Losing In The Lucky Country: Recent Episodes
None
In 2015 a long standing Australian anti-vaccination activist and lobbyist, Judith Wilyman, was awarded a PhD by the University of Wollongong. Titled A Critical Analysis of The Australian Government’s Rationale for its Vaccination Policy, the work attracted exceptional criticism. I’d like to consider the veracity of arguments raised in defence of Wilyman’s work, as these have arisen from one source and are themselves extensive.
Antithesis
From across the globe and from multiple sources, criticism flowed readily for Wilyman’s publication. For this author, there was one thing other than the content that also rankled. The fact that it was a collection of biased references arranged to attack the integrity of one of Australia’s most effective public health initiatives. Quite striking, for a work that emerged from an academic institution, is the absence of any original research conducted by the author. As the author uses the term “thesis” we had best examine this. The Oxford dictionary offers two distinctions, with the following describing “a doctoral thesis”:
a long essay or dissertation involving personal research, written by a candidate for a university degree
This may of course seem petty unless you’ve taken time to examine this work. Nonetheless for the sake of clarity I too shall yield and refer to this diversion from genuine analysis of Australian vaccination policy, as a thesis. It is clear however, that there is no research, methodology, study, data collection or justified hypothesis. There is only a literature review and a biased one at that. Australian emergency physician Kristin Boyle described the work as, “the inevitable product of someone with an ideology based agenda”. Genuine literature reviews that seek to examine varying or different arguments, are valuable items of research. They collate and examine related works, and in judging the strengths or weaknesses of each, offer a contention, or indeed a novel conclusion. This didn’t happen in the Wilyman literature review. Still, Judith Wilyman falsely poses herself as “an expert witness” in a family court case, a “specialist in government vaccination policies” (federal politics), and has significantly elevated her importance to the fields of vaccinology and public health.
The reality is Wilyman barely scraped in. One of her two examiners suggested the thesis was unworthy of PhD status and better suited to a Master’s degree. They observed concerns about a lack of engagement with existing literature and “the lack of an appropriate theoretical framework”. Wilyman they argued, had conducted no original research nor contributed to the knowledge of the subject. This conflict was resolved by the rare event of appointing a third examiner. Australian Skeptics Inc. report:
That third examiner, also unnamed, judged that, while the thesis as assessed showed Wilyman conducted original research, it did not make a significant contribution to knowledge of the subject, had no indication of a broad understanding of the discipline within which the work was conducted, and that it was not suitable for publication.
They recommended that the thesis be resubmitted, and gave “extensive and detailed comments on areas that need to be improved”, sharing the same concerns as the earlier critical examiner.
This revised version was consulted by only one examiner; the third individual who had requested the significant changes. The original “earlier critical examiner” was not asked for an opinion. The examiner who had accepted the original, doubly-rejected thesis, was considered a certainty for the improved version. Thus, a year later than she planned, Wilyman had her PhD.
In the excellent article, PhD thesis opposing immunisation: Failure of academic rigour with real-world consequences, Wiley et al. (Vaccine 37; p. 1542) postulate as to how this oversight possibly came to be:
The quality of the writing and presentation of the thesis is such that many of its arguments could seem plausible to an examiner without specific content knowledge, despite sound academic credentials. Our combined expertise (vaccinology, epidemiology, the history and practise of immunisation policy development globally and in Australia, social science) and as PhD examiners, both gives us detailed knowledge of the sources cited by the thesis, and allows us to identify key deficiencies […] A critical analysis should consider the merits and faults of an issue and be conducted in a way that is not designed to find only evidence for the writer’s pre-determined conclusions. […] This thesis does not include methods for assessing the literature, does not discuss aspects of identified studies which may contradict one another, or attempt to establish the quality of relevant studies. Rather, the references used are highly selective, only citing a small number of the available epidemiological studies and clinical trial reports, all of which are interpreted to support conclusions which appear pre-determined.
The Supervisor
A News GP summary of the above paper in Vaccine is available here. Let’s examine the first sentence in the above quote. Firstly, does it help us understand how such a deliberate failure to include material supporting Australia’s vaccination policy was not addressed by Wilyman’s supervisor? Secondly, is it likely such a biased collection of arguments was missed because examiners, and particularly the supervisor, lacked “specific content knowledge”? Sure, Wilyman studied within the School of Humanities and Social Inquiry. Her supervisor, Professor Brian Martin completed his PhD in Theoretical Physics and later became a Professor of Social Sciences, at the University of Wollongong. But not being qualified in vaccinology, related fields or policy development does not render senior academics incapable of accessing evidence or seeking consultation. More so, Wilyman’s published acknowledgement of her supervisor is unambiguous;
I would also like to thank Professor Brian Martin, my primary supervisor at the University of Wollongong, for his unwavering support and encouragement. His weekly phone calls kept me focused and there were many robust discussions that helped me to overcome the significant opposition to this project. I thank him for his patience and dedication to my research.
It’s important to acknowledge that the role of Professor Brian Martin (left) in Wilyman’s thesis was not just one of “unwavering support” for her many unsupported claims, but one in which his own later accounts afford academic freedom more importance than academic integrity. I shall endeavour to be as fair as possible in referencing claims Brian Martin has made in defence of the Wilyman thesis. I will seriously consider the notion of Conspiracy Theory Attribution (CTA) and the suggested failure of critics to analyse the thesis and citations presented.
This is not a review of Professor Martin himself, though by necessity peculiarities of his academic persuasion(s) will be mentioned. Brian Martin has a strong interest in dissent and has written extensively on the subject. Where justified whistleblowers need support, or suppressed minorities need a voice and equal rights, the value of dissent is clear. Yet when groups of anti-vaccine activists with a documented history of deception, pseudoscience, fear mongering, media sabotage and even abuse of grieving parents, labour to undermine successful public health initiatives, they cause harm, not express dissent. False elevation of anti-science ideology as genuine dissent may well have tragic consequences.
To be in a position where one can guide a student toward critical thinking and witness use of that skill for selfless acknowledgement of evidence, as opposed to ideology, is a genuine privilege. More so, I’d argue that where dissent and academic freedom harm the innocent, or promote misinformation, the pursuit of either is a malignant endeavour. Spreading misinformation about vaccination leads to vaccine hesitancy, increased disease and death with a corresponding rise in public health costs. Few human beings will ever experience the honour of defending truth, or suppressing the chaos that thrives in its absence. Most however, can clearly see the difference.
Professor Brian Martin, has argued indifference in defending the anti-vaccination lobby, yet also contended that criticism of Wilyman by the volunteer group Stop The Australian (anti) Vaccination Network (SAVN) as “more relentless and abusive” than any other “attack on academic freedom” he has witnessed. Regrettably, the anti-vaccine identities Martin has defended have a long history of cunning deception. In the case of Wilyman this history only grew under his supervision. The proposed analysis of vaccine policy rationale emerged as familiar, albeit convoluted, anti-vaccine rhetoric. Conversely, Australia’s vaccination policy is both life saving and innovative, relying upon published data and peer reviewed evidence.
As revealed by Ken McLeod for Australian Skeptics Inc. (2020), Wilyman lied and exaggerated in her thesis, making several bizarre if not senseless claims. Fallacious allusions between unrelated subjects, bogus connotations, “egregious” misrepresentations of history, attacks on vaccines, science and health policy, dangerous misinformation and convenient fabrication aiming to elevate her status, likely all impact the reader.
Conspiracy Theory Attribution
Martin alleges journalist Kylar Loussikian, who wrote critically of Wilyman’s thesis in January 2016, attributed a conspiracy theory to her argument. He did so in part, Martin contends, because it avoided criticising SAVN, not because refuting antivaccinationism is an evidence-based pursuit, or because he chose to criticise Wilyman of his own free will. Rather, “adopting SAVN’s framing of the thesis”, secured Loussikian from “an attack by SAVNers”. Martin also misrepresented the reason SAVN formed, which I shall aim to address in context, in a future post. His Conspiracy Theory Attribution (CTA) is used liberally to defend Wilyman, and as such it is helpful to examine Martin’s full postulation of CTA to appreciate his reliance upon it. The article, “Uptake of a Conspiracy Theory Attribution.” Social Epistemology Review and Reply Collective 8 (6): 16-30, by Brian Martin 2019, encompasses his full argument [Source].
Professor Martin identifies CTA uptake, reception and acceptance. CTA is a “claim or allegation that someone has espoused a conspiracy theory” [p.17]. Martin ponders if science-related CTAs are accepted uncritically or tested for validity. He argues in this case poor scrutiny of the CTA can be due to “information cascades, confirmation bias, Google-knowing and polarisation of the vaccination controversy” [p. 26]. I find these suggestions far too favourable to the overall argument Martin is making. Combined with the insistence critics must have failed to read the entire thesis, the combination makes for an unrealistic hurdle to clear to be accepted as a worthy critic. Over 2016 Loussikian wrote six more articles which according to Martin, “repeated the same angle on the CTA”. Loussikian referred to the Wilyman thesis (and the CTA) in 2017 (Daily Telegraph) and 2018 (Sun-Herald).
Professor Martin also felt Loussikian “stigmatised and denigrated” Wilyman’s thesis by not having pursued central arguments and by also using “quotes from the thesis taken out of context, thereby giving the impression that Wilyman was making unsupported assertions”. Again noting the excellent deconstruction of Wilyman’s copious unsupported assertions by Ken McLeod and Australian Skeptics Inc., I found the latter comment striking. Martin levelled the same criticism at Loussikian for not espousing that journal sources had found the same analysis as hers. Not only has Wilyman’s selection of bibliography been deemed biased, but the article in Vaccine that so adequately explained this, was labelled by Martin as “the first (scholarly article) to subject the thesis to careful systematic scrutiny…” [p. 25].
Conversely, Wilyman described it as “an attack on my research in an attempt to discredit my PhD”. Her general tone in responding is shrill, as she alleges further anti-vaccine points. Without actually conducting studies Wilyman contends she knows vaccine ingredients are a plausible cause of chronic illness, disability and death in children. Responding to News GP, she alleges the entire article is based on “false information”, whilst Professors McIntyre and Burgess are simply “defending their policy decisions” and “suppressing academic research and valid scientific arguments regarding vaccination”. Some vaccines are unnecessary and others have never led to herd immunity, Wilyman alleges. Her full response to the Vaccine article is here.
It is likely Brian Martin had been misled by certain anti-vaccine lobbyists and is also sympathetic to their cause. I hope he failed to appreciate the length and scale of harm, harassment and deception left in their wake. Judy Wilyman had participated eagerly, having joined The Australian Vaccination-risks Network in 2009, and Martin had witnessed her reaping what she had sown. Indeed, in 2016 Martin so anticipated immediate criticism of Wilyman’s thesis, that he attempted to groom journalist Kylar Loussikian by sending him a link to a short summary of Wilyman’s work. Similar to alleging Loussikian adopted SAVN framing in his criticism, Martin was no doubt concerned that reception would be negative.
Professor Martin’s subsequent published commentary indicates he believed Loussikian should have published the proffered summary, rather than choosing to focus on a staple of anti-vaccine activists; the conspiracy theory. Indeed, Martin critiques Loussikian’s article Uni accepts thesis on vaccine ‘conspiracy’ published in The Australian at length [Source]. He highlights the opening line:
The University of Wollongong has accepted a PhD thesis from a prominent anti-vaccination activist that warns that global agencies such as the World Health Organisation are colluding with the pharmaceutical industry in a massive conspiracy to spruik immunisation.
From this point Professor Martin began an extensive defence of Judy Wilyman’s thesis. He has vigorously used CTA to defend Wilyman and her fellow antivax activist, Meryl Dorey. The most prominent aspect of CTA as argued by Martin, is that the attribution of a conspiracy theory is made without evidence, is unjust and is orchestrated as a means to denigrate the individual accused of alluding to, or believing in, a conspiracy theory (CT). Following criticism of Wilyman’s thesis, Martin cited CTA to dismiss arguments from Kylar Loussikian, Professor John Dwyer, Jane Hansen, David Gorski, Rick Morton, Wikipedia, SBS and a petition that called upon the Australian “Department of Education and Training to take immediate disciplinary action against the University of Wollongong” and for the “Department of Health to issue unequivocal condemnation of this travesty.” He lists each petition comment that negatively mentions the CTA (p. 24).
Martin argues, correctly, that Wilyman did not use the term “conspiracy theory” in her thesis. He reasons that it follows that she cannot be accused of advancing a conspiracy theory. More so, her critics, particularly Loussikian, encouraged CTA largely due to ignorance of her thesis, whilst attempting to denigrate her work and status as an author via the CTA itself. This dynamic is entirely feasible and is a factual representation of what may evolve due to a power imbalance between say, “authoritative regimes and immigrants or dissidents” (Nera et al, 2022). Closer study of Martin’s argument and cited references combined with Wilyman’s reputation, does not support that such a power imbalance exists.
Nonetheless, Wilyman did her best to create such an illusion. A significant part of her thesis refers to the myth of “undone science” suppressed by authoritative groups. In her thesis Wilyman claims, “If necessary research to improve knowledge about health outcomes has been discussed but not funded, it is termed ‘undone science’”. In a 2019 newsletter Wilyman wrongly claims “government vaccination policies are based on undone science”. She further confuses her readers by alleging undone science is “the term given to clinical studies that are required to be done by governments before they claim to the public that a drug/vaccine is safe and effective.” In fact this is a Phase 3 Clinical Trial: Safety and Efficacy.
Her conclusion to the thesis chapter on undone science (8:11) contends it is research not carried out “because the likely results would be unwelcome to powerful groups”. She argues this leads to unfunded areas of science and policy design that contribute to unpredictable health outcomes. This is made worse by the inability of the public to influence the decision-making process that oversees relevant research, and thus, undone science persists. Responsible for “medical tyranny” governments and a “select (elite) group of medical practitioners” use pharma-funded studies to promote vaccines. Autonomy for GPs has been removed and speaking about independent studies that reveal the dangers of vaccines can lead to de-registration, Wilyman alleged in 2019. Despite the inaccuracy of this notion, belief in such faux “powerful groups” helps us appreciate the promotion of vaccine policy dissent.
Finally, and also correctly, Martin notes that work of other authors raise the same criticisms Wilyman did with respect to the WHO declaration of the 2009 “swine flu” pandemic. I will examine this final defence in more detail later, with particular focus on context. For now, let’s first understand what was proposed by Wilyman that led to accusations of conspiracy theory thinking?
Pandemic 2009
The World Health Organisation (WHO) is delegated to manage international health emergencies via the International Health Regulations (IHR). Before May 2009 WHO described an influenza pandemic as simultaneous worldwide epidemics that caused enormous numbers of illnesses and deaths. After May 2009 the reference to “enormous numbers” was removed. A statement referring to severity, and adequately explaining the change in wording was added; “Pandemics can be either mild or severe in the illness and death they cause and the severity of a pandemic can change over the course of the pandemic.” For myself, and presumably many others, this made absolute sense. Epidemics are outbreaks effecting those within a particular region or population. Pandemics are global outbreaks. That these terms describe the reach of a virus, rather than its virulence or pathogenicity, is not only axiomatic. It is essential, indeed critical, that global health authorities have descriptions at hand that serve to mobilise local responses and when necessary, prepare or mobilise global responses.
Judy Wilyman (left) referred to the change in definition on page 287 of her thesis. She then raised concerns about conflicts of interest, particularly involving advisory board members linked to pharmaceutical companies. A primary concern Wilyman raises is the declaration of the 2009 H1N1 pandemic and the triggering of large sales of vaccines, which fortunately were not needed. Wilyman sees nefarious intent at play here, partly justified by a period of only weeks between the change in definition and the pandemic declaration. In chapter 3, page 63 she refers to “the 2009 ‘fake’ pandemic”. Later, Wilyman likens it to the outcome “of the ‘swine’ flu pandemic of 1976 which also did not eventuate”. I would suggest these statements are a clear expression of Judy Wilyman’s thinking about the 2009 N1H1 pandemic. Her conclusion to chapter 10 opens as follows:
The ‘Swine Flu’ pandemic of 2009 was declared by a secret WHO committee that had ties to pharmaceutical companies that stood to make excessive profits from the pandemic. This situation was facilitated by the lack of effective regulations and transparency regarding COI, within the WHO and national governments, to prevent pharmaceutical companies from exploiting global health policies to their advantage.
The first sentence above was quoted by Kylar Loussikian in the article Uni accepts thesis on vaccine ‘conspiracy’, and this, combined with reference to a conspiracy theory in Wilyman’s work, drew intellectual ire from Martin. In seven articles defending Wilyman’s thesis and six specific responses to other authors, Martin addressed individuals citing the “conspiracy theory” attributed to Wilyman and sought to highlight each CTA [Source]. Readers are informed of an “hysterical reaction” to academic freedom, “mobbing” of a PhD student, “persistent bias” on Wikipedia, necessary “defending” of university integrity and the “orchestrated attack” on a PhD thesis.
As noted above Martin contends that Wilyman’s allegations have been unjustly dismissed, and supporting citations ignored. In referencing these citations, Martin quotes from a 2010 article in the BMJ [p. 20]:
Key scientists advising the World Health Organization on planning for an influenza pandemic had done paid work for pharmaceutical firms that stood to gain from the guidance they were preparing. These conflicts of interest have never been publicly disclosed by WHO, and WHO has dismissed inquiries into its handling of the A/H1N1 pandemic as “conspiracy theories” (Cohen and Carter 2010).
Thus Wilyman’s claim, as Martin reminds us, is accurate. Yet this specific observation is a small part of a thesis that is based on highly selective material and void of literature analysis. This is clear, as when we apply the context of other WHO critics, the language used by Wilyman in her above quote, and further allegations within her thesis, we can see she has taken liberties others have not. She refers to drug companies standing to make “excessive profits… facilitated by the lack of effective regulations… [that would] prevent pharmaceutical companies from exploiting global health policies to their advantage.”
Wilyman herself acknowledges that WHO accepts inconsistencies regarding conflicts of interest exist, and safeguards relating to these need to be tightened. Chapter 10.12 of her thesis is headed Summary of the Evidence for an Orchestrated Pandemic in 2009. An “orchestrated pandemic” is not a conclusion in the sources she previously cited, but rather a fabrication of her own making. H1N1 caused 284,400 deaths globally in 2009 [Mayo Clinic]. Of 899 patients effected during the first outbreak in Mexico, 6.5% fell critically ill, of whom 41% died [Source].
The article, WHO and the pandemic flu “conspiracies” (Cohen and Carter 2010)[PDF] was a BMJ joint investigation with the Bureau of Investigative Journalism, which critically examined conflicts of interest that troubled WHO after the H1N1 pandemic was called. It is a well written, well researched article which takes a realistic approach in understanding bipartisan dynamics at play. It is worth noting the word conspiracies in the heading is in quotation marks. I have no trouble accepting their argument, yet I have seen nothing other than assumption, that critics of Wilyman had ignored this and other WHO critics because they did not cite the sources.
In fact criticism of WHO for COI and issues of transparency came from many quarters including Paul Flynn, Social Health and Family Affairs Committee Rapporteur, U.K. and Harvey Fineberg, president of the U.S. Institute of Medicine. 13 of the 29 members of the review panel were members of the IHR itself, leading Cohen and Carter to observe some may think internal reviews somewhat of an “incestuous approach”. Nonetheless, the headline at science.org accompanying a report of the review in March 2011, read Committee Sharply Critiques WHO’s Pandemic Response.
Professor Peter McIntyre is a co-author of PhD thesis opposing immunisation: Failure of academic rigour with real-world consequences [Vaccine 37], that I quoted from above. In News GP, he plainly addresses Wilyman’s resurrection of the material analysed by Cohen and Carter in 2010:
All the things she’s raised are not new. They’ve been raised in the past and dealt with (Prof. Peter McIntyre).
Language employed by Cohen and Carter, whilst critical, acknowledges the reality of WHO contracts. The authors voiced concerns about conflicts of interest amongst scientists contributing to pandemic planning, and even the transparency of advisory science to governments. They rightly questioned why a pandemic guidance committee remained secret to those within WHO, writing at one point:
We are left wondering whether major public health organisations are able to effectively manage the conflicts of interest that are inherent in medical science.
“Inherent in medical science”. This phrase is key. The authors are not accusing WHO of nefarious intent. Rather, in the wake of the H1N1 pandemic that failed to impact the world as predicted, WHO was vulnerable to questions about transparency. Questions that made particular sense because vaccines had gone unused, and because of secrecy, it was feasible identities with links to pharmaceutical companies had pressured the WHO to declare a pandemic, which triggered the sale of vaccines. The authors postulate that the problems critics identified, had “led to the emergence of these conspiracies”, noting also the manner in which risk was communicated, “was another factor that has fuelled the conspiracies” (Cohen and Carter 2010).
Perhaps Wilyman’s critics that Professor Martin has accused of Conspiracy Theory Attribution had indeed examined the supporting citations she provided. And surely, if we are to accept this allegation by Wilyman as correct because she cited this article, as Martin opined, do we then disregard the well documented approach of Judy Wilyman and jettison the years of her posing vaccination per se is a therapeutically useless affront to the public, maintained via deceit and yes, conspiracy? Has Brian Martin really convinced his readers of Wilyman’s academic integrity solely because she has recounted the work of others, in holding WHO to account for COI, poor transparency and declaring a pandemic that fooled well meaning experts? As John Cohen wrote in 2011:
At the outset, no one could predict that the novel H1N1 virus—a recombination of human, pig, and avian influenza genes—would turn out to be more wimp than monster.
Let us remember in 2010 Margaret Chan who was WHO Director General at the time, spoke at the US Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Perhaps we should give the last word on pandemic 2009 criticism to her:
WHO anticipated close scrutiny of its decisions, but we did not anticipate that we would be accused, by some European politicians, of having declared a fake pandemic on the advice of experts with ties to the pharmaceutical industry and something personal to gain from increased industry profits.
There’s little point digging further. This post is about the 2015 University of Wollongong Wilyman thesis and the arguably fragile use of Conspiracy Theory Attribution to refute the critics in its wake. However, lacking so far is a brief reflection of Judith Wilyman, the anti-vaccine conspiracy theorist. How might Conspiracy Theory Self Attribution (CTSE) have influenced the manner in which critics chose to phrase their criticism?
Judy Wilyman’s Conspiracy Theory Self Attribution
Prior to her thesis being published Judy pushed the idea vaccines are linked to autism, the HPV vaccine should be ignored [ABC], all vaccine ingredients were concerning, and added more reasons to not have the HPV vaccine. Just over 16 months ago, Scotland yielded data that resulted from ignoring the sort of messages Wilyman was pushing. Zero cases of cervical cancer have been detected in girls, or people with a cervix, who had the bivalent HPV vaccine by age 12 years [PDF]. In Australia the 4vHPV vaccine is 100% effective (95% CI: 94-100%) against vaginal and external anogenital lesions associated with HPV types 6, 11, 16 and 18 in women. Judy pushed the idea all vaccines are dangerous and not necessary, whilst being essentially mandated for Australians. All this included a Quack Miranda that it is Not Medical Advice.
When the COVID-19 pandemic hit in 2020, Judy Wilyman embraced a number of demonstrable conspiracy theories from the “plandemic” ruse, to the calculated 5G initiated genocide-by-vaccine of humanity, to “died suddenly”. Bill Gates worked to profit from humanities doom whilst the vaccine mutated human DNA and after all, COVID-19 was either benign, non-existent, a mere flu or a lethal weapon designed by invading aliens, in conjunction with human elites. In fact, Wilyman was an “expert witness” and “tribunal judge” in a self-proclaimed International Tribunal alleging “genocide and crimes against humanity created by any and all vaccines”. The tribunal stated a number of prominent human beings (p.101):
… are entrained by and in criminal co-conspiracy with PPAI, a sentient Off-planet, predatory, pathogenic, invading Inorganic AI Artificial Intelligence, and are “entrained AI proxies, AI hosts, and AI sponsors” in creating and maintaining the 5G/AI Coronavirus Genocide that is causing imminent and irreparable harm to all human beings similarly situated.
Five months ago, without citing evidence, Wilyman informed anti-COVID-19 vaccine activist, Senator Russell Broadbent that vaccine ingredients are the cause of chronic illness in children. She alleged that the media can report an “epidemic of measles” when only one case exists, and that COVID-19 was a run-of-the-mill COVID virus modified by gain of function research to induce lethal virulence. Most vaccines on The Australian schedule have no protective effect and if so, that is short-lived protection.
Doctors Wilyman alleged, once used to warn us to not get vaccinated because of individual genetics (this happens to be a Wilyman trope), but now those doctors have been removed. There’s no proof polio is a virus Judy says – it’s merely toxins or chemicals. If Judy could speak to the PM and health minister about vaccines she’d inform them “they’ve been complicit in the biggest crime against humanity that’s ever been committed”. But of course a great deal of the harm is down to Stop The AVN and Australian Skeptics. Apparently some aren’t even scientists. Imagine that.
Conclusion
Conspiracy theories are self-evident without needing the theorist to label them or the observer to study them to confirm their proposal. Wilyman has created an Australia-wide identity of an anti-science, anti-vaccine fantasist who has an almost violent disregard for evidence, accusing even sympathetic interlocutors of harbouring conspiracy theories.
Martin and the examiners of her thesis are humanities scholars, not scientists, and this may help us understand why a work that made no original contribution to any area of academia was accepted as a doctoral thesis. Of genuine concern is the fact that an anti-science ideologist now wields the title of “doctor”, as if this renders her claims ipso facto correct.
We’ve seen that Conspiracy Theory Attribution as an excuse wielded in defence of Judy Wilyman by Brian Martin, has tenuous technical merit only. A key factor weakening his argument is the conduct of Judy Wilyman herself.
CTA in addition to the criteria to assess uptake are constructs Martin himself devised. They do not, and cannot, remedy the reality that the Wilyman thesis is an academic aberration, holding no place in science.
References
Uptake of a Conspiracy Theory Attribution
News with a negative frame: a vaccination case study
Debating Vaccination
Mobbing of a PhD student: lessons and responsibilities
Judy Wilyman, PhD: how to understand attacks on a research student
WHO and the pandemic flu “conspiracies”
A critical analysis of the Australian government’s rationale for its vaccination policy
PhD thesis opposing immunisation: Failure of academic rigour with real-world consequences
RESPONSE TO JUDY WILYMAN’S PHD THESIS ON VACCINATION POLICY – AN ASSESSMENT OF ERRORS, OMISSIONS, MISREPRESENTATIONS
Judy Wilyman – Wikipedia
As US Secretary of Health and Human Services, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has overseen financial and staffing cuts to infectious disease, mental health and addiction services. However, he appears to be unaware of this and the extent of the harm he has caused.
In trying to ascertain exactly where his head is at, consider his visit to the unvaccinated Mennonite community in Seminole, Texas, where a measles epidemic rages, killing children and nearly killing others. Kennedy posted on X about his visit with a couple whose 2 year old daughter was discharged after 3 weeks in Intensive Care. He also offered:
I also visited with these two extraordinary healers, Dr. Richard Bartlett and Dr. Ben Edwards who have treated and healed some 300 measles-stricken Mennonite children using aerosolised budesonide and clarithromycin.
Healed? Really?
