The selection of the science on the control of infectious diseases for presentation at some academic conferences has been observed since 2010. At this time the Public Health Association of Australia (PHAA) declined my abstract on the HPV vaccine that was submitted for presentation at the 12th Australian Immunisation Conference; a conference run by the PHAA that is 100% funded by the pharmaceutical companies and government. This was academic research that was published in 2011 in the conference proceedings for the British Society of Ecological Medicine (BSEM) and in the Infectious Agents and Cancer Journal in 2013.
Many conferences are now selecting against independent research that opposes vested interests in public health policies. Independent research often affects the profits of pharmaceutical companies because clinical studies can be designed with different parameters. This strategy of selecting the desired science for presentation and dissemination is being used to give thte appearance that there is a consensus on the science of vaccination. This appearance of a ‘consensus’ is enhanced by the intimidation and bullying tactics from industry-lobby groups in public debates of vaccination. These lobby groups tarnish people’s reputations and hence their career and livelihoood.
The HPV vaccine was a controversial vaccine that was promoted as a preventative measure against cervical cancer for adolescent girls and women in Australia in 2007. At this time the risk of dying from cervical cancer in Australia was 1.7 per 100,000 women: this is a very low risk. Further, the incidence of this cancer in the Australian community was 6.9 cases per 100,000 – again a very low incidence rate. The vaccine was approved for adolescent boys in Australia from 2009 on the claim that it protects against anal cancer in men. The information that the government failed to present to the public was that there are over 20-strains of HPV associated with the development of cervical cancer but an infection of any strain of HPV on its own does not cause cancer – even the high-risk strains of HPV.
Here are 5 abstracts for academic papers that I have had published in peer-reviewed journals prior to 2010. The PHAA published my article on the whooping cough vaccine in their PHAA Newsletter in 2009 and the other publications are listed below the abstracts:
- Evidence for Coercive Immunisation Policies in Australia: How ethical is this policy? Abstract
- Questioning the Evidence for HPV Vaccine as a Prevention for Cervical Cancer. Abstract
- Questioning the evidence for Vaccinating against Bordetella Pertussis (Whooping Cough) in Australia. Abstract
- The Evidence for Childhood Influenza in Australia: Should Children be Immunised? Abstract
- Investigating the Evidence for the Promotion of Swine Flu Vaccine. Abstract
My article on the adverse reactions to the childhood influenza vaccine that occurred during the West Australian trial of this vaccine in 2010 was published on the VacTruth.com website. This article was titled: Adverse Reactions to Flu Vaccine in Children 2010
Below are my publications and presentations from 2009:
Presentation at the Australian National Health Promotion Conference in Perth in May 2009, The Ethics of Childhood Influenza Immunisation
Presentation at the Murdoch University Postgraduate Conference. This paper was titled: Should Australian Children be Vaccinated? (See article above)
A summary article of my whooping cough research titled Is the Whooping Cough Vaccine Effective? (referenced copy) was published in the Public Health Association of Australia (PHAA) Intouch Newsletter in April 2009. When I submitted my article to Michael Moore at the PHAA he contacted Peter McIntyre, the Director of the National Centre for Immunisation Research and Surveillance (NCIRS) and asked him to provide a response to my article. Both articles were then published side-by-side in the PHAA Newsletter (April 2009).
The difference is that I provided a fully referenced copy of my paper and to date I have not seen a fully referenced copy of Peter McIntyre’s response – even though I requested it. The references are essential to assess the validity of the arguments being presented. These references must be dated prior to 2009 (when the paper was submitted) because updated references can be designed with criteria (parameters) that will support the desired outcome.
National Health Promotion Association Conference (18 – 19 May Perth 2009)
- Coercive and Mandatory Immunisation: how ethical is this policy? (Poster)
- Childhood Influenza Immunisation: how is this program promoted and evaluated? (Oral presentation). See article above.
Australasian College of Environmental and Nutritional Medicine (ACNEM), A new strain of influenza or a change in surveillance? Vol 28, No 4, Dec 2009
Poster Presentation 2009
The USA National Vaccine Information Centre (NVIC) Show Us the Science Give us the Choice The 4th International Public Conference on Vaccination
Natural Health and Vegetarian Life, 2009, Questioning the Evidence for Childhood Immunisation. Plus a brochure on Childhood Vaccination: Investigate the Risks, Autumn edition