Censorship Down Under

The chances of having a public debate about Gardasil, the HPV vaccine are getting slimmer by the day.

Polly Tommey, the co-producer of Vaxxed: From Cover-Up to Catastrophe an investigation into the Center of Disease Control’s (CDC) destruction of a study linking autism to the MMR vaccine was banned from Australia because officials felt she was a danger to “the health, safety or good order of the Australian community“. Tommey along with Dr Suzanne Humphries were part of a Vaxxed Down Under Tour organised by the Australian Vaccination-skeptics Network Inc (AVN) an organisation which takes a pro-choice position with regard to vaccination and other health decisions.

Speaking in New Zealand last week, Tommey told the press she would be appealing the Australian ban. She said: “I’m just a mother. They say the film, Vaxxed, is dangerous and anti-vaccine. They say I’m a danger but I’m travelling with a doctor and a scientist. The only thing Australia has done is make more people want to watch the film. The main thing is, I don’t understand why we aren’t just having a discussion about it.”

Polly’s last statement is so important. In Australia debate on any vaccine issue is not permitted. And this week was no exception. On August 10 the media reported that cervical cancer could be almost completely eliminated, research has found, thanks to a new vaccine. The news report referenced a study published in the International Journal of Cancer which found that the new HPV vaccine Gardasil 9 was protective against 93 % of cancers. The reporting continued throughout the evening with numerous health professionals and researchers preaching the merits of the latest HPV vaccine and urging young teenagers and even older women to get vaccinated so that they would not be a victim to cervical cancer.

But it is a very strange world we are in today. Infectious disease is definitely not allowed. Cervical  cancer is to be avoided at all costs and the costs are high as demonstrated by the huge numbers of young people who are ill after Gardasil vaccination and many who have also died. This new vaccine Gardasil 9, said to be preventative against 9 sub types of human papilloma virus is very problematic. Not that the members of the public would know from the one-sided reporting that ensued from the announcement last week. Gardasil 9 contains more than twice the amount of aluminium, a neurotoxin, used as an adjuvant to stimulate the production of antibodies, than the current vaccine. Gardasil 9 also contains more antigens (the HPV LI proteins) with the total number increasing from 120 mcgs to 270 mcgs. How will additional antigens and more aluminium affect the health of these young people who are now told they need this new vaccine? But listeners to talk back radio and readers of the press were not informed as to the risks rather they were assured by the authoritative voice of the lead author and Medical Director of the National HPV Vaccination Program Register, Associate Professor Julia Brotherton who said: “We can now prevent cancer. You can stop your kids getting infected with this cancer-causing virus. It’s staggering.”

Parents of teenage children need facts not empty promises. We do not know if Gardasil 9 can prevent cervical cancer. And the important point is that Human Papilloma Virus (HPV) vaccines have never been tested against cervical cancer outcomes. It can take decades from HPV infection to the development of cancer so researchers used a surrogate endpoint to support the conclusion that HPV vaccines might be preventative. The suitable surrogate end-point chosen was cervical intra-epithelial neoplasia (CIN) grade 2/3 lesions, and adenocarcinoma in situ. This end-point was decided even though these precursor lesions are common in young women under 25 years and rarely progress to cancer. In sum, very few of these CIN 2 and 3 lesions in young women develop into cancer so it is difficult to support their use as end-points or markers. At the end of the month the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee PBAC will decide whether Gardasil 9 is listed on the Public Benefit Scheme, the PBS. If so it will replace Gardasil as the HPV vaccine to be given freely through the school vaccination program to teenage boys and girls.

But there will be no public debate on this move by the PBAC especially after the news today that the Australian Government has launched a $5.5 million immunisation education campaign to counter the views of the anti-vaccination lobby.  What is this all about? Australia has a 93% vaccination rate. Would the $30 billion vaccination industry have anything to do with it?  How do they sleep at night!

 

 

Can we talk about this?

Current thinking is that the human papilloma virus (HPV) causes cervical cancer and that all girls and boys in early high school need to be given HPV vaccines. In my book Gardasil: Fast-Tracked and Flawed I trace the early history of cervical cancer from a disease of obscurity to one of mainstream prominence. I have found and documented the numerous theories about the cause(s) of cervical cancer which have come and gone over the decades. I have read and written about how in the early years of the nineteenth century physicians claimed that sex was involved for it was observed that the disease was found in larger numbers among poorer, city women than amongst women in long term and stable relationships and in women who were living in rural areas. It was also thought that the disease was very rare in nuns until further research showed that religious sisters were subject to the disease too, and that, contrary to prevailing opinion, women in long-term relationships also developed cervical cancer. It was suggested that in the case of cancer of the uterus that the trauma of childbirth itself could be a risk factor. Such speculation might explain why there was more cervical cancer among women of low socioeconomic status than among women of means. Poorer women tended to have more children, lived harsher lives and possibly received less medical care, as well as missing out on much-needed rest and recovery time after the birth of their children.