Well, no. Nothing “heals” measles. There is no cure. Richard Bartlett has previously claimed budesonide was a miracle cure for COVID-19. His extensive research involved being asleep during which time “an answer to a prayer” came to him. With patent laws on divine intervention being sketchy at best, it’s no surprise that this is now a cure for measles. So, what is aerosolized budesonide when it’s at home? A bronchodilator, often simply called an asthma inhaler, after its most common use. As noted in the video below, Dr. Paul Offit warns of the immune inhibiting qualities of steroids like budesonide and the obvious danger this poses during measles infection.
The other “extraordinary healer”, Ben Edwards, has recently volunteered that mass infection is “God’s version of measles immunisation”. This guy is peddling prayer and unproven treatments whilst wandering about his so-called clinic, himself infected with measles. When devotees from the Kennedy-founded anti-vaccine lobbyist group, Children’s Health Defense praise him for his negligence he offers, “I’m only doing what any good doctor should be doing”.
So here we are, now getting an idea of how US public health initiatives unfold under Kennedy. I wonder if this is what Trump had in mind when he said “Go wild Bobby”. To make the whole thing even more bizarre is the fact other anti-vaccine identities are criticising Kennedy for observing, tucked at the bottom of another post on X, that the MMR vaccine is “the most effective way to prevent the spread of measles”. They may be happier with the falsehoods he has since announced about “treating” measles (you can’t) that cases are inevitable because the vaccine “wanes very quickly” (it doesn’t), and 14 studies not linking autism to vaccines are “invalid” (no evidence provided) .
With her apt tone, Rachel Maddow runs through a few of Kennedy’s recent failures, in the MSNBC video below…
“Turbo cancer” does not exist. Oncologists reject the notion entirely. Aside from the ridiculous name, there is no evidence to support it. Bold claims promoting it as fact, are not merely invalid, but scientifically incompetent. Proponents offer no clear definition, other than insist DNA can be damaged by COVID-19 vaccines, leading to aggressive cancers. As the “died suddenly” trend begins to die out, “turbo cancer” is in top gear.
We’re told residual DNA in vaccines is responsible. Or, the vaccines enter the cell nucleus. Or, it’s not a vaccine – it’s gene therapy. Or, simian virus 40 (SV40) is the cancer-causing agent in mRNA vaccines. This last claim has origins reaching back to the 1950s and 1960s when discovery of SV40 present in oral polio vaccine was responsible for safety concerns and later cancer fear-mongering. Mechanisms of infection were verified as possible but rare, and allegations of a surge in cancers decades later, are unverified. SV40 was one of the first oncogenic viruses discovered. These viruses cause cancers in experimental animals and in some cases humans. However, not in this case. When it comes to COVID-19 vaccines, some mRNA preparations may contain SV40 fragments, which aren’t the same as the virus and are not carcinogenic. In fact there is no evidence of this ever having occurred. The fragments occur because part of SV40’s DNA sequence is used in the beginning of mRNA vaccine development.
- ©️ Partnering For Vaccine Equity Resource Hub
- ©️ Partnering For Vaccine Equity Resource Hub
- ©️ Partnering For Vaccine Equity Resource Hub
- ©️ Partnering For Vaccine Equity Resource Hub
- ©️ Partnering For Vaccine Equity Resource Hub
- ©️ Partnering For Vaccine Equity Resource Hub As for so-called “turbo cancer” [Wikipedia] the term has its origins at least as far back as November 2020, according to the indefatigable Orac, who identified it in a smarmy comment to a forum post about Moderna’s request for clearance of its mRNA vaccine. By November 2022, use of the term had spiked online. It was being promoted and amplified by a number of anti-vaccine activists on social media. One such group was RFK Jr.’s Children’s Health Defense (CHD) which had emerged as a major distributer of COVID disinformation during the pandemic. In January 2023 AFP fact-checked a November 2022 Rumble video produced by CHD, featuring disgraced Canadian doctors Charles Hoffe and Stephen Malthouse. AFP reported that oncologists had informed them the claims were baseless, and added:
“There is no evidence in Canada or globally that vaccination leads to any forms of cancer or that Covid vaccines lead to rapid advancement in cancers,” British Columbia’s Ministry of Health said in a statement emailed January 11. “There is also no evidence to support Covid vaccines leading to harm to the immune system; on the contrary evidence strongly supports that Covid vaccines produce strong, effective immune responses that protect from serious illness from SARS CoV-2.”
Many insist there is a 2024 Japanese paper supporting the claim. It was retracted in short order due to invalid conclusions. Others post made up and verifiable stories. A popular claim is that the spike protein in vaccines, but not COVID itself, interferes with the P53 gene and thus, the crucial P53 protein. This protein ensures cell division and cell death and is also known as the tumour suppressor protein. The same claim is levelled at the P52 and BRCA tumour suppressor systems. David Gorski, co-director of the Michigan Breast Oncology Initiative, addressed the claim:
“To cause cancer, long-term inhibition of P53 activity is required (months to years), which the vaccine can’t do,” he told AFP on January 14 [2023]… The posts also mislead by invoking “turbo-cancer,” he said, as the term is not used by oncologists. “I can’t recall ever having heard the term ‘turbo cancer’ before recently,” Gorski said. “It does not appear in any paper I could find in PubMed. It’s a term made up by anti-vaxxers.” [Source]
In his own December 2022 piece dismantling “turbo cancer” disinformation, Gorski was incredulous at the lack of scientific plausibility. He observed that ionising radiation from nuclear blasts is the most powerful carcinogen known. Doses from blasts at Hiroshima and Nagasaki did not elicit leukaemia cancers for two years, whilst solid cancers took ten years to appear. Yet we were witnessing claims that aggressive stage 4 cancers were simply appearing in vaccinated individuals seemingly without warning, or credible scientific explanation. What was known, was the impact of pandemic lockdowns and isolation, on patient treatment compliance (through no fault of their own) and delayed investigation for possible cancers. Consider this abstract conclusion relating to pandemic-caused underdiagnoses of head and neck cancers:
The COVID-19 pandemic led to underdiagnosis of HNC, resulting in shifts to more advanced stage at presentation in certain subgroups. A stage shift can be expected for the 9.5% of tumors not yet diagnosed at the end of 2020. HNC patients diagnosed in 2020 suffered higher than expected mortality.
Also, a rise in cancer incidence rates in younger generations involving certain cancers was evident prior to the pandemic. A 2024 Lancet study follows trends from 1920 to 1990 and has identified an increase in cancers that had previously declined. Environmental and lifestyle changes are suspected to play a role. Obesity-related cancers are prominent whilst sedentary lifestyles, processed foods, alcohol and exposure to chemicals may all be involved. In April 2023 Kashyap Patel, MD, was quoted in the American Journal of Managed Care regarding a link he had identified between COVID-19 and cancer progression in younger adults. The trend began in March 2020, long before COVID-19 vaccines were available, and has increased steadily. It was reported:
With COVID-19 added to the mix, Patel now fears a “perfect storm” of factors will trigger inflammatory responses in some patients, causing cancer to arrive years earlier than normal and making it deadlier once it is diagnosed.
We should also remind ourselves of basic evidence delivered around the world as mRNA vaccines were developed for COVID-19. mRNA cannot enter a cell’s nucleus and thus cannot alter DNA. mRNA fragments degrade quickly post vaccination. So, the “months or years” Gorski observed were needed to disrupt P53 proteins, and therefore cancer suppression, cannot and do not apply. mRNA vaccine ingredients simply do not accumulate in the body. Gorski also cites Edward Nirenberg who points out that the DNA plasmid-based COVID-19 vaccine, ZyCOV-D must be delivered by jet-injector because DNA can’t spontaneously penetrate cells. If DNA does access cell cytoplasm – let’s call it cytoplasmic DNA – it is then degraded by capable enzymes called cytoplasmic deoxyribonucleases: DNase I, DNase II and TREX1. In addition, autophages, which engulf cytoplasmic debris, will also handle DNA. Logic dictates that “turbo cancer” from mRNA vaccines cannot exist.
Yet logic is anathema to the anti-vaccine lobby. When Fox News medical commenter Kelly Powers died of a brain tumour, the turbo cancer crowd leapt into action on social media. The People’s Voice, an online rag famous for lengthy bogus headlines such as British Gov’t Declare “Turbo Cancer Health Crisis” As Thousands of Vaxxed Diagnosed Each Day, insulted Powers’ family and friends with Fully Vaccinated Fox News Doctor Kelly Powers, Who Survived On-Air Heart Attack, Dies From Turbo Cancer. Spoiler alert: Powers’ glioblastoma was diagnosed prior to release of COVID-19 vaccines. The publication is regularly fact-checked to its detriment, such as here, here, here and here.
Aside from conspiracy headlines and misleading voices on social media, there’s no evidence of an increase in sudden, aggressive and lethal cancers. Australia emerged from the pandemic as a highly vaccinated nation. 97% of over 12 year olds had at least one COVID-19 vaccine dose whilst 95.2% had two. As the Australian population ages and the risk of cancer diagnosis increases with age, we should expect more cases. With a growing population, the overall number of cases will also increase. The total number has increased over the last thirty years, whilst the cancer incidence rate (per 100,000) has stabilised since 2009 for men, but increased for women in Australia. See below [Source].
- For more information on cancer, the age cohorts impacted, the types of cancers seen and mortality in the USA, drop in on the Global Vaccine Data Network blog and the informative entry, ‘Turbo Cancer’ and mRNA: The myth that defies biology and physics. We’re also reminded that certain vaccines reduce and prevent cancer risk by preventing viral infection (HPV, Hepatitis B), and even treat cancer via personalised immunotherapy.
The most common reason favoured by vaccine conspiracy theorists for the “turbo cancer” myth is the notion that mRNA vaccines are contaminated with excessively high levels of residual DNA. I’ve previously written about this and the position of Australia’s Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) who regard it as misinformation. It remains a beloved trope of anti-vax legal guru Julian Gillespie, who has recently knocked on the door of Elon Musk’s DOGE. His aim there, is to convince Musk that the FDA fraudulently schemed $16 billion from Trump and the American people by colluding with Pfizer and Moderna over mRNA vaccines. Why? Because it’s “gene therapy”.
Focusing on DNA contamination in mRNA vaccines, sometimes called Plasmid-gate, Gillespie often refers to Kevin McKernan. McKernan’s October 2023 preprint followed his original, which as I’ve mentioned, was labelled an “awful study” by David Gorski. McKernan himself and Jessica Rose were correctly labelled anti-vaxxers by Gorski who also noted their “abuse” of VAERS. The other authors are Dr. David Speicher, Maria Gutschi, and David Wiseman. Along with Julian Fidge’s solicitor, Katie Ashby-Koppens, all authors but Wiseman recently joined Gillespie in a “Citizen Petition requesting the revocation of the [FDA] approvals given to the Pfizer and Moderna Covid-19 products”. Sound familiar? It’s the US version of the specific aim of every Gillespie-designed anti-COVID vaccine court case in Australia: to revoke TGA approval of the vaccines.
The methodological flaws seen in the publication of McKernan et al have not gone unnoticed. Qubit Fluorometric Quantification (fluorometry) uses fluorescent markers to detect nucleic acids. Apart from detecting DNA the technique also measures RNA, and the presence of mRNA in the vaccines leads to inflated results being reported as solely DNA. So why do we hear so much about the results yielded by this technique? Simply, because using the “gold standard” of Quantitative PCR (qPCR) to measure DNA, revealed DNA levels below FDA guidelines, to McKernan et al. See below [Source].
Comparison of residual DNA content of spike (red) and ori (blue) and the total number of adverse events (orange) reported to VAERS. The FDA and WHO regulatory guideline of 10 ng/dose for residual DNA is shown by a red dotted line. Vials are sorted in descending order by DNA load of plasmid ori. Lower case letters at the end of lot numbers indicate different vials of the same lot. The total number of As was determined per lot and reproduced for each vial in the same lot.
I recommend reading the October 2023 Respectful Insolence analysis of the McKernan, Rose et al paper for specific commentary on total ng levels per dose. Getting to the business end, I’ll quote from it below:
So, from McKernan and Rose’s own data, the vial with the very highest concentration of DNA was one Pfizer vial that had less than one-half the maximum DNA amount recommended by the FDA, while the Moderna vial with the most plasmid DNA contamination had less than one-tenth the maximum recommended by the FDA. In other words, there’s a whole lot of nothing here so far.
Finding results that don’t fit long held conclusions is what led the authors to use Qubit to find “orders of magnitude” more plasmid DNA. Gorski stresses what many have pondered when looking at these results. Surely when two different techniques yield such discrepancies in data, it’s time to question methodology. In fact their Qubit results yield a 600 fold higher than the maximum measured by qPCR in Pfizer vaccines. In Moderna vaccines it is almost 5,500 times greater. Later, Gorski notes their VAERS results are “hilariously bad”. McKernan and Rose had searched VAERS for adverse events (AE) reported for batch numbers matching their vials. After dividing serious AEs by total AEs for each batch, they graphed that figure against the DNA they had measured in vials with the same batch number. This was plotted on Microsoft Excel.
To appreciate a little more nuance about the perils of linking batch numbers to unverified AE reports, do visit my post OpenDAEN: Misleading Australians. The added peril by McKernan and Co. is that they are contending AEs they identified are due to the plasmid DNA they have reported as excessive. It’s essentially a conspiracy theory beefed with flawed science and pushed out as a hit job on mRNA vaccines. It is fear mongering with reckless disdain for the reality that residual DNA is present in vaccines and monitored by regulatory bodies. More so, for the last time, it cannot harm us.
Moving away from dubious claims seeking to blame “turbo cancer” on DNA residue, there are other attempts to blame mRNA vaccines for cancer. Apart from the retracted Japanese paper there has been social media misrepresentation of a Belgian study involving mice, which was published in Frontiers in Oncology in 2023. USA Today provide a summary of the “turbo cancer” disinformation tactic used here. In Australia as I’ve mentioned before, we have a clique of senators who appear to easily adopt all things anti-COVID vaccine. Consider this speech from Senator Malcom Roberts of One Nation, in the Senate Chamber, 1 August 2023, referring to the Pfizer “fakezine”. Before ultimately attacking climate change science as “the cult of doom”, he contended that “COVID science has been smashed”, by running through a list of unproven claims likening the COVID vaccines to disease-causing killer agents. He began of course, with the Belgian mouse study:
An article published in the journal Frontiers in Oncology in May asked if the emergence of malignant lymphoma, commonly called turbo cancer, was an adverse event caused by the COVID vaccine—the COVID injection. Researchers injected 14 mice with saline and 14 with the Pfizer COVID product. All the mice given the saline remained healthy. The mice injected with Pfizer appeared healthy. However, one died suddenly two days after the booster dose was administered. An autopsy revealed: ‘B-cell lymphoblastic lymphoma following the intravenous high-dose MRNA vaccination, at age 14 weeks.’
How many more of these studies showing fatal outcomes from the COVID products are needed before this government accepts our 30,000 excess deaths in the last 12 months are, in part, caused by these injections?
Roberts asks, how many more studies? Let’s begin by asking the authors of this one, who were compelled to respond to the attention their poor mouse was getting. After all, it had a predisposition to lymphomas and received an intravenous (not intramuscular) injection 480 to 600 times higher in proportion to body weight, than human vaccine recipients ever received. In an addendum, the authors write:
In the months following publication, we noticed that our case report has gained significant public attention, particularly on social media platforms. More specifically, our case report has been largely misinterpreted and used as a study providing evidence that mRNA COVID-19 vaccination can trigger a phenomenon which has non-scientifically been referred to as “turbo cancer”. First of all, we wish to unequivocally disassociate ourselves from this term. In our case report, there is not a single reference to a condition called “turbo cancer”, nor do we recognize it as a legitimate medical term.
The authors continue, stressing their exploratory research is unbiased, and not about finding correlation between variables, nor discovering causality. The wee mouse they wrote, was merely part of a larger group in which they were seeking to “replicate a previously described murine model of mRNA COVID-19 vaccine-associated myocarditis”. Most importantly the authors stressed that they had multiple times highlighted that a causal relationship between COVID-19 mRNA vaccines and the malignancy observed, could not be established. They stressed a pre-existing lymphoma could have existed, and that reduction in body weight over a week prior to administration of the first whopping great dose of the vaccine, meant an existing lymphoma was plausible. They also offer:
In conclusion, the novel COVID-19 vaccines have demonstrated an exceptional benefit-risk ratio in the fight against the pandemic and manifestations of severe adverse reactions following COVID-19 vaccination are rare. Our case report in not any way counters that overwhelming benefit-risk profile.
Finally, there are repeated attempts to blame COVID-19 vaccines for “excess deaths” in Australia and around the world. Cancer fatalities and “turbo cancer” are peddled by anti-vaccine activists as contributing to the excess deaths. The claim can at least be traced back to an October 2022 refutation by RMIT University in Australia. Last year a study by Saskia Mostert et al, published in the BMJ, was improperly reported in social media and sections of mainstream media as linking excess deaths during the pandemic to COVID-19 vaccines.
The BMJ responded by issuing a statement stressing this link was not made by the authors. Nonetheless, post hoc conclusions could easily be incorrectly made from the the tone of the text which failed to present any causative data to explain excess deaths. Notably, it did not rule out COVID-19 infection. Paul Hunter in The Conversation does an excellent job of addressing the study and reasons for excess deaths.
In conclusion, “turbo cancer” is a bogus term invented by anti-vaccine lobbyists and unrecognised by health professionals. It is widely recognised as a conspiracy theory. Its purpose is to spread fear and mislead the public about the safety of COVID-19 vaccines. The allegation of DNA contamination of mRNA vaccines, advanced by McKernon, Rose, Speicher et al, and championed by Julian Gillespie in Australia, is demonstrably flawed.
The incidence of, and deaths from, cancer following the pandemic are not linked to vaccination. Nonetheless, false claims about excess deaths and “turbo cancer” linked to COVID-19 vaccines, will continue to be incorrectly made.
Heres why we know COVID-19 vaccine ingredients are safeDownload
Last Update: 14 March 2025
Time is close for the 2025 Surf Coast Skepticamp (SCSC) held at Aireys Inlet this coming 15 March. This is Australia’s longest running Skepticamp and is lining up speakers for the eleventh time.
This year the event is being held at Aireys Inlet Community Hall from 10.30am to 4.30pm. The journey from Melbourne is around 1 hour 45 minutes by combustion engine, battery, or hybrid powered vehicles. Time absolutely slides by as the stunning vista of Great Ocean Road scenery cruises by. The cost, of course, is free. But you should still help with arrangements by popping into Eventbrite here and picking up a ticket. Full details are available there also.
Topics covered in the past include: UFOs (Saunders & Dunning beamed live from Bend, Oregon!), Anti-vaxxers after COVID, Going Solar, Fake Martial Arts, Catching Academic Cheats, Climate change in Australia: fact vs. fiction, Crowdfunding Scams, Shayna Jack, sports supplements and regulators, The Weeping Woman and Other Tales: The Belief in the Supernatural in Latin America, Quiz: Just how smart are skeptics?, and much more.
This year we will be headed by published author and researcher Karen Bijkersma who will alert us to on-line subterfuge with “Reading Between the Lies: applied rhetoric in the digital dating era“. Then, regular attender Richard Saunders (Lifetime Skeptics Achievement Award winner) of The Skeptic Zone will drop in for a chat about the current skeptical investigations in Australia (on-line from Sydney). Nathan Eggins (Thornett Award winner) will perform for us (on-line from Brisbane) and maybe ask us to contribute duck quacks to the lyrics of his famous song, Paul Gallagher (Skeptic of the Year) – speaks about the “turbo cancer” conspiracy theory; Terry Kelly (past Presidents of the Vic Skeptics) – “The Dodgiest Skepticamp Stuff I have Seen”; Karl “Rocket Man” Hemphill ‘will analyse and dissect possibly the worst Olympic performance ever with “Raygun – a case study for skeptics”; and Don Hyatt (Convenor of SCSC and the National Convention 2012) will consider the obscure topic “Was Captain Smith a Flash in the Pan?“ and somehow link it to Black Swans.
Come along and enjoy the day. Or, why not bring your interests to Skepticamp and present a 20 minute-ish talk? If that sounds like you, just drop an email with your details and chosen topic to sgofvic@gmail.com. Skeptical thoughts on public health, alternatives to medicine, communicating with the dead, UFO/UAP reports, or the many bizarre claims reaching social media; any and all are welcome.
We break for lunch and visit the various eateries around Aireys Inlet then finish the evening with a wind down and meal at Aireys pub.
January has ushered in some interesting developments for skeptics in Australia as dodgy practices seemingly jostle for attention. Australia’s Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) has published welcome updates and warnings, a QLD influencer sank to a new low, our most insistent anti-vaccine fantasist copped yet another fact-check from the Australian Associated Press (AAP) and 14 members of a faith healing cult have been found guilty of manslaughter.
Black Salve
Black Salve has been a long term problem for the TGA as it remains a dangerously reckless alternative cancer treatment, linked to the unwarranted belief it offers a cure. A company and its director were convicted in 2022 for advertising alternatives to medicine not on the Australian Register of Therapeutic Goods. A significant seizure of black salve also took place in late 2023. On 6 January this year, the therapeutic watchdog published information that following an investigation in conjunction with the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions, an individual faced 12 charges for alleged criminal offences under the Therapeutic Goods Act 1989.
The alleged offences relate to the advertising and supply of black salve, bloodroot capsules and other unapproved therapeutic goods. It is alleged that the individual made claims about the products’ ability to treat serious health conditions, including anxiety and cancer.
The defendant faces a maximum penalty of 12 months’ imprisonment and/or a fine of up to $222,000 for each charge.
Sanguinarine, a primary corrosive agent in black salve, is listed as a Schedule 10 substance in the Poisons Standard. These are described as substances “so dangerous to health that they are prohibited from sale, supply and use in Australia”. Whilst the TGA has not named the individual, a certain Belinda Gae Harris (pictured) who operates Tickety Boo Herbal, had prior to Christmas, revealed via video on Rumble that she had been charged in the exact manner later outlined by the TGA.
Harris remains adamant she is being charged for “helping people” and wrote, “I have been persecuted for being a healer for many lifetimes”. In her video Harris announced she has spent her life finding solutions for the damage [the TGA] have done with mRNA vaccines and “allopathic treatments”. On the topic of mRNA vaccination, Harris wrote last month on social media she used black salve and, “sucked the jab out of people straight after that poison injection”. She continued on her Rumble channel:
I’m just going to keep doing it, because I’m helping people and I’m saving lives. My angels managed to keep this at bay until 2025… I need to have a stack of evidence saying these are all the people whose lives I have saved… Oh my God, Oh my God. It just never ends with this world. This matrix is bullshit. Bullshit lies. They’re allowed to administer carcinogenic chemotherapy to people and fry the fuck out of them with their radiation. But I’m not allowed to do a simple herbal remedy that I have tested over and over again… I’ll see you in court government – who always seem to be loving watching me. I bet you’ve got the hots for me. You probably do, just like the trolls… You can’t shut me up. If you put me in jail I’ll just be educating everybody around me. Okay. Namaste. Loving you. Ben Abou.
Harris was scheduled to appear before Deniliquin local court on 4 January for Commonwealth and Police criminal mentions. One awaits updates on the matter, which aren’t presently coming from the Tickety Boo Facebook page.
Melanotan tanning products
On 24 January the TGA published a warning about the risks of using tanning products containing melanotan. Illegally sold and advertised online they consist of nasal sprays and injectable and indigestible tanning products. Unapproved for sale in Australia, they may contain toxic or counterfeit ingredients. Melanotans are synthetic peptides that increase melanin production in the skin. The risk of serious side effects mean melanotans should only be used under medical supervision. However they are being illegally promoted as safe, including by social media influencers. Vulnerable young Australians struggling with body image issues are at significant risk. The TGA write:
While the most common side effects include headache, nausea, vomiting, loss of appetite, and facial redness, the most concerning one is the risk of serious skin cancers. With melanotan-II, there have been reports of increased moles and freckles, kidney dysfunction and swelling of the brain.
Melanotan is not approved for sale or use as a tanning agent in Australia. These tanning agents haven’t been assessed for their quality or safety. Since these tanning products are not approved for sale or use in Australia, you also have no way of knowing what’s in them, no matter what’s written on the label. They could be made with toxic, poor quality or counterfeit ingredients.
The TGA also warn about advertising such products and leave little to the imagination by reminding readers that “all media types visible to the public” are included and liable as breaches under the TGA Advertising Code. More so, they have “a dedicated workforce to investigate the inappropriate and unlawful manufacturing, distribution, sale, import and advertising of therapeutic goods”. Let’s hope the warning is heeded.
Meryl Dorey
Regularly warned, reminded, debunked, corrected and revealed to have a striking aversion to the truth is one Meryl Dorey, founder of The Australian Vaccination-risks Network and owner of a Very Big Tag (VBT) on this website. Meryl has been fact checked by AAP in the past for cultivating notions about child suicides, and claiming later the same year that vaccinated people are more likely to die from COVID. The latest very, very old chestnut wheeled out by Meryl during an interview on YouTube [relevant section here] with Australian Liberal MP and vaccine cynic, Russell Broadbent, is the baseless claim that medical students spend a mere few hours discussing vaccines during their entire time at medical school. This is a decades old lie and serves to support the preposterous assertion that anti-vaccine activists know more than medical professionals. Dorey told a gullible Broadbent:
When doctors study vaccination, and we had the curriculum for the New South Wales school of medicine at UNSW – University of New South Wales – and it was out of four years of medical school there was one morning where vaccinations were discussed. […]
I think that any parent who’s done a modicum of research will be able to know more about this issue than the average doctor.
Ah yes, doing your own research. Busted by AAP, Dorey replied to their queries saying the curriculum was from “many years ago” and she had spoken to “probably thousands” of doctors about vaccines. Doctors apparently supporting her version of vaccine risks. Both replies should be regarded as monumentally dubious. I recommend reading the AAP piece to appreciate medical training around immunisation, population health and the use of vaccines. However, one paragraph stood out for me. A spokesperson for the Royal Australian College of General Practitioners observed:
When it comes to vaccines, as with other health issues, GPs are trained to consider the patient’s history and relevant risk factors, discuss the options available to the patient and any risks associated, and enable the patient to determine the most appropriate decisions about their own health care.
This isn’t the post to dig into this point, but bear in mind that anti-vaccine activist Judy Wilyman was awarded a PhD for a meandering literature review that made much of so-called “undone science” and unverified claims that vaccination programmes pose serious risks because they do not accomodate the genetic diversity and unique health needs of individuals. The above quote should serve as yet another reminder that the decision by the University of Wollongong to award that PhD, was and is demonstrably flawed.
Influencer charged with poisoning
The ABC joined the world’s media reporting on a 34 year old QLD mother and social media influencer, who has been charged with torture and giving her baby unauthorised medications, with the aim of attracting donations. It was a simple, if repulsive tactic; inform followers of your child’s illness, then create and exacerbate symptoms filmed to elicit sympathy. Police allege up to $60,000 was raised this way. The crowdfunding platform, GoFundMe, is presently refunding donors. It was also reported that after hospital staff improved the child’s health, the woman filled additional prescriptions and recommenced the abuse. The drug, carbamazepine, had been stopped by treating doctors due to fears it was causing seizures. Last week the woman was charged with 11 offences.
- 5 counts of administering poison with intent to harm
- 3 counts of preparation to commit crimes with dangerous things
- Torture
- Making Child Exploitation Material
- Fraud
On 28 January a Brisbane Magistrates Court heard the woman allegedly hid her then 12 month old daughter under a blanket prior to administering unprescribed substances via a nasal tube. The child, now 18 months, was born with tuberous sclerosis, a genetic disorder which caused benign tumours in organs and can lead to epileptic seizures. Doctors believe the illegal medication administration caused further seizures in this child. The woman was caught on CCTV fiddling with her daughter’s nasogastric tube and handling a syringe, which was unrelated to her daughter’s medication. In the timeframe observed, the child went from being alert and awake to unconscious – a symptom not related to her condition.
The ABC reported on 29 January that the seizures, unexplained loss of consciousness and a cardiac arrest between August to October 2024, led the baby’s medical team to carry out high risk surgeries on intra-cranial tumours caused by the child’s genetic condition, believing them to be the causal factor. However, after the surgery the woman’s conduct was discovered. Drug screening revealed “the presence of carbamazepine and other non-prescribed medications in the baby’s system”. Bail was granted on condition the woman have no contact with her daughter other than via supervised audiovisual visits.
This will prove an interesting case with respect to the woman’s defence or indeed the reasons behind her behaviour. No doubt Factitious disorder imposed on another (FDIA), originally Münchausen syndrome by proxy, is an explanation that provides answers. But in the age of social media speckled with complex reasons driving individuals to behave antisocially, illegally or in pursuit of their own malignancies, might this be too simple an answer? Critical thinking and rationality are frequently jettisoned by influencers. Perhaps we should be seeking to understand how social media influences certain users, as much as we seek to grasp how they use it to influence others.
Religious cult guilty of manslaughter
Fourteen members of a religious cult that believed God would heal an 8 year old insulin dependent type 1 diabetic and later raise her from the dead, have been found guilty of manslaughter in a judge only trial in the Brisbane Supreme Court, report the ABC. Elizabeth Struhs was denied her insulin, became critically unwell over several days and died in Toowoomba 3 years ago this month. As she suffered, the cult “prayed and sang” rather than contact emergency services. After Elizabeth died, they waited for more than 24 hours before contacting police. The Court heard the group rejected modern medicine “and put their full trust in the healing power of God”.
Being questioned by police the child’s mother, Kerrie Struhs, told police she hadn’t lost faith in God, who could raise her daughter up regardless of where she was. In a classic example of biblical fundamentalist literacy, she rejected a funeral for her daughter because, “the bible says let the dead bury the dead”. Elizabeth’s father Jason Struhs was originally charged with murder, and also told police that he expected his daughter to rise from death. The deceased’s brother Zachary, told police:
We saw the healing and we know that she was healed from the diabetes. The sickness of her natural death could have been anything that comes up on anyone — that’s not for me to know, I’m not God.
Another member, Therese Stevens, sounded quite chuffed as she explained that Elizabeth will rise again and because of their beliefs they are not “as stressed out and freaked out and emotionally damaged as you would be if you knew you’d never see that person again”. In a ruling that should prove controversial, Justice Martin could not find the child’s father guilty of murder unless he had a full realisation his daughter would die from withdrawal of her insulin. The ABC reported:
Justice Burns said he was not satisfied of this beyond a reasonable doubt, stating there was a possibility in the “cloistered atmosphere of the church which enveloped [him] and which only intensified once he made the decision to cease the administration of insulin, he was so consumed by the particular belief in the healing power of God … that he never came to the full realisation Elizabeth would probably die”.
For a similar reason he did not find cult leader Brendan Stevens guilty of murder, but found his claim that he did not influence Jason Struhs to be “arrant nonsense”. Justice Martin also found all other members influenced Jason to withhold insulin and medical care and thus, “counselled and aided in the unlawful killing of Elizabeth”. Of the 14 members, 8 were from the Stevens family, 3 from the Struhs family, there was one couple and one individual. Elizabeth’s sister Jayde who had not been on trial spoke outside the court. Whilst happy with the outcome of the trial she said the “system failed to protect Elizabeth in the first place”. In a revealing comment Jayde added:
We are only here today because more wasn’t done sooner to protect her or remove her from an incredibly unsafe situation in her own home.
One finds it impossible not to agree.
Okay February, let’s see what you have in store.
I shall confess to some procrastination on this topic, dear reader, as it was back on 10 October that the conspiratorial constitutional complaint against Justice Helen Rofe was dismissed. It appears Chief Justice Debra Mortimer, as we shall see, found the proposed bases for the complaint as bereft of legal integrity as any who struggled through the convoluted contortions composed by the discombobulations of retired barrister, Julian Gillespie, and company.
Memories may be refreshed about the original Fidge v Pfizer case here, the extensive accusations within said complaint (lodged 22 March 2024) here, and the High Court writ of mandamus courageously cobbled to force Chief Justice Mortimer to acquiesce to the complaint (filed 3 July 2024), here. I should rush to add that the complaint and writ were filed on behalf of Dr. Julian Fidge, who is the applicant in all things Fidge v Pfizer. Thus, rulings and complaint dismissals refer to Fidge’s arguments. However, the conspiratorial allegations serve to remind us that Gillespie, enabled by Katie Ashby-Koppens of PJ O’Brien & Associates, are the individuals shaping Fidge’s legal moves.
In her dismissal ruling (also embedded below) Chief Justice Mortimer notes that Fidge’s legal firm lodged an amended draft notice of appeal on 27 March 2024, containing 24 grounds of appeal. Mortimer highlights key allegations against J Rofe, on page 3 of her dismissal (the “First Respondent” is Pfizer):
23. There is a reasonable apprehension that the learned judge’s decision was affected by bias by reason of the factual matters and circumstances of the relationship of the learned judge to the First Respondent thereby manifesting a reasonable apprehension that the learned judge possessed a motive to decide the case in favour of the First Respondent.
24. The learned judge erred by failing to accord the appellant procedural fairness and natural justice by failing to disclose material adverse to the interests of the appellant thereby failing to grant to the appellant an opportunity to be heard adequately or at all concerning those matters, specifically the relationship of the learned judge to the First Respondent manifesting a reasonable apprehension that the learned judge possessed a motive to decide the case in favour of the First Respondent.
On 2 August Fidge withdrew the application for leave to appeal, and on 26 August the High Court proceeding was discontinued. Feel free to read more of the specifics pertaining to the relevance of both procedures over pages 4 and 5 below. A complaint to the Chief Justice may be dismissed if it relates to judicial findings subject to appeal, as Fidge was seeking. However, to his benefit it was held in abeyance. By discontinuing both leave to appeal, and the High Court proceedings (which complained about his complaint being in abeyance), Fidge was open to grounds for dismissal of the complaint as it related to “matters which could have been the subject of an appeal”. Mortimer observes:
I reject the contention in Dr Fidge’s lawyers’ correspondence that there was more to Dr Fidge’s complaint than allegations of bias (actual or apprehended; see below) against Justice Rofe. […] It was the conscious election of Dr Fidge, I infer on legal advice, not to continue pursuing this avenue. I reject the contention in the complaint that the alleged conduct could not be raised on appeal because the Court’s orders were “void ab initio” (invalid from the start). […] I consider this contention nothing more than an attempt to circumvent the appellate processes of the Court.
Mortimer continues, arguing allegations within the complaint have no basis or merit. She adds that some are scandalous, “and this provides an independent basis for their summary dismissal”. None of the allegations were presented in court to J Rofe, leading Chief Justice Mortimer to mention the “causal connection” between Fidge’s unsuccessful application and the lodging of the complaint (para 32):
In my opinion the causal connection is clear and Dr Fidge has made these complaints at least in part because his originating application was unsuccessful.
Mortimer is correct. As noted before it is actually Julian Gillespie driving this caper. We read on Gillespie’s Substack three days after the ruling, in GMO decision… when is a Judge not a Judge?;
[T]hanks to a stone turned over by a reader I did some research over the weekend revealing the following.
Gillespie then “revealed” that J Rofe had represented Pfizer between 2002 and 2006. Thus began the baseless claim that Federal Court judges must recuse themselves for such tenuously related work done as barristers, supposedly due to a conflict of interest. The complaint alleged that failure to announce this at the first hearing amounted to constitutional misconduct that justified J Rofe’s removal from the bench. This would require both Houses of Parliament, in the same session to seek the action of the Governor General to remove J Rofe “on the ground of proved misbehaviour or incapacity”.
Robert Kennedy Jr.’s Children’s Health Defense are behind a website, still active today, titled Section 72, referring to the relevant section of our constitution and urging Australians to take action by writing to MPs. Onto this first accusation of bias for having represented Pfizer as a barrister were layered the “scandalous” allegations that make no sense to any reasonable observer, but provide the apparent “gotcha” connections to COVID vaccine conspiracy theorists. These include:
- J Rofe majored in genetics when at university.
- J Rofe held membership of the Bolton Clarke Human Research and Ethics Committee.
- J Rofe’s cousin, Sir Andrew Grimwade, was associated with scientific and medical research including genetics. This included funding of medical research via his role as Honorary President of the Walter and Eliza Hall Institute (WEHI). WEHI received funding from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, which has funded Pfizer.
- WEHI received money from State and Federal Governments and these governments supported COVID related health policies.
- Sir Andrew attended a ceremony to welcome J Rofe to the federal court and they both likely shared an “interest in science and scientific research”.
- Sir Andrew’s great-grandfather founded a pharmaceutical and medical aid company (1867-1930).
We should pause to remember that this case was docketed to Justice Rofe. She had no say in placing herself as the judge in the Fidge v Pfizer hearing. We see at paragraph 20 that on 10 July 2023 Justice Snaden referred the matter to be allocated to a docket judge. Let’s assume the complainants accept this and simply consider that Julian Fidge was subject to bad luck in coming before a judge with links to science and past employment involving Pfizer. The issue at hand is has the judge acted impartially. Are assumptions enough to confirm bias, and what would become of the legal system if every judge was subject to post hoc scrutiny? Over paragraphs 37 – 42, Mortimer discusses the legalities and case law of determining bias. Of interest in considering Rofe’s involvement with Pfizer, Mortimer adds in paragraph 43 and 48:
Finally, it is well established that “[a] prior relationship of legal adviser and client does not generally disqualify the former adviser, on becoming a member of a … court … from sitting in proceedings before that … court … to which the former client is a party”. […]
It is likely that every Judge on the Federal Court who has been appointed from the independent Bar can count amongst their former clients several such regular litigants. The discharge of the work of the Court, and therefore its administration of justice, would fall into disarray if a Judge could never preside over a proceeding involving an institutional or corporate litigant that, at some stage in the past, they had represented. The situation might be different for an individual litigant, but that is not this situation.
At this point we should consider that if past association and assumed bias were deemed relevant criteria for judging how professionals comport themselves in the legal sphere, how do we judge Julian Fidge’s solicitor Katie Ashby-Koppens? At the time of the hearing and still today, Ashby-Koppens was a member of the steering committee for the World Council for Health. An organisation fact checked by the Australian Associated Press and described as “figures who have promoted unfounded conspiracy theories”. Known for spreading misinformation to discourage COVID-19 vaccination and promote useless COVID-19 treatments, the group was responsible for attempting to launch widespread acceptance of the non-existent “post COVID-19 injection syndrome”.
How impartial is the advice Ashby-Koppens gives to clients? With a history of promoting conspiracy theories, is it any wonder this complaint is based on a conspiracy theory? How does her anti-vaccine ideology sit with professional boundaries? How might this impact PJ O’Brien & Associates? Professional conduct rules are clear:
Regarding duty to the court and the administration of justice:
Lacking professional distance from your client (or their cause) risks distracting you from this duty, which is paramount and prevails to the extent of inconsistency with any other duty. Your objectivity, your independence and your forensic judgement – on which the court relies – may be reduced.
Duty to avoid compromise to integrity and professional independence:
Your integrity and trustworthiness are fundamental to your reputation as a lawyer and to your relationships with clients and other parties in the justice system. When a lawyer fails to act with integrity because their professional boundaries are compromised, the integrity of the justice system as a whole is undermined.
The PDF below includes the decision on the complaint, the relevant ruling of Justice Helen Rofe (p.14), a media release from PJ O’Brien & Associates (p.52), the complaint (p. 54) and Fidge’s draft notice of appeal (p. 77).
Decision_Of_A_Complaint_Chief_Justice_Mortimer_(10_10_24)_1DownloadUltimately, Mortimer reasons as anyone not peering through the lens of conspiracy theory ideology would do. Simply, there is no fair minded observation in the complaint. However, the assertions might be explained by wider speculation about the role of the pharmaceutical industry. This, observes the Chief Justice, “appears to be held by Fidge and supported by his legal representatives”. Sir Andrew, who died in 2023, had no logical connection to Fidge’s proceedings. Nor is there any connection between his work, institutes he was associated with and the judicial decisions of Justice Rofe. The allegations are without merit and “likely insulting to Justice Rofe, and to Sir Andrew’s family”. Fidge’s team makes incorrect use of the Guide to Judicial Conduct citing mention of “cousins”. Yet far from deceased family members, the Guide is referring to proceedings where a family member is involved as a witness, a party or a legal adviser.
Quite rightly, Chief Justice Mortimer addresses the essence of the complaint. Namely that Justice Helen Rofe intended to deceive Fidge about her career and family. She quotes from the complaint, using her own emphasis:
A reasonable observer could and can conclude the intention to not disclose the prior and significant relationship with the First Respondent, and close working relationships and familial ties, created and creates a perception her Honour intended to conceal her prior relationship with the First Respondent, and ostensibly from the Applicant.
Mortimer states that if intended, this “would be a scandalous and unfounded allegation to make, and very serious indeed.” She notes it might justify referring “the firm and lawyers to the appropriate Law Society”. Which again brings to mind the importance of professional conduct rules, and the conduct of lawyers in these cases and in forming complaints. The Chief Justice is generous to decide the allegations are “inappropriate forensic flourishes”, demonstrating “poor judgement” and not intending to be scandalous insults to Justice Rofe. Gillespie and Ashby-Koppens sought outcomes which would require judicial power to grant.
- A declaration the decision of Justice Rofe dated 1 March 2024 was void ab initio.
- A declaration the decision of Justice Rofe dated 1 March 2024 is unappealable.
- An order wholly vacating the decision of Justice Rofe dated 1 March 2024.
- A declaration the Summary Dismissal hearing of 23 October 2023 was void and of no judicial effect.
- An order requiring the Federal Court to pay all costs of the parties relating to the Summary Dismissal application on an indemnity basis.
Debra Mortimer then follows with this memorable paragraph:
Those contentions are so misconceived that it is difficult to understand how qualified lawyers could possibly have considered s 15(1AA) of the FCA Act could extend to exercises of judicial power. These requests, if they might be beneficially characterised as such, demonstrate the level of misconception and misunderstanding behind the entire complaint made by Dr Fidge, especially when considered with the abandonment of his application for leave to appeal.
Conclusion
In very simple terms this complaint alleged that a judge with a background in science and a historic employment history representing Pfizer as a barrister, intentionally concealed these facts for nefarious reasons. Namely, that she always intended to find the applicant lacked standing to bring his case, because she was part of a larger conspiracy to suppress public rights and protect the profits of pharmaceutical companies. The “wider speculation” required to believe such nonsense wasn’t ignored by Mortimer. There is no evidence to support any of the allegations in the complaint. Yet Fidge’s legal team sought to expunge J Rofe’s decisions and have costs resolved to their client’s benefit.
As usual with conspiracy theorists, Julian Gillespie has rejected the findings – which essentially refute his ideological view. In a post criticising the framework of procedural bias that Chief Justice Mortimer used, he contends she has failed the public, making much of what he believes a “reasonable observer” would actually conclude. He argues it was a “high profile case” and as such, Mortimer’s dismissal neglected “judicial transparency, integrity, and public trust”. I predict Ashby-Koppens would agree. Again I’m reminded of Professional Conduct Rules. Lawyers have a duty not to engage in conduct that would question their fitness to practice law, or diminish public confidence in the administration of justice. As a retired barrister, Gillespie need not worry about the following (R. 5.1.1 & 5.1.2):
Fitness to practise law requires the personal confidence of your fellow practitioners and judges, which you risk losing if you are perceived to be too closely aligned or involved with your client. Similarly, if your behaviour with clients would cause the general public to doubt or question your integrity, you are potentially compromising the reputation of the profession.
When it comes to COVID conspiracies and misinformation, the medical profession’s regulators in Australia are equipped to take action against members. If legal cases and complaints steeped in misinformation continue, it would not be overdue if appropriate Law Societies acted to preserve the reputation of their profession.
The Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) is aware of misinformation in recent media and online reports that claim the COVID-19 mRNA vaccines are contaminated with excessive levels of DNA. This is not the case.
TGA 18 October 2024
So opens the TGA report Addressing misinformation about excessive DNA in the mRNA vaccines. It is, for those of us aware of this issue, an understatement. The sheer volume and scope of misinformation, combined with relentless pressure from repeat offenders including members of the Australian parliament, more accurately suggests a campaign. A calculated campaign of misinformation designed to spread fear and intimidate the vaccine hesitant. Despite there being accepted means for discerning DNA residue in vaccines, two claims persist. Namely levels are hundreds of times greater than the accepted safe level, and that aggressive cancers will, and do, directly result.
Background
The original claim stems from a preprint paper by Kevin McKernan dated 11 April 2023. Amplitude, via the Australian anti-COVID vaccine lobby, was lent to this claim in July 2023. The legal guru behind all Australian court cases to challenge approval of COVID-19 vaccines, retired barrister Julian Gillespie, penned The Canaries in the Human DNA Mine. Falsely labelled “peer reviewed” by his anti-vaccine compatriots, it was published in the unabashedly anti-vaccine International Journal of Vaccine Theory, Practice, and Research. Gillespie also crafted the case material used by Dr. Julian Fidge, in what became known as the Fidge v Pfizer case in which Fidge was represented by Katie Ashby-Koppens of P. J. O’Brien and Associates. I summarised the unsuccessful case here, in April this year. Gillespie and Co. followed with a conspiratorial constitutional complaint against the presiding judge, Justice Helen Rofe. Then via a High Court writ they targeted Chief Justice Debra Mortimer for not accepting their complaint. Both complaints were lodged on behalf of Dr. Fidge
Around the same time, the outrage manufactured by the anti-vax lobby shifted from the claim in Fidge v Pfizer that mRNA vaccines were Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs), to the claim that vast amounts of DNA were contaminating these vaccines. Julian Gillespie, who wants a COVID Royal Commission, publishes for his “good substack folk” regularly on DNA contamination. He claims to have commissioned Canadian molecular virologist Dr. David Speicher to pursue said contamination, ultimately announcing confirmation on 6 June. Speicher was not a surprise choice for Gillespie. He had published with McKernan, Jessica Rose, Maria Gutschi, and David Wiseman in Canada in October 2023, reaching the contamination conclusions Gillespie wants to hear about.
It bears stressing that Kevin McKernan’s preprints lost credibility long ago, when it became apparent the vials he tested were of unknown origin. More so, if origin is unknown then cold chain transport requirements are by default, breached. In October 2023, David Gorski referred to McKernan’s initial preprint as an “awful study” and follow up studies being “equally as bad”. Thus it is unsurprising further attempts were made to label COVID vaccines as DNA contaminated. The Global Vaccine Data Network provide an excellent refutation of what they call Plasmid-Gate. As a highly COVID-19 vaccinated nation, Australia is used in their piece as an example to debunk the claim of so-called “turbo cancers” resulting from COVID-19 vaccination. SBS recently reported that last year, biologist Phillip Buckhaults from the University of South Carolina spoke before a state panel postulating the possible consequences of DNA contamination. When his comments took flight on social media he quickly followed up on X with insistence that such a risk was “purely theoretical”. They further reported that:
Dr Paul Offit of the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia said [DNA] fragments were “clinically and utterly harmless”.
“These DNA fragments would have to enter the cytoplasm, which is that part of the cell outside of the nucleus, and our cytoplasm hates foreign DNA,” Offit said. “It has innate immune mechanisms as well as enzymes to destroy foreign DNA.”
Also interested in supposed DNA contamination of mRNA vaccines are Senators Malcolm Roberts, Gerard Rennick, Ralph Babet, Alex Antic and Russell Broadbent. Rennick has pushed both the GMO and DNA contamination angle for well over a year. Broadbent remains vocal in parliament to this day, has congratulated Port Hedland Council for calling for an end to COVID vaccines and has furnished Australia’s PM with material on the matter. Broadbent raised his concerns in parliament on 18 November, and I recommend watching this 5 minute video of him speaking.
Another voice to echo Julian Gillespie, is erstwhile ABC journalist Maryanne Demasi. Perhaps her contribution is best summed up in the COVID vaccine conspiracy film she narrated, The Truth – About COVID-19 shots. Erroneously labeled a documentary, it was raved about by Gillespie. And understandably so, given that it includes all his favourite vaccine conspiracies, champions the case and complaints associated with Fidge v Pfizer and lists Gillespie as a source. Demasi also has a Substack account, and has kept her subscribers up to date with DNA contamination developments. In addition Demasi claims the TGA “hides from” reports of SIDS, post vaccination, the TGA and FDA ignored DNA contamination of the HPV vaccine Gardasil, and of course that the TGA response to the claim that mRNA vaccines exhibit DNA contamination, is wrong.
TGA Statements
The first TGA report on DNA contamination was, as stated, on 18 October. The position taken by the TGA is that the claims made about DNA contamination are mis-informative, as they “currently fall short of the scientific rigour expected in pharmaceutical testing”. The World Health Organisation (WHO) stipulate the limit for residual DNA as <10ng per dose. The TGA report cites five areas of concern.
- Selective reporting and method validation
Certain labs involved in testing have used fluorometry which can over-estimate DNA levels if the sample contains mRNA. This is because the dye used binds to both DNA and mRNA. In COVID-19 vaccines, stress the TGA, the former is present in minute amounts and the latter is comparatively abundant. The method also lacks validation as per the International Council for Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for Pharmaceuticals for Human Use (ICH) [available here]. Put simply, the test must be recognised as doing what is claimed. More so, the requirements of specificity demand that results reveal levels of DNA without also measuring for mRNA. Finally, the physical reference materials were not adequately defined.
- Issues with samples
Initial studies used 2 or 3 vials which were past the use-by date and had previously been opened and used. This does not constitute a suitable sample. As mentioned above with McKernan, the provenance of vials is unknown. Thus source, location, temperature and custody is also unknown. The expected regulatory controls that should be in place to ensure the accuracy of results was lacking. Integrity of testing is a mere assumption and in this case results cannot be deemed reliable. Again reflecting the problems with McKernon’s study, there is no cold chain to speak of, much less that which is demanded by the TGA. Some did not have temperature loggers with them.
- Laboratory status
Accreditation of the laboratories is unknown and Good Manufacturing Practice (GMP) certification is not evident. The international standard ISO/IEC 17025 : General requirements for the competence of testing and calibration laboratories, does not appear to be met. Robust results associated with such accreditation cannot be assumed.
- Biotechnology medicines have been available since the 1980s
Apart from mRNA vaccines, recombinant proteins are used in many biotechnology products such as insulin, growth factors, cancer medicines, autoimmune therapies and other vaccines. After purification, residual DNA may be found in all products using DNA as a starting material. Strict guidelines control the final amount. Current techniques have been safe for over 40 years and the TGA continue to monitor residual DNA prior to approval. Manufacturing and test results for mRNA vaccines must be provided to the TGA, who have also independently tested 27 batches by qPCR to confirm residual DNA. They continue:
The quality limits ensure that there is less than 10 ng present per dose – or less than ten billionths of a gram in each dose. These limits are used by the TGA, the World Health Organization, the United States Food and Drug Administration and other international regulatory agencies.
- Residual DNA in Biotechnology Products – safety
No causal link between COVID-19 vaccines and cancer has been established by the TGA or any other regulator in the world. No evidence exists to support the claim that mRNA vaccines or biological medicines lead to integration of residual DNA into human DNA genome. This includes insulin, injected multiple times per day over a lifetime. Animal studies used 200 times the clinical dose of mRNA vaccines and revealed no adverse impacts on female and male fertility, foetal deaths, birth defects, or developmental delays. 13 billion COVID-19 vaccines have been administered globally. The safety profile is positive with benefits continuing to outweigh risks.
The response to the 18 October TGA report from vocal members of the anti-vaccine lobby was predictably aggressive with ongoing insistence that the TGA were refusing to “accept” the evidence of DNA contamination. On 7 November the TGA published Summary report of residual DNA and endotoxin on CoVID-19 mRNA vaccines conducted by TGA Laboratories [available here]. This report discusses the importance of batch release testing done on mRNA vaccines, Comirnaty (Pfizer) and Spikevax (Moderna). As of October 2024, 212 batches have been released by the TGA whilst 28 batches have been independently tested. Key findings are:
- Residual DNA Testing: The TGA Laboratories tested 28 batches of mRNA vaccines and confirmed that all batches complied with the World Health Organization recommended limit of up to 10 ng per dose. This confirmed the manufacturing process removes almost all DNA starting material and the vaccines are within the safe DNA residual limit. The quantitative PCR (qPCR) method was validated to ensure accuracy and reliability.
- Endotoxin Testing: Every batch of both mRNA vaccines released in Australia was tested for bacterial endotoxins using a validated Limulus amebocyte lysate (LAL) assay. Endotoxin was tested to a level of 5 Endotoxin Units (EU) per mL and all batches were below this level.
- The report concludes that the current mRNA manufacturing processes, as evaluated and approved by the TGA, effectively control levels of residual DNA and bacterial endotoxins to a safe level.
The Batch Release Assessment for COVID-19 vaccines may be accessed here. Methodology of testing and international requirements are explained in depth in the summary report. Regarding Moderna’s Spikevax, 13 batches were tested at the TGA Laboratories, all of which complied with WHO recommended residual DNA limit of <10ng/dose (Table 1). Regarding Pfizer’s Comirnaty, 15 batches were tested at the TGA Laboratories, all of which complied with WHO recommended residual DNA limit of <10ng/dose (Table 2).
The TGA conclude the summary report as follows:
All batches of mRNA vaccines tested for residual DNA content in the TGA Laboratories were found to comply with the WHO recommended limit for residual DNA of up to 10 ng per dose, consistent with the results reported by manufacturers.
Current mRNA manufacturing processes, as evaluated and approved by the TGA, include breakdown of plasmid DNA and additional purification strategies. These processes are effective in controlling levels of residual plasmid DNA to ensure compliance with residual DNA guidelines.
To date, all batches of Comirnaty and Spikevax released to the Australian market have been tested for bacterial endotoxin content by the TGA Laboratories. All batches were found to comply with the registered bacterial endotoxin limit for the particular product. This is consistent with the results reported by manufacturers as reviewed as part of the batch release process. The assay tests these products to the level of 5 EU/mL and every batch demonstrated levels below this limit.
Julian Gillespie has already promised he will have answers for the points raised by the TGA, and has even asked ChatGPT if Speicher’s methodology could have been improved by observing ICH Q2(R2). After uploading Speicher’s report. Chat replied that he appears to go beyond what ICH Q2(R2) covers and thus, his method couldn’t substantially be improved. Gillespie reckons this meant, “just like good and new and adaptive science strives to do, and David did do this .. he went beyond“.
Ah yes. We have a while to go on this topic it seems.
Who will win this years Bent Spoon award dear reader? Why, the perpetrator of the most preposterous piece of paranormal or pseudo-scientific piffle, I hear you say. Yes indeed. But what a sterling collection of viable candidates there are. Judges face a challenging pile to sort through.
To find out who takes the gong we must wait until the winner is announced at Skepticon XL, which is being held courtesy of Australian Skeptics in Sydney over 23-24 November. To find out more about the Bent Spoon Award you can catch up here. To read up on this years nominations you can visit this page of proud piffle pushers. The predatory pseudoscientific pandemonium includes last year’s winner Ross Coulthart for his straight faced claim that Donald Trump fears for his life, should he reveal what he knows about UFOs/UAP. Coulthart also squeezed in an interview with Uri Geller during which he said:
I strongly believe there is a phenomenon of unidentified anomalous phenomena that is probably non-human, that is engaging with this planet.
Oh my, Ross. A phenomenon of phenomena? Really? There’s also one Cael O’Donnell clutching to the title of Australia’s Number One Medium and using the thoroughly debunked Spirit Box to tune in to so-called messages from the dead. Social media has been seemingly kind to Cael. I suspect Bent Spoon judges might not. For inflicting AstroTash on nightly news viewers, Channel 7 and news director Anthony De Ceglie are also nominated. Pharmacare Laboratories which popped up here recently thanks to claims relating to “clinically proven” Sambucol, are nominated for Adult Vita Gummies vitamin supplements. Marketed as “backed by science, memory and mind, seriously good, and triple immune support”, Vita Gummies for kids have already won a Choice Shonky, whilst the TGA are keeping a close eye on them via compliance reviews.
When you suddenly hear of a “medical wonder” you’re right to suspect it’s anything but. This is exactly the case with photobiomodulation. Sciencey yes, genuine no. Chiropractor Genevieve Dharamaraj claims a red torch light, when pressed against the heads of autistic children is “basically building new pathways in the brain and we can do that with cutting edge technology like photobiomodulation”. Outrageous stuff, and not missed by Media Watch. Another supporting chiropractor Kyle Daigle, sells the lights for US$8,000. Genuine experts label it pseudoscience. All the red flags were missed by channels 7, 9 and radio station 4BC, earning them all a nomination.
Our next nominee is erstwhile “controversial” Catalyst reporter Maryanne Demasi. Thanks to COVID, she has found her calling as an anti vaxxer and conspiracy theorist. Demasi narrates The Truth About COVID-19 Shots, which recounts the baseless claim that COVID-19 vaccines are contaminated with DNA, in addition to the usual grab bag of conspiracies. The film recounts the mythical beliefs of ex-barrister Julian Gillespie who sculpted the COVID vaccine court cases in Australia. Demasi focuses in depth on the Fidge v Pfizer case and the anti-vax fallout I’ve blogged about here. Because of that and other pertinent developments I shall revisit the Demasi caper in short order.
In a similar vein we find, unsurprisingly, that Port Hedland Council have also been nominated. The council voted 5-2 in favour of a motion to call for the immediate suspension of mRNA COVID-19 vaccines. The bogus claim that these vaccines are contaminated with DNA was again a feature here. It was brought forward by Adrian McRae who has a history of anti-COVID vaccine activity. Proving he’s no cooker, WA premier Roger Cook, memorably told the council to “stick to knitting”, suggesting they had “gone off the rails”.
Also from Western Australia, comes the focus on that state’s Cancer Council and the manner in which they offer the complementary therapies reiki and reflexology. This has earned Cancer Council WA a nomination. Due to the seriousness of this issue, it deserves some examination here. Whilst Cancer Council Australia, Tasmania, Victoria, South Australia, Northern Territory, ACT, QLD and NSW discuss and provide information on cancer and complementary medicines, they do not have the promotional tone or confusing claims found on the WA site. Let’s break that down a bit.
Landing on the national Cancer Council page or a state’s Cancer Council page and typing “complementary” into the search field yields a variety of results. Some states such as Tasmania, QLD and the NT direct you firstly to the national site’s Understanding Complementary Therapies PDF. It’s a comprehensive resource and goes into appreciating the perils associated with “alternative” therapies and offers hints on how patients should navigate all promised therapies. It is prefaced by:
During your cancer journey you may hear about, or become interested in, complementary therapies. There are many therapies on offer and information about these can be confusing. The information below will help you to make informed and safe choices.
Other states such as Victoria, NSW and SA provide an extensive information page and always direct the reader to the same PDF located on their own server, such as this example in Victoria. Victoria state:
Complementary therapies are said to focus on the whole person, not just the cancer. They include practices like massage and yoga, as well as medicines that you swallow or apply to the skin. Complementary therapies are used with conventional medicines and may help people cope better with the physical and emotional impact of cancer, as well as side effects caused by conventional cancer treatments. There is no evidence complementary therapies can treat or cure cancer itself.
For example, the impact of healthy diet and exercise during conventional cancer treatment is appreciated today. We see that SA include in their information on complementary therapy; “Some have been scientifically tested and shown to work. Research into complementary therapies and medicines is growing”. Visiting the WA website we read when it comes to reiki, which is the ineffectual practice of moving hands near a patient; “People use reiki to improve physical, emotional and spiritual wellbeing.” And also:
Evidence: There is no reliable evidence that reiki has any benefits. Anecdotal reports suggest that reiki is calming and relaxing, often helping to relieve pain and anxiety, reduce stiffness and improve posture.
Which tells us for some, reiki has a placebo effect or may induce calmness due simply to belief in energy therapies. Anecdotes can never be regarded to “suggest” anything, which can be better understood with research. In discussing reiki, Understanding Complementary Therapies states on page 9, “There is no scientific evidence of an energy field or that energy therapies have any benefits“. There is also no evidence reflexology has a genuine impact on improving health. Even Cancer Council WA state it is based on a belief. The placebo effect it likely produces is evident in this summary on the same page.
Evidence: Clinical trials have shown that reflexology reduces pain and anxiety and helps improve quality of life, particularly for those receiving palliative care.
Australian Skeptics’ executive officer, Tim Mendham has looked further into the claims by Cancer Council WA regarding use of these therapies and reports also, that reflexology and reiki are no longer covered by the NDIS. There are many potential problems when non-evidence based practices are introduced alongside genuine treatments. The distinction should always be abundantly clear and this is not the case for Cancer Council WA.
One such potential problem brings us to the next nomination. Elle MacPherson has made absurd claims her breast cancer “manifested” due to her emotional and spiritual state. She has further alluded to a holistic cure, despite having had seemingly successful surgery for the cancer. With the current impact of social media this is potentially quite dangerous. Her promotion of dishonest wellness guru Simone Laubscher, who also contends her own cancer was cured with an attitude change, is covered here on ABC’s 7.30 programme.
Finally, channel 7 manage yet another nomination alongside David Miles and his latest impossible rain-making, drought-defying technology, “Atmospherica”. Seven offered no criticism or expert opinion to Miles’ claims that he has a device that generates DNA-like code based instructions to atmospheric pressure systems, permitting him control of “the shape, velocity and trajectory of an approaching event.” Media Watch plonks this porky in its place revealing some great quotes: “PT Barnum style bunkum… technical description…is gibberish”.
So, if you wish to pooh pooh the perpetrator of the most preposterous piece of paranormal or pseudo-scientific piffle, you know what to do.
As The Australian Vaccination-risks Network celebrate thirty years of spreading anti-vaccine and dangerous health advice to unsuspecting Australians, some satisfying memories of yesteryear have come to mind. Foremost is the delightful own goal scored by AVN founder Meryl Dorey, when promoting Black Salve as she bemoaned the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) for taking action against the AVN for advertising a DVD, which itself promoted Black Salve. Let me explain.
It all began way back in 2012 with increasing interest in a fraudulently marketed so-called skin cancer “cure”. Namely, a corrosive salve known as an escharotic, being marketed as the near-miraculous Black Salve. A DVD sold by the (then) Australian Vaccination Network (AVN) titled One Answer to Cancer, was packed with anecdotal testimonies praising Black Salve and criticising Aldara, the medically approved treatment for keratoses and superficial basal cell carcinomas. I blogged about this at the time, and you can catch up here. It’s indicative of how quickly interest in Black Salve and the dubious DVD was spreading, to see that on 19 March 2012 the TGA published a warning about black and red salves in treating cancer. This included:
The recent use of products marketed as containing ‘Black salve’ in Australia has resulted in serious harm to the skin of three Australian consumers who used the black salves for various skin conditions including the treatment of a skin cancer.
The TGA is not aware of any credible, scientific evidence which shows that any black or red salve preparation is effective in treating cancer. These types of salves have not been formally assessed by the TGA and are not included in the Australian Register of Therapeutic Goods or exempted from inclusion.
All therapeutic goods, including those used for treating cancer, must be included in the Register unless exempted. Penalties of up to $5.5m apply to the illegal importation or supply of therapeutic goods.
The TGA was investigating importation and a complaint made about supply via the internet. The Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority were also investigating sales purportedly proffered for pets. The TGA stressed that the problem with corrosive salves is that they “essentially burn off layers of the skin and surrounding normal tissue. They can destroy large parts of the skin and underlying tissue, and leave significant scarring.” The corrosive quality is unpredictable and almost impossible to control. Indeed Black Salve is also referred to as a pro-necrotic agent, which I blogged about in 2019. Once the process begins, widespread necrosis follows, leading to the release of enzymes which cause the breakdown of neighbouring cell membranes. A domino effect ensues causing widespread cell death. It brings to mind the “acid for blood” scene in the movie, Alien.
Necrosis of left nostril and surrounding tissue caused by Black Salve (Wikipedia)
Proponents misleadingly call it Nature’s Scalpel. The purpose of One Answer to Cancer was to promote Black Salve and offer instructions on how to prepare your own batch, using zinc chloride and sanguinaria canadensis, also known as bloodroot. This way the DVD producers could side step charges of selling the illegal corrosive. In December 2018, The Royal Australian College of General Practitioners published a comprehensive article on Black Salve, its history and use, noting that the main ingredient is the synthetic corrosive, zinc chloride. Thus claims of a “natural alternative” are inaccurate, and “catastrophic consequences can occur”. The dangers were well documented in 2012 and warnings were abundant. Nonetheless, in the AVN shop Meryl Dorey had included the following blurb with the DVD ad’.
50% of us will face cancer in our own lives at one time or another… we will have to face the choice of how to treat our illness – using toxic drugs or safe, effective, time-tested natural remedies… If you or someone you know is facing this issue or if you just want to be prepared for any future cancer diagnoses, this will be the best $25 you have ever spent!
The advertisement was in breach of the Therapeutic Goods Act 1989 (the Act) and numerous sections of the TGA Advertising Code (the Code). The Code is an effective legislative device for drawing up complaints against the peddling of quack remedies. Once content meets the definition of an advertisement, that content is subject to a number of principles outlined in the Code. More so, persons who publish what meets the definition of an advertisement may be guilty of an offence if other other medications are criticised or if a risk of harm applies. To read the advertisement and understand how the Code and the Act applied in 2012 you can check out the complaint I lodged on 19 April that year.
Prior to 1 July 2018, advertising complaints lodged with the TGA were handled by a Complaints Resolution Panel (CRP). A media release announcing that the TGA would take on the role of complaint management is available here. Way back in 2012 my complaint was handled by the CRP, and their findings from December 2012, can be accessed here. Fifteen sections of the Code and one section of the Act were found to have been breached. The AVN were told to remove the advertisement and publish the notice below.
However long before this, the TGA informed Meryl Dorey that a complaint had been lodged, as is her right. Unsurprisingly, Meryl felt both the complaint and the request of the TGA to remove the offending advertisement was an abuse of her network’s rights. On 5 May 2012, which was about two weeks after being notified, Meryl gave an interview on Fairdinkum Radio, a production of Resistance Media. This was an early freedom fighter production, and host Leon Pittard opened the show announcing the title as, The Australian Government’s Assault on Health Freedom. For me, the highlight of the show was Meryl’s interview which you can access below, or download here.
Meryl waxed lyrical about the benefits of Black Salve and the horror of Aldara, which she falsely claimed was “banned in many parts of the world”. Meryl also managed to call the TGA Cost Recovery model, “a fairly evil policy”. She provided a dubious anecdote of her own apparent use of Black Salve and wrongly claimed it has a “two thousand year history”. She mentioned the DVD and wrongly claimed Black Salve was a combination of herbs and minerals. The interview went on for over five minutes and easily met the definition of an advertisement. An advertisement for Black Salve published in broadcast media, no less. I lodged a second complaint.
The complaint makes clear how both Meryl and host Leon Pittard were liable as advertisers. It also contains a transcript of the interview. Application of appropriate sections of the Code, the Act and the Therapeutic Goods Regulations 1990, justified removal of the interview/advertisement and publication of a retraction (below). By the end of January 2013 the CRP had published their findings which can be accessed here. Thirteen sections of the Code were breached along with two sections of the Act. No sections of the Code raised in the complaint were found not to be breached. More so, over five paragraphs the panel raised additional matters not in the complaint. These included a possible breach of the Act relating to the Register of Therapeutic Goods, and nine possible breaches of the Code relating to criticism of Aldara, promoting a dangerous compound for serious disease, comments about the TGA and more (see pp. 2-3).
Page 3 of the CRP report includes reference to a somewhat bizarre response to a member of the panel from both Dorey and Pittard. In essence they would cop to the findings of the panel if the member would, in his private capacity, present “true, complete and correct proof” that relating a personal condition to anyone constitutes advertising, that the person making the claim is aware of fees paid for advertising, that free speech is not an inherent right, that any corporation has the right to sue an individual and that the matter couldn’t be settled in private. Leon Pittard had long boasted of monitoring the New World Order, employed a watered-down sovereign citizen logic to his world view and, like Dorey, was a fan of conspiracy theorist, Senator Malcolm Roberts. Pittard no doubt penned the response attributed to both he and Dorey (summarised below).
To my surprise, a short time after lodging the complaint I stumbled across this ridiculous video from the USA which was defending the position of Leon Pittard and Meryl Dorey. I wonder if in the rush to defend free speech the producers did any serious research on Black Salve, or understood the danger their support posed to an unsuspecting public.
Ultimately it was rewarding to have these particular complaints upheld. The second complaint – a veritable own goal – was particularly satisfying. However as is often the case with groups beholden to anti-science ideologies and belief in a fight for “health freedom”, such advertisements aren’t always removed when requested. Non-compliance is met with further warning notices, whilst more serious penalties reflect the nature of the breach and risk to the public. There’s little doubt that Black Salve caused serious injuries at the time and a quick search reveals that it continues to cause harm and generate health authority warnings in developed nations. The TGA seized Black Salve capsules in May 2019.
The TGA publish regulatory decisions and announcements and the outcomes of advertising compliance investigations. As members of the public it’s up to us to report harmful products and dodgy advertisements to the TGA. It may involve a bit of reading but not every complaint needs to begin with every potential breach.
You can report perceived breaches or questionable practices here. There’s more information on reporting, what you need to provide and accessing support to complete forms here.
Complaints & Findings:
Complaint to TGA re One Answer to Cancer advertisement
Complaints Resolution Panel findings December 2012
Complaint to TGA re Fairdinkum Radio interview
Complaints Resolution Panel findings January 2013
On 23 August this year, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. suspended his independent US presidential campaign in ten battleground states, choosing to endorse Donald Trump. He cited the same causes, “that persuaded me to leave the Democratic Party and run as an independent”, according to AP News. Namely, free speech the war in Ukraine and “a war on our children”.
Kennedy: Anti-vaccine activist
There is, of course, no war on American children. Nor a war on any children in developed nations, in the sense Kennedy is alluding to. In fact as the chairman of Children’s Health Defense (CHD), Kennedy has himself waged a long battle against one of public health’s most important pillars; childhood immunisation. As with every anti-vaccine activist, COVID-19 presented Kennedy with an opportunity to manipulate and exploit a growing pool of misguided and misinformed individuals. Those who blame COVID-19 vaccines for virtually every illness or cause of death. Let me stress, I’m not referring to the known side effects but rather, those pushed by COVID conspiracy theorists and tireless anti-vaxxers. Ultimately, Kennedy’s profile expanded markedly, as did CHD revenue.
So comfortable with deceit, when he began his independent trot toward the White House, Kennedy insisted he was not anti-vaccine. This, despite telling a supportive crowd in December 2021, “It is criminal medical malpractice to give a child one of these vaccines”. Despite his influence in bringing about the measles tragedy in Samoa. He worked hard at the presidential pretence, even temporarily stepping down from his position as CHD Chair. Still today, the “chairman on leave” video message on every CHD website page lacks any reference to vaccines. Yet Kennedy mentions “unnecessary injuries” suffered by children, includes studies of autism and developmental disorder rates and packs in 16 snippets of autistic individuals – mostly with pronounced symptoms. Children are chronically sicker than ever before, “wandering around in a toxic soup”, Kennedy tells viewers. In search of the cause he will die with his boots on, fighting for them. Kennedy originally wrongly linked vaccines to autism in a, now removed, 2005 Rolling Stones article. This fact check piece offers an excellent deconstruction of the misconceptions used to make that link.
Vaxxed
Kennedy’s Children’s Health Defense has been hard at work targeting vaccine evidence during the COVID pandemic. This includes the making of the third Vaxxed film, Vaxxed III: Authorised to Kill, by CHD Films. True to the Vaxxed brand, it is a slick cornucopia of fear-mongering and falsehood. A key figure in this ghastly enterprise is interviewer and co-producer Polly Tommey, who has been involved with the first two Vaxxed films. Readers may remember Tommey was banned from Australia for three years following her antics in promoting the original Vaxxed film here in 2017. Trundling about with the (then) Australian Vaccination-skeptics Network, Tommey, who wrongly believes the MMR vaccine caused her son, Billy, to develop autism, told Australian audiences “doctors were murderers”. The Tommey named as producer of Vaxxed III and Vaxxed II: The people’s truth, is her other son, Tobias. The second and third Vaxxed films have been directed by Brian Burrowes. The first Vaxxed was directed by Andrew Wakefield and produced by Del Bigtree.
In doing some basic research for this post, I noted that Polly Tommey has changed not at all. On 6 September she used CHD’s X account to peddle the falsehood that “an experimental” oral polio vaccine is being used in Gaza. She added the sweeping claim that “the oral polio vaccine” is responsible for the poliovirus infecting “hundreds each year”. Like most persistent anti-vaccine lies there is a kernel of truth here. A prior oral polio vaccine caused disease in ~1 in 2.9 million. However, the new oral vaccine in Gaza does not contain the vaccine-derived strain responsible for past infections. More so, it is the lack of vaccination and the presence of poliovirus in human waste causing the problem. In addition, removal of the problematic weakened virus in 2016, in an attempt to prevent vaccine-derived outbreaks, resulted in greater infection rates. Citing a draft report for the World Health Organisation, AP News explain:
The polio strain in question evolved from a weakened virus that was originally part of an oral vaccine credited with preventing millions of children worldwide from being paralyzed. But that virus was removed from the vaccine in 2016 in hopes of preventing vaccine-derived outbreaks.
Public health authorities knew that decision would leave people unprotected against that particular strain, but they thought they had a plan to ward off and quickly contain any outbreaks. Instead, the move resulted in a surge of thousands of cases.
Suffice it to say, facts are anathema to CHD and Tommey. Which brings us to the quality of Vaxxed III: Authorised to Kill. As with the prior two films the main content is of people interviewed about so-called “vaccine injuries”, deaths and negative health system experiences, filmed in a Vaxxed bus driving across the USA. Like all Vaxxed buses this one was wrapped in Vaxxed brand colour and font. This time the message was Vax – UnVax: The People’s Study. The journey took nine months. All the COVID-19 anti-vaccine tropes are there. Countless testimonies of “life-altering injuries and deaths”, frightening symptoms, scans of brain tumours and pulmonary bleeds, suicidal tendencies and futile hospitalisations. Whistleblowers, medical professionals and lawyers apparently serve to legitimise what is unmitigated disinformation. Viewers are primed to accept that any response to COVID was a “fundamental violation of human rights”.
Vaxxed films are slick productions. Well edited to give the impression of government and health-authority deception, feeding viewers a misleading narrative that casts vaccines as harmful toxins pushed onto an unsuspecting public for nefarious reasons. A conspiracy to hide the truth is always present. As with all Vaxxed buses the names of the “vaccine injured” and dead are written on the outside of the bus. The dedication page for these most recent names contains over 1,350 entries, many of which list autism from MMR or “childhood vaccinations”. Apart from harm done to perception of vaccine safety and public health, individuals exploited and coaxed into a victim mindset, experience genuine pain and distress. Nothing good comes from these films.
Message on the CHD Vaxxed bus
This latest Vaxxed chapter raises a few questions for those of us in Australia who followed the antics of The Australian Vaccination-risks Network (AVN) and their much troubled journeys in their own Vaxxed II: The People’s Truth, bus. The AVN hit the road in July 2020 in their bus, sticking closely to the Vaxxed script. They clocked up seven seperate tours in two buses, as the first was irreversibly damaged in NSW flood waters. On 8 July 2020, AVN founder Meryl Dorey revealed parents “will be filmed for an up-coming Australian documentary”. Five weeks earlier president Anita Hafemeister had boldly claimed, “This will be the Australian version of Vaxxed II, I assume”. All that excitement led this humble author to speculate that the Vaxxed II bus tour would yield material for Vaxxed III. In fact the AVN was still advertising the bus, with sponsorship requests, in February this year. One can only assume that the reality of CHD dollars, Kennedy’s backing and the ambition of Polly Tommey has for now, kept content from Down Under off the big screen.
Polly Tommey and CHD are pushing to fill theatres in the US for an 18 September screening. A host of graphics are offered to assist fans to spread the word on social media. All contain the image of a driverless bus emerging from the mist in the dead of night. The film is being advertised with an unabashed call for donations. Or if you’d like to be an associate, co-‘ or executive producer with a minimum donation of $10,000, that privilege is a mere phone call away. No doubt Vaxxed III will make a profit for Kennedy’s CHD.
Of more concern, is that acceptance of COVID vaccine misinformation has grown in developed nations under the labour of anti-vaccine activists. The USA is currently experiencing a growth in the belief of COVID vaccine falsehoods and this film, along with the discussion that follows, may well worsen that trend in the US and elsewhere. Australian anti-vaxxers will have to wait for an online release.
Polly Tommey and Co discuss pre-release debunking of Vaxxed III
Last week Jane Hansen passed away from glioblastoma, an aggressive form of brain cancer. Jane was a deeply committed and focused journalist who utilised evidence to challenge pseudoscience, scams and disinformation. Jane regularly used truth to expose those who profited from exploitation of the vulnerable. She had journalistic skills equal to multiple tasks. Her presentation style and writing made that abundantly clear.
Consequently, Jane’s colleagues have recently offered other adjectives to describe her as a journalist. Esteemed, celebrated, legendary, star, courageous, compassionate, revered, renowned, tireless, passionate, crusader, genuinely funny, a giant, a hero, a pioneering female, a warrior for truth. Social media reflected the extent of the respect Jane had engendered over the years. Amazing, awesome, tireless warrior, dedicated, excellent, great… and more. A quick search for Jane’s name yields a veritable stampede of honorific headlines, all jostling to make individual statements, yet all condensing around one notion: Praise.
Respected Australian journalist, Ray Martin offered this summary:
“Jane Hansen gave journalism a good name. She was formidable, energetic and ethical.
“She fought relentlessly for the underdog and the disadvantaged – especially women and Indigenous Australians.
“Jane was smart, funny and a reliable friend. We’ll miss her pursuit of excellence, as she tried to keep the bastards honest.”
Jane was also a loving and loved mother, sister and an adored friend of many. I knew Jane only through the occasional email exchange or direct messaging on social media, yet often enjoyed her well known talent for making people laugh. I’ve lost count of the number of times I consulted an article Jane had written to orient myself regarding a specific anti-vaccine insult, or from whom a certain deceit had arisen. One highlight for me was Jane’s work in the making, production and promotion of Big Shots: Anti-Vaxxers Exposed. Made in the early, pre-vaccine days of the COVID-19 pandemic, Jane capably bridged the harm that anti-vaccine lobbying had already caused in Australia, and the foreseeable damage COVID conspiracy theories would inevitably bring.
Readers familiar with the tactics of vaccine conspiracy theorists can certainly guess, or may well be aware, of how they have reacted to this news. Fortunately, Jane made a lasting schism in their fragile credibility, leaving in her wake a surging wash of evidence-based reasoning, powerful enough to smother both their deceit and vulgarity. Jane always focused on presenting the facts. Her critics focused on attacking the person. On the day Big Shots aired in 2021, Jane was interviewed on Sky News, and shared this observation, which in my mind reflects both her sense of fairness and respect for sound public health.
I don’t have a problem with questioning a vaccine. This is a new vaccine, we want to know if it’s safe. There’s no point in having an unsafe vaccine; we all want a safe vaccine. But some of the misinformation that’s being spread is just ludicrous.
Jane’s career was extensive, including her role as a war correspondent for Network 10 in both Iraq and Bosnia, later working on the current affairs programme Hard Copy. She worked at Channel Nine for fourteen years. Jane co-authored Boned, the eye-opening book on boys-club mentality in TV media, and also authored the deeply personal and emotional Three Seasons. Her own experiences aided her unbiased assessment of Kathleen Folbigg, culminating in Jane writing and presenting the popular podcast Mother’s Guilt. Of course, Jane also managed her extensive and impressive career at The Sunday Telegraph.
Jane’s tireless campaigning was instrumental to the introduction of the Abbott/Turnbull government’s No Jab, No Pay/Play policies. Introduced in 2016, this public health initiative has seen an ongoing increase in life-saving childhood vaccination and is regarded as an overwhelming success. Jane’s reporting on anti-vaccine responses to it continue to educate the community. The same can be said for her criticism of anti-fluoridation conspiracies. In 2018 Jane was the inaugural winner of The Barry Williams Award for Skeptical Journalism. Australian Skeptics Inc. explain:
The Barry Williams Award for Skeptical Journalism is awarded for journalistic work that critically analyses or exposes issues related to pseudoscience or the paranormal. The award is dubbed “The Wallaby” after Barry’s alter ego of Sir Jim R Wallaby, which he used for some of his more whimsical pieces published in The Skeptic magazine. In addition to a commemorative certificate, $2000 is awarded to the recipient or to a charity or cause of their choice.
Jane Hansen awarded the “Wallaby” 2018Jane’s respect for evidence-based public health policies was linked to her desire for a more just world. In addition to her work exposing pseudoscience, Jane also reported on childhood muscular dystrophy, childhood medication, childhood cancer, cardiac health, teen vaping, IVF clinics, endangered animals, diabetes, organ donation and much more. Claire Harvey described Jane as “the most passionate journalistic crusader” she’d ever known. Jane’s work will remain and continue to positively influence others.
As a final note I’d like to stress there is no such thing as turbo cancer and no evidence COVID-19 vaccines cause cancer. Jane passed away late on 6th August after being diagnosed less than two years ago with glioblastoma, a particularly aggressive form of brain cancer. Outside of inherited syndromes or exposure to radiation, the cause of glioblastomas is not known. More common in older adults, they may occur at any age. Research has not identified anything that can prevent development of glioblastoma.
A couple of weeks before the start of winter, I wandered past a garish product display in my local pharmacy. A glossy purple hexagon boasted orange font across its middle; Clinically proven. Underneath that in white font: Shorten your cold by up to 3 days.
Taking in the entire sign, I spotted a familiar brand name. Sambucol® – Black Elderberry, a product of PharmaCare. The hexagon sat atop five cardboard shelves each labelled with more claims: Feel Better Faster, Intensive Immune, Shorten Your Cold, all packed with something for “kids”. Immune Defence Gummies, Soothing Throat Pops and Soothing Lozenges to “refresh the nose and throat”. It all sounded wonderful. I mean, who doesn’t want to feel better faster? Or puff up immunity with gummies? And knock 3 days off a cold? Surely it wasn’t just for kids. Then I wondered, could such claims really be “clinically proven”?
The elderberry grows on the elder plant (Sambucus nigra). Nataly Martini of the School of Pharmacy at the University of Auckland has written about elderberry in the Journal of Primary Healthcare, 31 March 2021 (2021;13(1):91–92. doi:10.1071/HC15960). It is reproduced by the Royal NZ College of General Practitioners, as a Potion or Poison article accessible here. The author notes “Dried or fresh berries have been used to treat constipation, neuropathic pain, headache, tooth-ache, sinus congestion, sore throat, influenza and the common cold, among others”. A meta-analysis of four randomised placebo-controlled studies, often cited by Pharmacare in promoting Sambucol, is also referenced. Martini reports that supplementation with elderberry, “reduced the duration of upper respiratory symptoms in verified cases of influenza, or symptoms consistent with either influenza or the common cold, when administered at the onset of symptoms”.
Martini continues:
Other studies have reported that elderberry supplementation significantly reduced symptoms and the duration of influenza A by 3–4 days, or the common cold by ~2 days in long-haul travellers. However, in the latter study half of the participants also used co-medication to relieve symptoms, limiting the application of these findings.
Writing in The Conversation Monash immunology researcher Kim Murphy referred to the latter study noting the collective duration of colds, rather than the average length, was compared in unequal group sizes, and concluded, “this isn’t a reliable finding”. What stands out in Martini’s article is the Summary Message. It highlights a recurring theme with the efficacy of elderberry preparations and symptom duration. Namely, that more research is needed to substantiate claims and high quality trials are currently lacking:
Although findings suggest that elderberry may be effective in reducing symptoms and duration of viral infections, more high-quality human trials are needed to substantiate these claims. Currently no studies support the use of elderberry in coronaviruses. Generally regarded as safe, toxicity may result from ingestion of raw or uncooked fruit, and allergies may occur in susceptible people. Use is not recommended in pregnancy and lactation due to insufficient evidence. Elderberry products may exacerbate symptoms in patients with autoimmune diseases. Caution is advised with immunosuppressants as elderberry may reduce effectiveness of these drugs. No major drug interactions are known.
Pharmacare is an alternative medicine manufacturer, and as such its primary concern is brand promotion and brand protection. In essence, Pharmacare is about sales. There’s nothing wrong with this, but as a skeptic I’m more concerned with the transparency of the claim that Sambucol® is “clinically proven” to reduce cold symptoms by up to three days. Can such a claim be trusted? Let’s review a 2018 article by Liam Mannix, science reporter for The Age and Sydney Morning Herald; University of Sydney pulls claims elderberries can fight flu, to get our bearings. The article opens:
One of the country’s leading universities has been forced to retract a claim its study showed eating elderberries could help beat the flu after admitting it was overhyping its own science.
The University of Sydney also concealed the research was part-funded by company Pharmacare – which sells elderberry-based flu remedies – at the company’s request. Although it was declared in the study itself, the university also failed to publicise that a Pharmacare employee was involved in the research.
The flu-busting claim, made in a press release and published on the university’s website, attracted national and international media attention, most of which did not mention the Pharmacare funding.
The article reveals that the study simply focused on in-vitro dosing of human cells in a laboratory environment. No mice or human subjects were involved. As stressed in the article such research is fine, but how it is represented is vital. Professor Ken Harvey, then-president of Friends of Science in Medicine observed:
“This is an appalling misrepresentation of this Pharmacare-funded in-vitro study. It was inappropriate and misleading to imply from this study that an extract was ‘proven to fight flu’.”
The article reveals that Pharmacare were aware of the press release but requested not to be named, for reasons study authors did not understand. Ray Moynihan, an assistant professor at Bond University’s Centre for Research in Evidence-Based Practice, who studies science reporting in the media stressed it raised “serious concerns” about transparency. “It is vital information for us to know who sponsored the study“, he said at the time.
The Sydney Uni episode said much about Pharmacare transparency and even more about claims relying on Pharmacare-funded studies. The company presently has a collection of articles gathered to back its many assertions. Some cite Pharmacare studies, whilst others present generalised health-related information, citing other studies, articles and reports. Following Sambucol® “shortening colds by up to 3 days” brings us to a page that opens with:
Sambucol® Black Elderberry Cold & Flu is the only Black Elderberry Cold & Flu product clinically proven to shorten your cold by up to 3 days.
The page refers to a study by Rao A, et al, and informs the reader it is an, “Unpublished study by RDC Global on behalf of Pharmacare Laboratories. Available on request.” More about this study, can be gleaned from a Pharmacare internal catalogue on their Clinically Proven Formula, which is marked on each page, “For Professional and Internals Staff use only. Not to be distributed”. The catalogue includes a number of Pharmacare-funded studies, and lists the Rao et al, study title in full: Rao A, Sethi M, Dick C, A double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled study to evaluate the safety and efficacy Sambucol® liquid formulation to reduce the duration and severity of the common cold symptoms in adults. PHA-Sam15. 2016.
The catalogue summary of the study, offers graphs and a report on p.6. It professes a 31.8% reduction in symptom severity and a reduction in sick days from 8.9 to 5.9 (33.7%) days between placebo and Sambucol® recipients. The public summary includes:
The efficacy of Sambucol Black Elderberry Cold & Flu to reduce the duration and severity of common cold symptoms was researched in a double-blind, randomised and placebo-controlled study sponsored by Pharmacare Laboratories.
The study included 461 healthy, adult participants and found that participants who took Sambucol® Black Elderberry Cold & Flu daily from the onset of cold symptoms were sick for a significantly shorter period of time.
The median duration of illness for the placebo group was eight days, whereas the median duration of illness for the group taking Sambucol® Black Elderberry Cold & Flu was five days – a median three-day reduction in duration of illness.
According to the study, “The results show that supplementation with Sambucol® Black Elderberry Cold & Flu at the onset of cold symptoms significantly reduced the duration of a cold episode as well as significantly reduced the severity and impact of cold and flu symptoms.
Being unpublished, the Rao et al, study lacks the authority attributed to peer reviewed research. Nor has it been reproduced independently. Yet Pharmacare-funded studies are of paramount importance to their business model. It allows the company to produce and distribute positive material related to Pharmacare brands. As the FAQ page informs us under, What is the difference between Sambucol Black Elderberry products and other black elderberry products?
Not all black elderberry extracts are the same. Only Sambucol Black Elderberry, the original black elderberry extract introduced more than 20 years ago, contains the same proprietary, naturally balanced elderberry extract used in the published scientific studies. Other products use a concentrated, standardized elderberry extract. They are fundamentally different ingredients.
Pharmacare Brands
Nonetheless, the internal Pharmacare catalogue cites a number of studies where generic elderberry extract is used, to assert its effect on the duration and impact of cold and flu symptoms. There have been no comparative studies of extract efficacy, and as such there is no evidence that Sambucol® Black Elderberry is more or less effective than any other black elderberry extract. Generic extracts have been used in “the published scientific studies”, such as the Hawkins et al meta-analysis, which found an association with reduced influenza A symptoms and duration.
Speaking of influenza, Pharmacare cite two studies in their internal catalogue that conclude Sambucol® has an effect against influenza. On page 6 they refer to in-vitro and in-vivo efficacy against influenza A and B. On page 7 they refer to in-vitro efficacy in reducing H5N1 by 99%. The catch for Pharmacare here, is that Australia’s Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) limit the seriousness of diseases and symptoms that they can claim Sambucol® relieves. Influenza is not accepted (see below). On another note, one must be aware that Pharmacare’s Sambucol® benefits from generic use of the term Sambucol. Consider this entry for Sambucol at drugs.com.
Sambucol is a berry from a European or Black elder tree. The berries are used to make medicine. Sambucol is also known as Arbre de Judas, Baccae, Baises de Sureau, Black-Berried Alder, Black Elder, Boor Tree, Bountry, Elderberries, Ellanwood, Ellhorn, European Alder, Fruit de Sureau, Grand Sureau, Hautbois, Holunderbeeren, Sabugeuiro-negro, Sambequier, Sambu, Sambuc, Sambuci Sambucus, Sambugo, Sauco, Saúco Europeo, Schwarzer Holunder, Seuillet, Seuillon, Sureau, Sureau Noir, Sus, Suseau, or Sussier.
The emerging claim that Sambucol® improves immunity also deserves comment. The internal catalogue summarises a 2002 study by Barak et al, on page 8, with the conclusion:
Sambucol® activate the healthy immune system by increasing inflammatory cytokine production more effectively compared to other herbal remedies.
The study, The effect of herbal remedies on the production of human inflammatory and anti-inflammatory cytokines compared Sambucol® to propolis and Echinacea. These are used as herbal treatments and preventatives of upper respiratory tract infections in adults and children. The cytokine-modulating effect of echinacea has been demonstrated in-vitro and in animal studies. However, a 2021 systemic review concludes firm evidence linking elderberry to inflammatory cytokine production is lacking.
The claimed reliability of elderberry lends itself to the appeal to antiquity as it has reportedly been used for centuries, for a host of purported reasons, as mentioned above, in addition to heart disease, gum disease, high cholesterol and obesity. The drugs.com entry for Elderberry and Sambucol are identical and include (bold mine):
It is not certain whether [Sambucol/Elderberry] is effective in treating any medical condition. Medicinal use of this product has not been approved by the FDA. This medicine should not be used in place of medication prescribed for you by your doctor.
The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) have warned promoters of elderberry syrup, as evidenced by (for example) a September 2000 warning letter and another in August 2022, written to highlight breaches of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act because the products advertised were “intended for use in the cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of disease”. The FDA does not regulate herbal supplements. In Australia the TGA accepts Sambucol Black Elderberry Cold & Flu and Sambucol Black Elderberry Cold & Flu + Pain as Listed medicines as opposed to Registered medicines.
Read more about TGA classifications here, and please remember a September 2022 TGA review of Sambucol® states, “The efficacy of the medicine was not assessed as part of this review”. Thus the term “TGA Assessed” cannot be used in relation to this product or on its label. Read more about TGA regulation of Listed medicines here. The TGA does not approve Listed medicine labels before marketing. The TGA state:
This is because we take a risk-based approach to regulation, which means higher risk medicines have more rigorous controls than lower risk medicines. However, we do require sponsors to certify that the medicine complies with all relevant regulation, and that they hold evidence that their medicine does what it says it will. Source: TGA – How we regulate medicines.
The public summary on the TGA Australian Register of Therapeutic Goods for Sambucol Black Elderberry Cold & Flu permits the following indications.
- Relieve weariness/tiredness/fatigue/feeling of weakness.
- Maintain/support general health and wellbeing.
- Decrease/reduce/relieve common cold duration.
- Helps decrease/reduce/relieve the severity of symptoms of common colds and flu.
- Decrease/reduce/relieve symptoms of common colds and flu.
- Decrease/reduce/relieve mild upper respiratory tract congestion.
- Decrease/reduce/relieve cough.
- Relieve symptoms of sore throat/pharyngitis.
Indication requirements are as follows:
- Label statement: If symptoms persist, talk to your health professional.
- Product presentation must not imply or refer to serious forms of respiratory disorders/diseases, such as: asthma, pneumonia, COAD, COPD, influenza.
- Label statement: Adults only, OR Not to be used in children under 2 years of age without medical advice (or words to that effect).
- Respiratory tract infections must be qualified by ‘mild’.
- Product presentation must not imply or refer to chronic fatigue syndrome.
Looking at the above it is clear the TGA have been more than generous with the allowed claims in the ARTG indications for this product. Particularly given the lack of published evidence and the absence of TGA assessment for efficacy. I don’t accept that Sambucol is clinically proven to shorten colds or boost immunity or any other claims made in sales promotion. The evidence simply isn’t there and relying on unpublished work organised and funded by Pharmacare is misleading. Whilst an impact of elderberry syrup on cold and flu symptoms is acknowledged in literature, the most common conclusion is that more research is needed. Quality human trials are still lacking.
So what might Pharmacare have planned to improve evidence in their favour? The Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry, presently has the registered trial ACTRN12623000299606, last updated 7 April 2024. The title is, Determining the effectiveness of Sambucol in reducing the duration and symptoms of the common cold in children and teens. The age group is 2-17 and the aim is to use Sambucol and report on symptoms via, “a purpose-built study app ‘Sambucol Research’.” The methodology is likely to favour Pharmacare, particularly given that there is no control group. Rather, “a comparison will be made to two existing data sets”.
The first data set is reported as:
Data describing the incidence, severity and duration of different cold symptoms in children over a six-week period. (Troullos E, Baird L, Jayawardena S. Common Cold Symptoms in Children: Results of an Internet-Based Surveillance Program. J Med Internet Res. 2014 Jun 19;16(6):e144.) This study was not a randomised controlled trial or an intervention. The study observed duration and severity of colds and as such was not registered.
The second data set is “a confidential report to Pharmacare”, and is none other than the initial unpublished study that found Sambucol® “shortened colds by up to 3 days”; Rao A, Sethi M, Dick C. A double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled study to evaluate the safety and efficacy of Sambucol liquid formulation to reduce the duration and severity of the common cold and flu symptoms in adults.
The more things change…
Last we visited developments related to the Fidge v Pfizer case, we had a long look at ambitious arguments arranged to convince Federal Court Chief Justice Debra Mortimer to uphold a constitutional complaint against Justice Helen Rofe. Rofe had summarily dismissed Dr. Julian Fidge’s application for injunctive relief under the Gene Technology Act on 1 March 2024. The judgement is here and my post summarising the case is here.
Fidge was found to lack standing and the case did not proceed. As I mentioned at the time, this was the latest failure of case design by solicitors Katie Ashby-Koppens and Peter Fam, and retired barrister Julian Gillespie. By 22 March Ashby-Koppens and PJ O’Brien and Associates had filed the constitutional complaint with the Chief Justice, alleging Justice Rofe had concealed “her connections to Pfizer and the pharmaceutical industry, before dismissing a case to Pfizer’s advantage”. Reading the complaint, one is struck by both the tenuous nature and the sheer range of the arguments put forward to establish motive, as alleged by the complainants.
Justice Rofe omitted to disclose her role as a barrister acting for Pfizer in patent law cases around 20 years before; hence the “connections to Pfizer”. Yet her connections to “the pharmaceutical industry” rely on one following a convoluted web of associations, that are presented by the complainants as potentially nefarious only through the lens of conspiracy theory thinking. In fact the reader must also accept there are inherent flaws and a predisposition to deception associated with scientific and medical research per se, and indeed any acceptance of COVID-19 vaccines and/or COVID public health initiatives.
On 27 June a writ of mandamus was lodged on behalf of Dr. Julian Fidge at the Brisbane registry of the High Court of Australia. The defendant named was Chief Justice Debra Mortimer. As we’ve observed before, such a writ commands or dictates that an individual or government department carry out a duty that falls within their remit. We saw this in the AVN case targeting the Secretary of the Department of Health to use his powers under the Therapeutic Goods Act to cancel or suspend the provisional registration of three Covid-19 vaccines, including the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines (Australian Vaccination-Risks Network Incorporated v Secretary, Department of Health [2022] FCA 320). They too were found to lack standing.
Clearly Julian Gillespie and Katie Ashby-Koppens feel that three months is long enough to wait. Justice Mortimer has not commented and Gillespie writes that they have argued in “countless correspondence with her office ever since the Complaint was lodged with her”, pointing out their argument. It basically runs as follows:
Helen Rofe did not disclose her prior relationship with Pfizer and thus cancelled out her own judicial authority. This invalidated her 1 March ruling. Justice Mortimer should have informed her of this, Gillespie reasons. He has also peddled ad nauseam his “not a judge” theory. So, let’s look at this. Gillespie cites the High Court ruling QYFM v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs (May 2023), paragraph 26. He quotes:
The question arising in the circumstances of the present case falls to be resolved at the level of principle within the framework established in Ebner v Official Trustee in Bankruptcy. Foundational to that framework are two propositions. One is that impartiality is an indispensable aspect of the exercise of judicial power. The other is that “[b]ias, whether actual or apprehended,connotes the absence of impartiality” … an actuality or apprehension of bias is accordingly inherently jurisdictional in that it negates judicial power.
With the negation of judicial power Justice Rofe is apparently “not a judge”. But let’s read that paragraph again, with all the text and a minor change in emphasis:
The question arising in the circumstances of the present case falls to be resolved at the level of principle within the framework established in Ebner v Official Trustee in Bankruptcy. Foundational to that framework are two propositions. One is that impartiality is an indispensable aspect of the exercise of judicial power. The other is that “[b]ias, whether actual or apprehended, connotes the absence of impartiality”. Leaving to one side exceptional circumstances of waiver or necessity, an actuality or apprehension of bias is accordingly inherently jurisdictional in that it negates judicial power.
Exceptional circumstances of waiver or necessity. Could there be circumstances of necessity? I’ve no idea at this point, but it seems relevant. Gillespie assumes he and others so inclined deserve the attention of one of Australia’s most senior judges. Despite being wrong five times in two years, they now seek to force the hand of the Chief Justice of the Federal Court of Australia. He accuses Chief Justice Mortimer of not “properly investigating Helen Rofe, her workmate”.
Another key reason to take this position is the belief that the ruling by Justice Rofe on 1 March is “unappealable”, yet Chief Justice Mortimer “wants to see us appeal the 1 March decision despite Dr Fidge’s legal team telling her that decision is unappealable”. The logic for this also stems from the “not a judge” mantra. The Federal Court of Appeal has jurisdiction to hear a judicial decision from a single judge. As Gillespie alleges Justice Rofe negated her judicial authority, the case did not have a single judge and they “have no decision vested with judicial authority”. Thus, the Gillespie contention is that it follows that the case is “unappealable”.
Finally, this entire manufactured affair provides an opportunity for chasing donations and to promote Australia’s anti-science senators in attacking COVID-19 vaccines. An initiative of Children’s Health Defense Australia Chapter is Section 72. The website seeks to direct devotees to lobby MPs to act in response to the constitutional complaint against Justice Rofe, and to date claims almost 9,000 have “taken action”. It also claims without any evidence that, “there is also the possibility other members of the same court are implicated in this misconduct of Justice Rofe”. Also:
Senators Malcolm Roberts, Gerard Rennick, Ralph Babet, Alex Antic and Russell Broadbent all intend to support the Complaint being dealt with properly by Parliament under Section 72(ii) of the Constitution…
Section 72(ii) of The Australian Constitution states:
The Justices of the High Court and of the other courts created by the Parliament–
(ii.) Shall not be removed except by the Governor-General in Council, on an address from both Houses of the Parliament in the same session, praying for such removal on the ground of proved misbehaviour or incapacity:
The proposed aim of this constitutional complaint has been to push for Justice Rofe’s removal from the Federal Court. Allegations of corruption and COVID conspiracy theories shape the thinking of those involved. It will be interesting to see what response if any the complaint elicits and how the recent High Court filing targeting Chief Justice Mortimer for “not doing her job” plays out.
This particular anti-vax legal saga is likely far from over.
An inquest into a Kambo related fatality in Northern NSW has been suspended by NSW State Coroner Teresa O’Sullivan, who referred the matter to the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP). This is the second inquest into a death linked to the frog poison touted as an alternative medicine, to be heard at Lismore Court House since May 2023.
Jarrad Antonovich
Evidence in this case described how Jarrad Antonovich attended the Dreaming Arts Festival in Arcoora Northern NSW, on 16 October 2021. He died of a perforated oesophagus that night. His day included a Kambo ritual at around 10am. Kambo ceremonies at the festival were being run by Cameron Kite. After the Kambo, Antonovich displayed symptoms of being very unwell, including a markedly swollen neck – an adverse reaction known to be caused by Kambo. Despite being unable to stand without support by 5pm, Mr. Antonovich was later given the psychoactive brew, ayahuasca. He died during the ayahuasca ceremony after being helped into a hall where it was to take place. Both Kambo and ayahuasca are illegal in Australia. The inquest heard from different witnesses that they believed Mr. Antonovich was in need of professional help, but they had been instructed not to interfere with anyone’s “journey”, and to trust the medicine, the shamans and the organisers. The offer to call an ambulance was made by other festival attendees, but Antonovich refused and elders “reassured” concerned onlookers.
An ambulance was not called until 11:30pm and took an hour to reach the remote location. As Jarrad Antonovich’s life ended, organiser Soulore (“Lore”) Solaris was strumming his guitar at the front of the gathering, as others in another location were being guided in CPR over radio, as they attempted to save Mr. Antonovich. When paramedics arrived Mr. Antonovich was blue in the face and dead. Ten or twenty people in the immediate area were engrossed in the ceremony and one asked paramedics to “move away from Jarred because they were interfering with his aura”. Both Kambo and ayahuasca are associated with vomiting or “purging”, as adherents refer to it. Ayahuasca induces violent and sometimes prolonged vomiting. The coroner was investigating the likelihood that vomiting caused Mr. Antonovich’s perforated oesophagus. The exact reasons behind the coroner’s decision to refer the case to the DPP cannot currently be revealed.
Lore Solaris and Cameron Kite
Dreaming Arts Festival organiser Lore Solaris, a counsellor who facilitates ayahuasca ceremonies, is presently subject to a NSW Health Care Complaints Commission interim prohibition order under the Health Care Complaints Act 1993, Section 41AA. The order reads in part:
Mr Soulore Solaris must not under any circumstances provide, or cause to be provided, any health services, either in paid employment or voluntary, to any member of the public.
Interim orders may apply “during any investigation of a complaint against a non-registered health practitioner”. The HCCC may make an interim order if:
a) it has a reasonable belief that the health practitioner has breached a code of conduct for non-registered health practitioners, and
(b) it is of the opinion that–
(i) the health practitioner poses a serious risk to the health or safety of members of the public, and
(ii) the making of an interim prohibition order is necessary to protect the health or safety of members of the public.
Jarrad Antonovich’s former partner, Patrick Santucci, gave evidence in May 2023 that Lore Solaris had called to reassure him Jarrad’s death was a “beautiful occasion”. Solaris told him that kinesiologists couldn’t find anything wrong with him. Kinesiologists utilise acupressure on points of the imaginary “meridian system” and wrongly believe the body can heal itself. They focus on “imbalances” which may be caused by a forgotten memory or even an attitude. They may use flower essence or homeopathy. There is no evidence kinesiology works. Mr. Santucci testified that Solaris told him an Aboriginal elder chanted sacred songs, “calling the spirit out of his body” and that:
[T]he koalas were making a special sound that is known to the elders when the land accepts a spirit.
Protecting Ayahuasca
Both Kite and Solaris were due to give evidence on 24 May; the day the inquest was suspended. Had they given evidence, it was expected the men would have responded to alarming statements given by other witnesses, describing attempts to cover up events and mislead police. For example Mr. Antonovich had difficulty breathing, was moaning in pain and his neck was swollen to the jaw line. Kambo practitioner Laara Cooper suggested giving him ayahuasca as this could “help shift” the Kambo induced discomfort. Consequently Antonovich was given what was described as a “not small” cup of the brew by Cameron Kite at the instruction of Solaris. Other evidence pointed to attempts to hide facts from authorities.
Cooper and Solaris had told ceremonial “guardians” to drive to Antonovich’s home and tell his flatmate not to mention to police the use of ayahuasca, in an attempt to “protect the medicines”. The inquest heard Cameron Kite was deeply distressed by events at the festival and told his partner at the time that Solaris and Cooper “just took over” the account given to police. Festival attendees were also told not to speak to police or paramedics about what actually happened as it may “damage the good work” being done with Kambo and ayahuasca. Antonovich was found to have ingested toxic levels of N,N-Dimethyltryptamine (DMT); ayahuasca’s most powerful psychedelic.
Both ayahuasca and Kambo are favoured as alternative medicines by neo-shamanic devotees, convinced purging “detox” experiences lead to personal growth and discovery. Logical fallacies such as appeal to antiquity, appeal to nature and an unguarded tendency toward xenocentrism, leave them vulnerable to experimentation and/or regular use of both substances. Traditional use of both can be traced back to indigenous tribes of the Amazon. Ayahuasca has a well established profile of around 70 years, as a promised cure for Western ailments, particularly those with a psychological component. It has also attracted research attention in offering an overhyped role in opiate addiction recovery. Despite some evidence suggesting it may have been used as early as 2000BC, widespread use across the Amazon was reliably established in the mid-19th century. Ayahuasca religions emerged very late in the 19th century. The Antonovich inquest heard that a Brazilian blend of Christianity and Amazonian shamanism (including drinking ayahuasca) had gained influence over The Australian Church of Ayahuasca, which had been active in the Northern Rivers region.
Kambo
Kambo has a much shorter history as a choice of alternative therapy in Western society. It gradually attracted interest after the International Association of Kambo Practitioners (IAKP) was established in 2014. Despite the flowery, earthy tones on their site, Kambo is emerging as a substance with a much higher risk profile than ayahuasca. IAKP claim:
IAKP teachers guide students to cultivate a profound comprehension and reverence for this potent natural modality. By enriching and forging connections with the intelligence and spirit of Kambo, our training courses enable practitioners to embrace personal growth, embark on a voyage of self-discovery, and engage in selfless service to others through the safe application of Kambo.
Kambo is collected from secretions of the Amazonian giant leaf frog, after “agitating” the innocent amphibian. Images suggest more than a little agitation is needed as they depict a frog tied by each leg and stretched asunder. The secretions are dried and packaged. Kambo is illegal in certain South American countries unless used in traditional indigenous practice. It is also illegal in Brazil. For Western ceremonies, the poison is reconstituted with water or saliva and applied to burn sites made with a smouldering stick on the arms, legs, chest or shoulder. Lucky recipients may get a dash of “dragons blood” tree sap as an antiseptic. The poison quickly makes its way into the lymphatic system then the bloodstream, and the effects begin.
Kambo lacks the psychedelic and hallucinogenic experience that ayahuasca brings. Writing for The Conversation Martin Williams notes:
Typically, the first symptoms reported are an initial rush of heat and redness of the face. Nausea and vomiting are often experienced within several minutes, accompanied by general malaise, racing heart, dizziness and swelling of the face, and sometimes an urge to defecate. Further effects include the feeling of a lump in the throat or difficulty swallowing, abdominal pain, nausea, vomiting, diarrhoea, runny nose and tears, swollen lips, eyelids or face, and occasionally a swollen tongue or throat.
Adherents claim this process rids the body of toxins, although there is no evidence supporting the claim. In 2021 the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) classified Kambo as a Schedule 10 poison (page 9). They are defined as, “substances of such danger to health as to warrant prohibition of sale, supply and use”. Kambo does not have any medicinal benefit and can damage the liver, stomach and cause cardiac arrest. Visiting the IAKP website page on contraindications yields nothing but arguably useless advice; “For the latest updates and safety information relating to contraindications and cautions, please seek guidance from an IAKP trained Kambo practitioner.”
In the Natasha Lechner inquest findings, Coroner Teresa O’Sullivan referenced medical contraindications “according to the IAKP” (page 9) and observed it was unclear if these are supported by peer reviewed research. She also criticised the paucity of the IAKP information relating to “risks” and particularly IAKP training material on the risk of death. One thus wonders if the present absence of contraindications is a policy recently adopted by the IAKP. More so the IAKP Code of Ethics and Professional Practice omits any reference to the dangers of Kambo itself.
Natasha Lechner
Natasha Lechner died on 8th March 2019, following a Kambo ceremony at her home in Mullumbimby. The inquest into her death was held at Lismore in May 2023. NSW State Coroner Teresa O’Sullivan handed down her findings in February 2024. The coronial findings (PDF) provide valuable insight into the insouciance with which self proclaimed shamanic healers prepare for what is known to be a high risk “ceremony”, and the potential for tragedy that awaits vulnerable individuals drawn into this culture. This was an unnecessary death stemming from a failure to call for help.
Natasha lived with a number of chronic health issues and was unable to work. Two months before her death she had undergone a two week basic Kambo course run by the IAKP. The coroner found that the IAKP was founded by Karen Darke who has no medical qualifications. IAKP has no input from toxicologists or medical practitioners in development of their training materials. Natasha took her role as a Kambo practitioner seriously.
In 2014 Natasha met Victoria Sinclair who, as a senior Kambo practitioner used the name Maestra Victoria. Her website mentioned in the coronial finding is still available. She advertises herself extensively, including:
Victoria is a transpersonal (eco)psychologist, trauma and postcolonial theorist and plant medicine practitioner, working on a High Priestess Level of initiation, ordained through several lineages and acknowledgments and in terms of shamanic initiation and training she worked prolifically in the Free Party Scene in Europe since 1990s and has been journeying and working extensively in Central and South America and Australia since 2006.
Indeed. Ranging a little further than the inquest findings, one discovers this woman has more qualifications I’m not familiar with. Such as these “therapeutic qualifications”:
Victoria has been a Reiki practitioner since 1999 and is a Master of both Tibetan Usui Reiki and Sekhem – Seichim – Reiki. She has been teaching people globally since 2012 and has dedicated herself deeply to upgrading Sekhem teachings to help to create a Higher Pathway to Metaphysical Ethical Practitionership as part of her Dharma.
Her training background includes; Transpersonal Psychology, Non-Dual Astrology, Epigenetics, Trauma work, Pranayama, Kundalini Yoga, Plant medicines, De-colonisation and Quantum, sound and ancestral practices… She is also a plant communicator.
If you’re not convinced you’d want to be alone with Victoria when you take a frog’s defensive secretion that the TGA later classified as a schedule 10 poison, be aware that Victoria also works with indigenous groups, “around spiritual sovereignty and healing of self and eliminating planetary dis-ease to nurture higher vibrational being for the new age and evolution of homo luminus.”
Victoria Sinclair as Maestra VictoriaVictoria Sinclair as Padma KhandroRanging a little further allows us to meet her latest incarnation, Victoria Padma Khandro, who is offering over this year and next:
- High Level Multidimensional Mentoring
- Non-Dual Astrology readings and Time-line work
- Soul-plan work involving fusion clearing, psychotherapy, Quantum Transfiguration, Ancestral Work, Gene Keys and Astrology zero-pointing
- Therapeutic packages including ancestral work, IFS, Quantum Transfiguration, Quantum Art Therapy and sometimes in-house referrals to deepen the scope of the work. Returning to the inquest findings, we find that before 2019 Victoria had performed Kambo ceremonies on Natasha who either paid her or provided accomodation. In March 2019 Victoria Sinclair was visiting from Ireland and was staying with Natasha at Mullumbimby. Before Sinclair arrived Natasha had reported feeling “really off”. It should be stressed that the “ceremony” was Natasha’s idea. They began the ritual by using Sananga eye drops. Sananga is another psychoactive plant extract associated with a host of unproven health benefits. Natasha administered Kambo to Sinclair who vomited, as expected, without incident.
Sinclair administered the burn wounds onto Natasha with an incense stick, then applied the Kambo. Immediately Natasha became faint and lay down. Two minutes later she sat up, grabbed Sinclair’s hand and said “this isn’t good” or “something’s not right” before passing out. Sinclair thought she might be “processing something” and held her upright for about 10 minutes as Natasha made moaning noises. Only then did she lay Natasha down in the recovery position and remove the poison from the wounds. She attempted to revive her by pouring water over her head. Then noticing goose bumps, assumed she was cold and began to massage her limbs.
Sinclair began CPR after noticing Natasha’s lips were blue. She attempted to use a mobile phone to call an ambulance. This failed as “she did not normally use mobile phones” and didn’t know the Australian emergency number. I find this deeply troubling as mobile phones allow access to dial emergency services without needing to be unlocked, or input of the specific number. As the more experienced Kambo practitioner, with a promoted reputation of travelling the global party scene, Sinclair should have known this. Natasha’s house-mate arrived home around 90 minutes after the ceremony had begun. She immediately began CPR and called an ambulance which arrived within 5 minutes. Natasha was already dead. Despite testifying she had ceased Kambo administration after Natasha’s death, Victoria Sinclair still advertises the service. The coroner specifically addressed the legalities of Sinclair’s involvement on pp. 12, 13 & 15.
As I touched on above, the coroner was critical of the IAKP training material on the risk of death. Evidence given by Sarah Morrison (aka Aisha Priya) cited the various risks discussed (page 10). On death, information for Kambo practitioners was:
Death is discussed as a risk if the water guidelines or first aid are not adhered to or if a client is contraindicated and does not disclose this or does not know they have a medical condition.
The coroner observed the incompleteness of this information and noted it does not advise even healthy people of the true risk of Kambo. Available literature and the two cases brought to the coroner’s attention led her to observe “that death can occur even where there is no pre-existing condition, or at least not one that could be possibly identified beforehand.” It is likely Natasha experienced an acute cardiac event caused by Kambo, such as cardiac arrhythmia leading to cardiac arrest or hypotension leading to cerebral hypoxia followed by respiratory arrest, as causes of her death.
Conclusion
Kambo is emerging as a significantly dangerous substance favoured by individuals interested in extreme so-called alternative medicines. It has been rapidly adopted by communities already familiar with ayahuasca, yet has a demonstrably higher risk profile. There is no scientific evidence to support the efficacy of Kambo in alleviating health problems as claimed by proponents. Nonetheless, the presence in Kambo of peptides and polypeptides with analgesic properties and affinity for opiate receptors may explain “feelings of well being and improvement of motor skills”, that users describe, and offer insight into repeated use.
Still, it is the very complex nature of active substances in the secretion that cause arterial hypotension, palpitations, cardiac arrhythmia, facial swelling (see Maestra Victoria above) and uncontrolled smooth muscle changes in the gut. To hope that shamans and self-styled practitioners of Kambo, who offer it as a means to spiritual awakening, are all capable of managing a genuine adverse reaction to the poison is futile. Use of Kambo in Western rituals is entwined with new age scam “therapies” so clearly divorced from reality as to almost beggar belief. This is not the case in the indigenous Amazon populations using Kambo.
Vulnerable individuals interested in exploring non evidence-based treatments for chronic health problems are at high risk of harm if not death from Kambo and its eager promotion. Use is likely to further increase. Community education and adaptation of Harm Reduction strategies may likely prove beneficial in negating risk.
In the last post I ran through the finding by Justice Helen Rofe in the case of Fidge v Pfizer. This was the third case brought by individuals and legal representatives with strong anti-vaccination links; both ideological and active. The applicant, Dr. Julian Fidge was found to lack standing. The case was dismissed.
As I previously began to discuss, within a day of the ruling, a follower of Julian Gillespie prompted him to do some digging into Justice Helen Rofe’s career as a barrister. You see, dear reader, as a barrister Helen Rofe had represented Pfizer in cases of intellectual property and patent law between 2003 and 2006. To the antivax mindset, this was proof of corruption because she did not reveal this prior to hearing the case. As a perceived “conflict of interest” existed, Rofe should have recused herself or allowed parties to request her recusal, they argued.
Now again, I am not a lawyer and I cannot qualify the importance of the duty of disclosure in this instance. But my thoughts on this development are straightforward. Is there any evidence Justice Rofe could not have acted impartially, or did not act impartially? Or rather, did her experience make her an ideal choice to hear the case. In 1988 Helen Rofe completed a Bachelor of Science with a major in genetics. Justice Rofe states on LinkedIn:
Prior to being appointed to the Federal Court I was a commercial barrister and Queen’s Counsel specialising in science and technology related matters.
Constitutional Complaint
On 22 March 2024, PJ O’Brien and Associates filed a constitutional complaint against Justice Rofe citing not only her prior work as a barrister but also “affiliations and extended family”. According to the media release (below) Justice Rofe “concealed her connections to Pfizer and the pharmaceutical industry”.
Constitutional Complaint Media Release
- I should point out that contact for the complaint, Katie Ashby-Koppens, is on the steering committee for the World Council for Health (WCH). The WCH is renowned for promoting misinformation linking COVID-19 vaccines with death. Wikipedia describes the group:
The World Council for Health is a pseudo-medical organisation dedicated to spreading misinformation to discourage COVID-19 vaccination, and promoting fake COVID-19 treatments.
The organization’s online appearance is that of a mainstream health organization. It appears to have been formed in September 2021 and its published leadership contains people which an Australian Associated Press fact check described as “figures who have promoted unfounded conspiracy theories”.
Now, better equiped to understand motivation, let us examine the complaint.
The accusations in the complaint are impressive to say the least. They require substantial “reasonable assumptions”, both numerous and convoluted. This reasoning begins by pointing out that Justice Rofe has majored in genetics, and the Fidge case involved genetics, genetically modified organisms and allegations that mRNA vaccines are GMOs. Also, we’re reminded that Justice Rofe held prior membership of the Bolton Clarke Human Research and Ethics Committee. Her cousin Sir Andrew Grimwade supported research there with grant monies from the Felton Trust. He was a member of the Felton Bequest for 50 years, and served 19 years as chairman of the bequests committee. He was a guest at the ceremony to welcome Justice Rofe to the federal court. Rofe “enjoyed a good relationship with Sir Andrew” sharing his “interest in science and scientific research”.
Sir Andrew was the great-grandson of Frederick Shepherd Grimwade who, “founded the Grimwade family pharmaceutical industry fortune in Australia”. The complaint goes on to state, Sir Andrew also “served as the honorary President of the Walter and Eliza Hall Institute (WEHI) for 14 years before retiring in 1992″ and had been on the Board since 1963. He “appears” to “have maintained a close relationship with WEHI right up until his death”, purportedly evidenced by a public guestbook obituary from WEHI.
As Australia’s leading biomedical research institute, the WEHI “may have” received billions of dollars from Australian governments. The WEHI have received $30 million from The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. Pfizer, BioNTech and Moderna have received six times that from the same Foundation, which has also promoted COVID-19 products. It’s “also reasonable to assume the WEHI supports all of the efforts of Mr Gates and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation in respect of their support of the COVID-19 products of Pfizer and Moderna.” WEHI received $13.5 million in Australian government funding for “COVID related projects”.
In mere paragraphs we’ve leapt from the failure of Justice Rofe to reveal that she had represented Pfizer some 18 to 21 years ago, to the apparent significance of her cousin’s commitment to scientific research and the involvement of the premier anti-vax enemy, Bill Gates. The complaint continues, targeting the Australian and Victorian governments’ partnership with Moderna. “It is reasonable to assume that the WEHI stands to possibly receive significant monies” from this partnership. The Victorian government has given $600,000 to WEHI as part of mRNA Victoria. “It is entirely reasonable, in light of enduring family ties and her Honour’s own scientific background and interests”, that Justice Rofe has “long been aware of the sources of funding… and the public statements in support of mRNA technologies” made by state and Commonwealth ministers and the Prime Minister.
The complaint rolls on in alleging that affiliations “reaching back four decades for her Honour personally, and over a century when extended family interests of great significance are factored in”, in fact mean a reasonable observer would accept J Rofe holds “Big Pharmaceutical interests, both domestic and international”. More so, Justice Rofe has “meaningfully and significantly assisted to protect, grow, and further establish in Australia [the interests of Pfizer]”. It is further alleged extended family ties nefariously influenced Justice Rofe’s decision-making to favour funding for WEHI, mRNA technology and “further significant sums of research monies” for both, as they’re supported by The Australian PM. Finally we reach paragraphs 42 and 43:
A reasonable observer can conclude from the above that it was more likely than not her Honour would seek to see the science and technology promoted by Pfizer and Moderna, and Australian governments, that stand to significantly benefit medical research institutes like the WEHI, survive and flourish in Australia.
Judicial proceedings of the type brought by Dr Fidge would, if successful, strike a damning blow against all the above interests, and much more.
The complaint continues with Case Implications, outlining what they believe would happen if Fidge had won the case. It not only reads like an anti-vaxxer day dream, yet reveals in black and white, the unabashed sabotage of vaccine public health initiatives and related vendettas, that this group deems justified. Australia would see injunctions and “serious criminal charges” for Pfizer and Moderna. Initiation of investigations into the “operations, processes and personnel of the OGTR, Department of Health and Aged Care” and (of course), “In particular the former Secretary of Health, Brendan Murphy due to his being responsible for provisional approval [of COVID-19 vaccines]”. In addition would be initiation of an examination to determine if the absence of GMO licences led to failure to provide proper informed consent, and medical negligence implications.
There would also be potential civil liability in the Commonwealth government for failing to enforce GMO licensing, and civil liability for Pfizer and Moderna for failing to undertake GMO licensing. The complaint also refers to “possible confirmation” of injuries and deaths caused by genetically modified properties of mRNA vaccines. Yet there is no body of work identifying such adverse outcomes. It is a misinformed notion linked to the same suite of decades old research, mRNA-critical pre-print papers, animal studies, SARS-CoV-2 infection studies and related articles that buoy this anti-vaccine belief. I’m not criticising the research, but strenuously reject the invented link to “injuries and deaths” fabricated by the anti-vaccine lobby.
Another implication of a Fidge victory, is vaccine hesitancy due to a loss of trust in Australian health authorities. Yes, they’re serious. However, vaccine hesitancy is in fact due to constant misinformation spread about vaccines, by groups such as this. Then on p. 13 we read the implication under 44 J:
The necessity to initiate many forms of clinical studies to assess the real world damage, disease, or fatal outcomes associated with the GMO products of Pfizer and Moderna, and any observed medium-to-long term disease and adverse reproductive health outcomes associated with the GMO products of Pfizer and Moderna, for those Australian citizens who were not informed they were receiving GMOs.
Astonishing. The complainants apparently believe an entire body of clinical research would evolve following a Fidge victory. One may ask, quite rightly, as to why such research into this vaccine induced disaster is not already underway. The answer being of course, that the “damage, disease and fatal outcomes” do not exist.
We then read that the complaints provided list is not exhaustive and that the implications suggested, pose severe and long lasting reputational damage and financial consequences “for all Australian political parties and their lead members in power throughout the COVID period”. Particularly for those introducing Pfizer and Moderna vaccines.
They finalise the implications by contending that these, or other implications not even listed, may have served to motivate Justice Helen Rofe to dismiss the case brought by Julian Fidge. The complaint then moves onto Judicial Conduct, and examines the Guide To Judicial Conduct with respect to J Rofe’s “failure to discharge her duty of disclosure concerning her prior dealings with Pfizer.” The complaint submits in paragraph 48:
As detailed under the section above…, her Honour Justice Rofe had significant prior dealings with Pfizer when a barrister, and through her science learnings and the interests of her extended family, significant professional and personal interest in seeing the continued success of those institutions her extended family and science colleagues had been involved with, and perhaps continue to be involved with.
The remainder of the complaint utilises the Guide to Judicial Conduct and the various summations of active bias that the complainants allege motivated J Rofe’s decision-making, in an attempt to argue she is in breach of sections of the Guide. Focusing on the principle of Impartiality and sections such as Personal Relationships, the complaint references seven “slightly different positions [reinforcing] the same common-sense view”:
Where there is a prior relationship with a party, the judicial duty is to disqualify oneself or disclose the relationship before all the parties. If in doubt about disqualification, disclose the relationship before all the parties and invite submissions.
Again, impartiality should be determined by “a fair-minded lay observer who might reasonably apprehend that the judge might not [be impartial]”. Whilst perception of bias and conflict of interest sufficient for disqualification from a case “is to be judged by the perception of a reasonable well-informed observer”. Parties should be informed by the judge of facts which might give rise to perceptions of bias, but the judge must decide on the appropriateness to sit on a case.
Conclusion
For this author, looking through the complaint is like reading any text peppered with the red flags of anti-vaccine beliefs combined with an entrenched distrust of medical, legal and government authority. I can see nothing wrong with the legal team of Julian Fidge raising concerns over Justice Rofe’s failure to disclose her past history representing Pfizer. I don’t believe there’s much substance to it but respect their right to raise concerns. However, the constitutional complaint itself relies on typical anti-vax tropes such as distrusting J Rofe’s respect for science and research, and her affiliations with individuals or organisations linked to vaccine technology and/or its funding. Indeed the complaint made a number of connections that whilst exhaustive, are difficult to respect, much less accept. To argue that J Rofe acted with corrupt intent, primarily to avoid the dawn of the post Fidge-victory era as the complaint described it, is simply fantastic.
I can only conclude by wishing Justice Helen Rofe all the very best.
Professional Conduct Rules for Lawyers
As a footnote, it’s worth pausing to consider that lawyers and solicitors are also subject to professional conduct rules. Katie Ashby-Koppens and Peter O’Brien & Associates must keep in mind their duty to the court and the administration of justice.
Lacking professional distance from your client (or their cause) risks distracting you from this duty, which is paramount and prevails to the extent of inconsistency with any other duty. Your objectivity, your independence and your forensic judgement – on which the court relies – may be reduced.
The duty to avoid any compromise to integrity and professional independence:
Your integrity and trustworthiness are fundamental to your reputation as a lawyer and to your relationships with clients and other parties in the justice system. When a lawyer fails to act with integrity because their professional boundaries are compromised, the integrity of the justice system as a whole is undermined.
Wise words.
The title of “Fidge v Pfizer” given to the Federal court case file number VID 510 of 2023, tells us little about those behind the case and what motivates them. Dr. Julian Fidge stepped up to be the applicant in a case “designed”, we’re told on the Maat’s Method website (archive), by retired barrister Julian Gillespie and solicitor Katie Ashby-Koppens of P. J. O’Brien and Associates.
Those names should sound familiar to anyone with an interest in cases brought to the Federal and High courts of Australia by anti-vaccination activists represented by Peter Fam of Maat’s Method. The case was the third brought by this group, in an extended campaign to discredit COVID-19 vaccines. It alleged mRNA COVID-19 vaccines are unregistered GMOs, and their manufacturers guilty of breaching legislation. The initial two cases have been covered on this blog here and here.
Background
Seeking to invalidate the approval of COVID-19 vaccines, the so-called evidence in the first two cases relied heavily on unverified adverse reactions reported to the TGA. Having made these claims, the affidavits advanced various “gotcha” scenarios using the Therapeutic Goods Act (TG Act) in which the Secretary of the Department of Health, was supposedly duty bound to remove approval of COVID-19 vaccines. Neither case was successful in establishing legal standing to prosecute proceedings.
The second case, known as The Australian Babies Case included Dr. Julian Fidge as one of the six applicants. It also advanced a “gotcha” argument against the Secretary for failing to comply with section 30C(2) of the TG Act. This was unique in that section 30C provides for Consultation with the Gene Technology Regulator (OGTR). They argued that the mRNA vaccines were GMOs and the Secretary had failed to give written notice to the Gene Technology Regulator, as specified in section 30C. The affidavit contended:
It appears that there has been non-compliance with a statutory condition in the TG Act. […] The plaintiffs contend that non-compliance with the statutory obligation mandated by s 30C(2) leads to the invalidity of the registration decision that followed.
That case aimed to “fix the law on standing” by arguing the applicants warranted a unique “special interest”. It was filed with the High court in December of 2022 and remitted back to the Federal court in March 2023. Announcing its discontinuation in April 2023, Peter Fam observed that they had been working simultaneously on other more promising cases that would be announced within weeks. And thus, in July 2023 came the announcement We are suing Pfizer and Moderna directly – because their shots are GMOs. They had sent letters of demand to Pfizer, Moderna, the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) and the Office of the Gene Technology Regulator (OGTR).
Julian Fidge was no doubt a willing applicant, ready to take one for the team. His eagerness to reject government mandates and AMA requirements related to COVID-19 is well documented. He has a strong association with the Australian Medical Practitioners Society; a group that has been instrumental in opposing COVID-19 vaccines and related mandates. He had previously challenged the Medical Board of Australia over conditions placed on him following an anti-vaccine post on Facebook and has been reported as the doctor who “reversed Australia’s ban on ivermectin”. Fidge has had regular contact with Julian Gillespie, Katie Ashby-Koppens and Peter Fam. We know this anti-vaccine legal team had been working on this case for months, and no doubt modified the application to suit Dr. Fidge. With that, let us turn to the application and ruling.
Fidge v Pfizer
The case was heard before the Hon Justice Helen Rofe. Justice Rofe delivered her ruling on 1 March 2024. Her reasons for judgement are comprehensive with respect to legislation and case law, and could be reasonably summarised as follows.
On 6 July 2023 Fidge filed an injunction against Pfizer and Moderna pursuant to section 147(1) of the Gene Technology Act 2000 (GTA), on the basis that:
- The mRNA vaccines are or contain GMOs as per section 10 of the GTA.
- To “deal with” GMOs Pfizer and Moderna (respondents) were required as per section 40 of the GTA to secure licences from the OGTR, but failed or refused to do so;
- The respondents knew after vaccine approval that; (i) the vaccines are or contain GMOs, and (ii) the vaccines were not licensed as per s. 40 of the GTA;
- The respondents dealt with and continue to deal with the vaccines in Australia by importing, transporting and distributing them. This constituted “vaccine dealings”;
- The vaccine dealings without a licence are unlawful as per s. 32 and s. 33 of the GTA. This constituted “breaches” of the GTA;
- Fidge is an “aggrieved person” as per s. 147(1) of the GTA because “he wasn’t fully informed that this new class of drugs is capable of transferring genetic material”, which Fidge considers poses significant adverse health risks.
Dr. Fidge asserted he had standing under section 147(1) of the GTA on “a number of grounds” citing his:
- “Professional capacity” as a GP who oversaw administration of 10,000 COVID-19 vaccinations, and may be exposed to legal claims from his patients, as he was unable to advise them of the vaccine-GMO status. He has also failed to “do no harm” as he contends the vaccines are or contain GMOs, rendering them unsafe;
- “Personal capacity” as the recipient of three Pfizer vaccines;
- “Private capacity” due to “severe moral injury, mental harm and suffering”, due to the large number of “deaths, illnesses and injuries reported to the TGA to date”;
- “Public capacity” as a doctor subject to a duty to preserve human life and protect the health and safety of the public. He is compelled to speak for all Australians and believes his professional codes of conduct mean he is obliged to inform patients about the vaccine-GMO status to properly provide informed consent.
Before going on it’s worth pausing to note that the first COVID-19 vaccine to arrive in Australia is Astra Zeneca; an adenovirus organism. It was registered with the OGTR in February 2021 as a genetically modified vaccine, with risk assessment approval describing it as a GMO. The AZ vaccine has not attracted attention from this group as a dangerous GMO. That allegation is reserved for mRNA vaccines, following intense focus on reports of plasmid DNA in mRNA vaccines, a number of animal studies into mRNA vaccines and pre-COVID studies of nanoparticles, all frequently cited by opponents of mRNA vaccines.
The respondents, Pfizer and Moderna, sought a summary judgement under s 31 A(2) of the Federal Court Australia Act and rule 26.01(1) of the Federal Court Rules on the basis that the applicant lacks standing to seek relief under s 147(1) of GT Act. Section 31 A(2) of the Federal Court Australia Act, states that, the court may give judgement for one party against another in relation to the proceeding if:
(a) the first party is defending the proceeding; and
(b) the court is satisfied that the other party has no reasonable prospect of successfully prosecuting the proceeding.
Rule 26.01(1) of the Federal Court Rules states that a party may apply to a court for an order that judgement be given against another party because:
(a) the applicant has no reasonable prospect of prosecuting the proceeding; or
(b) the proceeding is frivolous or vexatious; or
(c) no reasonable cause of action is disclosed; or
(d) the proceeding is an abuse of the process of the court.
On 10 August 2023 Justice Rofe ordered that the respondents application for summary judgement be heard in October, separately from Julian Fidge’s application for injunctive relief. Rofe did not accept that Fidge had established he had standing to bring his application, and thus, allowed the respondents’ applications for summary judgement. Rofe observed that the respondents denied the vaccines were GMOs or that they had breached the GTA. In addition she observed that the position of the OGTR, “is that the vaccines are not GMOs”.
In paragraph 15 Justice Rofe writes:
The parties agreed that the question of whether Dr Fidge has standing is premised on the assumption (for the purposes of the respondents’ applications) that the vaccines are GMOs and the respondents therefore breached the Act by dealing with the vaccines. Thus, for the purposes of this summary judgment application, I do not need to determine whether the vaccines are GMOs or the resulting question of whether Pfizer and Moderna breached the Act by failing to obtain licences for the Vaccine Dealings. I have therefore disregarded any evidence filed by the parties that address whether the vaccines are GMOs.
Alas, once again the result for the Gillespie group is to be ruled as lacking standing. Dr. Julian Fidge is not a “person aggrieved”, and thus no different from any ordinary member of the public. Also, rather helpfully Justice Rofe applies case law to expand on why summary judgement under the Federal court Rules and Act, is appropriate where standing is absent. If an applicant lacks standing there are no prospects of success. Indeed, citing precedent, Rofe observes that an abuse of process arises if the applicants case is “foredoomed to fail”, as would always be the case without standing. Rofe opens paragraph 22 with:
It is clear that without standing an applicant has no prospect of success, no reasonable cause of action and the proceeding is an abuse of process.
Standing
Justice Rofe also elaborates on the importance of standing in this case by referring to precedent. Standing dictates that a person must be an appropriate party to instigate proceedings. Various terms such as “sufficient interest”, “special interest”, “real interest” or “sufficient material interest” are one consistent test. In fact, if standing was accorded to any citizen, the law may be, “abused by busybodies and cranks and persons actuated by malice“. In addition persons or groups who feel very strongly about an issue will be prepared to put another party, whose actions have not affected them, to great cost and inconvenience in mounting a defence.
Most interestingly, Justice Rofe referred to Australian Vaccination-Risks Network Inc v Secretary, Department of Health (2022) 292 FCR (AVN’s appeal) in reinforcing the lack of standing for Fidge. Justices hearing the appeal agreed that the AVN lacked standing. We can see that Justice Rofe has not missed the similarity between Fidge seeking to enforce performance of a public duty via the GTA, and the AVN seeking to force the Secretary of the Department of Health to execute duties under the TG Act. Rofe cites:
It is quite clear that an ordinary member of the public, who has no interest other than that which any member of the public has in upholding the law, has no standing to sue to prevent the violation of the public right, or to enforce the performance of a public duty.
Over paragraphs 28 to 32 Justice Rofe references the initial AVN case and their failure to demonstrate standing to further demonstrate why Julian Fidge also lacked standing. One does not find it difficult to imagine that this would not have sat well with the brains behind these three cases; Julian Gillespie, Katie Ashby-Koppens and Peter Fam.
Justice Rofe addresses the GTA extensively, and in a manner that is beyond the purpose of this post. In doing so she notes that Fidge has only alleged Pfizer and Moderna contravened the offences in s 32 and s 33 of the Act. Rofe also rejects evidence presented by Fidge claiming Pfizer’s understanding of the Act is so “narrow, myopic and restrictive” it prevents anyone from having standing to challenge breaches of the GTA. Further, the GTA deals with GMOs that present a biosafety risk to people or the environment and not “the quality, efficacy and safety of GMO vaccines for administration to humans”. More so, the applicant failed to establish he is “any other aggrieved person” within the meaning of s 147(1) of the Act. Without standing Fidge, ” ‘has no reasonable prospect of successfully prosecuting the proceeding’ within the meaning of s 31A(2)(b) of the FCA Act and r 26.01(1)(a) of the Rules”.
In her conclusion Rofe writes that instead of making an application under the “relevant statute that regulates vaccines”; the TG Act (as the AVN had done), Fidge “seeks an injunction under an act that only tangentially deals with GMO vaccines”. In what one imagines may well infuriate the legal brains who strategised this case in the wake of AVN, Rofe sensibly observes:
That strategic decision may be understandable in light of the decisions in AVN and AVN FC but was ultimately misguided.
Dr. Julian Fidge’s application for injunctive relief under the GTA was summarily dismissed. On 22 March 2024, Fidge filed with the Federal court for leave to appeal.
Is Justice Rofe corrupt?
Within a day of the ruling came the allegation, courtesy of Julian Gillespie, that Justice Rofe had failed to disclose prior activity as a barrister, representing Pfizer in patent disputes. There are five such instances that occurred between 2003 and 2006. There is no evidence Justice Rofe was unable to act impartially or did not act impartially. Nonetheless, PJ O’Brien & Associates and Ashby-Koppens have not only examined her career, but most of her life, her extended family and affiliates, to allege nefarious intention on her part motivated by “Big Pharmaceutical interests, both domestic and international”. They have filed a constitutional complaint with the Chief Justice of the Federal court and also called on the Australian Parliament to investigate allegations of misbehaviour, which if proven may result in her removal from the bench.
In the next post we will look into the complaint, the scope of its contention and ask not only if the allegation is justified, but even feasible.
Recently there has been some press coverage that potential running mates for Robert F. Kennedy Jr., are themselves well versed in conspiracy theories.
Kennedy, the driving force behind anti-vaccine pressure group Children’s Health Defense, which includes Children’s Health Defense Australia (recently abandoned website), is running as an independent for President of the USA. One possible running mate is Jesse Ventura who was mentioned here when the antics of Rima Laibow were reviewed. The other is Aaron Rodgers who has entertained a number of conspiracy theories including denial of the Sandy Hook shootings. Both are anti-vaxxers.
Kennedy has lobbied for years promoting the debunked link between MMR vaccines and autism. In the early days of the COVID pandemic he emerged as a vocal critic of COVID-19 vaccines. Which for a presidential contender, is understandably proving to be a problem. As measles cases rise across the US it isn’t surprising that Kennedy is not attacking vaccines on the campaign trail. In April last year Kennedy announced he would take leave of his roles as Chairman and Chief Legal Counsel of CHD, although the US site still lists him as both.
Exactly why the CHD Australian chapter URL is parked, just seven months after launching is unclear, although the Instagram page remains. What can’t be denied is Kennedy’s long history of spreading vaccine disinformation. In the early days of his campaign Kennedy talked about plans to tell NIH scientists it is time “to give infectious disease a break for about eight years”. However as his presidential campaign continues he is, according to NBC in the below clip, keeping his usual anti-vaccine message “relatively quiet”.
RFK Jr. relatively quiet on antivax message despite past ties
Critical overdose events at three Australian dance parties in January this year, have led to more calls for Pill Testing (PT) to be introduced as part of our nation’s effective Harm Minimisation drug policy. Harm Minimisation consists of three prongs: Demand Reduction, Supply Reduction and Harm Reduction.
Strong evidence
Pill testing is an evidence-based, harm reduction initiative backed in peer reviewed literature. It reduces drug harms and protects the health of those who access the service. Whilst Australian drug markets are uniquely sourced and specifically affect Australians, Harm Reduction Australia cites Harm Reduction International, in answering the question, What is harm reduction?
Harm reduction refers to policies, programmes and practices that aim to minimise negative health, social and legal impacts associated with drug use, drug policies and drug laws. Harm reduction is grounded in justice and human rights. It focuses on positive change and on working with people without judgement, coercion, discrimination, or requiring that they stop using drugs as a precondition of support.
PT has been demonstrated via live trials at Canberra’s Groovin The Moo festival in 2018 and 2019, to be effective in positively changing behaviour related to drug use. The trials were conducted by Pill Testing Australia, and resulting evidence greatly contributed to the fixed-site testing facility CanTEST, an ongoing trial in Canberra, introduced in July 2022. Indicating the controversy of PT, days before a third dance festival trial was scheduled to begin in 2022, Pill Testing Australia had public liability insurance withdrawn, without explanation.
A 2019 election study found two thirds of Australians support PT at music festivals. Examining deaths, PT initiatives, the success of harm reduction and drug user responses, Andrew Groves wrote in The Harm Reduction Journal in 2018:
Using a theoretical frame of pragmatism and drawing from national and international research evidence, this paper recommends the integration of pill testing into Australia’s harm minimisation strategy.
Australia’s Alcohol and Drug Foundation have published an excellent summary of the evidence supporting PT, and provide data on its successful international uptake. They also point out that public health experts have demonstrated support for PT. These include:
- Public Health Association Australia
- Australian Medical Association
- Pharmaceutical Society of Australia
- Royal Australian College of Physicians
- Royal Australian College of General Practitioners (RACGP)
Queensland
In February 2023, directly citing the success in Canberra, the QLD Palaszczuk government announced plans to develop Drug Checking at fixed and mobile sites. This very shortly followed the state’s plans to reduce penalties for illicit drug possession, including heroin, ice and cocaine. More so, use of the term “drug-checking” is more realistic, inclusive and in line with international practice, as summed up in this opening paragraph from the QLD Network of Alcohol and other Drug Agencies (QNADA):
Drug checking – also sometimes referred to as ‘pill testing’ – involves members of the public voluntarily providing samples of suspected illicit substances they are intending to consume (e.g. tablets, capsules, powders, tabs/blotter paper etc) for chemical analysis.
Test results are provided back to the individual by health professionals as part of a personalised health and harm reduction intervention. The purpose of the intervention is to increase the person’s awareness of the risks associated with the substance with the aim of effecting behaviour changes that result in fewer harms or incidences of drug-related death.
In September last year the QLD government sought private providers to offer plans for two fixed drug-checking sites and mobile services. Of course, great strides like this rarely escape unhelpful politicisation. It was impossible to miss that when announced, the decision was called “soft on drugs” by QLD opposition health spokeswoman, and registered nurse, Ros Bates. It’s been a long time since I’ve heard that phrase used seriously.
Victoria
It is Victoria, to where we must turn our attention to partly examine the recent overdose events. RACGP reported eight people, most in their 20s were intubated and placed in induced comas after MDMA overdose at the Hardmission dance party in early January. Jollyon Attwooll reported:
Chair of RACGP Specific Interests Addiction Medicine Dr Hester Wilson described the introduction of festival pill testing as ‘a no-brainer’.
‘[Pill testing] actually does change people’s behaviour, and therefore it makes it safer,’ she told newsGP. Dr Wilson said that pill testing is ‘not a silver bullet’ but should be used as part of a range of measures to address drug use.
Following the Hardmission OD events, two women were taken to hospital on January 12 after suspected drug use at Juicy Fest. Current Victorian Premier Jacinta Allan initially stated she had no plans to introduce PT. Not long after, Allan advised that she would seek more information from the health department. The Premier sensibly observed:
I think it’s important to examine the evidence and advice and consider that in the policy setting that we have across all of our alcohol and drug policy measures, which is taking a harm minimisation approach, looking at the safety of people going to events.
The ACT
The evaluation document of the 2019 ACT Pill Testing trial is a lengthy read, with confirmation of Dr. Hester Wilson’s words coming through in data and discussion. I won’t copy/paste quotes from patrons who attended the PT facility, but I do recommend skimming through to appreciate that PT, like other harm reduction initiatives, changes drug users behaviour for the better. I did appreciate the graphs on self-reported knowledge of harm reduction before and after having a drug tested. Likewise, when it came to choice of information source, positive changes are evident.
Detailed explanation of the slides below can be found at section/s 6.1 (fig. 1), 6.4.1. (fig. 3) and 6.4.5. (fig.4).
- Sydney
At the end of January a challenging scenario unfolded at Sydney’s HTID festival. Having taken what he thought was MDMA, an attendee fell unwell. Ultimately he responded to naloxone, a drug that reverses the effect of opioids. He had taken a tablet cut with nitazene, which is a synthetic opioid reported as “stronger than” fentanyl or heroin. Health workers and members of drug safety volunteers DanceWize, worked to advise the crowd. No doubt they saved lives. It turned out others from around Sydney had been hospitalised that weekend. One pill analysed, contained nitazene and no MDMA. Guardian reported:
Chris Gough, chief executive of the nation’s only pill testing venue in Canberra, said the detection of nitazenes in pills sold as MDMA showed the need for similar services in other states.
“In this case, where a nitazene has been sold as MDMA and therefore people are completely unprepared and potentially opioid naive, the risk of overdose is extreme,” said Gough, who is the executive director of the Canberra Alliance for Harm Minimisation and Advocacy.
“As we have now seen nitazenes in several jurisdictions in Australia it is time to act swiftly to provide drug-checking services throughout Australia so that we can respond to these drug trends as they emerge and thereby save lives and inform the community.”
Canberra
Saving lives is far more about probability than possibility. Indeed that’s been the case with MDMA overdose, MDMA pills cut with N-ethylpentalone or other adulterants. Early last year the Canberra walk-in site CanTEST discovered a pill cut with metonitazene; a synthetic opioid with a potency up to 200 times that of morphine. The owner chose to dispose of the drug on site. In January this year, ANU chemists made an Australia-first discovery of three new recreational drugs. All came from preparations sold as something else. CanTEST staff were able to discern the drugs were not what they were supposed to be, but tests were inconclusive. They were however, able to warn the community. One substance thought to be a derivative of Ritalin was in fact a new variant of cathinone, commonly known as “bath-salts”.
ACT Health have also developed a comprehensive document for festival planners. The Festivals Pill Testing Policy, examines PT options as a service available for festival attendees and how it relates to harm minimisation. Advice on general and specific health and safety measures, the importance of peer support, relaxation areas, emergency services and how PT works with providers and the event itself, is only part of the clear information presented.
Coronial support
A number of fatalities, and the fact that PT promotes positive decision making led to multiple calls to introduce the practice as a policy initiative. Over the last six years, four state coroners have spoken out. A 2020 inquest into five deaths from July 2016 to January 2017, led Victorian coroner Pares Spanos to urge the Victorian government to “urgently” introduce drug checking and a system to warn the community about dangerous substances sold as MDMA. The males aged from 17 to 32 died in a variety of tragic ways after taking what they believed was a modest dose of MDMA. Autopsy revealed the substances 25C-NBOMe and 4-Fluoroamphetamine in their systems. The cluster was discovered after 20 hospitalisations stemming from the Chapel Street nightclub district in January 2017. Victoria Police knew of the dangerous drug’s presence and later defended their decision to not warn the community.
In September last year, Victorian coroner John Cain also called on the government to introduce PT after the death of a man from an MDMA overdose in March 2022. The man had been observed taking a Blue Punisher, a pill with dangerously high levels of MDMA. He was admitted to the Royal Melbourne with brain swelling and multi-organ failure and died four days later. In his findings Cain wrote:
It is impossible to know whether, had a drug checking service existed, [the man] would have submitted a sample of an MDMA pill for testing before taking it at Karnival […] Notwithstanding this, a drug-checking service would have at least created the opportunity for him to do so, and for him to receive tailored harm reduction information from the drug-checking facility.
It is likewise impossible to know whether, had [the man] been provided information of this type, he would have changed his drug consumption behaviour; but likewise, in the absence of a drug checking service, this was not a possible outcome.
Politics
NSW and Victoria have established histories of resisting PT. After the death of a 26 year old at a Sydney music festival in February 2023, Dominic Perrottet mused about his government’s inquiry into methamphetamine and, rejecting any notion of PT offered a most unhelpful contribution:
But my clear message to people right across NSW [is] stay safe, and don’t take drugs and you will be safe.
Associate Professor David Caldicott, one of the driving minds behind CanTEST, suggested Perrottet had engaged in “magical thinking”. In Victoria we have the legacy of Dan Andrews who, citing the demonstrably false [HRJ] claim that PT encouraged pill taking (a belief favoured by Craig Kelly), insisted that under his leadership PT would never be introduced. The state opposition has been steadily opposed to harm reduction measures for conservative political reasons. Ignoring evidence, consecutive opposition leaders have opposed Safe Injecting Facilities and PT alike. I do acknowledge however, that the Victorian opposition has lobbied the state government for more effective emergency drug alert systems.
Recent research
A recent paper Drug-related deaths at Australian music festivals, was published last month in the International Journal of Drug Policy. Examination of the National Coronial Information System (NCIS) yielded the following results about fatalities at music festivals between 2000 and 2019:
There were 64 deaths, of which most involved males (73.4%) aged in their mid-20s (range 15-50 years). Drug toxicity was the most common primary cause of death (46.9%) followed by external injuries (37.5%). The drug most commonly detected or reported as being used was MDMA (65.6%), followed by alcohol (46.9%) and cannabis (17.2%), with most cases reporting the use of two or more drugs (including alcohol) and 36% reporting a history of drug misuse in the coroner’s findings. Most deaths were unintentional, with less than a fifth of cases (17.2%) involving intentional self-harm. Clinical intervention was involved in 64.1% of cases and most festivals occurred in inner city locations (59.4%).
There are complex factors identified in the paper, such as inner city events and multi-day events being more likely to be the site of a fatality. This may reflect policing strategies and the need for harm reduction strategies, respectively. Alcohol is known to be a compounding factor and its use is clearly identified as the second most prevalent substance (see bar graph below). Males are more likely to drink and use MDMA and this is reflected in them making up just under three quarters of deaths. Of 2000 festival goers surveyed, 52% were male. Poor decision making associated with alcohol intake is always a potential factor with illicit drug use.
Total number of drug-related deaths, deaths primarily attributed to MDMA, and deaths primarily attributed to alcohol, at music festivals in Australia by year ranges (n=64)Harm reduction flexibility
What I took away from this paper was the recommendation that a range of harm reduction measures would each have something to offer in solving this persistent, multifactorial problem. More so, understanding data yielded by such research is vital to establishing the correct harm reduction approach for the Australian population in these instances. In conclusion, the authors write:
Harm reduction strategies such as roving first aid volunteers, mobile medical care, spaces to rest, hydration stations, and drug checking services, may best address some of the risks associated with illicit drug use at festivals, in addition to increased consumer education and awareness. It is important to understand the factors involved in these incidents in order to inform policies around harm reduction and law enforcement at music festivals in future to prevent further deaths.
Just as is the case with injecting facilities, substance checking is a successful, global health policy dynamic. Like all aspects of harm reduction the evidence supporting it is strong, persisting through variations specific to where it is a reality. In Canada, Toronto ran a comprehensive trial from 2019 to 2023. Switzerland has had drug checking available since the 1990’s. Now in a number of cities, the past decade saw a 250% increase in samples tested there. The UK has drug checking services, as does New Zealand.
Despite certain dynamics in NSW and Victoria leaving state governments out of touch with most Australians, there are cabinet ministers and cross-bench teams respectively, raising awareness and pushing for change in each state. When we look at arguments for and against PT, it appears arguments against, lack realistic substance. Indeed these documents recognise the importance of harm minimisation and its place in the National Drug Strategy. The most comprehensive argument “against” is criticism of the limitations of on-site drug checking, compared to laboratory testing. This is well understood and has been directly addressed by Dr. Monica Barratt. Of course the inevitable case that flexible harm reduction measures encourage or create the illusion of safety around illicit drugs is always mentioned. The evidence simply does not support this.
Drug Free Australia
This brings us to the anti-drug lobby. Certain groups contend that law enforcement and zero tolerance are superior in managing drug related harms. Stridently anti Harm Minimisation, they promote the ideology of a drug free world, consistently undermining evidence. In fact my own interest in the anti-vaccination lobby, began in 2009 and I was struck by similarities between their tactics, and those of the more lethal anti-drug lobby, I was long familiar with.
One group, Drug Free Australia (DFA), operate similarly to The Australian Vaccination-risks Network (AVN). DFA aggressively lobby government and an unsuspecting public, frequently using alarming irrelevant information. They attack the media, use meaningless or decontextualised data to dispute published evidence or argue that acknowledging a need for more research, reveals lack of any research. DFA dismiss harm reduction techniques by highlighting the ongoing presence of harm (eg; MDMA has caused deaths, thus no rationale for PT exists) or blame harm reduction for drug user risk-taking, and the familiar contention that PT “green lights” the taking of MDMA.
Such contentions stem from ignoring that high risk behaviour via illicit drug use continues all day, every day in Australia. Harm reduction aims to reduce the harms associated with this behaviour. It provides education, promotes safe choices, saves our health-system money, and yes, saves lives. One way DFA contend PT actually kills, is by misrepresenting the PT card system. A drug found to contain what the owner expected is “white-carded”; as is say, an MDMA pill free of any pollutant. Yet, MDMA causes most overdoses say DFA, so a white-card result must be potentially lethal. Well, no. The drug is what the person expected. Not double or five times the amount. So the patron may take the drug they bought and, remembering the slide show above, will henceforth access reputable information on harm reduction.
Those slides are from the ACT Pill Testing Trial 2019. DFA attack those findings in a deceptive piece, arguing the opposite to accepted findings. On page 7, they selectively quote from evaluators who discuss that someone who discovers that the drug is what they thought, “…are likely to take as much or more” (p.33). And that “…concordance between expectation and identification is associated with stable or increased intention to take a substance” (p.34). DFA use this to extrapolate to the conclusion that PT will lead to more use and thus, more death. This requires logical fallacies: Decontextualisation and cherry picking of data. Reading the full sentences and paragraphs in which those terms appear leaves the reader with a positive, not negative view of the evaluation. See pp. 33-34, and consider Table 5 from p. 32, below:
When read in context we see that patrons intent to use drugs did not dramatically change, but their intent to engage in harm reduction behaviour notably increased. Eg, also on p.33 (bold mine); Many interviewees reported that the quantity of drugs that they intended to use did not change after testing, as the drug was identified to be what they expected. And, Many interview patrons indicated that their intention to use did not change, but their intention to engage in harm reduction behaviours did increase. Also, this and other evaluations have found non-concordance between patrons’ expectation of what a substance is and what a substance is identified to be, commonly leads to reduced intention to take that substance.
So, the comment pulled from p. 33 by DFA, omits crucial clarification from the evaluation. Some was printed on the same page, just two paragraphs above. For example:
Interview data suggests that this group were looking for confirmation of the contents of the presented drug, and information about how to reduce potential harms. Many interview patrons indicated that their intention to use did not change, but their intention to engage in harm reduction behaviours increased.
Prior research also indicates concordance is associated with an increased likelihood of taking the drug, and non-concordance with a decreased likelihood (Valente: 2019, and Measham: 2018). More so, the evaluators stress that modification of drug consumption can’t be measured alone. Contextual factors, such as type of festival influencing available drugs, need to be considered during interpretation of results and future study design.
Finally, the insistence by DFA that MDMA, not impurities, lead to most fatal overdoses is fashioned only to discredit PT. Still, five deaths in the six months leading up to January 2017 and investigated by Coroner Pares Spanos involved 25C-NBOMe and 4-Fluoroamphetamine. Recent discovery of potent opioids nitazene and metonitazene raise further concern. N-ethylpentalone is regularly found in so-called MDMA pills. But why get hung up on MDMA? Drug checking can check any drugs and CanTEST discovered three unknown substances, later confirmed at ANU. This is how a new type of cathinone (bath salt) was found. Supposed ketamine was actually a new type of benzylpiperazine (BZP) stimulant. The third find was propylphenidine.
Conclusion
Pill testing or drug checking is a harm reduction measure supported by consistent evidence in peer reviewed literature. Globally, where introduced, it has demonstrated success and improved understanding of behaviour. It is supported by most Australians, where valuable data has been gathered from on-site testing at music festivals, and the fixed site CanTEST, in Canberra.
This has expanded the nation’s understanding of drug user insight into, and uptake of harm reduction dynamics. QLD is the most recent state to confirm permanent drug testing. Arguments against the initiative are morally subjective and/or deceptive, leading to their swift deconstruction.
Drug checking saves lives and is supported by public health experts across Australia. As a dynamic, expanding, harm reduction initiative, it should be introduced nation-wide into Australia’s harm minimisation strategy.
︎ ︎ ︎ ︎
Originally published as Pill Testing: The harm reduction initiative supported by strong evidence
On Monday 22 January 2024 the unique home for all things COVID conspiracy, Café Locked Out, hosted a video titled The Launch of OpenDAEN, A free database of Adverse Events. Cutting to the chase, OpenDEAN, promoted and launched by Sharon Cousins, purported to be an easy and honest means of access to the Therapeutic Goods Administration, Database of Adverse Event Notification.
Like its namesake previously debunked here, OpenVAERS, the Australian analogue of misleading information, OpenDAEN, presents decontextualised data in a manner that seeks to create the illusion COVID-19 vaccines are inherently unsafe. That “vaccine injuries” are rampant. Again like OpenVAERS it presents as conclusive fact, reports of negative health experiences observed in, or claimed by, an individual after that individual received a COVID-19 vaccine.
Like the TGA, OpenDAEN uses the Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities (MedDRA), to classify adverse reactions. It provides filtering with the European Medicines Agency, Important Medical Events list and Pfizer’s analysis of post authorisation adverse events. An additional adverse reaction of “serious” has been added to OpenDAEN. Sharon Cousins is an erstwhile insurance executive, now presenting as an “independent researcher” with a penchant for criticising COVID-19 vaccines. Sharon could not share her screen and was directing suspended NSW anaesthetist Paul Oosterhuis, the third member of this Zoom presentation, around the site.
The primary data interrogation categories on the index page of openDAEN are:
- Case numbers by Year, Month and Sex
- Cases by COVID-19 Vaccine Type
- Case Numbers by Reaction term and Age
- Case by Frequency of Batch Number
- Table of case number, date, vaccine manufacturer, MedDRA reactions, Death, Serious cases and the FOI request number the batch number was confirmed by.
The index page offers the following:
- Above: Slideshow: OpenDAEN website
OpenDAEN is called a “free database”. Don’t be fooled. The important elements here are reports and post vaccine, combined with the fact almost all adult Australians have had two COVID-19 vaccines, as have two thirds of 5-15 year olds. Random ill health events can and do frequently occur coincidentally with vaccination. It’s also important to realise that the TGA and health authorities encourage Australians to report these events, so that over time a greater understanding of these vaccines will emerge. OpenDAEN.info provides a description on each page footer:
OpenDAEN.Info is a non-commercial and not-for-profit website for the research, study and review of the TGA (Therapeutic Goods Administration) DAEN (Database of Adverse Event Notifications) system in respect of COVID-19 vaccines. The primary source of data on OpenDAEN is the TGA DAEN system and their published FOIs (Freedom of Information).
Decontextualisation
When taken out of context and denied TGA cautionary disclaimers, the reports become hearsay temporally related to something somebody did. Nothing more. This is decontextualisation. But apparently, we are to assume causation exists. OpenDAEN claims to be able to offer up to date, conclusive data related to adverse events caused by COVID-19 immunisation. These adverse reactions are the subject of reports sent to the TGA DAEN. So, the data themselves have a recognisable source. But can absolute conclusions be made with any real confidence? In reality it takes time for clinically relevant events, specific to any vaccination to be investigated, identified and acted upon. Unless already understood and published on the TGA COVID-19 Vaccine Safety Report (2 November 2023), the quality and quantity of adverse reaction is speculation. To make matters worse, the anti-vaccination lobby has invested an exceptional amount of time spreading disinformation via social media, and one of their primary targets has been the TGA DAEN.
The anti-vaccine lobby want every report to be an absolute reality. They want the figures, diligently and honestly provided to Australia by the TGA, to be accepted without examination as conclusive, in their misguided attempt to wipe out COVID-19 immunisation. We saw this claim time and again in the court affidavits of Peter Fam, Meryl Dorey, Julian Gillespie and Katie Ashby-Koppens; reports presented as if confirmation of death and injury in huge numbers. But correlation is not causation. If you haven’t clicked the link to DAEN by now, let’s see what the TGA, but not OpenDAEN, stress about the contents.
- DAEN SPLASH SCREEN DISCLAIMER –Okay, so it confirms what I stressed above. But most crucially, you have to tick the teeny weeny little box next to I have read and understand the above, to access the TGA data. The disclaimer can’t be missed. Only willingly ignored. The importance of what this means and the restrictions the disclaimer places ipso facto, on OpenDAEN was studiously avoided during the video on 22 January. In fairness I will note that a small header on the TGA DAEN page was visible, but also ignored. It reads; Inclusion in DAEN – medicines does not mean that the adverse event has been confirmed or that it was caused by a medicine or vaccine. Clicking it – which the presenters also studiously avoided – reveals a little more about the DAEN content. Due to size restrictions of a screenshot, I’ll pop the text in a paragraph, and include some emphasis (mine):
The DAEN – medicines allows you to search adverse event reports for medicines including vaccines received by the TGA. The TGA uses adverse event reports to identify when a safety issue may be present. The DAEN – medicines does not contain all known safety information. An assessment of the safety of a medicine or vaccine cannot be made using the DAEN – medicines alone.
If you are experiencing an adverse event, or think you may be experiencing one, please seek advice from a health professional as soon as possible.
Talk to a health professional before starting, stopping, or changing your prescription medicines.
Anyone can report a suspected adverse event, including members of the public, health professionals and pharmaceutical companies. We encourage reporting even when it is not clear that a medicine or vaccine is the cause. Information from these reports is published in the DAEN – medicines and reflects the observations of the person who reported the event.
People who experienced an adverse event cannot be identified. Maintaining their privacy is of critical importance to the TGA.
The DAEN – medicines is a ‘living’ database that is frequently updated. Information may change if we receive more details on an existing report or if we identify duplicate reports and combine them. Updates may also occur as part of our data quality assurance activities.
For more information about the search results and how to interpret them, see: More about the DAEN – medicines
– Text from second DAEN disclaimer –
In short, the TGA DAEN database is constantly growing, contains information from any member of the public, reflects the observations of that person, provides no information about the safety or lack thereof, of vaccines and does not confirm that an adverse event was caused by a vaccine. It cannot even confirm if the event has actually occurred. I might add, dear reader, given that the anti-vaccine lobby has gone out of its way to submit to the DAEN clearly impossible and even bogus reports, one must remain extra vigilant when assessing or querying these data.
Indeed, Sharon Cousins herself relayed an abuse of the TGA DAEN system at the 8:30 mark of the video. She had queried via FOI why a reported death of a 6 year old boy was no longer available on the DAEN. Sharon noted that within her FOI report FOI 4077 (“Batch numbers of COVID-19 vaccines of reported deaths”), it was revealed the initial report was submitted as a hoax. The relevant section of the report reads:
FOI 4077 also requested information about why case number 724925 no longer appears in the DAEN. This report was rejected following review of further information for the case. The information demonstrated that the report was submitted as a hoax and as such there is no identifiable patient. The report remains in the TGA’s internal database. However, it no longer is included in the DAEN as it has been rejected because it no longer met the minimum criteria for a valid adverse event report.
Sharon CousinsSharon also said the TGA reply included, “Normally we wouldn’t answer this”, after insinuating she has a positive relationship with them. However, that comment is clearly not there. One appreciates Sharon sharing this information, but cannot ignore that it took an FOI query of a fatality to uncover the truth. How many other adverse or serious adverse reactions were, or will be, “rejected following review of further information for the case”. Sharon was eager to reassure viewers that OpenDAEN was not misusing the TGA website, but rather making it “more user friendly”. It will be of benefit to TGA staff Sharon opined, and she had sent the site link “to the coroners”, and to State and Territory head pathologists.
Batch Numbers
Throughout, much is made of the section allowing search of batch numbers. We learn that when it comes to accessing batch numbers, the TGA, “Doesn’t have any search engines on it, is a little bit clunky and it times out”. The TGA freely provide data in CSV format on batch release assessment of COVID-19 vaccines. One of two release pathways is taken; either based on overseas certification or based on TGA laboratory assessment. The TGA explain this in detail. So, what could be wrong with smoother navigation of COVID-19 batch numbers as a function of vaccine type, reported adverse reaction and de-identified data? Usually nothing, unless one ignores TGA advice and extrapolates to conclusion, based on other available data.
At the 50:00 minute mark Sharon directs navigation through the number of cases per batch number, highlighting batch number FP1430 – COMIRNATY, (Pfizer), in section 4. OpenDAEN has accessed the batch numbers via FOI, and that’s fine. OpenDAEN reveals inordinately more adverse reactions for male and female associated with this batch number, compared to those next to it. Sharon instructed more data access and directed navigation to the batch number table. She continued:
Look at the dates! Look at all the dates! Within 24 hours of the Pfizer being released on the younger children, the five to elevens… it was all advertised, tenth of January [2022], five to eleven year olds… within 24 hours we have reported cases. Now that for me is causal proximity.
Sharon continued on, directing suspended doctor Oosterhuis to isolate reported – not confirmed – fatalities using that batch number and age group. They isolate two boys. Zeroing in on the symptoms of one boy, Sharon reads, abdominal pain, then dismisses adverse event following immunisation as “a very bland one”, then cardiac arrest. She has Paul Oosterhuis explain eosinophilia and eosinophilia myocarditis. He assumes he is explaining the findings of both of “these boys”. In fact the data reveal clearly it is only one boy. A five year old.
The ten year old “fatality” has only Adverse Event Following Immunisation listed. The “very bland one”, dear reader. Then Sharon warns us “It’s a little bit distressing now, okay. The two boys both had the same batch number”. She gets Oosterhuis to zoom in and suggests, “So, screen print that people if you don’t believe us”. After zooming in on the case numbers Sharon has Oosterhuis zoom in on the batch numbers again, as if she hadn’t made that point enough times already.
Now, I am not a lawyer but I doubt the strength of Sharon’s “causal proximity” claim. There is another factor Sharon told us herself, that must be considered. As she points out, the roll out for Pfizer for 5-11 year olds was 10 January 2022. Thus, the first factor I would investigate would be the sheer number of children being vaccinated, at the time of release. Over 11 weeks, 76.6% of those 2.3 million children were vaccinated. 1,761,800 children had one dose. 1,552,500 (67.5%) had two doses. The vaccine for 5-11 year olds is one third the dose approved for children aged 12 years and over. Cold chain transport and storage is vital to the success of mass mRNA vaccination programmes.
Using OpenDAEN to interrogate vaccine batch numbers of adverse reports about 5-11 year olds, over the first two months of the rollout, we see virtually one result: FP1430. Yet what is more likely? Batch FP1430 is responsible for all adverse reaction reports? Or most 5-11 year olds vaccinated in the initial days, were dosed from batch FP1430? By the end of February other batch numbers begin to appear and gradually attract more reports. By late March, FP1430 is just another batch number. More so, there are over 500 unknown batch numbers for that age group. However, if you present your disinformation just right, some might believe in the deliberate harming of children:
– Facebook comment –What do the TGA say?
There have been no deaths in children or adolescents determined to be linked to COVID-19 vaccination. More detail on these deaths is available in the safety report published on 15 December 2022… If we identify a new death likely to be related to vaccination, we will publish this information promptly, as we have for all other cases since the start of the vaccine roll-out. [Source – 2 November 2023]
Of the 14 deaths the TGA confirm are linked to vaccination, none are in the 5-11 year age group. Yet Sharon is convinced of her claim, has already convinced others and will convince more, simply because of bias. Her defence, I suspect, will be that she used FOI legislation to access reports on batch numbers and the TGA lacks the smooth batch number access and navigation of OpenDAEN. Yet Sharon made up her mind before she even started looking. In fact, Inclusion in the DAEN does not mean the event has been confirmed or determined as related to a vaccine, is utterly ignored when using OpenDAEN.
The reactions reported in January, are based on MedDRA. Seen clearly in the video, were cough, vomiting, pallor, lethargy, rash, injection site rash, syncope, cold sweat, decreased appetite, anxiety, dizziness, nausea, abdominal pain, abdominal discomfort, aggravation of existing disease, excessive sweating, hives, muscle stiffness, chest discomfort. The worst on screen were seizure, appendicitis and a seperate loss of consciousness. Searching the batch number/adverse reaction table for 5-11 year olds in my own time, revealed reports of chest pain, syncope, anaphylactic reaction, paraesthesia, ECG ST segment elevation, nystagmus, pneumonia and many others. Some reports were of one reaction and others of multiple. All reports are of conditions children experience everywhere across the globe. Establishing cause or any relationship to COVID-19 vaccines is the role of health authorities.
Elsewhere on OpenDAEN we read that:
Useful search engines, graphs and tables have been developed into a helpful user-friendly database to assist study, research, review and analysis of the Australian Government publicly available data. […] We believe in sharing this information in an open and easy-to-use format (with search engines, tables and graphs etc.) and to help make it quicker for anyone wanting to source data for their own study, research and review.
The Quack Miranda
So, the team want to share information in a fast open and easy way to help with doing your own research. It sounds almost too good to be true. The Disclaimer and Disclosure tell us:
– Source: OpenDAEN –Okay then. It is up to the user to get further professional information to confirm if the information is “of value to you”. Accuracy of the information cannot be guaranteed which places further responsibility on the user to seek advice before relying upon it. It’s information they might get wrong and as such will not be liable “for any loss, damage, cost or expense incurred” by reason of relying on that information.
The site has a small section on endorsements. The longest is from Julian Gillespie. Anti-COVID-19 vaccine researcher, legal consultant to the AVN, and Dr. Julian Fidge and author of a ridiculous IJVTPR paper, The Canaries in the Human DNA mine, Gillespie offers:
It is 2024 and world search and data systems can perform enormous and complex requests with astonishing speed and accuracy, yet when Australian governments roll out never before used experimental gene therapies to millions of citizens, Australians are left to report to an antiquated adverse event reporting system (DAENs) still with both feet in last century.
This amounts to a fundamental failure of Pharmacovigilance and the Australian People. Searching through DAENs remains a nightmare for researchers, where one cannot but question the motivations of the TGA and the Australian health departments who feed it Our Information. OpenDAEN greatly assists researchers and students, and data and IT experts desperately needed to review and criticise the current DAEN system which is not fit for purpose.
Hopefully OpenDAEN will motivate Australian governments to take the needed steps towards a national real-time, transparent, and easily accessible adverse event reporting system, for properly protecting the health of Australians and better facilitating valid Informed Consent. The antiquated DAEN system deprives and seemingly hides needed health data necessary for Australians to provide valid Informed Consent.
COVID vaccine injury class action fund raiser, Dr. Melissa McCann writes:
This is amazing and meticulous work by you and your team.
Strong reminders of OpenVAERS and how decontextualised data are used by anti-vaccine activists to mislead, were apparent during the video. Alluding to what is known as the Lazarus Report, after the name of the principle investigator, one commenter offers:
– Facebook comment –Suggesting that TGA DAEN statistics are only “(10%?)” of “ACTUAL injuries and deaths”, is linked to a bogus belief of widespread underreporting to VAERS in the USA. I addressed this in a post challenging OpenVAERS, writing.
The figure of 1% comes from a report from Harvard Pilgrim Health Care, Inc., authored by Ross Lazarus. Data examined are from 1 December 2007 to 30 September 2010. These data include all possible adverse events. Prior evaluation of the reporting rates of various events confirms that minor events are rarely reported and more serious events routinely reported. A 2014 report on surveillance of adverse events following immunisation in NSW, Australia noted that:
Only 11% of the reported adverse events were categorised as serious.
In short, most adverse events such as a sore arm, nausea, swelling, redness, headaches, vomiting and other self correcting issues are indeed underreported, but make up the vast bulk of adverse events following immunisation. Yet since the Lazarus report, anti-vaxxers love to spread tales of widespread death and terrifying injury, then solemnly add “only 1% are ever reported”.
Paul Offit is a strong supporter of VAERS which he refers to as a “hypothesis-generating mechanism”. Reports there of intussusception approximately once per 10,000 doses led to suspension of his own RotaShield vaccine which was ultimately recalled, before returning as a safe product. In fact health authorities want parents or doctors to report minor events as soon as possible. Much can be learned about self limiting reactions, and more concerning to severe reactions can be gauged by pattern changes, properly identified and suspended under section 29D of the Therapeutic Goods Act 1989.
Perhaps the most damning page on OpenDAEN is the resources page. A curated smattering of COVID-19 vaccine pseudoscience and “vaccine injury” class actions, peppered with all the anti-COVID mandate and health advice groups, it seems designed to lead readers into a field of gaping rabbit holes. Dr. Melissa McCann’s COVID class action vaccine injuries video tops the page. The World Council for Health Spike protein detox guide is there. R.F. Kennedy Jr.’s Children’s Health Defense Australia, The Zelenko Protocol, The Australian Medical Professionals Society, many of whom we’ve met here before, World of Wellness and the National Institute of Integrative Medicine to name a few.
Conclusion
OpenDAEN is not an exciting addition to the TGA DAEN database. It is not a positive, user-friendly addition to TGA staff or to genuine researchers and academics. It is created, managed, supported and provided by and for respectively, members of the anti-vaccine community, convinced that COVID-19 vaccines are the cause of multiple health ailments and death. No professionals were available for its launch. All invitations were ignored. It has no integrity and no academic standing. No coroners or State and Territory head pathologists will care.
Like its namesake in the USA, OpenVAERS, it is designed to allow users to gather misleading collections of coincidental report material and present this as causal COVID-19 vaccine adverse reactions. To be sure, the results it produces, easy to construct as they are, will find their way onto websites, social media and court affidavits. OpenDAEN won’t enjoy the success OpenVAERS did, because now only diehards remain. During the launch of OpeanDAEN, events two years old were focused on, to craft a demonstrably bogus, yet very serious accusation against COVID-19 vaccines.
The colours are a nice change though.
Vaccine Safety Information You Can Trust
Last update: 2 February 2024
︎ ︎ ︎ ︎
Very late on Christmas Eve 2023, Santa had just dropped me a rather special present.
I more or less knew what it was by feeling the packaging, but still fumbled hastily until it sat gleaming in my hand. There it was. A brand new COVID-19 infection.
I could hear him jingling happily into the distance, with the words “naughty” and “nice” echoing on the breeze. Then, “falsifiable hypotheses” wafted back.
Of course! I suddenly remembered a discussion years ago, soaking our blistered feet in cured reindeer urine, when he told me anything that could be falsified was inherently “naughty”. Wrongly, I thought I had properly explained things to him.
This time, I’d sort him out. “Santa, Santa. I just KNOW we’ve had this conversation before”, I yelled in his direction.
I continued.
” Making a list, and checking it twice , gonna find out who’s naughty and nice… does not a falsifiable hypothesis make. I just… I mean, I can’t even….”.
He answered with a vague reference to falsifying anti-vaxxer claims and something even more vague about my feet needing another urine soak. Next thing an apparition-like, misty glob of reindeer, a sleigh, a fat, smelly-chap, sacks of presents and boxes of Rapid Antigen Tests was in front of me. Santa folded his arms and confidently started his defence.
I responded,
“Wait! What?! Say that again. I’ve been ‘naughty’, because I revealed falsification, and therefore I can’t enjoy Christmas this year? No, no dude, you’re attributing subjective emotional qualities to the entire notion of the falsibility hypothesis. Yeah I get it – you’re saying if I hadn’t showed things were totally false that I’d have been ‘nice’, particularly because you were checking it twice. But if I may, with respect old chap, it simply doesn’t work that way.”
He laughed, pointing at me, and asked, “Why the fud not?”
I was feeling far from well but managed.
“Well because, my long-bearded, voluminous-bellied friend. The very notion that the hypothesis can be falsified, is what lends it such robust integrity in the first place. Suggesting falsifiability is ‘naughty’ and anything not shown to be false is ‘nice’, is likely a position arrived at via a sequence of logical fallacies.
He said I was making some sense but sounding very lah-de-dah. So, I went on.
“Okay, let’s agree your position is that honesty or not ‘being false’, can be labelled very simply as ‘nice’. Cool? Righto then. And that dishonesty, or being deliberately false can be labelled as ‘naughty’. So, deliberate falsehoods coming from, ooh let’s say anti-vaxxers, are ‘naughty’. In fact they are known for providing so-called data based on fabrication, and fraud. So, let’s say ‘very naughty’.
Now, that all sounds okay, but it can’t really be tested beyond the scope of opinion. It also takes unnecessary work and lends credence to fraudsters. Better then, that the theory or hypothesis is one that can be tested and logically refute the idea being questioned, particularly if the falsification can be based on empiricism (what we see or experience).”
Santa asked if empiricism was like the Black Runes-of-Empiricism that Senator Malcolm Roberts used, to make a mockery of climate change.
“Why yes, you’ve heard of him then? A total… whoa, okay… sorry, yes, yes I did see the pontoons strapped to the sleigh. Bit sloshy up North… I can grasp that. Reality and Roberts don’t get on, Santa. Not a fan are we? No Ho, eh? Ah, well… er, no we can’t do the sword thing anymore. No, no the Blood Eagle never did take on down South. Sorry. Free speech and such. Oh? Well, um, I’d prefer to say we’ve become, “civilised” but “as sturdy as walrus diarrhoea” will do for any justified criticism in this case, old chap.”
Santa mumbled on about colourful torment to Roberts for a while, many involving objects I had never heard of, then he then gradually worked his way back to chatting about falsifying arguments and hypotheses.
I jumped in.
“So, see it’s simple really. If you can devise a method to falsify an argument that someone is proposing, then it is held to a greater standard of proof because it is possible to falsify it. Even if it has never been falsified. It just means it is possible to imagine or construct an argument to falsify it.”
I was by now feeling pretty crook and thought I might try my luck at swapping my present.
“Now Santa. Maaate, buddy, bloke. I realise we’re a long way from naughty and nice but I hope this clears things up, and clafifies the obvious error of this rather unique present you’ve dropped off. I guess this is one test I’d like to have seen falsified as it were… Nudge, nudge. Any chance you can wave the magic stocking..?
What’s that? Yes, yes, I did expose a bunch of anti-vaxxer arguments as false. They were false – fabricated in fact. In fact they were all bad. Thanks for noticing – it’s quite a long way for news to travel up North. What do you mean I’m still naughty? Er, yeah, okay… sure… But dude, I don’t CARE how many times you’re making a list, and checking it twice . Didn’t you understand a single thing we just discussed?
So, I’m what now? I’m too Skeptical? So I’m naughty because I’m too Skeptical? Oh, righty-Ho-Ho! What? Well, yes I’ve had a few COVID vaccines. Oh, I see that’s what this is. But I never said they were 100% protective; that’s an anti-vax logical fallacy. Gawd, Santa! Vaccines do reduce symptoms though. What? Well, er pretty sh*t actually. I’m running a temp of 39 C. But tomorrow I won’t be.”
Incredible! Santa seemed to be warming up to Gish gallop. Time to wrap this up.
“Anyway bloke. It’s getting late. Shouldn’t you be flying toward the West by now? Time zones and all that. You’re what?! You’re not flying!? Oh?
You’re Travelling!?”
Oh my.
Entertainment for Skepticon’s Saturday night dinner, will be courtesy of Brisbane-based songwriter, musician and science communicator, Nate Eggins. In addition, Nate will also be one of the Skepticon MCs. With thought-provoking lyrics, Nate aims:
To encourage interest in science, promote critical thinking and with his quirky sense of humour, playfully nudge us to second-guess pseudoscience, modern advertising and conspiracy theories through fun catchy clever music.
Nate, a multi-instrumentalist, has used his talent and interest to create the solo project, Conspiracy of One. Described as A bit sciency, A bit funny,Conspiracy of One sold out two live performances at the Brisbane Planetarium, for the release of Nate’s debut album, Road To Reason.
Skeptics and fans of the Australian Skeptics podcast The Skeptic Zone are likely familiar with Nate’s 2021 hit, The Sound a Duck Makes. Indeed your “Quack!” vocal may well be on it. Road To Reason reflects Nate’s journey, “from the darkness of ignorance toward the light of scientific and critical thinking”.
Hit songs from the album include Can You Guess My Star Sign? which features Dr Karl Kruszelnicki, The Song THEY Don’t Want You To Hear and It’s Not You, It’s Corona. Great music and good humour with dinner, in the company of skeptics? Sounds like a great night.
You can learn more about Nate Eggins on his Facebook page, Instagram or check out some of his music on YouTube.
The Saturday night dinner is at the St. Andrews Conservatory in Nicholson St. Fitzroy. If you’d like a ticket, please visit Try Booking.
Gary Bakker is a clinical psychologist with over 40 years experience. His talk at the upcoming Australian Skeptics national convention is titled, Sex, gender and identity: The politics and the science.
Gary Bakker
It can be a controversial area of which Gary notes:
Gary notes:
It has been very hard to get past the politics of issues around sex, gender, and identity while trying to apply the science to our legal and social policy decision-making. For example, it took several submissions to journals before my two articles on the topic – ‘Sex, gender, and identity: It’s complicated’ and ‘Sex, gender, and identity: Science or politics?’ – were published, both eventually in Rationale, the journal of the Rationalist Society of Australia.
Even Skeptical Inquirer “didn’t want to go there” because any moderate contribution is attacked (cancelled) by both of the vocal extremes on the issue.
Visit Skepticon 2023 for more information or look for tickets here.
This year at The Australian Skeptics national convention, Katharine Shade will reveal her journey from the fog and confusion of woo, to the glaring clarity of skepticism.
Katharine Shade
Such ventures from the badlands of belief, tend to feature similarities. Katharine will tell of her escape from the healing that never healed, of living with faith in the so-called “dis-ease” model beloved by fundamentalist chiropractors, and even diving headlong into the semi-aquatic theory of human evolution.
Her tale promises to have a happy ending, as Katharine ultimately succeeded in broadening her approach to learning accepted truths. However, she says it took a bit more time to learn enough skills to be able to more precisely attribute plausibility, and understand how a theory that seems perfectly valid, can be bogus.
You too can follow Katharine’s journey at Skepticon 2023 and even finish off the day at the entertainment packed dinner. Or just kick back at home on the couch, and watch online. Tickets are available here.
Tim Grant will be at The Australian Skeptics national convention on Saturday 2nd December. He will present a fascinating talk titled, The demonisation of plastics to avoid challenging consumerism more broadly.
Tim is the Director and Founder of Lifecycles, providing premium consultancy working on sustainability metrics. Tim’s specialty is Life Cycle Assessment (LCA), which is a technique for systematically identifying the resource flows and environmental impacts associated with the provision of products and services. The importance of LCA has increased alongside the need to assess and reduce greenhouse gas emissions resulting from different manufacturing and service sectors.
Tim has over 25 years of experience in developing, teaching, and applying LCA. He is a co-chair of the Ecosystem Services and Natural Resource Task Force and the UNEP hosted project “Global Guidance on Environmental Life Cycle Impact Indicators” (GLAM). He has been instrumental in the development of data and leading-edge sustainability software tools. Tim has also contributed to a number of books, including Life Cycle Assessment: Principles, Practice and Prospects (CSIRO Publishing).
Tim Grant
Regarding his presentation, Tim observes:
Over the past 10 years, there has been increasing pressure from community and environmental groups to reduce plastic pollution, culminating in legislation and corporate declaration of targets to become plastics free or have plastic reduction targets.
While reducing the emissions of plastics into the environment is a laudable goal, there is significant confusion over the objectives of fossil plastic replacements. It is sometimes framed as a need to be not fossil, to be degradable, biodegradable, compostable, renewable or sustainable – to avoid macro plastics or microplastics.
Few products meet all of these objectives, and even if they can, there are the plastic replacements that can lead to higher environmental impacts including climate change, water use and land use impacts.
You can read up more about Skepticon and check out various ticket options here.
Award winning science journalist Melissa Davey will be joining Gideon Meyerowitz-Katz and Liam Mannix in the panel discussion, Skepticism in the Media, this December 3rd in Melbourne. The panel will delve into science in the media, how to spot deceptive headlines and more.
Melissa Davey
Melissa is medical editor of The Guardian and in 2019 received the Walkley Foundation June Andrews Award for Women’s Leadership in Media, for her work investigating gynaecologist Dr. Emil Shawky Gayed. The impact of her work was highly significant, with a Walkley judge commenting:
She revealed a systemic bias against women patients, which contributed to a failure to stop these abuses. The stories forced medical authorities to investigate and to suspend the doctor. Davey now leads sessions for doctors on the dangers of ignoring women’s health complaints.
Melissa is Guardian Australia’s Melbourne Bureau chief. In August 2020 Scribe published her book The Case of George Pell: reckoning with child sexual abuse by clergy. David Marr writes of the compelling read:
At last, the secret trials of George Pell are revealed in compelling detail by one of the very few who was there throughout. With unmatched authority, Melissa Davey answers the questions that haven’t gone away: why was the cardinal found guilty, and why was he then set free?
In 2023 Davey led an investigation into concussion in sport, including an examination of the spurious scientific evidence informing concussion guidelines. This work prompted further investigations and an apology from the AFL to players. Melissa and her colleagues consequently won the Grant Hattam Quill award for investigative journalism.
Presently, Melissa is halfway through completing her masters of Public Health. You can catch the panel discussion along with many other stimulating presentations during Skepticon 2023 over the first weekend in December. Live and online tickets are available.
At the end of June this year I posted on a dubious-looking legal fundraising campaign announced by the Australian Vaccination-risks Network. They were, apparently, proposing private action against Australia’s federal health minister, Greg Hunt, and injunctive relief against the federal government. It was not surprising to learn they were claiming the COVID-19 vaccine rollout was […]
Following a complaint to the ABC in the wake of a 12 August interview with the founder of Reignite Democracy Australia, Monica Smit, Audience and Consumer Affairs concluded that it was a “serious editorial misjudgement”. They found that ABC Far North Drive breached the ABC’s editorial standards for accuracy, harm and offence. A correction has […]
Fundamentalist chiropractor and career anti-vaccination activist Simon Floreani, was last week suspended from practice for six months, from 18 October 2021. The Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT) handed down the ruling [Archived] after Floreani was referred by the Chiropractic Board of Australia (the Board) in March 2019, for professional misconduct. In November 2016 Floreani […]
What is VAERS? OpenVAERS VAERS Underreporting What antivaxxers won’t tell you Antivax Winning Formula Conclusion Since the inception of VAERS, anti-vaccination activists have misused reports as a cornerstone in their campaign to misinform and mislead. Vaccination against COVID-19 has led to that misuse exploding. What is VAERS? VAERS is the U.S. based Vaccine Adverse Event […]
Introduction ABC Radio Nth QLD Editorial standards? “Because it’s the truth” The ‘Brett Sutton’ lie Deep Breath Telegram Still No Evidence Conclusion It seems longer, but it has been only two and a half months, since we dropped in on Monica Smit and her self-appointed government-in-waiting, absurdly named Reignite Democracy Australia (RDA). The occasion was […]
These days social media is seething with COVID related disinformation and misinformation. The last week however brought out the best of the worst in those intent on denying reality. Without a doubt last weekend’s protests in Melbourne, Sydney and Brisbane left some as excited as a lonely school kid might get after their first school […]
If it looks like a scam… Previous ‘legal challenge’ fundraising scam NSW Fair Trading Investigation Meryl Dorey claims to make ‘absolutely nothing’ Conclusion A recent email to members the Australian Vaccination-risks Network included a bizarre letter to the Australian Minister for Health and Aged Care, Greg Hunt, demanding immediate cessation of the COVID-19 vaccination programme. […]
In a unique social media twist senior members of COVID conspiracy group, Reignite Democracy Australia ‘dobbed in’ the restaurant that hosted them for an illegal dinner. What happened? It just so happens that Victoria’s current lockdown coincided with the long planned Australia-wide Millions March Against Mandatory COVID Vaccinations organised by Health Rights Alliance. The vaccine […]
Following the development and subsequent global rollout of successful COVID-19 vaccines one particular anti-vaccine trope has been delivered with increasing gusto. Namely that the administration of these vaccines is in breach of the Nuremberg Code. This isn’t the first time the Nuremberg Code has been used by the anti-vaccination lobby in an attempt to argue […]
The COVID-19 vaccine is in fact an experimental medical procedure and because of this insurance companies have made void any claims relating to this “vaccine”. The experimental trial in Australia runs until 2023 and thus it is only available due to an emergency use clause. Insurance companies are linking adverse reactions and deaths to this […]