Greetings –

Regarding your article “A Dose of Commonsense won't hurt: Vaccination,” present both sides of the story
and let people decide. Many medical doctors and credentialed scientists back what “the (vaccine
awareness) group in question” has been saying for years. Sue Page is far from being the voice of all
medicine. If you have somehow missed it, I would like to call your attention to the fact that large numbers
of medical doctors fall somewhere between hugely critical of and outright condemning of vaccines. Please
stop pretending – today - that “the group in question” has anything but hugely credentialed people
conveying the same information “the (vaccine awareness) group” is voicing.

For just-months-old Medical Voices Vaccine Information Center alone, the below listed doctors and
scientists either have presented or are scheduled to present on the dangers of vaccines and/or their lack of
efficacy. Their presentations can be seen here.

David Ayoub, MD
Donald Miller, Jr., MD - cardiothoracic surgeon

Eduardo Ángel Yahbes, MD
Garry Gordon, MD, DO, MD(H.)
Gary Goldman, PhD – Peer-reviewed researcher on vaccines
Harold Buttram, MD
Juan Manuel Martínez Méndez, MD
KP Stoller, MD, FACHM
Kris Gaublomme, MD
Lawrence B. Palevsky, MD, FAAP, ABHM
Mary Ann Block, DO
Mayer Eisenstein, MD, JD, MPH
Russell Blaylock MD – neurosurgeon
Sherri Tenpenny, DO
Stephanie Cave, MD, MS, FAAFP
Stephen Marini, DC, PhD, MS – immunologist
Thomas Levy, MD, JD

Please stop pretending – today - that “the group in question” has anything but hugely credentialed people
voicing the same information “the group” is voicing.

Nick Haas
Medical Voices Vaccine Information Center President,
Medical Voices Vaccine Information Center
Architect, Ian's Voice

Dear Leigh

Your article, which quotes Dr Page, is an emotive attack on good science in defence of bad.

Good journalism would involve in depth study of both sides of the arguments about the effectiveness and
safety of vaccines. Included in that study would be an analysis of the motivations of involved parties.

I am a mother of three and a Chartered accountant having occupied a partnership position in a global
accounting firm for many years. I spent over 400 hours studying the issue of vaccinations. It became very
clear to me that vaccines do not work and are dangerous. The vaccine industry in enormous and there are
tremendous profits at stake. This industry is adept at publicity and self promotion with complete disregard
for the truth and with complete disregard for the damage they cause - just ask all those parents whose
children have been permanently damaged by vaccines. Just look at the billions of dollars in damages paid
out to families as a result of lawsuits for vaccine damage.

Rupert Murdoch would like people to pay for his papers and his latest proposal for online access to the
Australian. People like me will do so when they start to see true journalism that sets papers apart from the
rest of the World's media. Will the Australian be one of those that host journalism of distinction? Or will it
continue to pander to vested interests, adopt lazy journalism styles, advertorials and the like leaving
consumers with no real reason to buy?
There are plenty of very good scientific sources of information on the issue that you, with effort, could
obtain and find quite revealing.

Kind Regards

Can someone please let me know why Sue Page is allowed to write her opinion in regards to vaccination
and makes very clear that she's referring to the AVN on a number of occasions in the article, yet the AVN
and Meryl Dorey won't be having their reply published? I think it's very one sided and clearly everyone
involved in deciding whether or not Meryl's reply gets published are pro vaccination.

Just for the record, Meryl and the AVN get nothing out of putting the facts out there for educated parents
like myself to review and make a decision ourselves whether or not we vaccinate our children. The medical
profession on the other hand have a vested interest in making sure children are vaccinated because of the
money involved.

Parents want the best for their children and it's wrong for the likes of Sue Page to assume that we are idiots
and all it takes is for us to read something on the AVN website and we're converted or convinced
vaccination is wrong. It is only after thorough research on both the AVN and the government websites that
are pro vaccination that most decisions are made in regards to our children. The decision is not taken
lightly. If people like Sue bothered to look at the AVN website they would see that all information is backed
up and referenced - the information is not pulled out of nowhere.

I think it is wrong not to publish Meryl's response. She and the AVN should have the right to reply. Why
should the information they have be suppressed? We are doing families and children a disservice by not
making ALL information for and against vaccination readily available. Why does the medical profession feel
so strongly about suppressing the facts about vaccination?? That sends very strong warning bells to me.
They clearly have something to hide. Shame on you for not allowing both sides of the story to be
published.

Regards,

Dear Sir/Madam,

It is with great interest that I read Dr Sue Page exasperation about all these dead and maimed children
from fruit loop parents who don‟t vaccinate. If Dr Page is truly sick of dealing with maimed and sick kids,
why is it then that I don‟t see any data in any of the Australian Government‟s websites, or Australian
medical journals, which back up her slab slice of innuendo?

Dr Sue page accuses anti-vaccine sites of lacking even the most rudimentary investigative journalism, yet
where is the “fact” in her amorphous monologue? I note too, that your paper only asks for comment from
“Health Professionals”. Will The Australian News please request that any further “comments or concerns”
penned by health professions contain provable hard fact substantiating emotively charged anecdote?

Will your paper please try and find “the real facts” yourself?

Or does The Australian News have a policy of systematically ignoring fundamental tenets of always
publishing verifiable fact, with the highest standards of honest enquiry and thorough investigative
journalism?

Sincerely,

Hilary Butler.
www.beyondconformity.org.nz

Hi There,

I have just read the article “A dose of commonsense won't hurt: vaccination”.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,26214447-23289,00.html
I live on the Northern Beaches of Sydney, I recently found that this area is one demographic that has a
lower rate of immunisation.

This did not come as a surprise to me as a similar statistical trend parallels obesity. Obesity trends are
higher in lower socio economic areas; a lower level of education also prevails. We can possibly construe
the reason Northern Beaches parents don‟t vaccinate is because they are more widely educated and well
read.

There are many closed minded sceptics who aren't interested in scientific facts, just their own version of
them. Many have there own cart to push. The Australian Sceptics Society (ASS) are one such
group. Scepticism and scientific debate is good, closed-minded scepticism is anathema to scientific
endeavour.

Today the medical journals have turned into advertorials for drug companies rather than true scientific
endeavour. The previous editor of the New England Medical Journal (Marcia Angell) asked the rhetorical
question “Is modern medicine for sale?” The answer is yes it is for sale, and this influence directs and
controls the perceptions of many health professionals and media journalists and editors.

I agree that vaccination may have it‟s scientific merits, however the safety of the preservatives (Thimerosal
& Squalene), which are now combined with many vaccines to stabilise them is questionable. These
preservatives have proven very dangerous. So as we see, there are a few variables in this vaccine debate,
but most people choose one side or the other…and both end up throwing the baby out with the bathwater!

I also agree with the premise of informed consent and nobody should be stiff armed by the establishment
into accepting a treatment they do not want.

By writing this letter I'm hoping that just one, just one person who reads this actually has an open scientific
mind and is actually interested in true scientific enquiry.

For more information people could start by reading the article by Robert F. Kennedy Jr. as he lists all his
references and scientific data. He is no hysterical dill, he has done some serious research!

Try watching this video in which scientists at the University of Calgary show how neurons are damaged
from mercury in tooth fillings. These finding extend to Thimerosal in vaccines as Thimerosal is 49%
mercury.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BtFsy0rQsak
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zrIM2hwrLoc
http://www.robertfkennedyjr.com/articles/2005_june_16.html
http://www.robertfkennedyjr.com/docs/ThimerosalScandalFINAL.PDF

You should also read another very well researched story about vaccination; Does the vaccine matter?
Atlantic Monthly - http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200911/brownlee-h1n1

In reading this you will see how statistical data is plucked out of thin air...yet we believe the science to be
bullet proof?

British Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli said there are "Lies, damned lies, and statistics" ..he was right...but
today the population still haven't worked out how the statistics are tweaked!

If we don't read or digest the broad range of scientific opinion then your view is very limited. I implore you to
read this material.
Best regards

Michael Bending

Email: michael.bending@gmail.com

Dear David,
Please show me the valid double blind scientific test that proves that vaccination works. My research shows
that no such test has EVER been conducted.

A double blind scientific test is the gold standard in empirical scientific measurement. It helps to make sure
we aren't experiencing a placebo effect, or some other unknown factor to play a part in scientific
conclusions.

The standards of science and medicine worldwide are at an all time decline.

Baxter pharmaceuticals in Austria contaminated over a million vaccines with LIVE avian flu bird virus. This
is statistically almost impossible to have happened by accident with the correct safety procedures in place. I
repeat. Impossible.

There is great concern of the validity of vaccinations on a scientific basis, and the hundreds of billions of
dollars vaccination industry is under scrutiny for many reasons.

For example, a few years ago a major pharmaceutical was exposed KNOWINGLY wantonly dumping
tainted, dangerous vaccines from the USA into South America in an attempt to "get rid" of them.

This alone, in that particular case, for that particular company, is proof enough that they do not give a rats
behind about safety or human well being.

One of the principal funders of vaccinations is Hugh Heffner, a major investor into "big pharma". He has
written words to the effect in his writings / memoirs, openly stating to the effect "we need 80 - 90%
population reduction on planet earth".

The big names and big money behind vaccinations, behind the studies, and behind the "science" bring not
only doubt but a great heaving shadow of a question mark to the entire vaccination industry and big pharma
itself.

At the very least, your paper is required morally to allow Australian Vaccination Network, an organisation I
highly respect, and emphatically support financially and otherwise, the right to reply.

Show some guts, stand up for free speech and freedom of the press, and show you're not just another
corporate crony editor / publication on your masters tight leash. God knows we need some free thinking,
open discussion about many issues in this and other countries, which the corporate masters are unwilling
to allow into the public arena, and vaccination, especially the absolutely false concept that vaccination is
without flaws, absolutely safe, and absolutely effective (and should be mandated!?!).