I believe these early researchers were on the right track when they suspected that social circumstances such as poverty and inequality were in some way implicated in the disease process. British psychologist, author and researcher Susan Quilliam documented these lifestyle factors that might increase the chance of becoming ill with cervical cancer in her 1989 book Positive Smear. Written just before the idea that the human papillomavirus might be involved, she stressed the importance of a balanced diet and claimed that deficiencies in vitamin C, beta carotene and folic acid were common in women with cervical precancerous cells. Quilliam strongly emphasised the importance of a healthy environment, good hygiene and excellent nutrition as prerequisites for good health and resistance to disease. When discussing the causes of cervical cancer, she doesn’t shy away from a conversation about the contraceptive pill and how it has a negative effect on natural immunity as well as a propensity to lessen the body’s ability to use folic acid.

Today such environmental and socioeconomic factors relevant to the causation of cervical cancer are rarely considered. Instead the human papilloma virus is said to cause cervical cancer, no questions asked or answered.  Why, when and how this has happened is crucial to the story of Gardasil: Fast-Tracked and Flawed.

 

Fair Speech

Screen shot 2015-01-14 at 7.14.46 PMThe free speech debate rages in Australia and worldwide in the light of the terrorist attacks in France last week where 17 people lost their lives. In the aftermath of the attacks world leaders joined two million people who marched through Paris in support of peace and freedom of expression.

In the New StatesmanMehdi Hassan writes that as a Muslim, he is fed up with the hypocrisy of the free speech fundamentalists and ponders how we are expected to denounce a handful of extremists as an existential threat to free speech while turning a blind eye to the much bigger threat to it, posed by our elected leaders. For among the world leaders in Paris this week was Barack Obama and it was he who demanded that Yemen keep the anti-drone journalist Abdulelah Haider Shaye behind bars, after he was convicted on “terrorism-related charges” in a kangaroo court. Also attending the “unity rally” was Benjamin Netanyahu, the prime minister of a country that was responsible for the killing of seven journalists in Gaza in 2014.

Screen shot 2015-01-14 at 7.23.14 PMIn Unspeakable : A Feminist Ethic of Speech, feminist activist, ethicist, and author Betty McLellan writes that for free speech to have any credibility as one of the important principles underpinning democracy, free speech must be for all. But free speech historically was never intended to be for all. It was meant for the elite, for men, men of the dominant race, men who were educated, men who enjoyed some standing in the community. Charlie Hebdo’s cartoons are described by Hassan as ‘lampooning racism by reproducing brazenly racist imagery’. He is scathing of the magazine’s ‘crude caricatures of bulbous-nosed Arabs that he states must make Edward Said turn in his grave’.

Jordan Weissmann reminds us that this takes place in a country where Muslims are a poor and harassed minority, maligned by a growing nationalist movement that has used liberal values like secularism and free speech to cloak garden-variety xenophobia. France is where the concept of free expression has failed to stop politicians from banning headscarves and burqas. Charlie Hebdo may claim to be a satirical, equal-opportunity offender. But there’s good reason critics have compared it to “a white power mag.” As Jacob Canfield wrote in an eloquent post at the Hooded Utilitarian, “White men punching down is not a recipe for good satire.”

In Unspeakable, Betty McLellan writes: In this neoliberal, capitalist, globalised, male-dominated, violent world, speech is free only to those who enjoy the privilege and safety of economic and political power. Men at the top of multinational corporations, media corporations and powerful political administrations have ears only for each other’s speech.

Calls for ‘bolstering’ free speech in Australia are disturbing: Key government and crossbench senators have renewed demands that the government fulfil its abandoned pre-election promise to wind back protections in the Racial Discrimination Act. It was reassuring to hear Opposition Leader Bill Shorten calling on Senator Bernardi to stop using the Paris attacks to “justify divisive debates in Australia”. We need to challenge the power of these dominant white men for as Betty McLellan says: The freedom of speech guaranteed in statements of equal rights in countries like the United States and Australia was meant only for those belonging to the dominant group. 

%d bloggers like this: