Professor Fiona Stanley was our Australian of the Year in 2003 for Children’s Health so it was disappointing to read the story in the West Australian newspaper titled “Professor Fiona Stanley speaks out against ‘evil’ anti-vaxers” (Regina Titelius, 24 April 2017). Instead of addressing the vaccination issues that thousands of parents are concerned about Fiona Stanley has stooped to insulting these educated parents with unsupported assertions and name calling. She falsely claims that it is only because parents cannot see the diseases that they are questioning the safety of vaccines. She states that parents are ‘complacent’ because the diseases are now less visible but this is not supported by her own public health research – and she will not address this for the public. In this newspaper story she insults parents who are asking valid questions about vaccines by claiming they ‘are quite evil and give misinformation to parents which is very scary’. Here is my reply to Fiona Stanley:
Fiona Stanley, I agree it would be very evil if parents were getting misinformation about vaccines from authoritative sources. What if this misinformation was coming from powerful scientific organisations with vested interests in vaccines (for example, the Telethon Institute for Children’s Health) that use industry-funded studies with restricted parameters to make claims about the safety and efficacy of vaccines? And what if this misinformation was being promoted by the corporate-sponsored self-regulated media that also has a vested interest in vaccines. As you know science is a system of power as well as knowledge because of the vested interests. How evil and scary would that be?”
I am intrigued that Fiona Stanley has never addressed parents concerns about the disabilities and illness being caused by vaccines. I have been contacting her with these serious concerns from my university research since 2008 and she has never answered the questions I have asked. In the newspaper story Fiona Stanley uses claims about the polio vaccines in the 1950’s to promote the use of more and more new vaccines in 2017. The use of one vaccine does not support the mandatory use of 16+ vaccines in 2017 when there are no epidemics of these diseases either now or before the new vaccines were introduced into developed countries. Fiona Stanley’s own research supports this statement (public health research) and if she would like to dispute these historical facts the concerned public would look forward to her response and evidence. This requires open and transparent debate not insults and ridicule.
It is patronising and simplistic for Fiona Stanley to suggest that vaccination rates are only pushed up when there is ‘an epidemic and kids die and get very sick’. The parents who are questioning vaccines want a proper scientific debate about the use of vaccines and Fiona Stanley would know that the science needs to stand up to scrutiny, particularly from the consumers of these medical drugs. It should not be suppressed by fear mongering and name calling. Thousands of children are becoming chronically ill from the over-use of vaccines, many are dying or becoming permanently disabled, and the public health authorities are ignoring this damage. WA’s leading child health expert, Fiona Stanley is ignoring these children with her refusal to address the questions and science that educated parents/professionals are presenting to her and this is what many would describe as evil and scary.
The WA newspaper story ends with the statement that “Just having one child die or be severely disabled is one too many”. Apparently this statement is only true if the child dies or is disabled from an infectious agent but not from the known neurotoxins and other chemicals present in the ever-increasing vaccination schedule that has never been tested for safety. The evidence for this statement is present in my PhD thesis published by the University of Wollongong. It has even become acceptable in the last decade to promote vaccines in the media using parents who have had a child harmed by an infectious disease. In the past this evidence from parents was always described as emotional anecdotal evidence and it was not used as the foundation for vaccination policies let alone used to promote vaccines to the public with complete disregard for the children that are harmed by vaccines.
Until public health authorities are prepared to publicly debate this science (and to date they have not) and address the issues of ‘undone science’ that I have discussed in my academic research, I would recommend to parents that vaccinating children with multiple vaccines is not in the best interests of their child and there is significant evidence to suggest that government vaccination policies are causing more harm than good in the population. I would also inform Fiona Stanley and journalists that they are incorrectly using the word ‘anti-vaxer’ to stigmatise the educated parents who have researched vaccines. A more accurate word would be ‘ex-vaxers’ as the majority of parents who are now choosing not to vaccinate started by vaccinating their children.