conservatively estimated that at least 9% of measles cases occur in vaccinated individuals.
  • Among several thousand laboratory-confirmed cases of measles and an additional thousand “probable” or “possible” cases in Italy in 2017, 74% were in individuals at least 15 years of age, and 42% of those were hospitalized.
  • Examining a smaller number of laboratory-confirmed measles cases in Si cily(N=223), researchers found that half of the cases were in adults age 19 or older, and clinical complications were more common in adults compared to children (45% versus 26%).
    Likewise, about 44% of measles cases in France from 2008 to 2011 (N=305) were in adults (with an average age in their mid-20s), and the adults were more than twice as likely to be hospitalized as infected children.

Time to reevaluate

Pre-vaccination, most residents of industrialized countries accepted measles as a normal and even trivial childhood experience.
Many people, including clinicians, also understood the interaction between measles and nutrition, and, in particular, the links between vitamin A deficiency and measles: “Measles in a child is more likely to exacerbate any existing nutritional deficiency, and children who are already deficient in vitamin A are at much greater risk of dying from measles.”
Instead of inching the age of initial measles vaccination down to ever-younger ages, as is increasingly being proposed, there could be greater value in supporting children’s nutrition and building overall health—through practical interventions that “improve[e]…existing dietaries through the inclusion of relatively inexpensive foods that are locally available and well within the reach of the poor.”

Ironically, while acute childhood infections such as measles protect against cancer, the rise of chronic childhood illnesses (disproportionately observed in vaccinated children) is linked to elevated cancer risks.

There are many other trade-offs of measles vaccination that remain largely unexplored, including the important role of fever-inducing infectious childhood diseases in reducing subsequent cancer risks.
Ironically, while acute childhood infections such as measles protect against cancer, the rise of chronic childhood illnesses (disproportionately observed in vaccinated children) is linked to elevated cancer risks.
These trade-offs—along with the dangerous loss of infant access to protective maternal antibodies and the higher rates of measles illness and complications in older teens and adults—suggest that measles vaccination deserves renewed scrutiny.


3. Elizabeth Hart’s Overvaccination Project:
Request for Cochrane Review Withdrawal for HPV Vaccine

i2P Editor Note: The UK Pharmaceutical Journal reported on 14 August 2018: “An ‘urgent’ investigation is being launched by Cochrane into its review of human papilloma virus (HPV) vaccine safety after criticisms from researchers about its findings.
According to BMJ Evidence Based Medicine, a Cochrane HPV vaccine review, published in May 2017, which had given the all-clear to vaccines designed to prevent cervical cancer, did not include all the relevant trials and ignored possible sources of bias.
Critics said the review “failed to meet the needs of citizens or healthcare providers who rely on Cochrane reviews”.
The review based its conclusions on 26 studies involving 73,428 women.
But it could have included as many as 46 trials involving more than 120,000 women, according to researchers Lars Jørgensen and Peter Gøtzsche from the Nordic Cochrane Centre in Copenhagen, and Tom Jefferson of the Centre for Evidence Based Medicine in Oxford.”
Elizabeth Hart writes:

For the attention of:
Dr David Tovey
Editor in Chief

Dr Tovey, the recently published Cochrane HPV vaccine review[1] is severely compromised and cannot be trusted due to the conflicts of interest of authors on the original protocol and the final review document.

Due to serious conflicts of interests, Cochrane should withdraw this review.

Dr Tovey, in February 2016, I challenged you directly about protocol author Lauri Markowitz’s conflicts of interest, see previous correspondence in the email thread below. 
Catherine Riva et al raised the problem of conflicts of interest in December 2014 in a comment on the original protocol[2], specifically pointing out the failure to properly disclose conflicts of interest by Lauri Markowitz and Marc Arbyn.
Lauri Markowitz is an employee of the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), and is involved in HPV vaccination promotion.
The US Government benefits from the sale of HPV vaccine products, i.e. a letter to Dr Eric Suba from the US National Archives and Records Administration (November 2010) discusses royalties the US National Institutes of Health (NIH) receives from the sales of HPV vaccines.  
Indicating a stunning lack of transparency, it appears the value of these royalties is kept secret, i.e. it is protected from disclosure under the US Freedom of Information Act. (See copy of letter attached.)
The NIH Office of Technology Transfer (OTT) oversaw the patenting of the HPV vaccine technology and licensed the technology to Merck, the maker of Gardasil, which sought approval for Gardasil around the world, working with the PATH group, with support from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, in distributing the HPV vaccine in developing countries.[3]  The HPV vaccine technology was also licensed to GlaxoSmithKline[4].
The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation has been very influential in promoting HPV vaccination[5]. In regards to the Cochrane HPV vaccine review, Cochrane has a conflict of interest in that it is a beneficiary of Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation funding, i.e. to “support the development of Cochrane’s next generation evidence system, with a specific focus on maternal and child health”.[6]  The World Mercury Project has provided critical analysis of Cochrane’s conflicts of interest via the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and other organisations[7].
Dr Tovey, as a matter of urgency, Cochrane needs to consider conflicts of interest in its undertakings, as these are compromising Cochrane’s mission to provide credible and unbiased information to support informed health decision-making.
In regards to the Cochrane HPV vaccine review, it’s alarming that an employee of a US government agency promoting HPV vaccination was involved in the Cochrane protocol to evaluate the immunogenicity, clinical efficacy, and safety of HPV vaccines when there is a clear conflict of interest, i.e. it is in the US Government’s interest to justify and defend the use of HPV vaccine products. 
How and why was Lauri Markowitz’s participation in this Cochrane review approved by Cochrane?
In my previous correspondence to you in February 2016, I noted Markowitz is an author on many papers about HPV vaccination, for example Prevalence of HPV After Introduction of the Vaccination Program in the United States[8], a paper which received acclaim in the mainstream media, see for example this article published in Forbes magazine: HPV Infection Rates Plummet in Young Women Due to Vaccine[9].
I also noted Markowitz was on the US Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices’ Human Papillomavirus Vaccine Working group in 2006, and that she is the ‘corresponding preparer’ on the ACIP’s document recommending implementation of HPV vaccination[10].
I queried how Markowitiz could possibly be an objective and independent reviewer of the literature regarding HPV vaccination, and also queried on what basis Lauri Markowitz was engaged to conduct the Cochrane review of HPV vaccines.
Your response to me on 1 March 2016 included: “We can’t govern the opinions that review authors hold although we are stricter than other journals about conflicts of interests – in that declaration is not always sufficient. We have safeguards in place to avoid bias due to non financial conflicts although I acknowledge these cannot currently be fully controlled – but these include insisting on teams of authors, peer review at both the protocol and review stage, detailed editing by the appropriate Cochrane Review Group plus oversight by my Editorial Unit.”
It appears that Cochrane does not have an effective system to evaluate conflicts of interest either of Cochrane itself or its authors.
Dr Tovey, you did not clarify on what basis Lauri Markowitz was engaged to conduct the Cochrane review of HPV vaccines.
Can you please explain how this came about?  Who initiated the HPV vaccine review protocol?
Subsequently Lauri Markowitz was not included as an author on the final Cochrane HPV vaccine review, so it appears there was an appreciation this was not appropriate.  
But the fact remains she was influential in the development of the protocol, which was acknowledged in the final review, along with her “invaluable advice and contributions by reviewing the results and discussion sections”.
As a citizen interested in HPV vaccination I had hoped to rely on an objective and unbiased review by Cochrane, but I do not trust this review and do not consider it to be a document of value.
Dr Tovey, the Cochrane HPV vaccine review is severely compromised. It is demonstrably not independent and cannot be trusted. 
The Cochrane HPV vaccine review should be withdrawn. 
Cochrane also needs to urgently consider its own position in regards to conflicts of interest, and the impact on Cochrane’s credibility, independence and trustworthiness.
I request your response on this matter.
Elizabeth Hart
1. Marc Arbyn, Lan Xu, Cindy Simoens and Pierre PL Martin-Hirsch. Prophylactic vaccination against human papillomaviruses to prevent cervical cancer and its precursors. Cochrane Systematic Review. Published 9 May 2018.
2. Marc Arbyn, Andrew Bryant, Pierre PL Martin-Hirsch, Lan Xu, Cindy Simoens and Lauri Markowitz. Prophylactic vaccination against human papillomaviruses to prevent cervical cancer and its precursors. Cochrane Protocol. Published 30 December 2013.
3. NIH Technology Licensed to Merck for HPV Vaccine:
5. See for example Summary of Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation-supported HPV Vaccine Partner Activities:
6. Cochrane announces support of new donor:
7. Are Cochrane Reviews Truly “Independent and Transparent”? World Mercury Project. 5 June 2018:
8. Markowitz LE et al. Prevalence of HPV After Introduction of the Vaccination Program in the United States. Pediatrics. 2016 Mar;137(3):e20151968. doi: 10.1542/peds.2015-1968. Epub 2016 Feb 22.
9. Tara Haelle. HPV Infection Rates Plummet In Young Women Due To Vaccine. Forbes. 23 February 2016:
10. Quadrivalent Human Papillomavirus Vaccine. Recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP):

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *