AVSN: Truth News Radio interview
WARNINGThe Australian Vaccination-Skeptics Network is the subject of a current health warning issued by the NSW Health Care Complaints Commission. The warning, in part, states:
"The Commission considers that AVN's dissemination of misleading, misrepresented and incorrect information about vaccination engenders fear and alarm and is likely to detrimentally affect the clinical management or care of its readers."
"Given the issues identified with the information disseminated by AVN, the Commission urges general caution is exercised when using AVN's website or Facebook page to research vaccination and to consult other reliable sources, including speaking to a medical practitioner, to make an informed decision."
For accurate information about vaccination, please visit the Immunise Australia Program website and I highly recommend reading Immunisation Myths and Realities: responding to arguments against immunisation.
Host 1: Hereward Fenton, Truth News Radio Australia
Host 2: Josh Jackson, Truth News Radio Australia
Guest: Meryl Dorey, Australian Vaccination-Skeptics Network
Date: 29 August 2008
Hereward: We present a special feature on the question of vaccination and the Big Brother state. A Sydney family is on the run after refusing to have their newborn child vaccinated for hepatitis B. And I'll be speaking to a representative from an Australian group who believes it's a parent's right to choose what's best for their child. So get ready for a ground breaking discussion on a matter of great concern for our country and the future of democracy. Tonight, I'm talking to Meryl Dorey from the Australian Vaccination Network. Welcome, Meryl, to the show.Source: TNRA 29 August 2008
Meryl: Thanks, Hereward.
Hereward: It's great to have you on the show.
Meryl Dorey is a mother of 4 children aged between 12 and 19 years. Her eldest child had several severe reactions to his vaccinations - events which started her on the path to investigating this issue more thoroughly. Through more than 18 years of exhaustive research in medical journals and medical texts, Meryl has come to the conclusion that for a certain proportion of the population, the benefits of vaccination do not outweigh the risks.
And I was just reading from your bio there Meryl, and I it's really great the way you've presented the case in a very balanced way, and you're not coming at it from a fanatical position. You're coming at it from more of a balanced skeptical position. Would that, does that sound correct?
Meryl: Yes, we never try and tell anyone what they should and shouldn't do, it's got to be a parent's choice. But a lot of people seem to think that just questioning vaccination is wrong, or unreasonable. We say that vaccination is a medical science, that nothing in medical science is above question.
Meryl: So, people need to be looking at the issue.
Hereward: The issue tonite, which we're really focussed on, which was a breaking story last week, seems to have gone a little bit underground in the media in the last few days. The story which was posted in the Sydney Morning Herald on Saturday states a Sydney couple was on the run with their two day old baby after the Department of Community Services took out a Supreme Court order to have the boy vaccinated against hepatitis B. The parents fled their home on Thursday to avoid police and Department of Community Services officers after they refused to have their son vaccinated at the Royal Prince Alfred Hospital.
Now, I really want to get into the details of this case, but I think before we address the specifics of this, I'd really just like to get a little bit of an overview from you, Meryl, about where you stand on hepatitis B vaccination and in particular, where you stand on vaccinations more generally. Any insight you can give us on what you've learned from all your research which by the looks of it, is quite a lot. I know it's a tough call but if you can possibly summarise in a few minutes and distil your immense years of research, would be great.
Meryl: Well, it's not easy but I'll do my best.
With hepatitis B, hep B is a disease of intravenous drug users and it's also a disease that can be transmitted through sexual contact. So, why we in Australia and many other, but certainly not all developed countries, are giving a hepatitis B vaccine to newborns within 72 hours of birth - I really don't know.
I don't know too many newborns who are injecting illegal drugs or who are having sex. So, basically, a newborn is not at risk of hepatitis B infection, because hepatitis B is something that takes a certain behaviour that most newborns don't participate in.
Josh: Well, that's quite similar to the HPV vaccine.
Meryl: Very much so.
Josh: Giving these vaccines, these experimental vaccines to newborns and they want to push it to really early ages now. I mean, they're not at the moment, but they want to.
Meryl: Yes, the Government has already said that starting next year, the HPV or so called cervical cancer vaccine, is going to be administered to infants. And not only infant girls but infant boys, which is pretty amazing because I don't know too many boys who have a cervix. And this is a vaccine for cervical cancer, it makes one wonder why. But the government has said that because boys will grow up to have sex with girls they need to do this to protect their future partners and we have to be giving them this when they're infants which is [meryl talked over by interviewer here].
Hereward: That is extraordinary. I mean, I've read a little bit about the controversy over the HPV vaccine, and I know that the HPV virus is widely present in the population, and the connection between the virus and the cancer is a little bit tenuous. I know that an Australian won the Australian of the Year prize for the vaccine... Obviously, I'm not a medical expert and neither is Josh, but we've basically coming at this from the perspective of trying to understand why the government and I guess the pharmaceutical industry are working so much hand in glove to do this. We're sort of almost at a loss to understand why other than there is a profit motive, I mean [Meryl says "yes"] there's clearly a profit motive from the pharmaceutical.
But just getting back to this overall controversy over vaccines because I've engaged in a number of discussions with people over the years, and I've talked to various natural health people and I've done my own research and what I've come up with is an understanding that the efficacy of vaccines has never really been proven, even going back to the smallpox vaccine. Because there's evidence that infectious diseases were declining at a very steady rate before vaccination was introduced. Some diseases were never the subject of vaccinations and they continued to decline without vaccination. In some cases, you have epidemics after vaccination has been introduced.
Meryl: That's right.
Hereward: And it seems an incredibly unscientific discipline.
Meryl: Unscientific is a great term for it because vaccination is supposed to be a medical science, and yet, no vaccine... We've been using vaccines since the late 1700's. Edward Jenner was the first person who brought them in and that was the smallpox vaccine. And in the 200 years or more that we've been using, I think it was 1787 that was the 200th anniversary of vaccination, in the 200 years since we've been using vaccinations, no vaccine has undergone what's called a double-blind, crossover placebo study. This is the gold standard of medical science.
Josh: That's unbelievable.
Meryl: That's right. And that is where one group will be given the vaccine and another group is given a placebo, which is a totally inert substance - it could be a saline solution, could be a sugar pill, that sort of thing. And that is the only way to prove safety and effectiveness. Neither group knows who's getting what, neither the researchers don't know who's getting what, and they just look at the effects on the two groups and then they make a decision based on the responses they see. This has never been done with vaccinations and I get told continually by immunologists and medical professionals that it is unethical to leave one group unprotected for the sake of testing vaccines because vaccines are assumed to be safe and effective.
Now, you cannot make an assumption in science, you need to test things. Until this very basic research is performed, all the claims that we hear about the vaccines preventing this, or stopping that, are nothing more than conjecture.
And as you said, if you look at the government's own statistics, you'll see that the deaths from all of these infectious diseases which we currently vaccinate against, declined by 90% more before the vaccines were introduced. And, in most cases, before antibiotics were introduced as well, in the case of bacterial illnesses. Better hygiene and better nutrition is the reason why we've seen this decline. It has nothing to do with vaccination. And in the United States where vaccination became compulsory in 1978, 1978 and 1979 saw a tripling of the incidence of whooping cough immediately after the vaccine became mandated.
Hereward: It's interesting, isn't it, because those who basically uphold the status quo, always point to the fact that, well look at the wonderful decline in illness, look at the wonderful... it's thanks to vaccination. And it's such a spurious argument, isn't it. And yet, it sounds so convincing. You know, they say, well look people aren't getting measles anymore, they aren't getting this anymore, they aren't getting that anymore. And yet, there is an epidemic of all kinds of unusual allergies. Well, I know, autism... [I2 talks over him at the end]
Josh: Epidemic of autism. I mean, in the US it's 1 in 67 children now, 1 in 67, folks. Just think about that for a moment, it's amazing.
Meryl: Exactly. It was 1:20,000 twenty years ago, and the medical communities are busy saying that it isn't vaccines causing this increase, but they don't know what it is. And it's a tyranny of what we know to be true. We've all been brought up to believe in vaccinations and it makes us feel good to think that you can inject a needle into someone and they'll be protected. But, unfortunately, the facts don't bear that out. Vaccinations are based, probably most of your listeners would know, that the theory of vaccination is based on giving someone a small amount of what can make them ill to teach their immune system to recognise the virus or the bacteria so that at some point in the future when they're exposed to it naturally, they will already have the antibodies and the antibodies will fight off the disease before they develop symptoms.
Hereward: Indeed. Do you think there's any validity to that basic theory?
Meryl: Well, actually we know, and we've known since the 1930's, that that's not a valid theory. In the 1930's studies were done on diptheria, where they found that people who had what they call a serologically immune levels of diptheria antibodies in their body, still got diptheria. While people who had absolutely no antibodies in their blood, and had large diptheria bacteria in their throat and nose, displayed no symptoms of the disease.
We don't know a whole lot about how the immune system works, despite the fact that we've been playing around with it for 200 years with vaccinations. What we do know, beyond a doubt, that the development of antibodies does not mean that you're immune and the only thing that vaccines are meant to do is create antibodies.
I do not call them immunisations because they're not immunisations, they're vaccinations, and they do not make you immune. No one who is vaccinated is immune to a disease. They may have a temporary sensitisation, meaning that they may not get it right now, or they may get it in an atypical form, which could be milder, or could be worse.
Josh: Now, the big controversy of mercury in vaccines, and aluminium... I know that in the States and other countries they are still using mercury in vaccines, is that in Australia as well?
Meryl: Yes, mercury vaccines is still being used in Australia. The way the Department of Health gets around this is they say none of the vaccines on the childhood schedule contain mercury, contain added mercury, I must say. Contain added mercury. Or, they've all been mercury reduced. For instance, the hepatitis B vaccine still contains a small amount of mercury that's been added. But all of the other vaccines, they say, have had no mercury added to them. But because we have been using mercury based vaccines for a long time, and because the government didn't want to throw them away (because that would waste money), until these vaccines are used up they continue to be used. A lot of children today are getting mercury in their vaccines and their parents don't know about it.
And what we advise is, if you bring your child to the doctor or to the clinic for a vaccination, you actually ask to see the bottle that the vaccine came in and look for an ingredient called thiomersal. And thiomersal is 49.5% mercury by weight. Mercury is the 2nd most toxic substance known to man. And it is a known neurotoxin - it kills brain cells, amongst other things. The range of symptoms from mercury poisoning is enormous, and when you look, there was a study done, an excellent study by someone in the United States called Sally Bernard "Autism - another form of mercury poisoning". It compared the symptoms that are known to occur from mercury poisoning with the symptoms of autism, and with only 1 or 2 exceptions, they were identical.
Hereward: Well, there's definitely effects to the brain that occur from mercury...
Josh: Totally. Folks, just type in mercury brain into You Tube and you'll see the actual neurons dying when given mercury doses.
Hereward: How do you respond, Meryl, to the challenge that, well it's only a tiny trace amount and it's virtually insignificant, because that's what I've heard said. And I've basically heard it played down, you know, they say, they over-exaggerate it, there's really no measurable amount of mercury. What would be a dangerous level, how do we know it's a dangerous level. And also, another question, why is it in there in the first place? What is it's purpose?
Meryl: Well, they are very good questions. Nobody knows why it's in there. The company that makes the measles, mumps and rubella vaccine, Merck Sharp & Dohme, they actually held the patent on thiomersal, the mercury preservative. Now it's been used in many vaccines since the 1930's and in all that time there was only one study done on its safety. And that was done in 1929 - a group of people who were in what they called a sanitorium, like a place for tuberculosis, they were given mercury injections, thiomersal injections. All of them died. And that was the only study ever done.
And what makes it really ridiculous is that we're putting mercury in there because it's supposed to be a preservative and a way of killing off all of the contaminating bacteria because vaccines are quite filthy substances actually, they're contaminated with viruses and bacteria from the animals they're cultured on.
So, mercury is put in there for those two reasons. And it's not even good at doing what it does - there are many other substances that are better at killing bacteria and better at actually preserving. But, it seems that because Merck held the patents on this vaccine and because Merck is a vaccine manufacturer, they used what they held a patent on. It was like a double way of making money.
Hereward: It's interesting the way you say that the antibacterial qualities. Do you think that has any connection with why they put mercury in tooth fillings as well? Because we were just chatting about that earlier, there is a big scandal over that potentially as well, I'm wondering...
Meryl: You mean the tooth powders?
Hereward: The actual mercury fillings.
Meryl: Amalgams. I really don't know why mercury is in amalgams. I know that there have been very valid alternatives available for a very long time and some dentists are still clinging to this. The American Dental Association has finally come out and said that dentists should not be using amalgams but yet they continue to do so. There is no safe limit of mercury in the human body. And a trace amount for an adult... when all the vaccines still contain the amount of mercury that they originally did, studies were done and it showed that for an adult it was something like 1200 times the EPA allowable limit that people were getting. And the Food and Drug Administration in the US and the TGA in Australia were saying "oh yes, but it's..." they actually figured it out on a day to day basis, so they said "well, if you're getting 225 micrograms of mercury", let's say, that equals a certain amount every day for a period of six months, so it's ok because you're not getting more than your daily limit. And it's like saying, ok if you're on heart medication take six months worth of heart medication today for the next six months and you'll be fine. It's totally ridiculous.
Hereward: And it's also the way it's delivered straight into the bloodstream, and of course, giving it to very vulnerable newborn children. So many vaccines are given to children under the age of one now.
Josh: What I found fascinating is that 1 in 67 children has autism in the States yet you go to an Amish community - no one has it.
Meryl: That's right. That was a very interesting report that was done by the Associated Press. It's incredible, I think it was a practice of 15,000 children and the only child in that entire practice, because they were Amish and they didn't use drugs or vaccines, the only child who was autisitic in that entire medical practice, was a child who was adopted from outside and had received vaccinations before they were adopted. These sorts of studies are not being paid attention to. This sort of information is not being listened to, and when parents come to doctors and say my child was perfectly healthy and then they got the vaccine and within a matter of days or weeks they were autistic, doctors are saying you're only a parent, you don't know what you're talking about.
Josh: Oh, it's so sick. It's so sick.
Meryl: It is. It's dreadful because...
Hereward: Very unfortunate, yeah...
MD Once a child is lost to autism it's very difficult, if not impossible, to get them back. And these children were born healthy. They were born with every possibility for the future and those possibilities have been stolen simply for profit.
And you asked before about why we're vaccinating. Well, why were tobacco companies allowed to sell cigarettes for all that time. And why were they allowed to do all the research into cigarettes that showed that cigarettes were perfectly healthy and no problem. There is nothing that makes a pharmaceutical company inherently any more ethical than a tobacco company would be. Pharmaceutical companies answer first and foremost to their boards of directors and to their shareholders. They are not in it to make the world a better place, they are not in it for health. They are in it for the bottom line and that's the dollar.
Hereward: Although in this case, to me it's worse because what I see happening is you're being told that this is medicine, you're being told not that this is like a lifestyle choice that you can either choose to use or not use, as bad as that was with tobacco when it was the subject of a massive amount of advertising
I2 [talking over the top of I1]
No, doctors were also promoting tobacco as a medicine.
Hereward: Well, I wouldn't play that up. I wouldn't say that was the main thrust of cigarette advertising. The main thrust of cigarette advertising was certainly a lifestyle issue, and it was really about people being subject to very wicked advertising to basically make them become addicted.
Josh: Oh yeah, advertising's like 90% of doctors recommend Marlboro brand.
Hereward: But, the issue with vaccination really is much more sinister in many ways because of the way in which it's an alliance of the medical profession with the government with the pharmaceuticals, and I really feel as if like the average person is completely disarmed. I mean, we really have nowhere we can turn. And this is what we'll be getting into a little bit later is this question of the ability to legislate and the ability to basically interfere with people and enforce vaccination.
And now, you were saying before that in the United States it's compulsory now? I didn't think it was because I've... now can you just explain a little about what is compulsory and what is not compulsory in the US.
Meryl: All vaccinations that are on the childhood schedule are compulsory in the United States, and it's done on a state by state basis. Some states there are three exemptions that you can get and they're not just, like in Australia a lot of people think that vaccination's compulsory here when it's not. In the United States it is compulsory but there are exemptions available in every state. Some states have philosophical, medical and I forget what the third one is, oh, religious exemption. And in some states people are actually forming their own religions just to get out of vaccinating.
Hereward: So it's compulsory but you can get an exemption.
Meryl: You can get an exemption. Some states only have medical exemptions, they're almost impossible to get. Arkansas for instance, where Bill Clinton came from, only have a medical exemption. And you have to actually get a doctor to fill out a form to say that your child will be exempt because of a reaction. And it was not always easy because doctors don't like to admit that vaccines cause reactions.
Josh: My god.
Meryl: I'm American originally, I've been here for 20 years, but I look at what happened there and I look at the incredibly organised pro-choice movement in the United States and I think if they have not been able to get rid of compulsory vaccination in 40 years what chance do we have. And that's why I really feel that we have to fight so hard to make sure that vaccination is never compulsory. And whether you think vaccination is good, bad, or indifferent, surely everyone must believe that people need to have the choice. Vaccinations are not perfectly safe and nobody can tell us that we have to take a risk for ourselves or our children.
Josh: And our children.. and the argument comes up yeah, but if there's a, you know, parents that can't parent properly it should be the state. And you know, the fact of the matter we live in a free country, in a free society, where we are in charge of our children. We are in charge, not the state. And that is extraordinarily important. But the thing is though always bring up these arguments of child abuse as they have with this current case.
Hereward: Meryl, do you think you can give us a quick overview of your organisation and your publications.
Meryl: [TNRA advise of a technical malfunction and apologise for poor audio quality - some of Meryl's response is not available]
Doctors are required by law to give all the benefits and risk of vaccinations when you go in to get your child vaccinated or to get a vaccine for yourself. But unfortunately experience has shown that the vast majority of them do not give any information let alone all the information that you'd find in the manufacturer's package insert which comes with the vaccine. So we felt that it was important to make available information - to basically do the job that the doctors aren't doing. Along with that, we also lobby very strongly to make sure that vaccination is never made compulsory. In 1998 we were told that there was a bill before the federal parliament to take away payments, government payments, the entitlements, if a child was not vaccinated. We found out about it and got on the phone and raised $1200- to send myself and one other person down to Canberra. We spent two weeks in Canberra lobbying and we got conscientious exemption put in. Which is why people now will still get their financial entitlements, even if they're not vaccinating. And people need to know that it is not compulsory.
Hereward: So when did you do that?
Meryl: 1998. Ten years ago. Hard to imagine.
Hereward: You've also got a magazine called Living Wisdom?
Meryl: Living Wisdom, that's right. We had a newsletter, a 40 page newsletter, from the year 1995 or 96, and it was completely concerned with vaccination, and then we realised that vaccination is a vital issue but it's certainly not the only health issue. And that parents and Australians, anyone in Australia, in order to ensure that they're going to have the best possible life, they need to be fully informed. People need to take responsibility for their own health and for the health of their families. So, we brought out Living Wisdom, which covers the issues of natural health and vaccination, instinctive parenting, organics and the environment. Because these we feel are the core issues involved with ensuring that first of all we're going to leave the world better than it was when we came in, and we're going to guarantee our families the best possible life and the most health.
Most people, when they take the words of doctors for things, as if doctors were infallible. If you were going to go out tomorrow, for instance, and buy a car, would you go into the first car yard that you came to and say, I want a car, just sell me one, here's 40,000 dollars. I don't think anyone would do that. They get magazines, they research, they go on the internet and look at the different pros and cons. And yet, when it comes to drugs and vaccines, we just go to the doctor and say give me a drug, give me a vaccine. We don't ask... [meryl talked over by interviewer]
Josh: It's designed that way, it's almost like law. It's designed where the language is so convoluted through old latin and all sorts of stuff where the common person really finds it hard. And I think the web has really opened that up to have forums and discussion groups of people telling stories and also explaining the situation of certain vaccines and other drugs.
Meryl: That's right. So much of medicine is involved with disempowering people and making them feel that they're not capable of making these decisions. And one of the things that we do is demystify a lot of that information, bring it into the common tongue, I guess, into language that people will understand, even if they don't have a medical background. Because everybody is capable of making these decisions. They just need to look at it, they need to not act out of fear. So many people vaccinate or take drugs out of fear, and if you get rid of the fear you can actually make really good decisions whether you vaccinate or not.
Hereward: This is part of a much broader kind of struggle that we've got and something that Josh and I have been following a lot is the encroaching on peoples freedom of choice, in terms of natural health and... you might be familiar with the Codex Alimentarius, these international trade laws that they are trying to enforce on countries which will restrict what people can freely buy over the counter. It's all part of this taking away peoples ability to make decisions for themselves and really vesting this incredible amount of trust in a top-down hierarchy that we know is corrupt. I mean, we've got so many examples of, from all the disasters of failed products that have had, you know, caused people to have, you know, hallucination. There is recently one that was pulled off the shelves, it was a travel drug, and it was causing hallucinations. Vioxx was causing people to have heart attacks, and there's just so many cases in the recent years.
Meryl: That's right. 18 to 19,000 Australians die every year in the public hospital system. Not one person dies from natural therapies. So why are we concentrating so much on criminalising natural therapies when the real criminal is the drug that is killing so many people and harming so many families. And we're not even looking at it.
Josh: Absolutely. I like to call it the sickness industry instead of the health industry because the sickness industry really is focussed on, I mean it's, if you think about a business, a business you don't want to lose customers, so if you cured a customer with a vaccine then you've got a lost customer. The customer's gone. And that's the basic business model. Most drugs are just hiding symptoms or covering them up and just keeping them sick to constantly perpetuate this purchasing power of the consumer, the sick consumer. And that's a really important thing to remember when just heading to the doctor. Instead, first a) researching yourself, b) looking at the food in your lifestyle and if you're eating enough raw food, if you're eating enough green food, eating enough good food, if you're exercising enough, instead of just going "right, feel sick, gotta go to the doctor".
Hereward: Indeed. And I think also that having a very positive outlook. I mean, the title of your magazine "Living Wisdom" it's really good to keep that positive outlook. What we tend to talk about on this show tends to be very critical, tends to be very, we're finding a lot of problems, but health comes down to basically being able to have a positive, constructive view of your future. And we, I really want to emphasise the importance of that. And I'd like to just get you to tell our listeners how they can subscribe to your magazine, and how can they can also find your site. So, it's the Australian Vaccination Network, you can google that. avn.org.au Have I said that right?
Meryl: That's right. And we're org because we're a charity as well.
Hereward: Ok. Excellent
Josh: So you can get, donate money at, from the website?
Meryl: You can donate, that's right. And you can subscribe to our magazine. The subscription is $44, membership to the AVN is $22 and that gives you a discount on all the books and videos that we sell, as well as a newsletter that we put out which is just about vaccination. And, we have a special on right now actually, for $50- for both.
[interviewer talks over Meryl at end]
Hereward: Excellent. Highly recommend it.
Hereward: The reason we're doing this piece tonite actually, I can home last week, turned on the radio, I heard the story on the ABC. I heard an incredible piece of propaganda from the ABC News radio. Basically, they had a health expert on there, they had someone quoting from a professor from Westmead Hospital, basically representing the story of the couple who didn't want to get their baby vaccinated, and the interviewer asked the medical expert "What's behind it?" and they say "oh these people are just, they have their crazy ideas and this is a child protection issue". And they actually compared it to, you know what they compared it to? They compared it to Jehovahs Witness families who refuse to have a blood transfusion for a child who's been in a car accident. And they said "in certain cases we have to intervene as a child protection issue for the health of the child, and in this case there's been a court order, and the parents are on the run because they didn't want to obey the court order", and that was the story on Thursday. Then it was in the Sydney Morning Herald on Saturday. Now, since then I haven't heard anything about it in the news, but I did hear that the people concerned had been speaking to the Australian Vaccination Network. And that's the reason why we're talking tonite to you, Meryl. Thanks to the ABC, because they did mention that, and that's how we got in touch with you.
Meryl: Yes. It has been quite an extraordinary week and an amazing story. And it's one that, a lot of people I've been speaking with who are incredibly pro-vaccination, have vaccinated their own children and are happy that they've done it, are still saying even though I support the vaccination personally, I don't believe that anyone has the right to force someone to vaccinate their child. And it's good to hear that because people are seeing this for what it is, which is a human rights issue. This is not a health issue. This is an issue of some medical professionals and a government department, the Department of Community Services, trying to impose their will on another person. And trying to force them to place their child at a risk that they do not feel they want to place them in.
Josh: Well, at least they don't put it in the water like they do the fluoride, yet.
Meryl: It's only a matter of time.
Hereward: Indeed. It's an incredible story, Meryl. I mean it's incredibly sort of shocking, in a way. The casualness with which they are now talking about court orders and having people subjected to legal compulsion. Because seriously, I've never heard it, I've never heard this before in the news. Now I understand that maybe people have been kind of a little bit threatened with it in the past. As to whether they were actually able to do it I just thought no they can't, it's not legal.
Meryl: One of the DoCS representatives that was quoted in the newspaper actually said this was the first time that DoCS had done this. And I think that's why this case is so important. A lot of people listening to this will think this has nothing to do with me, this is just this family, and whether they're right or wrong, it doesn't concern me. And I'm telling you that it does. It concerns everyone living in Australia now. Because if DoCS, if the courts, can end up forcing someone to vaccinate their child today, then what's going to happen tomorrow. Are you going to be forced to be vaccinated to go to University? Are you going to be forced to be vaccinated to have a job?
Josh: You're spot on. You've hit the nail exactly on the head. It always happens small, it always happens incrementally. People think, "Oh, it has nothing to do with me", yet you are spot on Doreen. Meryl, sorry.
Meryl: I've been called worse.
Josh: And I think it's very very important that people go and research the information but also join up to support you guys.
Meryl: Well, it would be great if they did because we are fighting this very big battle from a very small base. We're volunteer run and we are a charity as I said, so we really do need supportive people who can support us. And we've been trying our best to support this family through this. Nobody should have to go through what this family has gone through. They had to go into hiding with a 2 day old baby, and I've had four children and I can tell you that it takes weeks to get back to normal after you've had a baby, and I could not imagine doing what this family is doing now.
Hereward: It's the worst possible time to be under that sort of stress.
Josh: Could you imagine the post-natal depression being on the run from the law. It is really sad.
Meryl: It is dreadful.
Hereward: Now, you were saying before that there is virtually zero risk of a child of that age contracting hepatitis B.
Meryl: A child who comes from parents that do not have hepatitis B has zero risk of contracting hepatitis B. What makes this case different is that the mother is a hepatitis B carrier. So there is a theoretical risk of her contracting hepatitis B. So, you've got two questions here. One, is the baby at risk of getting hepatitis B? And two, is the vaccine going to protect the baby? Ok? Now, with the vaccine, it's incredible. I've been doing a lot of research on this over the last week, and I have read study after study after study about the hepatitis B vaccine in instances like this where the mother is a hep B carrier when the child is born. Many of the studies, if not all of the studies I read, showed that a significant, and the quote is a statistically significant percentage of the babies who are born to mothers who have hepatitis B, and are given the vaccine and immunoglobulin which is another treatment at birth, still go onto develop hepatitis B.
Hereward: Well, that's interesting isn't it. Now, is it a chicken or egg situation. I mean, does the vaccine even perhaps cause it. Now when you say she's a carrier, does that mean she had hepatitis B and she got over it, or does that mean she's just a carrier.
Meryl: This is an amazing virus actually, because the way we find out about most viruses, we can see most viruses. Like, we've seen Measles virus, we've seen flu virus, we've actually seen them. With hepatitis B, nobody has ever seen the hepatitis B virus. The only way we diagnose it is by seeing antibodies [interviewer talks over Meryl at the end]
Hereward: Really! Oh goodness me.
Meryl: When you see those antibodies it means that the virus is hiding somewhere in your liver. Hepatitis is a clinical disease. Hepatitis is an inflammation of the liver, basically. And everbody's heard about people that get cirrhosis of the liver from drinking or [interviewer talks over Meryl]
Hereward: We, all know that if you hammer your liver, if you do too many drugs, if you drink too much, you'll get liver inflammation. Eventually you might get hepatitis, you might get cirrhosis. Of course.
Meryl: Exactly. And what the medical community has said here is that just the fact that someone is carrying hepatitis B means that they are at an increased risk of cirrhosis of the liver and liver cancer. Now what they haven't looked at is the lifestyle of these people. Because a lot of the people who have hepatitis B have been intravenous drug users, have had problems with alcohol, have had lifestyle problems. So, we're making this huge fuss about these babies getting hepatitis B when we're not really looking at what actually causes these liver problems.
Hereward: Indeed. What you've just said is just opened up a huge topic for me, because it's very very similar to another topic. Josh is shaking his head here, but I'm going to press on with it. It's very...
Meryl: Is it HIV?
Hereward: It's very very similar to the issue of identifying HIV through antibodies.
Meryl: It is very similar.
Hereward: And the underlying question is can you identify the presence of a virus merely by identifying the antibody. It's surprising to me, I didn't realise it was in that category. Very unique category. We won't go down that route coz it's a big complex subject of its own.
Meryl: It is, it is. But basically, what it comes down to is the vaccine is no guarantee of protection. And even the doctors have said it was a 92% guarantee. Now I don't know where they got that figure from of 92% because I've never seen that [interviewer talks over Meryl]... but even if it's 92% it's not 100%. The hepatitis B vaccine, Dr Jane Orient, the head of an organisation called the American Association of Physicians and Surgeons, this is a very large national organisation in the US that has about 40,000 doctors registered with it. Jane OXXX testified before the American Congress about the hepatitis B vaccine. And she said that children who get the hepatitis B vaccine are 100 times more likely to be injured by the vaccine than they are by hepatitis B. So this is a very serious situation, when you have a vaccine that is being given across the board to infants, and whether the mother has hepatitis B or not, is a moot point. This vaccine has caused, and does cause, an awful lot of problems in children. If you think that you're child will be at risk then no one has the right to actually force you to take that vaccine.
Josh: So this vaccine has aluminium in it. Why does it have aluminium?
Meryl: Aluminium is added as an adjuvant. Now, adjuvants are toxic substances that are put into vaccines to induce a immune response. When we contract a disease naturally, let's say we catch measles. We catch it by droplets, someone sneezes or coughs on us, or they breathe on us, and they've got the virus there, and it goes across our mucous membranes and into our body, it naturally creates an immune response. And it takes a period of about 10 to 14 days before we start to show symptoms of measles, because our immune system has been alerted in a natural way. When we inject vaccines into the body it goes directly into the muscle tissue, it is not a natural way of contracting something. So these adjuvants are sort of added to raise a red flag to the immune system, hey look, we're here, come here, look at me and create antibodies. And they found that using a toxic substance creates a better immune response. So, there are incredibly toxic substances that are in vaccines, poisonous substances that are in vaccines, and it's simply to create [interviewer talks over Meryl at the end]
Hereward: Yeah, yeah, toxicity stimulates immune function, but does it really stimulate immune function or does it merely stimulate certain signs of immune function that are not... it's kind of, it's maybe there's an idea in there, but maybe it's lacking in the rigour to prove that what they've actually done works. And if they never subject it to double blind trials then how we do know it does work.
Meryl: We don't.
Josh: Meryl, before you mentioned that, about the dummy pills...
Meryl: Yes, the placebo?
Josh: The placebo control. And I know that, like in the HPV, the Gardasil, they say they use a placebo but it wasn't actually a placebo, it was full of all sorts of dangerous...
Meryl: In the Gardasil study, that was the HPV, the cervical cancer study. First of all, it was paid for and conducted by the manufacturer of the vaccine.
Josh: Oh, that's always a good sign.
Meryl: Yes, almost all vaccines and drugs are studied in that way. One group got the Gardasil vaccine and the other group got a solution of 225 micrograms of aluminium phosphate, which is the adjuvant in the Gardasil vaccine. And what they found was that there was the same number of reactions in both groups, so obviously the vaccine was safe. What they didn't say was that 92% of people getting both the vaccine and the placebo had some form of systemic reaction. 92%, so only 8% did not report a systemic reaction, which is a whole body reaction. And there were 17 deaths during the trial and they were all said to be coincidental.
Hereward: 17 out of how many?
Meryl: There were about 20,000 studied in this trial.
Hereward: Well, 17 out of 20,000 that's quite a high proportion isn't it?
Meryl: It's a very high proportion and there were a very large number of serious reactions including hospitalisations. The rate was something like 1 in, I forget exactly, it might have been 1 in 1200. In medical science anything less than 1 in 10,000 is considered common.
Josh: Is it right in saying it's a live cancer virus that they're trialling in this vaccine?
Meryl: It's not live according to them. It's genetically engineered. This vaccine is genetically engineered, just like the hepatitis B vaccine is genetically engineered, and to me that's pretty scary anyway. I don't eat genetically engineered food and I don't know why I'd want to inject a genetically engineered vaccine, but ... [Interviewer talks over Meryl at end]
Hereward: Important to point out, it's also not a cancer virus, it's the HPV virus which causes HPV infection. There is a theory that it leads to cancer but it only leads to cancer in... what would be the proportion, I mean, it's a....
Meryl: Less than one percent.
Hereward: Less than one percent.
Meryl: Less than one percent of people. Because between 80 and 85% of women in developed countries are already infected, already have been infected with the HPV virus. So, if 85% of women have symptoms, not symptoms, sorry, have evidence of an infection in the past with the HPV virus, and only less than one percent of women actually end up getting cervical cancer, or the pre-cancerous cells, then it's obvious, to me anyway, that HPV could have nothing to do with it. And there is actually a theory that HPV is an indication that your body is fighting off something and you need to look at what the problem is with your immune system if you have an active HPV infection. But, even if HPV were associated with cervical cancer, there are more than 100 strains and the vaccine contains four.
Josh: It's unbelievable isn't it. So there's more than 100 strains, so it's almost like the flu shot where every year they sort of pick a variation of the flu, we think it might be this one, out of hundreds of different flu strains, we think it might be this one, put that in the yearly flu shot and everyone goes out and gets these mercury filled flu shots, and it probably doesn't do anything. In fact, you can look up AP and Reuters for the last five years... [I1 talks over I2 at end]
Hereward: Something nearly magical about it, isn't it
Josh: ...where they missed, they got the wrong one. And the years before that, well it kinda sort of worked; it's just so wrong. And these people are shoving these totally toxic chemicals into their system hoping that it'll do something.
Hereward: Now look, I really would like to make sure we get a little bit into the case that you're representing. I say representing, but I know that you've been trying to find a lawyer and you had trouble. How are you going with that?
Meryl: The family has a solicitor right now and I can't really say anymore about it because, obviously because it's with a solicitor I don't want to do anything that might damage the case. So I can talk about what happened up to the point when they got the solicitor but I can't really say anything else after that.
Hereward: So, they found a solicitor within the last couple of days, I assume.
Meryl: That's right.
Hereward: Yeah, ok. Up until that point, what I am aware of this, the baby was born about seven days ago, eight days ago.
Meryl: I think on Tuesday, it was a week ago on Tuesday, so the baby's about eight or nine days old now. And the baby was born in hospital and the mother's hep B status was on her record, on her hospital record. They offered her hepatitis B immunoglobulin, which is a blood based product, and hepatitis B vaccine. NSW health policy says, the mother is required to be offered these things. If she refuses to take them, certain paperwork needs to be filled in and that's the end of the story. That's health policy and vaccination is not compulsory in Australia. So they offered her the vaccine, she didn't want to take it. Her husband has been researching vaccination for over ten years - these are not ill-informed people, these are very well informed people. And they declined, and they kept getting offered, and it was reaching the point of bullying. And finally, one of the doctors called another doctor at Westmead Hospital and told him about this, and that doctor reported this family to the Department of Community Services.
Hereward: Now is this Professor Stevens, by any chance? Is this the one that was quoted?
Meryl: No, David Isaacs is the doctor who reported them to the Department of Community Services, and that's common knowledge that was reported in the newspapers, which is why I can say it. So he reported them to the Department of Community Services and a DoCS case worker showed up at the hospital the day after this baby was born, saying that the child had to be vaccinated, and the parent's said no. And they said, well you cannot leave the hospital until this child is vaccinated. They were virtually keeping them prisoner there.
Josh: Oh my god.
Meryl: And the father just wanted to get him and his wife out of the hospital with their baby. So, they agreed to make an appointment with their local GP that afternoon, which was Thursday afternoon, to get the vaccine done. Under duress. And when they got home, they were allowed to leave hospital after that, when they got home they called me. And I called up the Minister for Community Services offices and spoke with one of his policy advisors. And what I was told at the time was that this family would be subject to an Act, the Child Care Protection Act, and they would be served with paperwork, and the paperwork would give them 72 hours to seek legal and medical advice. So, fair enough, I told the father this, I told them the names of the Acts and what would be happening, and he said, well if I have 72 hours I'm cancelling the appointment this afternoon.. And at that appointment, like the DoCS case worker said, I'm going to meet you at the doctor's surgery because I want to make sure that vaccine is given. She didn't trust him to do it.
Hereward: So, this is last Wednesday, is it?
Meryl: This was Thursday afternoon. So he cancelled the appointment, the appointment was for four o'clock. He cancelled the appointment and he called the DoCS case worker and told her that he had cancelled the appointment and he was seeking legal and medical advice. As soon as he hung up the phone, she and the doctor went to the Supreme Court and got an Order to have the child forcibly vaccinated.
Hereward: And this is the DoCS worker and David Isaacs, Professor in...[Meryl talks over interviewer at the end]
Meryl: As far as I know, as far as I know, that's who it was.
Hereward: Professor in Pediatric Infectious Diseases at the Children's hospital at Westmead.
Meryl: Yes, that's right. And, interesting to note, Westmead Hospital has a special clinic where children who have had severe reactions to vaccination are re-vaccinated. They send children to this clinic to have vaccines after they've had really bad reactions to vaccines. And they watch them react.
Hereward: Now, I'm going to hesitate a guess here that this has occurred as a result of some kind of policy decision that someone has made somewhere. I don't believe that it just happened by chance, as it were. Because I really think this sequence of events that we've seen has all the hallmarks of a new policy that they are trying to bring in.
Josh: Well, if I was a big international pharmaceutical company, as much pressure as I can put on governments to put the fear of god into it's citizens, into vaccinating and making it a taxpayer funded must-have, the better. And that's where I think this pressure, you know, and it always come down to child abuse, it's always under the guise of child abuse that they send people like DoCS and stuff, who are in a very hard situation as well. I mean, the guy that's working at DoCS usually gets both end of the stick, if he doesn't do anything to this family and something happens to the baby then he's responsible, and it's sort of this pincer attack from all around.
Meryl: There is a bit of that, but there's actually a public enquiry that's been going on in New South Wales now for 18 months into DoCS. I think that they're handing down the decision next month. But, little bits of information have come out, and one thing that's come out that sounds very interesting, is something like 450 children have been reported to DoCS and have died in the custody of the person that they were reported to have been abused by. Between 2003 and 2007 more than 450 children who are at risk have died without being investigated by DoCS even though they had been reported. And DoCS says, the reason for this is because they are under-funded and under-resourced. So if they don't have the funds, if they don't have the resources to investigate real cases of child abuse and to save children who are at risk, why is so much time and money being spent on a child whose parent's are just trying to the best for them.
Josh: That's very interesting.
Hereward: And who have a different view of health. I mean, they embrace a different set of basic philosophy, you know, practices...
Josh: Also, a different education from the mainstream.
Hereward: I mean, one question. How did this get into the media, how did it become a story. Do you think that was accidental?
Meryl: I put out a press release.
Hereward: Right, right, interesting. So, you put out a press release and it was picked up the ABC and the Sydney Morning Herald and a few other... Now, are they still covering the story?
Meryl: I'm not speaking with the media anymore about ongoing parts of this case because I've been asked by the solicitors not to do so. The media has sort of been put on hold until we're at a point we can actually reveal some more information. So I'm only speaking about what happened before then, and not what's happened now.
Hereward: Yeah, I can understand your situation, although in some ways I really think that the only thing that is going to turn this around is more publicity.
Hereward: And I'm a little bit concerned if it does go into a kind of a situation where the lawyer's are saying, oh we've got to keep this all very quiet, because... [Meryl talks over interviewer at end]
Meryl: I don't think that's going to be the case, no I don't.
Hereward: Good, good.
Meryl: And I have to tell you that we've placed an Ad in tomorrow's australian newspaper. The Australian Vaccination Network did this asking anyone who has been through a similar situation where DoCS has victimised them, or the government has victimised them, because of their decision to not vaccinate or to vaccinate selectively, to come forward and contact us. Because I have a funny feeling that this is not the first time it's happened. I just have a feeling that this is the first time that someone's actually fought back.
Hereward: That's excellent news. We'll keep abreast of this as well. We'd like to come back to this story and talk to you again about it at some point. We're very keen to follow this.
Josh: Just one last question. Is the family ok, how are they doing?
Meryl: They're fine. Of course they're stressed, because they would be, they just want to get home and enjoy their family, but they're in a safe place. They are determined to fight this and not just to fight it for themselves but to fight it for anyone else. It takes a very strong person to actually withstand this sort of pressure and bullying, because it is, it's bullying, and I really hand it to this family that they are standing firm in the face of an amazing amount of stress and pressure.
Hereward: It's very courageous, I really admire them. They are doing an important service.
Josh: And you too, Meryl. And also folks, if you want to help out these people, if you want to help out the Australian Vaccination Network to help this family, please please please go to avn.org.au, subscribe to the magazine, donate some cash, donate some money, donate some stories, if you know of anyone who has had any sort of predicament go down, please contact Meryl also through the avn.org.au
Meryl: And if I can add one other thing if possible, the majority of adverse reactions to vaccinations never get reported. Our government says that only between 1 and 10 percent get reported. We run a toll-free number where people can report reactions to vaccination and it's very important that any reaction does get reported because while the government is saying that the vaccines are perfectly safe, we know they're not. So, if I could possibly give our 1800 number out and ask that people contact us if they do have a reaction that would be great.
Hereward: Sure, go for it, yeah.
Meryl: Thank you. It's 1800 007 468. That's a toll-free number anywhere in Australia.
Josh: Can you repeat that again?
Meryl: 1800 007 468.
Hereward: It's been terrific Meryl meeting you and having you on the show and we'd like to stay in touch.
Meryl: Yes, absolutely.
Hereward: And if you'd like to come back on again in another month or so, we'd love to talk to you again.
Meryl: Hopefully I'll have some good news then.
Josh: Thank you very much.
Meryl: Thank you.
Josh: There goes Meryl Dorey, a very courageous woman and an amazing person.
Posted: 18 Nov 2012
Last update: 17 Jun 2014