My advice to anyone who simply believes it's safe without actually doing the hard research themselves is,
don't trust governments. Governments and power structures throughout the last 1000 have been
responsible for more deaths that just about anything else put together. The consequence of total
government power and authority is almost always mass genocide. Indeed, Jane Burgemeister of Austria, a
highly qualified and respected journalist has filed charges of genocide against several prominent figures
and pharmaceutical corporations for their involvement in what is believe to be a genocidal bioweapon
masquerading as a vaccine. It sounds crazy, until you actually look at the evidence. Point being: don't
ridicule something you know nothing about, as it is the height of ignorance, and we're talking about peoples
lives and wellbeing.

Thank you,

Dear Leigh,

I read the article printed in the weekend paper and am a bit disturbed but I‟m not sure if I‟m surprised that
you won‟t run a response to the article related to vaccination from another point of view. There is plenty of
scientific evidence, even compiled by medical doctors on the risks and the damage caused by vaccines.
One only has to read the research and figures available of the reported vaccine reactions and damage
alone, including that related to autism, once a rare condition. I would like to understand why you won‟t look
at the information provided by an alternative viewpoint? Have you seen the work of Dr Isaac Golden? Are
you aware of the number of people who contract the viruses even though they‟ve had the shot? I had the
measles, mumps and rubella vaccines as a child, and contracted all three “dis-eases” in the years
following.

The information and the risks are even described in Medical Journals. I have read that when the polio
vaccine – those 10,000 magic tablets were sent out all over the world to “cure polio”, it was then made
illegal to diagnose anyone as having polio, they made up a whole bunch of new names, including muscular
dystrophy, parkinsons, multiple sclerosis, there we have it, polio cured.

We can‟t turn a blind eye to the issue, or are we intentionally silenced by those who benefit from the sale
and usage of live viruses into our bodies? The mystery of these new diseases that have been created in
the media and the resulting fear derived from this, drives the financial income of the pharmaceutical
industry, not surprisingly the most wealthy industry in the world. The very intention of pharmaceutical reps
is to push more drugs to the medical industry and receive huge pay packets for doing so, who push more
drugs onto us which further compromise the health of society today…. They don‟t promote eating healthy,
unprocessed food, because then who would be sick? And who would need their medications, and then who
would no longer profit?

Everyone has a right to free choice, that‟s what we‟re meant to believe. Therefore isn‟t it just and fair for
society to be educated on an alternate point of view, even if your own belief system thinks that questioning
vaccines is loopy. I used to believe this too, but then I saw the flip side. I also experienced illness following
vaccinations before an overseas trip in 2003.

I‟m not sure why people want to turn a blind eye, stick their arm out to inject a live virus filled with toxins
that we should never put into our body – it wasn‟t designed to handle the aluminium or mercury included in
the virus either.

Pathogens and disease do not grow in healthy body tissue and strong immune systems. I spent my first 26
years constantly being sick, flu, infections, trips to doctor for pharmaceutical medications, operations, and 3
years ago, I changed my diet and lifestyle and have not seen a doctor, had a cold or flue. I boosted my
immune system and did not touch a vaccine.
Here is just one little article from the thousands available, from a medical doctor using medical journal
research.
http://www.mercola.com/article/vaccines/statistics.htm Isn‟t it interesting that most doctors refuse vaccines
for themselves or their children but are happy to inject them into others?

You have chosen not to print the alternative view to the pharmaceutical pill, vaccine pushing doctor that you
published, I understand because many feel that people like her are heroes (until proven otherwise), they‟ve
done their time in an “educational” institution (paid for by the pharmaceutical industry) who have been told
what is good for us (by the pharmaceutical industry who benefit from these GPs telling us this)….. but I felt I
needed to write this so that at least I could give you some of the information on the information I have
received and its important to me to share this to the community too.

Namaste

Dear Mr King,

I write in response to the recent article about vaccination. It is amazing that something written in such an
unscientific and inflammatory manner could be attributed to a doctor. Where are the scientific facts? What
research has she done on vaccination?

As an informed and concerned parent, I have researched this topic thoroughly for the past 18 years. I have
discovered that there are serious concerns about both the safety and effectiveness of vaccines that most
parents will not find out about unless they do some thorough investigation.

I call upon you to ensure that a properly balanced view is presented. I am astounded that you would run an
article containing no factual evidence supporting the use of vaccines, but instead childish words like
'crackpot' and 'puh-leeze'. This kind of journalism has no substance.

This is an extremely important topic that deserves full exposure.

Would you consider, for example, doing an article on the large pharmaceutical companies? How they have
released contaminated products? How they have deliberately suppressed and ameliorated dangerous side
effects of vaccines? What kind of financial contributions do they make to political parties? What kind of
influence do they bring to bear on governments to subsidise vaccines? What sums of money are
involved? What are the levels of mercury in vaccines? What are the known effects of mercury? What are
the other contents of vaccines? What thorough and ongoing research has been done into the effects of
vaccines? Do they really work - where is the evidence? What happens when so many different vaccines
are mixed together? What research has been done on the links between vaccination and asthma, autism,
multiple sclerosis and many other conditions that arise when the immune system is compromised? Your
reading public deserve answers to these questions.

Yours Sincerely

Dear Leigh,

I was disappointed with your article on vaccination in last weekend‟s edition of the Australian. I would be
very interested to hear a right of reply from the so called “crackpots”.

As a parent of young children I take great interest in the ongoing debate about the benefits of vaccination.
To date, the only purely independent and properly referenced information comes from the Australian
Vaccination Network, who as far as I can see, are “pro choice” not “anti vaccination”.

If we don‟t have the right to question the medical intervention in the best interests of our children, where is
the freedom of speech? What rights do we have as parents? The issue that seems to be swept under the
carpet consistently when I research this issue is the fact that the producers of the vaccines (the
pharmaceutical companies) are the sole funders of any “testing & research” into safety. The other issue
that is highly disregarded are the worldwide reports and links (by leading and world renowned medical
professionals) of the link between vaccines and severe and hideous life altering side affects, which change
a family‟s life forever. These outcomes are only produced in the independent studies by skilled
professionals. Why is this? Why would these professionals put themselves at the mercy of the unforgiving
pharmaceutical companies when there is no financial gain and the ultimate possibility of being completely
and utterly crushed by the powers that have trillions of dollars at stake?

It is simply common sense to me. Medical history has shown over and over again that if you are willing to
accept the good old “trust me I‟m a doctor” line and not question and take your health into your own hands,
you will be very much let down by those to whom you are entrusting your most precious asset : your health
and that of your children.

I wait with baited breath a truly factual and independent response to an article focused on pure
propaganda.

Kind Regards

Dear Leigh,

I am writing to express my concerns that you have refused Meryl Dorey the right to reply to Sue Page‟s
article on vaccinations. Remember there is always two sides to every argument and people have the right
to make informed choices. You are an editor of a newspaper and you have a duty to the public to allow
different viewpoints to be published and not just viewpoints that merely serve your own belief system.
Please reconsider your decision and give the public the opportunity to hear another side to this story.
Thank-you for your time.

Regards

Dear Madam

I refer to the article in last weekend‟s Australian, by Dr Sue Page. I would like to support parents‟ right to
choose whether they allow their children to be vaccinated. I don‟t know why anyone who disagrees with
popular medical procedures is usually branded a „crackpot‟.
I have a niece who is epileptic. Her condition is very severe and has affected her life quite negatively. She
had her first seizure at about seven months. Whether it was caused by her vaccination program or not is a
matter of opinion I guess. However, three years later, when my daughter was born and I told my doctor
about it, he said my baby should not have the triple antigen, but should have the modified needle,
eliminating the whooping cough vaccine. My other two children, at my doctor‟s recommendation, had the
same vaccination. If there is little or no chance that things like epilepsy are caused by vaccination, why
would my doctor make this recommendation? I‟m extremely grateful that he did so, having now done a fair
bit of research into this. At the time I was pretty dumb really, and just followed the doctor‟s advice. I have
since met a number of fully vaccinated people who still got whooping cough. I know it‟s not nice, but I think
my niece, if she could turn back time, would choose to take her chances with whooping cough.

I think, with hindsight, it would have been good if I had been exposed to enough information to make a
proper choice. I would like to think such information could be presented to young parents today without the
people with a different opinion being branded crackpots. My children do their research, not from
newspapers, but from other unbiased sources, and they will make their own decisions. I would hate to
think this choice should ever be taken from them. The possibility that any vaccination (such as swine flu)
should ever be compulsory is just too awful to contemplate.

Yours faithfully

To the Editor, „The Australian‟

Reply to Dr Sue Page, on vaccinations:

Graphs.

Dr Page said
people who question vaccines have “used the same graphs for 20 years”. But graphs are historic records,
they do not change over 20 or even 200 years. They tell the truth. But it seems they need to be
repeated, as the vaccine lobby has a major blind spot here; one which entirely undermines the efficacy of
all vaccines. Below is one example of many (measles). Between them, national graphs from all countries
using vaccines or not, show all the common childhood infectious diseases fell dramatically long before
vaccines were introduced and some with no vaccines at all! (e.g. Scarlet fever).

MEASLES VACCINE DID NOT COMMENCE UNTIL 1965 AND MADE NO DIFFERENCE TO GRAPH

It is well-known among epidemiologists that the steep decline in all common childhood infectious disease
came about by reason of the revolutionary change in hygiene, life-style and nutritional knowledge. These
changes included: piped sewerage and drinking water; Local Government laws in house design and
space;
milk into bottles, no longer carried or sold in dirty environment ( “diphtheria in every glass of milk” – as one
Scottish Medical Director of Schools remarked); also advances like refrigeration, education in open air and
benefits of sunshine and the juice of oranges and limes etc.
These measures allowed the most powerful disease prevention, carried in all children, to work unhindered
– The Immune System.

Vaccines disrupt the immune system – leading to chronic diseases, which have risen
exponentially in lock-step with the rise in multi-valent (more than one vaccine at a time) vaccines. Today,
our children have 30 vaccines before school! They contain numerous adjuvants, including: aluminium (a
neurotoxin that can damage brain cells); formaldehyde, phenol (carbolic acid), methanol, acetone,
antifreeze, MSG.

Since 1992 I have treated children with autism spectrum disorders (ASD) and have seen a dramatic rise (
e.g. in USA between 1991 and 2001 – 5,400 autistic to 72,000 autistic in school system). Similar in
Australia. In my clinic, 26% of parents report moderate to severe permanent changes in their children post-
vaccination.

Unfortunately, this letter will probably not be printed. It does tell the truth!

Michael Sichel, ND, DO, PhD

sichel@nsw.chariot.net.au

Dear Ms Dayton,

I am writing in response to the article published in this weekend's Australian newspaper by Dr Sue Page on
vaccinations. It is apparent that Dr Page is referring to the AVN in her article. It seems only fair that you
give them right of reply.

I understand that vaccination is a controversial topic and the mainstream media tends to err on the side of
caution rather than rock the boat with any suggestion of support for the anti-vaccination campaigners.

I'm sure you're aware of the recent death in the UK of 14 year old Natalie just a few hours after after
receiving the Cervarix jab. And the cases in the USA where the courts have admitted that vaccination
caused brain damage and autism in the cases of Hannah Poling, Ben Zeller and Bailey Banks due to
underlying conditions.

I find it rather odd that even when faced with such cases we continue to press on regardless with a fully
zealous approach to vaccinating. I think it's something we should question. It's not necessarily about
banning vaccinations -- it's about checking whether the extra 'ingredients' in vaccines are good for the
human body, whether the quantity of vaccines given to children are safe and so on.

When I started considering vaccination for my son I looked at the arguments for and against vaccinating. I
wondered why people would bother to set themselves up against governments, scientific boards and multi-
national corporations when they were often vilified for it. It's fairly obvious how the multi-nationals and
boards benefit from mass-vaccinations. I couldn't figure out what the other side got out of it. Not much is
the response to that I think. The view of people unaffected by profit lines is something to be considered in
my opinion.

So I ask that in the interests of journalistic integrity you allow the AVN to respond to the criticisms levelled
against them by Dr Page.

Thanks in advance,

Leigh,

It would be wonderful if there was a response to Dr. Sue Page's article re her story on vaccination. People
like Dr. Page cannot give us both sides of the story as they are basically paid not to understand or question
vaccination.

The pharmaceutical lobby is the most powerful lobby in the world with billions of dollars behind them.
Should we take everything that is passed on by them to doctors and the general public as being infallible?
Surely journalists have the responsibility to question everything they are told.

What is wrong with debate? Isn't it the basis of a fair and just society yet newspapers in Australia seem to
have taken the position of not opening the debate on vaccination.

I wish to register my opinion that Meryl Dorey of the Australian Vaccination Network ought to be given the
right to reply to the recent article by Dr Sue Page.

As a mother of a one year old boy I have spent the past 12 months in a frustrating search for balanced and
unemotional information about the risks, benefits and side effects of childhood vaccinations. The
mainstream media is unhelpful. Recently I have found books such as The Vaccine Book, by American
paediatrician Dr Robert Sears, which acknowledge the gaps in the research and testing that goes into
these vaccines. Sears presents the studies and leaves the reader to draw their own conclusions about
whether or not to vaccinate their child, or whether to vaccinate selectively based on the information he
provides, direct from the Product Inserts, as to the ingredients and side effects of the relevant vaccine.

This sort of balanced presentation of the facts is what parents deserve, and unlike Dr Page‟s suggestion
that pro-choice groups such as the AVN, or for that matter, anti-vaccine lobby groups, should have their
right to freedom of speech denied, The Australian newspaper should show their dedication to professional
journalism and run Meryl Dorey‟s response.

Regards,

Dear Leigh,

In response to your article written by Dr Sue Page, I was somewhat disappointed, that once again only one
side was presented. It seems that the media is proving to be very one-sided in its views on vaccination,
whether they are 'for' or 'against' it. Hasn't it always been appropriate to present both sides of any
argument, particularly one that is so extremely emotionally charged??

I am a health care provider practicing in New Zealand. I recently met the mother of a young boy whom, at
the age of 8 weeks was vaccinated and suffered such a severe extreme reaction, he nearly died. His
Mother was told "it was a coincidence" and after a week in Starship hospital, they were sent home. For the
next 2 years this little boy's parents were hounded to continue his vaccination schedule, and were told by
their paediatrician they were "irresponsible" to not continue, despite nearly losing their son. So, at age 2.5,
he had his "3 month" injections. (This happened 2 weeks ago) Within 4 hours of his jabs, he was vomiting,
diarrhea and lost consciousness. He was rushed to Starship again and admitted for a week. This time, his
mother was informed that it was "Rotavirus" This little boy, once again suffered life threatening symptoms.
After checking with childcare, there was no evidence of Rotavirus anywhere in the boy's environment and
the parents (along with their GP) concluded that he once again had a reaction to the vaccinations.This little
boy now has neurological dysfunction, co-ordination problems; he is clingy and very distrusting. Was it the
vaccinations? How will we ever know? It won't be acknowledged anyway.

How many little boys and girls have to suffer life-threatening reactions before it is ACKNOWLEDGED that
vaccination is NOT 100% SAFE. It's fine for Dr Page to get so passionate, and I'm sure she does not want
to see children dying from vaccine "preventable" diseases. But what about the completely healthy ones that
go for their routine "check up" and nearly lose their life??? Why are they not acknowledged? The only
people that seem to care about these distressed parents of vaccine damaged children are people like Meryl
Dorey and (to quote Dr Page) "crack pot claims of the anti-vaccination lobby." I'm sure these claims
wouldn't be "crack pot" if one of Dr Page's loved ones were injured by a vaccine. If it weren't for people like
Meryl Dorey, we simply would not get "both sides" of the story.

Let's look at the swine flu ingredients (highly recommended for pregnant women and children) ~ The "safe"
dose of mercury (FDA) is 0.5 mcg. Yet the swine flu shot contains 24.5mcg of mercury (ie. Thimerisol) 49
times THE SAFE DOSE. Not to mention that, there are cells in the gut that illicit an immune response. By
injecting this into the bloodstream, we are completely bypassing the natural immune response of the body.
This can result in swelling of the brain (encephalitis) and other associated neurological responses. It is also
interesting the 20 mcg of mercury is enough to kill a rabbit. What is the size of a foetus??

I can see how the USA is in a state of "panic" over Swine flu, as they are heading into Winter. But why does
Australia (and NZ) need to get on the bandwagon. Wouldn't it be intelligent to have the "wait and see"
approach? I know that the vaccination debate is an emotionally charged one. But we must always look at
both sides and say..."What if it were my child?" "Do the benefits outweigh the risk?"

I believe that being informed is the most crucial ingredient in any situation, especially when it comes to the
health and safety of our precious children. The fact that vaccination is not mandated in Australia (or
NZ) tells me that it is not 100% safe. Even in countries (such as the USA) where it is mandated, there is a
"vaccine injury compensation fund." Hmmm...Interesting. I believe every parent wants the best for their
children. If an informed decision means not vaccinating, it is the parent‟s CHOICE and their RIGHT. To be
ridiculed and told you are "irresponsible" as a parent when their child‟s life was threatened by a vaccine
takes us into dangerous waters and I believe it is irresponsible health management. There are ALWAYS 2
sides to every story, and I think it's time we all found middle ground instead of ridiculing and
ostracising each other for our choices.

Regards,

I am surprised that Dr Page is asking for freedom of speech and choice to be suppressed. Why should we
blindly believe doctors who are paid by the pharmaceutical companies to encourage vaccination? We must
have the right to question the safety and effectiveness of vaccines and not be bullied into vaccination. I am
a midwife and have seen and read cases of terrible consequences to vaccination. I find it frightening to see
the aggressive marketing encouraging pregnant women to have the flu vac as it has not been deemed safe
for pregnant women nor is it known the possible effects on the developing baby. Effectively every pregnant
woman who has this shot will be a guinea pig for the pharmaceutical companies who are the only true
winners in this controversial debate.

Dear Madam/Sir,
I am writing to reply to the letter on vaccination published in the Australian this weekend. I am completing a
PhD at Murdoch University with Assoc. Prof. Peter Dingle and Assoc. Prof. Brian Martin. I have also been
in dialogue with Professor McIntyre (Director of the NCIRS) regarding coercive vaccination policies so I
have copied these people into this letter. I have also copied this across to some of the many parents I know
who are concerned about this issue. I mention in my letter that I attended a conference in America where
all the science that was produced indicates there is a plausible link between using multiple vaccines in
infants and the huge increase in chronic illness in children.

I have had several articles published in reputable scientific journals and all of my articles are referenced
from peer-reviewed sources. I will also forward you these articles plus a letter that I recently sent to a
journalist at your newspaper Ms.Korporaalg.

This issue is extremely important to children‟s health and it is disappointing to continually see articles
promoting this issue on emotion and statistics as is seen in Ms.Page‟s letter and other government article‟s
such as the one on whooping cough covered by Ms.Korporaalg. If you can demonstrate to me that this is
not the case and show me the science (not statistics) you are using to promote immunisation to the public
then I will not expect you to publish this letter. But if the science cannot be presented then children‟s health
will be the price we pay if we do not have this debate. Statistics on disease are particularly unreliable
because disease diagnosis and cause of death is an inexact science. Case definitions and surveillance
techniques change without the public‟s knowledge and these have a significant impact on disease
incidence in the community.
I look forward to receiving the science on this issue.
Kind regards,
Judy *************

Letter for Publication:

I would like to reply to the letter published in this weekend‟s Australian “A dose of commonsense won‟t hurt:
vaccination” (Oct. 17th-18th).

Indeed, it is time some commonsense was applied to the childhood vaccination schedule. I am a PhD
scholar completing my thesis on the evidence being used by the government to develop immunisation
policies. On the 2nd – 4th October I attended a conference in America titled “Vaccination: show us the
science, give us the choice”. There were 700 delegates from around the world and international speakers
on bioethics, law, medicine and science. There is great concern globally about the evidence being used to
promote coercive and mandatory immunisation policies. Contrary to Ms Page‟s sentiments, scepticism is
essential to good science. Preventing debate on this topic would be a criminal act if it is found in the future
that the significant increase in chronic illness in children over the past 2 decades is linked to the increase in
the number of vaccines being given to infants. It is disappointing that GP‟s are not asking why the
precautionary principle has not been applied to vaccines. This principle states that the burden of proof of
harmlessness of any technology or procedure is on the proponent (manufacturers) and not the general
public. In this case it is known that the chemicals in vaccines are a possible cause of the chronic illness we
are now seeing in many children yet no long-term health studies have been done looking at the health
effects of combining multiple vaccines in infants. GP‟s should be asking themselves why the morbidity in
children is higher than it has ever been in history. The government‟s immunisation policies are
demonstrating a lack of knowledge of toxicology in infants yet it is left to parents to point out the science in
this issue.

Hi there,

In response to your article entitled “A Dose of Commonsense won't hurt: Vaccination” in The Australia on
October the 17th, 2009-10-19 http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,,26214447-23289,00.html

I am writing to express the frustration that all free thinking individuals must feel when presented with a
myopic media. Why is it that on a matter as important as the Vaccination issue the media is only prepared
to show one side of the subject when there is SO much information on the other side of the argument to
draw from? We, those who believe there is a danger to the vaccination regime the government and drug
companies are trying to impose on us, wish that the media would be impartial but I guess that is as
idealistic as expecting studies sponsored by drug companies to produce balance and true results.

There are literally thousands of examples of the mainstream being blatantly wrong but refusing to allow
dissent or disagreement of any kind and this only harms the general population. Welcome to the flat earth
society who vaccinate without knowledge. Shouldn‟t we open the argument up to honest debate rather than
close it down? The only people that benefit from closing the discussion down is the pharmaceutical
companies and those others with a financial incentive. How does stoping the open exchange of information
help the general population? The answer is that it does not! If our arguments are wrong then open debate
will show that very quickly and make us look stupid however if there is validity to our claims then allowing
equal space in your publication will be of incalculable good and save many people (often children) from
dangers that they do not need to face.

I would like to request that you give the AVN the opportunity to respond or at the least put in an article of
their own outlining the reasons why it is best to do your homework before you allow the plethora of
vaccinations to be pumped into your unsuspecting child.

Thank you for taking the time to read my email and for considering allowing equal space for both sides of
this very important debate.

Kind regards,

Dear Editor

I would like to make comment on Dr Sue Pages' comments on the weekend.

Although it doesn't state, it is fairly obvious she is referring to the AVN. I hear Dr Page‟s words, which are
exactly the same as every Doctor I have ever heard speak on Vaccinations. We hear you guys. We know
where you stand. Some are happy to follow along without question, in fact I think some are so busy
working that they are happy to have the decision taken on by someone else.

Then there are those, like me, that need some facts before making major decisions that will affect my
family.
I joined the AVN several months ago by chance as my Natural Parenting Magazine was closed and
subscriptions transferred to the AVN Living Wisdom Magazine. I receive regular, probably weekly emails
from the AVN, just updates on things that affect me as a mother. Like the introduction of compulsory Swine
Flu vaccination. These things are important to mothers and families. We are faced with very large
decisions when it comes to raising our families and it is great to hear the other side of things - yes the risks,
side effects, research that is probably more honest that what the media and the government feed us.

The AVN cannot stop us from vaccinating, just as the doctors can't make us vaccinate. Well at least that is
what I thought. The question for me in this situation is not so much what is right and what is wrong, that is
a decision my husband and I will make when we accumulate all the facts - from the doctors, internet,
websites and the AVN. The question for me here is, do I still live in a democracy or is Australia heading
towards communism and forcing the hand of its people. What happened to freedom of choice, freedom of
speech and freedom to know the truth, all the truth before making decisions.

If the Government really want to be fair, they could give us all the information and then give us the choice to
take care of our family how we choose.

Thank you for your time.

Kindest regards

Dear Leigh

I read with interest your recent article by Sue Page.

Yes. The media certainly does love controversy - if it was to report on this issue properly, it would note that
the only evidence on the safety of vaccination comes from those who make them. Surely it would be in
their interest to only 'rave' about their product, tell everyone to go and get it! Creating vaccinations these
days are are a booming business, and so would it be for the Professionals and Government who I am sure
all earn a buck off the back of it all and don't care to think about the repercussions of jabbing untested
vaccinations and the like. I'm sure they would sleep just fine at night until a vaccination caused harm to
someone in their family.

I also note with interest that there is the Medicare Australia Immunisation Register; Is there a register to
state who has been damaged from these vaccinations?

I am yet to read evidence from a company independent of these mass-marketing pharmaceutical

companies and the Government to claim that vaccinations are safe (yes - I realise nothing is 100%, but
what is? I deserve to make my own informed and educated choice). And that's speaking of those
vaccinations that have actually been put through a testing phase, unlike the current H1N1 which has been
released, untested (not enough time to register faults, not that we would be told anyway and again, by the
same company who makes it, courtesy of our very own Government and our tax dollar). Unfortunately until
that happens we all have to hunt and search for our information to make our own informed and very
important decisions for the lives of our children, unborn children and ourselves.

Thank God for the AVN (which you didn't mention by name of course) for supplying lots of up to date,
helpful information and links to information and reports from all around the world to help us make an
informed, educated decision!

We are not asking for anything but valid information to be supplied by pharmaceutical companies and the
Government. We (those of us who are not sheep) choose to make our own decisions based on all of the
information we can find (and no - not just through the AVN) and have our own thoughts and beliefs, which I
thought was valid in the 21st century (freedom of speech & thought).

If you really wanted to report how the majority of 'us' feel about it - we just want to be able to make an
educated decision about the chemicals we pump into our bodies and that of our children. The big
Pharma's and Governments should at least grant us that! For God's Sake! Forget about the $$'s for one
minute and perhaps concentrate on what people really need and the information they really need to know,
lay it all out on the table. After all, we as tax payers have the 'privilege' of paying for all of this!
Yes, Leigh (and Sue) I for one, am not prepared to risk my children's health and life where not all of the
information is above board and I am 'sick to death' of these Governments, Pharmaceutical companies and
Professionals (big buck companies) trying to tell me what I think and feel.

Regards

To Leigh,

That was a pretty scathing article, written by Dr Page and edited by yourself. Personally, I find the
evidence that vaccinations are both SAFE and EFFECTIVE to be underwhelming, and as such, for safety's
sake, at this stage have chosen not to vaccinate my children. I have based this decision on much reading
and research - not simply being impressed by 'fancy websites and titled authors'. If and when the medical
evidence proves otherwise, I may change my position. Your article was extremely biased and ruthless,
and in my opinion you have an obligation to the public to allow the other side of the coin to be presented.
What are you afraid of? Let the debate begin.

Yours sincerely,

Ms Leigh Dayton
It is with interest that I read the article in your paper. In times of such controversial media reporting of
health issues I would like to see an article to balance out the opinion of 1 person in 1 area of 1 country on
this planet.
I cant believe the government and media are behind the decision to mass vaccinate a generally healthy
population with an untested vaccination. And they think it is OK!
I read the article and the response from Meryl Dory and feel it is a valid and balanced response that I
believe is worth printing to allow people to think about the other side of the story.

Dear Leigh

I am a mother, a reader of your paper and disgusted to hear that you will not print a letter Meryl Dorey has
written to reply to a letter she and the AVN were so clearly targeted in recently. How on earth can you call
yourself an investigative journalist if you don't give Meryl Dorey the right of reply to an article run by your
publication recently by a doctor who was clearly and notably attacking the AVN and Meryl Dorey and who is
narrow minded and inaccurate in nearly all of her quotes and vexatious in her attempt. Being the mother of
a son with Asperger‟s that was triggered and brought on by the accumulation of toxic heavy metals in the
ridiculous doses required by the government and "health care professionals" I am utterly enraged that you
think you have the right to stop freedom of reply and speech with such an incredibly important topic that
affects so many lives. I demand that you print her letter. My father has been writing letters to your paper
for as long as you have been around and has always been given the right of reply. Why is this
discriminated and it begs the question who is paying you not to print it?

Meryl Dorey cites credible studies and professionals but your GP Sue Page makes general accusations
against organisations who encourage people to explore options and exercise their own choices. So if you
support this GP and you don't let Meryl Dorey go to print then you are party to this corrupt attempt to
suppress information vital to all people and pay homage to big pharma and government oppression.

I am a health professional (physiotherapist) from Europe. I have been investigating vaccines for many
years since I found that a large number of my patients with Multiple Sclerosis had had some kind of vaccine
not long before their first symptoms appeared. In my own case I suffered a reaction to Hep-B vaccine and
needed several serious detox treatments to get myself back on my feet.

If one takes the time to research vaccines, one can find that many health professionals, doctors, nurses,
scientists around the world question the safety and effectiveness of vaccines.

Information given by Australian Vaccination Network is referenced from primary, peer-reviewed medical
sources.
I highly recommend Dr Peter Baratossy's (Australian GP, like Ms Sue Page) book: Vaccination-It's your
informed choice. You may also find the answer to why a growing number of vaccinated children suffer from
autoimmune diseases, neurological disorders, cancer and weak immune system, and why un-vaccinated
children are much healthier.

Kind Regards

I am writing in response to the article I recently read in your paper titled "A dose of commonsense won't
hurt: Vaccination". This brought to my attention the sleight of hand that is taking place the world over. The
medical profession are refusing to look at the whole story as science demands, so that we might continue
to find better, safer ways to achieve our goals. This is otherwise known as the scientific process, and it
seems to have been lost in this debate.

When looking at both sides of the vaccination debate, the most important point that continues to be missed
is that the manufacturers of vaccines are somehow not being held accountable for the safety of their
products. Isn't it the responsibility of the pharmaceutical company to show, with the appropriate clinical
trials, that the benefits of taking a certain drug outweigh the risks? And why are the TGA/FDA approving
products for use when the testing is clearly insufficient? On a realistic level, we all know that there are
certain political pressures exerted by governments and other groups which expedite the approval process
in certain cases. We need only reflect on the Thalidomide disaster to understand why the anti-vaccination
movement are so concerned. The TGA/FDA are the people charged with our safety, but are they doing
their job? We don't know because we are more concerned about who is right.

And through all this, the pharmaceutical companies are taking us all for fools. While we remain at
loggerheads, they are making trillions of dollars, mostly thanks to a defensive medical profession who won't
open their eyes to the possibility of something better. Nobody is saying that vaccination doesn't work. What
people are trying to make public are the dangers of the current way in which vaccinations are administered,
and to force the pharmaceutical companies to come up with a safer formula.

Think of it this way, Dr Page: when the risk of injury from a vaccine is greater than the risk of injury from the
disease itself, what would you do?

I am a Critical Care RN and have read the following articles with interest, having had 3 children who have
been vaccine injured, one severely autistic. They have all since responded miraculously to treatment that is
known to remove mercury from the body. For me, the cure has proven the cause.

The Hippocratic oath cut and pasted from Wikkipedia contains the following text:
"I will prescribe regimens for the good of my patients according to my ability and my judgment and never do
harm to anyone. I will not give a lethal drug to anyone if I am asked, nor will I advise such a plan; and
similarly I will not give a woman a pessary to cause an abortion."

Perhaps Hypocritical Oath is more appropriate in modern times.

The Swine Flu vaccine contains Mercury, in the form of Thimerosal, a preservative used in high doses in
multi dose vaccines.
-The amount is 50 times the SAFE MAXIMUM exposure for an adult.
-It has never been shown to be safe to give to pregnant women.
-Recent studies show even a single mercury containing vaccine given to newborns increases risk of autism
threefold, one can only guess what factor to multiply that injury in a developing foetus or embryo.
-Despite claims of pregnant women having a higher risk of flu, no study backs this up

I would refuse to vaccinate a pregnant woman as a safety issue. Doctors and other health workers should
consider where liability lies, when the lawsuits start rolling in next year.
The Australian

As a Mum of three who has chosen not to vaccinate, I am sick of having GP's and other Health
Professionals telling me that Vaccination is the ONLY way to prevent illness and disease. It appears to me
that Sue Page is using her medical credentials to discredit and draw negative attention to groups providing
information on vaccine. Has Sue Page investigated and analysed data efficiently enough to be able to
make the claims she did in her article? Does she disclose the full list of side effects of vaccination to the
children she is vaccinating and then claim "coincidence" when a reaction occurs?

Dear Leigh,
Re article in the Australian: "A Dose of Common Sense Wouldn't Hurt: Vaccination"

I am happy to give you a professional comment on your recent article. Firstly, I totally agree that it is difficult
to measure the effectiveness of vaccination by death rates alone. As you point out, for every death there is
far more immeasurable suffering and long term injury from such diseases as Measles.

As you also point out, these rates have dropped since the introduction of vaccination but the unvaccinated
always seem to get blamed for spreading the disease, so I have a few questions:-

Can you show me studies which prove the effectiveness of the Measles vaccine in reducing the severity of
Measles if they are still contracted following vaccination?
If so, do they stand up to the same standards that you require of the "anti-vaccination" lobby you refer to?

Were any of the 3 people who contracted measles in NSW in 2007 vaccinated?
Were the preventable deaths and injuries Sue Page referred to a result of these people not being
vaccinated (which is their choice) or unvaccinated people "passing on" diseases to vaccinated people (in
which case I question the effectiveness of the vaccination)?

So far I haven't been able to find satisfactory answers to these questions, so remain unconvinced that the
benefits outweigh the risks. I hope you can help!

Dear Weekend Australian,

I refer to the article by Dr. Sue Page last weekend:

The tone of your article suggests that vaccines are the best & only answer to preventing infections. With
Australia currently having the highest rates of 95% of its population vaccinated against whooping cough,
why are we also now having the biggest recorded epidemic of whooping cough in Australia? You say that
science backs up your beliefs – show me one cross over double blind placebo study ever done on a
vaccine. The current swine flu vaccine contains mercury & squalene – where are the studies done to say
this is safe to inject into a pregnant woman? Western medicine is the second greatest cause of death in
Australia, & the greatest cause in the USA. Whatever happened to “ first do no harm “ . Please Dr Page,
invite yourself along to any Autism Support Group, & listen to all the stories the parents have to share about
their normal developing child, that began its descent into regressive autism following their vaccination –
something which was unheard of prior to vaccination – or would you call these people crack pots too?

Jane Leonforte

I read your article on vaccinations written by Sue Page in the Weekend Australian. I am
extremely disappointed that what I always regarded as a reputable media source would print such a biased
an misinformed article on such an important issue. I understand the author is a Doctor, but that doesn't
necessarily mean that what she says is gospel. As her article was completely pro-vaccination, why not give
somebody from the other side of the argument equal time and space to express their concerns about this
very important issue?

Unless there is some other organisation trying to educate people about the dangers of vaccines, the Doctor
clearly took a swipe at the Australian Vaccination Network and the good work of Meryl Dorey.
The AVN's objective is to inform people and supply information about the possible risks of
vaccines. There is plenty of propaganda supplied by the manufacturers of the vaccines about the so called
benefits of them. Surely a responsible parent would be seeking both sides of the argument before blindly
leading their children into a doctor's surgery for a jab.

I have worked in the health industry and been interested in good health for a number of years. During that
time, it has become very clear to me that the parents who decide not to vaccinate their children are the
ones who are the best informed about vaccines. Do you think parents who make the decision not to
vaccinate make it lightly? Considering the hassles involved with trying to get unvaccinated children into
childcare, schools etc etc, and the red tape that goes with it, don't you think that if there were no risks
involved, that parents would agree to have their children vaccinated?

I am sick to death of having the media act as judge, jury and executioner in these instances. The job of the
media is to inform people, not to force the narrow minded journalist's point of view onto the public. How
about some investigative journalism?

I look forward reading Meryl Dorey's article when she has her chance to respond. And please don't edit it
to suit yourselves.

Dear Leigh,

I am a regular reader of The Australian and enjoy the paper very much. An article this weekend made me
think. Dr. Sue Page wrote about her opinion about vaccinations.

Not only was I surprised by here choice of words ("crackpot claims"), but I was also very surprised that you
do not post an opinion of the opposite viewpoint. As Sue said herself, "give the full context so people can
judge its reliability for themselves".
Don't you think that it should be everybody's own choice what to do and by merely publishing one
viewpoint, the one by Dr. Page, is not only incongruent with Dr. Page's own words, but also appears to be
below the standard of The Australian.

I am very interested in hearing your viewpoint on this.

I would like to take another view to the to-ing and fro-ing with vaccinations.

As there is enough evidence to blatantly indicate that vaccinations are extremely harmful, we have to ask
the question "Why are the pharmaceutical companies and medical practitioners continuing to advocate
vaccinations when they know in fact, they are harmful and even fatal".

With the internet today, there is no excuse for ignorance. Sure, information and data has to be filtered, but
as a mum who has had experience with a reaction to vaccinations, I cannot ignore the "evidence" that
vaccinations are harmful.

I heard a saying once from the famous lady Judge Judy which I felt was very true....."follow the money". I
believe if we do the same here, we will see that the love of money says it all.

It is great to see and experience that people are waking up to the terrible damage (not only vaccinations but
the medical drugs too) that is happening everywhere. People are realising that the medical profession
"have their place" in extreme emergency situations, but for "normal" immune building sicknesses, we are
safer to stay away from the doctors. There is so much information out there these days to inform all of us
about what is going on with evidence and references etc. to prove it.

We have reputable researches who are dedicating and commiting their lives to informing us of the facts and
figures as to what is "really" happening. To me, vaccination is just one important area of this research.

Vaccinations have "fillers" in them that are horrendous. Why would it ever be necessary to put this "junk" in
our bodies and then say "it builds up your immunity". Let's "follow the money". Who benefits from these
vaccinations the most?
People are realizing what is really going on....this includes me. The public is waking up and it is costing the
pharmaceutical companies millions of dollars. (I have only heard that 75% of Brisbane-ites are refusing the
swine flu vaccine).

We can only encourage people to do their own research on vaccinations and come to a definite and
confident answer themselves....this is what I did.

I am so grateful for the internet and the availability of books and the people who have taken the time to
study and research and reveal their findings to the rest of us. Thank you!

Dear Editor,

I write in response to the above article, published 17 October 2009 and I write with alarm. The article has
been written with an extreme one-sided view, presumably your intention to promote 'discussion', whilst
putting a slur on those of us who researched both sides of the vaccination equation and made an educated
choice.

I'm not a health professional, but isn't this world we create around us about choice? Teachers in our
schools are diligently teaching our children about making choices? There are war victims who gave their
lives to providing us with the right of choice. And yet, when it comes to vaccinations we are dissed for
exorcising that right.

You can't bully people into vaccinating or not vaccinating by only giving one side of the story. The freedom
of choice is about providing ALL the information. If you publish an article pro vaccination then balance it.

I find the published article very derogatory, almost to the point of narrow mindedness, towards anyone who
would question what they're being injected with. It is alarming how many doctors seem brainwashed by
their education rather than inquisitive towards the elements they are working with. How many doctors
seem closed to examining the 'other side' - almost like they are they afraid of discovering something?!

It would be wonderful if there were an unbiased investigation undertaken by an unbiased body, rather than
this being a field of play for journalists. The media's role seems not much evolved from the school yard and
nobody is benefitting.

Regards,

Hi Leigh,

A dose of commonsense would lead a person to examine both sides in the vaccination debate - why does
your publication shy away from presenting scientific information on the negative side of vaccination? Surely
it is commonsense to do so?

If, as Dr Page says, the information won't stand up to the most rudimentary investigation, then what is the
problem with publishing it? Let it be subject to the best scientific minds of our time.

Bring on the debate and let's get this out in the open. Show us what The Australian is made of.

Kind regards

Dear Ms. Dayton,

I refer to Dr. Page's article that ran in The Weekend Australian - October 17, 2000 and your refusal to print
a 'right of reply' by Meryl Dorey of the AVN. As one of the editors of The Australian, I do not believe your
personal views should govern the decisions you make as to who is allowed free speech in Australia and
who is not. We are after all still a democracy and therefore it is assumed that the media reports the news
with honesty and integrity and certainly not with a biased viewpoint.
In addition the reason you gave Ms. Dorey was that Dr. Page did not mention Meryl Dorey or the AVN
specifically. The Australian is one of the recognised newspapers in Australia and as editor of one of its
sections you would be well aware that the Swine Flu and vaccination are currently very much in the
forefront of Australian news - as are Meryl Dorey and the AVN. Therefore, anyone reading Dr. Page's
comments would have no doubt whatsoever as to whom she was referring. If any 'Australian' or 'Group'
have been impugned in an article your paper has presented to the public, then, in a democratic society,
they should be entitled to the 'right of reply'.

Perhaps if you disagree so strongly with what Meryl Dorey has written, you could print the article she
submitted and then give Dr. Sue Page the 'right of reply' to points raised by Ms. Dorey. That in my opinion
would be the most unbiased approach to this situation. Then fair minded Australians, who believe that
there are two sides to every debate, would see your paper as one that, despite your personal views, prints
both sides of every controversial issue giving the public the opportunity to make up their own minds. This is
after all what democracy is all about.

It is obvious by your refusal to print Ms. Dorey's reply to Dr. Sue Page that your section of The Australian
has little sympathy with the Pro-choice lobby and you believe, as does Dr. Page, that we are wrong in all
we say and do. If that is the case then you should have no concerns about giving both sides of this very
important debate a fair hearing.

"When men differ, both sides ought equally be heard by the public, for when truth and error have fair play,
the former is always an overmatch for the latter."
Benjamin Franklin

Dr. Page accused the AVN of spreading ridiculous conspiracy theories. Hypotheses regarding conspiracy
theories have existed in abundance since the year dot and I could safely say that almost everyone has an
opinion one way or the other about this subject and none of this is new or in any way attributable to the
AVN. In addition having an opinion does not render you incapable of collating sound scientific information
and providing these facts to those desiring both sides of the vaccination issue.

The bottom line is that the AVN provides information about vaccination that is not forthcoming from the so-
called academic and scientific alliance. Circulation of these facts enables the public to examine both sides
of the vaccine debate and make educated and informed health care decisions. Nevertheless, freedom of
speech and freedom of choice do not appear to enter this equation, and circulating such verifiable truths is
apparently a punishable transgression and simple rights, such as those of 'reply', are therefore denied Ms.
Dorey and the AVN.

I quote Dr. Page as saying, "The interests of free speech have never been served by publicising rubbish."
In reply I say to Dr. Page, that the interests of democracy have never been served by suppressing free
speech.

The Australian is a well read newspaper throughout Australia and it would be a sad day if its integrity was
compromised over the right of reply denied any Australian because of a biased opinion on the part of a
section editor. I close with a quote by John Harvey - 11/08/2009 - vaccination debate on 6minutes forum:

"Try stepping back from the influence of your own beliefs when assessing how democratic principles such
as openness and transparency are compromised by openness and transparency!"

Yours sincerely,

Dear Ms. Dayton,

I note with interest your refusal to give the right of reply to Ms. Meryl Dorey of the Australian Vaccination
Network to a letter from Dr. Sue Page printed in the Weekend Australian. I am led to believe your reasons
being that neither Ms. Dorey nor the AVN were mentioned in Dr. Page's letter.

I assume you have been in your present position for a reasonable amount of time. You should then know
that there has been a great deal of debate regarding the efficacy of vaccines. Any editor/reporter of health
news would know that the most notable of the 'Pro-choice" lobby is the AVN whose president is Ms.
Dorey. In Dr. Page's letter the words, "anti-vaccination lobby" is used as is "this group" and "the same
group recently sent a newsletter...".

Any person who has been following health matters in the media, especially the present Swine Flu debacle,
and has an ounce of intelligence would know that "this group" to whom Dr. Page is referring, is the AVN.

Let me quote from Dr. G.P. Weyble, of Virginia from his comments to the headlines, "Swine Flu Shots
Revive A Debate About Vaccines" in the New York Times dated 19th October, 2009. He states that:

"Studies are necessary to, once an for all, prove that the fully vaccinated population enjoys better lifetime
health than the unvaccinated population does. Hypothetically speaking what would happen to the 'Holy
Baptism' of medicine if it turned out that vaccines successfully eliminated chicken pox and mumps but
increased childhood cancers, asthma and dramatically increased autism?

Good science, one would think, would never run from such a challenge. Unfortunately that is exactly what
has happened. Instead of taking full advantage of information only a control group could supply the tactic
has been and continues to be, insult, marginalize and attempt to eliminate the control group from the
population through compulsory vaccination laws and manipulation of media outlets to, whenever possible,
make vaccination sceptics appear to be dangerous, unscientific fools.

Above all the tactic has been and remains to never compare the lifetime health and disease statistics of the
vaccinated population to the statistics of the unvaccinated population. That I am afraid is not only bad
science but highly suspicious."

Not to give both sides of this debate equal amounts of ink in your paper is very prejudicial and I fear, highly
suspicious.

Yours sincerely,

Dear Leigh,
I am very concerned about your recent decision not to publish the letter of reply from the AVN, which was in
response to the letter from Dr. Sue Page about vaccinations. As a Science teacher, parent and a person
long interested in the vaccination debate it is depressing to see a balanced view not presented in the
media. The evidence for the safety and effectiveness of vaccinations is not as clear as what you may think.
As the AVN points out, there are many valid questions to be asked and many qualified people asking them.
The main problem is the lack of a clear, balanced debate, looking at the facts and issues. Also lacking, as
the AVN points out, are enough clear studies in to the effectiveness and safety of vaccinations.
Too often those who raise the questions are howled down. True, a very small minority in the anti-
vaccination camp hold a few extreme views, but do not throw out the baby with the bath water. Remember
many of those asking the questions are informed, intelligent and sincere.

Thanks.

Dear Editor,
After reading the letter from Dr Sue Page, I was compelled to write as her point of view is understandable
given that she's been educated and exposed to a particular side of vaccination.

As a mother who witnessed her child go through an horrific vaccine reaction 17 years ago which was
followed by years of rehabilitation, I am often upset (and outraged) by medical practitioners who debunk the
'anti-vaccination' point of view. I have often been told by GPs that 'the benefits outweighed the risks',
'vaccines are safe and effective' etc. And with that, they dismiss my son's and my ordeal.

Well, my son was proof that there is another side to vaccines and that their 'safety' should be questioned.
And if we question that safety, then we should also be informed of the potential side effects and reaction
possibilities more openly than we currently are. There is no debate on vaccination - it is a choice, and
should stay so.
My son was one of those 'risks' and whenever I hear this statement it drives home that my child
was expendable in the name of medical science, that his life was less important than a child who dies from
a childhood disease.
And if there was a pregnant woman who aborted due to a vaccine, then this to should be taken into
account. It's not Dr Page's position to decide it's rubbish, if she wasn't there.

Regardless of which point of view you ascribe to about vaccination, isn't it best if we, the people, are given
full and conflicting information, no matter where it comes from and allow us to be the deciders on its
validity?

regards,

I have just read the article by Dr Page that you recently published, and I also read Meryl Dorey's reply.

What is your problem with fair play, why wont you give her the right to respond to the accusation made by
Dr Page that the AVN's claims have no scientific basis?

You should be ashamed of yourself, as an editor you should use your position for the common good and
report ALL of the facts, by not doing this you are misleading the public and I for one will never again
purchase one of your newspapers as long as this practice continues, why should I part with my hard earned
money to read half-truths and lies?

Hopefully you will reconsider your decision not to give the AVN a fair go.
Sincerely,

Dear Ms Dayton
I am disappointed to learn that you are willing to print a letter from a GP taking a stab at a 'group' who
question vaccination, however you are not willing to print the 'group's point of view. The public can
make up their own minds which story they prefer to believe.
Perhaps you should spare a thought for the parents and carers of children who have been vaccine
damaged. I am one of those and my GP agrees that my son had an adverse reaction to a vaccine. I won't
bother to tell you my story - this is not a personal attack.
Please print Meryl Dorey's response letter so parents realise there are choices when it comes to
vaccination.

Regards

It is with interest I have read Dr Sue Page‟s irrational and emotional response to anyone supporting the
view that vaccinations may not be as beneficial as promoted. If you ever wanted to know anything about
vaccination in Australia, then The Australian Vaccination Network is there for those who want to know. This
is a matter of freedom of information in a country that surely still espouses this freedom to all who seek.
We are still a democracy and we need to have that democratic right without having to justify the right. The
information put forth by the AVN is not necessarily that of the founder or her employees. Much of what is
written is provided by other resources, credible and scientific and just as The Australian will claim no
responsibility for all matters published so it is with any printed or on line resource such as the AVN.
Attacking the AVN is attacking the messenger, attack the scientists and the statistics that are factual and
question their validity – not the person.

Leigh Dayton,

I've just discovered that you have chosen not to allow the AVN the right to reply to the unbalanced views of
Dr Sue Page. I know, for a fact, that doctors don‟t always get it right. How do I know this? It's taken two
hospitals four years to give a diagnosis on my spinal condition, with the first dismissing me with "sometimes
we don‟t know what causes people pain, & you're just going to have to accept it.". That statement was from
the head of neurology at RAH (Royal Adelaide Hosp). Flinders hospital did a thorough examination,
dismissed MS as a diagnosis, & found that what had been noted in X-rays at the very beginning, something
RAH was fully aware of, was in fact the reason for severe chronic pain from the waist down. So why would
one hospital find an answer & not another? The only summation I can make is ego. Before I'd seen the
head of neurology, which was only after communication to them from my local MP, I'd made a complaint
about the treatment I received from two doctors there.
So why have I told you this? To show that placing all trust, all belief in one doctors opinion is foolish, & can
be dangerous. A previous GP I was seeing, ignored a lump I found, next to my eye, that I pointed out,
dismissing it as nothing. If I hadn‟t trusted my instinct, how far would the Basal Cell Carcinoma have gone
before it couldn‟t be dismissed any more. And you feel justified in placing all faith in the opinion of one
doctor?

Now I ask, if a health professional contacts you, disputing Dr Page's opinion, will they be denied the right to
state their opinion? I've read many, many reports, independent of the AVN, which disputes the opinions
such as is Dr Page's. Yet its stated that there's no scientific or medical proof. If one only looks in areas
that suit an opinion, of course nothing to the contrary would be found. I also ask why you have no wish to
communicate with parents of children adversely affected by chemical vaccinations? Have you ever raised
a child with Aspergers? I have. If I'd known what I know now, I'd never, never have chemically vaccinated
my children.

Now why do I use the words "chemically vaccinated"? Surely you're aware of natural vaccinations? If yes,
then why have you chosen not to investigate the validity of this? In fact, how much of the 'other side' have
you investigated? Why have you chosen not to give the public an unbiased viewpoint by giving both sides
of the argument?

Frankly, I've lost a great deal of faith not just in the medical system, but in the media & biased reporting, or
stories being either reported or dismissed, depending on someone's opinion on what‟s news worthy in
order to make money, rather than report & explore real issues that can have serious impacts on so many in
the community.

I'd like to finish with questions that never seems to get answered. Why is there such a fear of
unvaccinated (chemically) children being around vaccinated children, if vaccinations are so effective?
Hasn‟t history shown a multitude of medical mistakes & cover ups, so isn‟t it possible that, with the growing
number of people, from all walks of life, who have become against chemical vaccinations, there is validity in
the protest against these vaccinations?

All I've ever read from the AVN is that we all have a right to both sides of information, in order to make an
informed decision. Seems the media would rather the opposite. Actions speak louder than words, with the
actions here being lack of words.

Yours sincerely

Recently, my one year old son and I caught up with our regular mother‟s group – once a week on a
Wednesday. It‟s something I‟ve looked forward to since becoming a mother and a highlight in my son‟s
week; I‟m sure, meeting with familiar faces and children of the same age – discovering the world together.
During the catch up one mother stated her daughter had been sick in her cot that morning and she seemed
a bit „off‟, becoming increasingly unsettled as the day went on. The next morning, I woke to a queasy
stomach. By that evening, the said mother contacted us saying she and her daughter had come down with
an awful gastro bug. Within an hour after that phone call, the other mother of our mother‟s group rang to
tell me her son had woken screaming, and was sick with vomiting and diarrhoea. Just 24 hours later, the
boy‟s mother came down with the „bug‟, the day after that, her husband. My husband had a touch of
diarrhoea by this stage and my son was a bit off his tucker. Both other families went to their local GP who
diagnosed them individually with Rotavirus. The interesting point about this story? Both families
mentioned have vaccinated their children against Rotavirus, yet my son remains vaccinated through
homeoprophylaxis – homeopathic vaccination. Perhaps we just got lucky, or perhaps vaccines aren‟t what
they are cracked up to be?

The decision on whether or not to vaccinate our child was not an easy one to make, by any means.
However due to extensive research on our own part, which included but was not limited to, talking with
health professionals, reading the vaccine manufacturer‟s inserts, and understanding the possible
implications of injecting heavy metals and toxins into the body, bypassing any sort of natural defence
system; we feel we have made an informed decision on the part of our child‟s health.
Re your article " A dose of commonsense won't hurt" by Dr Sue Page.

I disagree with Dr Page and her attitude towards vaccination. She mentions intensive care units ----- my
baby was in intensive care BECAUSE of vaccination, she spent several days there after suffering severe
convulsions following her 6 month immunisation. I contacted the Australian Vaccination Network at the time
and found them very supportive. They advised me to record brands, batches etc. of the vaccines injected
into my baby. This enabled me to eventually have my child registered with the Health Dept. as suffering
adverse events following her immunisation.

She has been left with many ongoing problems including delayed talking, walking, learning and behavioural
issues.

Doesn't Dr Page want the public to be informed on all sides and possibilities of the vaccination issue? Are
we only to be exposed to the medical information?

Health Minister ( 1996 --- 2001) Dr Michael Wooldridge claims that the number of people opposed to
immunisation is tiny, in the order of 2%. At least let the tiny 2% of us make a well researched and
informed decision about vaccination and not be bullied into it by the medical profession who get paid for
every immunisation.

Thank you.

Dear Editor,

The following article has come to my attention as being published by your Newspaper last weekend. When
I read the article and then the reply from Meryl Dorey, AVN I was very surprised and disappointed you
would decline to publish, especially as you requested response and comments to the original story
submitted by Sue Page. (see below)

I personally found the Sue Page story sensationalistic and narrow minded. Blindly hurling slanderous
remarks at groups who are simply exercising their right to free speech and an alternative opinion to herself.
It is each individual‟s choice to vaccinate or not. I personally would like to see a study on the death rates of
not only children but adults as a result of medically administered drug treatments, but I doubt that study will
ever be done.

The solution to this problem is not in the ideas of one group or the other but in education and further study
into the matter. Spitefull schoolyard mud flinging is a waste of time and energy and an insult to mine and
everyone else's intelligence. Furthermore Ms Page's slanderous narrow minded comments sounded
similar to those I would expect from someone with significantly less education and intelligence than her
profession suggests, which honestly prompts little serious consideration of her comments and little if no
confidence in her opinion as a specialist or as a GP.

I'm disappointed this topic doesn't seem to warrant much more serious consideration from The Australian
than a submission from a local GP, seemingly attention seeking, to a newspaper editor also seemingly
looking for a quick, attention seeking, serious looking, filler piece.

I have always held The Australian in much higher regard than both the Telegraph and SMH for it's
impartial, educated & considered investigative journalism, however in light of this I will be reconsidering my
choice of read.

Regards,

Dear Leigh Dayton, David King,

I am writing to you again to add more weight to my original email to you with regards to the swine flu
vaccination. I have researched this issue very deeply and I find that articles written by doctors (Sue Page)
and published by your news
paper need to be balanced with scientific fact rather than opinion. Many doctors are not researchers and
they generally end up robotically repeating what they believe to be accurate data rather than actually
researching. I am only a Health Sciences post graduate yet I am constantly appalled to see that many fully
qualified health professionals have little evidence to support their claims.

I have grave concerns regarding the potential for dangerous side effects resulting from the swine flu
vaccinations of the Australian public. There have been no long term scientific studies, long term data
collection is the foundation of any rigorous
scientific endeavour.

There has been some talk amongst politicians, medical associations and the media with regards to making
this swine flu vaccine mandatory. I do not consent to mandatory vaccination and I wish to point out that my
right to do so is protected under informed consent laws relative to each Australian States criminal Acts. I
am very informed as to the risk benefit ratio and the risks far out weigh the perceived benefits. If other
people choose to get vaccinated then
my unvaccinated state should not cause any problem for them as presumably, using their logic, they are
protected.

The new vaccine formulation produced by an Australian based company CSL Biotherapies contains
thimerosal and beta-propiolactone, a potent cancer causing chemical. Beta propiolactone is a direct threat
to laboratory workers preparing vaccine. Pharmaceutical companies worldwide are rushing to produce their
vaccines against the current swine flu pandemic to fulfil the needs of the entire global community, no doubt
taking advantage of fast-track approval and immunity from prosecution if serious side effects should come
to light. (Prof. Joe Cummins, Institute of Science in Society
http://www.isis.org.uk/CSLPandemicSwineFluVaccine.php)

Please watch this introduction by the University Of Calgary (USA) to understand the effects of thimerosal
which is 49% mercury ( How Mercury Destroys the Brain - University of Calgary
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BtFsy0rQsak )

With regards to the dangers of thimerosal, I would direct your attention to two poignant pieces of
information and research by a real investigative journalist, Robert, F. Kennedy Jr.
http://www.robertfkennedyjr.com/articles.html#

Kennedy's sources and scientific research facts;

http://www.robertfkennedyjr.com/docs/ThimerosalScandalFINAL.PDF

Please watch an interview with Kennedy in which he describes the vaccine issue similar to Big tobacco and
Big petroleum in the way drug companies mislead the public and twist the science...of course with help of
the media too.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vi_tZ8puaAM

You should also read another very well researched story about vaccination; Does the vaccine matter?
Atlantic Monthly -http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200911/brownlee-h1n1
In reading this you will see how statistical data is plucked out of thin air...yet we believe the science to be
bullet proof?

One Australian news source, for example, states that even a mild swine flu epidemic could lead to the
deaths of 1.4 million people and would reduce economic growth by nearly $5 trillion dollars
(http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,25392380-2,00.html ).

This sounds like the outlandish cries of the pandemic bird-flu, when President Bush said two million
Americans would die as a result of the bird flu! Where is the Bird Flu now?

There is no pandemic in Australia or the Southern Hemisphere. Influenza rates in the temperate zones of
the Southern Hemisphere have all returned to below baseline levels and very few detections of pandemic
H1N1 2009 virus are being reported. http://www.who.int/csr/don/2009_10_16/en/index.html

According to WHO statistics, as of 11 October 2009, worldwide there have been more than 399232
laboratory confirmed cases of pandemic influenza H1N1 2009 and over 4735 deaths reported to WHO But
these statistics are not factual.

Newly developed rRT-PCR "rapid" testing method gives only a "presumptive positive" rather than a
"definitive positive" result for H1N1 influenza, and is only accurate to 90%. This then reduces the
WHO statistics to 4261 deaths. http://www.smh.com.au/national/swine-flu-test-results-are-unreliable-who-
warns-20090610-c2dl.html

Many doctors are diagnosing any influenza or pneumonia as Swine flu,

without the appropriate tests. Hence this leads to more false data. The US
Centre for disease control actually admit that their new swine flu surveillance
protocols take into account all influenza and pneumonia-associated
hospitalizations and deaths and not just those due to 2009 H1N1.
http://www.cdc.gov/h1n1flu/reportingqa.htm

As we can see, compared to seasonal flu, the statistics so far do not constitute a
pandemic let alone justify mandatory mass vaccination of populations around the globe with a vaccine that
will have dangerous side effects and little proof of efficacy.

Approximately 36 thousand Americans die from seasonal flu every year, 200 thousand are hospitalised.
Between 250 - 500 thousand people die from seasonal flu world wide, also resulting in three to five million
cases of severe illness. http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs211/en The world wide 2185 deaths
from H1N1 virus, does not constitute a pandemic yet alone grounds to begin mandatory vaccination of the
Australian public.

Just a couple of months ago, scientists concluded that the 1918 flu pandemic that killed between 50-100
million people worldwide in a matter of 18 months -- which all these worst case scenarios are built upon --
was NOT due to the flu itself!
http://www.reuters.com/article/scienceNews/idUSTRE5146PD20090205?feedType=RSS&feedName=scien
ceNews&sp=true

Tami Flu, used against seasonal flu, does not work effectively and is not a safe drug. In fact it is not even a
vaccine, it is an anti-viral and meant to be administered once someone is infected. It is not a vaccine or a
preventative but rather a treatment.

Serious side effects include convulsions, delirium or delusions, and 12 deaths in children and teens as a
result of neuropsychiatric problems and brain infections Japan actually banned Tamiflu for children in 2007.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2005-11-19-tamiflu_x.htm

In 2007, the FDA in the USA finally began investigating some 1,800 adverse event reports related to the
drug. http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2007-11-25-tamiflu-brain_N.htm

In fact the Tami Flu antiviral has been found to be almost useless
http://www.ahrp.org/cms/content/view/397/27 The risk and dangers compared to perceived benefits of
Tami flu are great.

Recently a confidential letter from the United Kingdom Health Protection Agency was sent to about 600
neurologists alerting them to watch for an increase in Guillain-Barre Syndrome (GBS) as a result of the
swine flu vaccination. GBS can be fatal as it attacks the nerve lining, causing paralysis and suffocation – as
those affected are unable to breathe.

The UK Daily Mail reported on the July 29 letter and pointed to a similar U.S. swine flu vaccination used in
1976 when: * "More people died from the vaccination than from swine flu (25 deaths);

* 500 cases of GBS were detected;

* the vaccine may have increased the risk of contracting GBS by eight times;
* the vaccine was withdrawn after just 10 weeks when the link with GBS became clear;
* The U.S. government was forced to pay out 1.3 million dollars to those affected."

So, instead of giving warnings to the people who'll be vaccinated, secret letters were sent to neurologists to
keep track of the number of human guinea pigs who contract the dreadful GBS without knowing the risk.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1206807/Swine-flu-jab-link-killer-nerve-disease-Leaked-letter-
reveals-concern-neurologists-25-deaths-America.html#ixzz0OqsdiuaX

The dangers of using live attenuated viruses in vaccinations can also lead to an out break in flu, just exactly
the opposite of what the vaccine was made for. It can actually spread the virus rather than cure it. The
vaccine time below helps illustrates my points.

Vaccine history

• In the USA in 1960, two virologists discovered that both polio vaccines were contaminated with the SV 40
virus which causes cancer in animals as well as changes in human cell tissue cultures. Millions of children
had been injected with these vaccines. (Med Jnl of Australia 17/3/1973 p555)

• In 1871-2, England, with 98% of the population aged between 2 and 50 vaccinated against smallpox, it
experienced its worst ever smallpox outbreak with 45,000 deaths. During the same period in Germany, with
a vaccination rate of 96%, there were over 125,000 deaths from smallpox.
(The Hadwen
Documents, http://www.soilandhealth.org/02/0201hyglibcat/020119hadwin/020119hadwin.toc.html )

• In Germany, compulsory mass vaccination against diphtheria commenced in 1940 and by 1945 diphtheria
cases were up from 40,000 to 250,000. (Don't Get Stuck, Hannah Allen)

• In 1967, Ghana was declared measles free by the World Health Organisation after 96% of its population
was vaccinated. In 1972, Ghana experienced one of its worst measles outbreaks with its highest ever
mortality rate. (Dr H Albonico, MMR Vaccine Campaign in Switzerland, March 1990)

• In 1977, Dr Jonas Salk who developed the first polio vaccine, testified along with other scientists, that
mass inoculation against polio was the cause of most polio cases throughout the USA since 1961. (Science
4/4/77 "Abstracts" )

• In the UK between 1970 and 1990, over 200,000 cases of whooping cough occurred in fully vaccinated
children. (Community Disease Surveillance Centre, UK)

• In the 1970's a tuberculosis vaccine trial in India involving 260,000 people revealed that more cases of TB
occurred in the vaccinated than the unvaccinated. (The Lancet 12/1/80 p73) In 1976 mass vaccination of
Swine flu began in the USA. Within a few months, claims totalling $1.3 billion had been filed by victims who
had suffered paralysis from the vaccine. The vaccine was also blamed for 25 deaths. However, several
hundred people developed crippling Guillain-Barré Syndrome after they were injected with the swine flu
vaccine. Even healthy 20-year-olds ended up as paraplegics. And the swine flu pandemic itself? It never
materialized. (
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2009/04/29/Swine-Flu.aspx)

• In 1978, a survey of 30 States in the US revealed that more than half of the children who contracted
measles had been adequately vaccinated. (The People's Doctor, Dr R Mendelsohn)

• The February 1981 issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association found that 90% of
obstetricians and 66% of paediatricians refused to take the rubella vaccine.

• In 1979, Sweden abandoned the whooping cough vaccine due to its ineffectiveness. Out of 5,140 cases
in 1978, it was found that 84% had been vaccinated three times! (BMJ 283:696-697, 1981)

• In the USA, the cost of a single DPT shot had risen from 11 cents in 1982 to $11.40 in 1987. The
manufacturers of the vaccine were putting aside $8 per shot to cover legal costs and damages they were
paying out to parents of brain damaged children and children who died after vaccination. (The Vine, Issue
7, January 1994, Nambour, Qld) Please do not introduce mandatory vaccination upon the Australian
people.

I hope I have listed enough facts, statistics and information that will motivate yourselves and The Australian
newspaper to have a deeper look at
this subject.

Please feel free to contact me with any questions you might have.

Thank you.

Yours sincerely,
Michael Bending

I am writing to express my disgust as once again being portrayed as some sort of “crackpot” because I
choose not to vaccinate my children, while doctors are portrayed as vaccination experts because they
happen to be doctors. In reality I have probably done more research into vaccines in the last 7 years, their
ingredients and how they are made, then any of the doctors quoted. My husband has just finished studying
medicine and while they are told how great vaccines are, they do not at any stage do any research to find
out what is in them or how they are made. They are just taught to promote them.

I think we need to ask ourselves the agendas here. Whilst doctors get paid good money to promote their
vaccines, what is the pro-informed choice lobby getting out of it?

All you need to do is read the package insert that comes with the vaccination to find out what is in them and
the side effects they can cause. Do this and then come back and tell me they are good for babies,
pregnant women and children. Read how they are made, this information can be obtained from the
patents. Baxter for one uses Triton X100, Benzonase and formaldehyde to produce their flu vaccines.
Sounds good doesn‟t it? Look them up – all carcinogenic, injected directly into your bloodstream. (I have a
copy of the patent if you want to read for yourself) This does not even include the vaccines with ethyl
mercury and its neurotoxicity.

With 1 in 100 children developing autism, autoimmune diseases continuing to rise and vaccination
manufacturers admitting in their package inserts that their vaccinations may cause autoimmune disease
and a host of other problems.

Isn‟t it about time instead of having this “he said, she said” debate, we demand the government do an
independent study into the health of the vaccinated and unvaccinated and end the argument once and for
all.

Regards

To: Leigh Dayton,

I highly suggest you print Meryl Dorey's 'right to reply' letter titled Trust me, I'm a doctor - not good enough
any more, and as I think that you would agree, all sides should be presented in a professional unbiased
manner.

Regards,

Dear Sir/Madame,

I would like to respond to the article written by Dr Sue Page on Vaccination.

Vaccines contains Thimerosal used as a preservative and other substances that are very dangerous for the
human body and especially children, pregnant women and elderly. I do not need to be a doctor to
understand that, I can just do some research on it.

I would never inject myself or any member of my family with such a dangerous cocktail and in fact, the
heath of my children is far above the majority of the children in our society.

I do not object to Dr Page using vaccination for herself or her family, but why does she want to ridicule
people or an organization who have a different opinion?
There are many doctors who question the safety and the effectiveness of this medical procedure. More
often than not, when it comes to the issue of vaccination, instead of examining the opposing view points,
the pro-choice side (AVN) is accused to misinformation even though their evidence is scientifically based.

Who benefits from this? Definitely not the babies and children who are injected with so many different
vaccines and with their vaccines schedule increasing every year. Not the pregnant women who have been
advised to be injected with Swine Flu vaccines when proper studies haven't been conducted.

Unfortunately there aren't many studies done on he side effects of vaccines (obviously nobody wants to
fund them) to really prove how dangerous they are! THIS IS ONE OF THE BIGGEST PROBLEMS; THERE
ARE NO STUDIES.

Wouldn't be better for our collective wellbeing to urge for more studies to be done in this area and also to
examine the health of the vaccinated compared with the unvaccinated, through the Medicare database who
is linked with the ACIR?

Kind regards

To Leigh Dayton,

I read the article by Sue Page in your weekend edition I was very
disappointed you would publish a clearly one sided viewpoint on vaccination.
The paper needs to state the facts not sensationalistic viewpoints. Clearly
any death of a healthy baby is deeply disturbing and many vaccination
related injuries continue to go unreported.

I feel the need to send you one basic fact to help you to at least question
vaccinations. I recently had a baby now aged 10 weeks-thanks to god we have
a healthy child. I tried my best to have a healthy pregnancy, eat the right
foods didn't smoke or drink or take any drugs or medication. I was also
educated not to eat too much deep sea fish as it contains higher levels of
mercury than other types of fish. If it's recommended to keep mercury levels
low in pregnancy why is it then OK to give a new born just hours old a
vaccine that has mercury or thimerosal used in it as preservative?

Why not publish a response? Also organizations like AVN are trying to save
humanity and they have no financial interest unlike the big bucks being made
from mass vaccinations by drug companies.

Please don't publish one sided views you only making your newspaper editors
look silly. Informed parents are making informed decisions we are not
crackpots.

Parent of two children