Why we need a Federal Commission Against Corruption 001

Punchline – If this “brown paper bag” corruption is widespread in NSW, imagine what is happening with our Federal Government’s contracting departments where the $$$ stakes are so much higher.

“Public servant Kylie Vernon admits to kickbacks for multimillion-dollar government contracts” at corrupt public servant turns whistleblower in Sydney Morning Herald on 30 September 2016

But – “The investigation found no irregularities in the award of any tenders, nor any evidence to suggest preferential treatment was given to the firms in question.”

  • Nick McKenzie, Kate McClymont, Richard Baker

The NSW corruption watchdog has been given an explosive statement from a self-confessed corrupt senior public servant about kickbacks she received in return for tens of millions of dollars of government contracts.

It is also alleged several public servants may be involved in the scandal, which involves potentially tens of millions of dollars of service contracts at key state government sites across NSW, including the Sydney Harbour foreshore, the Powerhouse Museum, the Art Gallery of NSW and the State Sports Centre.

Former public servant Kylie Vernon admits to taking bribes. Photo: James Brickwood

Fairfax Media has learnt former public servant Kylie Vernon was called to a secret hearing with the Independent Commission Against Corruption in September last year.

She gave the commission details of suspect contracts, colleagues and alleged bribes paid by several NSW contractors.

Ms Vernon was sacked from Sydney Harbour Foreshore Authority (SHFA) in May after Fairfax Media revealed she had testified about receiving kickbacks when she was summoned to appear in a civil proceeding involving two cleaning contractors who had handled state government contracts.

But the involvement of ICAC and the extent of Ms Vernon’s allegations have not before been made public.

A former colleague of Ms Vernon’s told Fairfax Media that over the years her bosses received numerous complaints about Ms Vernon’s preferential treatment of the company at the centre of the allegations.

He also claimed that Ms Vernon was previously interviewed by ICAC in 2002 after two cleaning contractors complained about Ms Vernon’s actions in which her preferred cleaning company was awarded the $5 million contract to clean Darling Harbour.

Ms Vernon, who gave evidence of her corruption during a civil matter in the Supreme Court in March, also tendered a statement she had given to ICAC.

In her statement, she reveals she was first bribed by a large NSW contractor in 1998. She says the contractor “gave me a bag of cash totalling about $10,000”.

Ms Vernon awarded a five-year government contract to the company that had paid her the cash to provide various services at government managed buildings at The Rocks.

“Following the award of The Rocks [contract] … I would have regular Christmas meetings with” the contractor, Ms Vernon’s statement to ICAC says.

“On those occasions, [a company manager] … would give me a bottle of champagne and also in the parcel would be cash. This occurred during the period of the contract.”

Ms Vernon has told ICAC that in subsequent contracts, including a 2005 contract involving sites at Darling Harbour, she helped the company with its tenders.

“[I] was on the panel which awarded such contracts. I recollect telling [the contractor] … that they needed to improve their tender submissions and told them that they had to focus on environmental areas in their tender, as this would be a major criteria in the tender evaluation.

“Between about 1998 to 2013, I received approximately $200,000 in corrupt payments … relating to the assistance and the granting of contracts … by the SHFA.”

Ms Vernon’s statement discloses that she pocketed her last bribe in 2013. During a subsequent attempt to bribe her, Ms Vernon said she refused to take cash given to her by the contractor after a meeting in a car park.

“We then got into his car and drove around the corner to the carpark. We then put my items into my car and he put a cardboard bag into my car. When I got home I looked into the bag, I saw several envelopes containing cash. I decided I did not want it.”

It is understood that ICAC has been briefed on certain public servants, including a former senior official at a major government venue, who have been hired as consultants by private contractors.

However, in a statement to Fairfax Media, a spokesman for the Department of Finance, Services and Innovation said it had completed its investigation into Ms Vernon’s allegations. Ms Vernon refused to co-operate with departmental investigators who came to the conclusion that although Ms Vernon had taken bribes, she did nothing in return. “The investigation found no irregularities in the award of any tenders, nor any evidence to suggest preferential treatment was given to the firms in question.”

Do you know more? kmcclymont@fairfaxmedia.com.au

Graeme Little né Peter Pope

Health Politics Advocate/Lawyer

glittle@fightPHARMAcorruption.com

http://www.fightPHARMAcorruption.com

http://www.gofundme.com/fightPHARMAcorrupt

Andrew Wakefield live exposes Dr Offit

LI 69 – Andrew Wakefield live exposes Dr Offit

The punchline –

The world is witnessing a collision of truth –

there will be only one winner.

You be the Judge.

Andrew Wakefield live exposes Dr Offit

Thirty two minutes of Andrew Wakefield up close and personal on Facebook Live – a man still unyielding in his warning to the world and totally committed to the whole truth coming out.

Lots of highlights, but tune in at the 12 minute mark to hear what Dr Wakefield thinks of the VACCINE King, Dr Offit, the main vaccine spokesperson and a massive personal beneficiary of mandated vaxcines for children, but now also becoming the norm for many adults.

At the 20 min mark, all Australian politicians, health regulators and medical lobby groups should tune in because Dr Wakefield discusses the cover up of the data as to timing of the MMR vacxine, and the fact that the adverse event risk is greater if the monopoly Merck drug is given around 24 months or earlier?

MEGA PUNCHLINE FOR AUSTRALIANS AGED 18 MONTHSWhy does the Australian corrupt regulators mandate our children to get the second MMR vaxcine at 18 months, but the USA regulators hold back the second MMR vaxcine until 48 months.

I am sure someone conflicted at the NHMRC Council level, or the NHMRC CEO Professor Kelso (who received a $14m grant form the NHMRC the year before she was appointed in 2015), or the ATAGI committee, which came up with the Australian Immunisation Handbook recommendations, will have some seriously high powered fairy floss science to explain why we live in the lucky country and get the second MMR jab so early.

Or will I just be given the sound of silence again by the NHMRC, just like my myriad letters to the NHMRC over the last 6 months, and my personal queries at five public forums I attended around the country in July. I might have to dig them all out and show you one by one, to explain why all my energy next will be put into exposing the NHMRC extraordinary corruption and their intimate link with “hyena” style lobby group, the Friends of “cherry-picking” Science in Medicine. Check out the link at “cherry-pickers”, and the 1000 plus members with fingers in EVERY PIE of Australia’s health system. In addition, the cherry-pickers are directly linked to Dr Offit’s lobby group in the US, the Institute of Science in Medicine at ““sin bin” .

At the 47 min mark, Dr Wakefield slams the Australian censorship policy of Australian governments noting “Australia is quite unlike any other country I have ever seen” for censorship.

That just gave me an idea for my next post in relation to vaxcine fraud cover-ups.

First I will write a letter to Quentin McDermott, Four Corners interviewer who is a genuine human being, but unfortunately his ABC bosses covered up my 30 min interview on Four Corners exposing massive corruption in the Essendon peptides story implicating the AFL, ASADA, Essendon officials, the Players Association, and WADA – lucky I have a copy(or two) thanks to a lucky break out there in whistleblower world. My detailed spreadsheet and correspondence with seven officials at Essendon Football Club is a time bomb and would have ensured WADA could not have found the players guilty. This information was provided to most of these parties mentioned above so has been covered up for nearly four years.

Secondly I will write a letter to Ms Pauline Ireland, chief of staff for Victorian Health Minister Jill “foot in mouth disease” Hennessy. I had a recent meeting with Pauline and found her to be a genuine human being with a long track record of public service. Luckily for me, she had never heard of my main foe, the lobby group Friends of Science in Medicine, so that gave me hope that there is still a possibility of senior bureaucratic advice to Minister Hennessy which could represent the balanced truth as to the safety and efficacy of vaccines.

What will I provide Quentin and Pauline?- well why not the original taped conversations of the CDC whistleblower, top scientist William Thompson – naturally covered up by the USA politicians and the CDC for two years so far.

BUT YOU CAN LISTEN FOR YOURSELF AS TO PRECISELY WHAT THE WHISTLEBLOWER WANTS TO SAY WHEN HE GETS HIS DAY IN COURT. Don’t hold your breath –Bush et al still got away with the War on Terror with 9/11 — and guess which countries were in on that UK, Saudia Arabia and Australia.

Interesting our Australian Health Minister Sussan Ley had a chunk of her childhood in Saudia Arabia, where her father was a British Intelligence Officer. When Sussan came to Australia, her father moved into the Australian Federal Police. Might be a co-incidence but neither Minister Ley or Victorian Health Minister Hennessy appear to have any experience in the health industry. Maybe that is not necessary when your intention is to create disease in my opinion.

See Full telephone audio of CDC whistleblower William Thompson

I am not going to tell you where the gems are in this audio link other than about the 3 min mark where the comment is made that the CDC admits the mercury (thimerosal) in the vaccines causes ticks and admits why mercury is still included in the influenza jabs for all of us, including poor pregnant women and their babies to be.

If you cannot be bothered listening – don’t moan to me in a few years complaining you wished you had listened when you get the catch up immunisation schedule for Australian adults linked to passports, drivers licences, health insurance and the 65 year old aged pension.

Wake up all my old venture capital network who are in the 55 to 70 year category and probably run most accountants, solicitors, investment banks, stockbrokers and fund managers- do you want 8 vaccines in a single day with mercury, aluminium, formaldehyde, foreign substances, and trace elements too small to tell us but they say TRUST YOUR GOVERNMENT . Your 6 week old grandchild has been mandated out of a say when the baby lines up for the 8 vaccine jab on one day. Mind boggling and ZERO science for the impact of 8 jabs on a 6 week old baby.

And by the way, what a farce was the 4 year drama about injecting fit Essendon football club players with peptides, compared to the zero interest in why vaccines injected into tiny babies contain undisclosed PEPTIDES?

Graeme Little né Peter Pope

www.fightpharmacorruption.com

My GoFundMe campaign if you can afford $5, $10 or $20 to help wheel the fight

P.s. Whistleblowers call me 0402 904749 if your conscience is burning or if you suddenly realise why your grand kids are crook.

Why does Friends of Science in Medicine use a bio medical engineering student to run its Facebook page?

LI 68 – Why does Friends of Science in Medicine use a bio medical engineering students to run its Facebook page?

I have asked the President of Friends of Science in Medicine (FSM), Professor John Dwyer, whether his FSM executive authorises these important responses by unqualified students?

I will also be asking all health regulators whether this amounts to false and misleading information – a topic they eat for breakfast when reading any website of a natural therapist. Surely the public deserves more respect from Professor Dwyer and the labyrinth of big name medical establishments and practitioners running their political agendas through the social media gang warfare waged by FSM.

My last post on the FSM Facebook follows – the full threads would run for 20 pages or more when I transferred to a word document, and naturally my question remains unanswered:

Peter Little

Today at 10:45pm

Luke Corish I am sorry you have misunderstood my point as to the authority of KvR to represent FSM in its provision of scientific and medical advice on behalf of the Friends of Science in Medicine.

Starting a new Post because I cannot find the relevant thread which has been overrun by lots of other students tagged in with great glee no doubt in order to avoid answering the topic, namely the evidence base supporting ADHD drugs, a prime topic of social concern for large numbers of families and teachers.

My point is that FSM purports to authorise as a FSM spokesperson the person I assume to be KURT VAN RYSWYK, whilst he is a student studying biochemical engineering at your own University Luke, namely Flinders University.

I would think your FSM President, Professor John Dwyer, would not be aware of this Facebook strategy of Friends of Science in Medicine to use students to run the evidence based debates.

Perhaps I should post the Professor’s comments to me when he thought it was inappropriate for me to ask a Friend a question which Professor Dwyer considered to be outside his scope of practice.

A large portion of the FSM’s complaints about natural health practitioners relate to this issue of scope of practice. Even a prominent doctor with a history of nutritional experience and advice has been challenged by AHPRA as to his qualifications to provide nutritional advice. A time bomb for all the GP’s I suppose too.

So hope you understand the importance of the question I asked – I make no inference as to how competent a biochmechanical engineering student Kurt might be – the issue is whether the FSM executive are aware of Kurt’s background and have given him actual authority to represent the FSM doctrines as supported by the 1000 plus members of FSM.

Unless a member of the Executive responds the issue of authorisation remains unanswered.

Is Dr Jack Christie the world’s bravest politician?

Linkedin no 69 – Is Dr Jack Christie the world’s bravest politician?

I am in awe of this man for standing up when so many are so scared and afraid to follow Dr Christie’s example. No doubt he will pay for it.

Please watch this extraordinary 7 min youtube clip of testimony before the Houston City Council on 30 August 2016 by Vaxx movie producer Del Bigtree, Dr Andrew Wakefield and comments from Houston Councillor, Dr Jack Christie (see Jack’s comments at 2 min 40 sec in).

(see end of this article for the video link)

Here is Councillor Member Dr Jack Christie’s CV from Houston City Council website

“Jack Christie is a native Texan, businessman, chiropractic physician and community leader. Jack’s broad range of experience has taken him through Houston’s numerous and richly diverse neighborhoods, and he is proud to serve the entire city as At-Large Position 5 Council Member.

Christie received his Doctor of Chiropractic degree from Texas Chiropractic College and served in the Army Reserves Medical Corps for six years. He received a certificate in International Relations upon completion of graduate courses at the Bush School of Government at Texas A&M. He now runs two successful Houston-area practices that care for over 20,000 patients. As a dedicated small business owner for over thirty years, Christie lends his expertise to the local business community through his position on the Board of Directors for the Spring Branch-Memorial Chamber of Commerce.

Jack’s previous elected positions prior to arriving at Houston City Council include his three terms as a State Board of Education board member and three terms on the Board of Trustees of Spring Branch Independent School District. Christie was elected President of Spring Branch ISD Board of Trustees and was appointed Chairman of Texas State Board of Education from 1995-2000.

Christie’s background in science and education has made him a sought-after education and technology expert. He has appeared on NBC’s Today, ABC’s World News, CNN and CNN Money networks and has been quoted in the Wall Street Journal and New York Times and Time, Fortune and Wired magazines. After being selected from a pool of nominees by the state’s premier names in science, Dr. Jack Christie was inducted into the Texas Science Hall of Fame in 2000.

While an accomplished businessman and a recognized name in his many fields, Jack Christie is most clearly defined by his unrelenting drive to serve his community. Thirty years ago Jack founded the Annual 5th Ward Ice Skating Party and has acted as its organizer and underwriter every year since. He served on the Big Brothers, Big Sisters of Greater Houston Board of Directors for five years; he volunteered as a Big Brother himself for eight years and has had the unparalleled privilege of watching his “littles” grow into successful and self-assured adults in their own rights.

Jack is the proud father of John, Katherine and Patrick. He is an active member of St. Cecilia’s Church and an Eagle Scout. Jack has been an avid runner for more than forty years, competing and finishing marathons and the Ironman triathlon in Hawaii. “

===========================================================

No doubt Microsoft ( whoops politically incorrect – Linkedin) will censor me for posting this link.Who stole my initial 66 Linkedin Posts last week?

Enough is enough.

Let’s debate not intimidate.

Graeme Little né Peter Pope

glittle@fightpharmacorruption.com

www.fightpharmacorruption.com

Facebook under Peter Little: https://www.facebook.com/graeme.little.9849/about

+61 (0) 402 904749

VIDEO: https://www.facebook.com/VaxXed/videos/744183999057975/

NHMRC plans future but ignores the past

Linkedin Post 68 (first 66 posts were stolen) – Why is Australia’s peak health and medical research authority, the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) planning big time for its future, but ignoring its past in its Structural Review of NHMRC Research Grants Program, which just closed for submissions on 25 August 2016?

My punchline in my lodged submission is :

The NHMRC review committee should first conduct

a HEALTH BENEFITS OUTCOME REVIEW

of how grants of nearly $9 billion

 have actually benefited

the health of Australians since 2000.

This is my full submission to the NHMRC Grants Program review lodged 25 August 2016.

(In addition, I am making a separate related submission to the NHMRC for the establishment of a targeted minimum 5% p.a. to be applied to natural therapy research grants, mirroring a similar targeted grant for indigenous health).

“My submission is designed to protect the longevity of the NHMRC’s Grant Program in its entirety, by recommending an initial HEALTH BENEFITS OUTCOME REVIEW to account for how the near $9 billion of grants has actually benefited the health of Australians since 2000 in accordance with your annual report at page 118 – Note 1.

.Accordingly, I will not be discussing any individual alternative models currently put forward for consultation, due to a fundamental gap in the source information provided.

 From my experience as a venture capitalist specialising in translating the cream of Australian scientists’ work, primarily in the fields of biotechnology and IT, I consider a fundamental step has been bypassed in the formulation of Alternative models 1 to 3.

 I attended personally five of the NHMRC forums and spoke extensively to various members of the Committee and key staff after these excellent consultations. My discussions clearly established there has been no adequate analysis of the outcome of 15 years of grant funding approaching $9 billion to date.

 In particular, the main allocation method has been by peer review panels focusing upon track record as the key driver. Track record has been generally interpreted as the breadth of academic journal citation, and was fondly denoted even by the NHMRC CEO as a bit of an old boys club.

 As a venture capitalist, I have had vast practical experience, including pioneering the $5 billion dollar Pooled Development Fund program in the 90s and operating under the Management and Investment Company Scheme from the 80’s.

 I submit any new taxpayer dollars should be channeled into research models that best achieved the single outcome that drives the NHMRC – see Note 1 of your Annual Report 2014-15 which clearly states on page 118 ( why is it buried there?)

 “The NHMRC is structured to meet one outcome – That Australia’s health system benefits from high quality health and medical research conducted at the highest ethical standard, well-developed research capabilities and sound evidence-based advice that informs health policy and practice.”

 So I would like to recommend to the NHMRC review committee you first conduct a HEALTH BENEFITS OUTCOME REVIEW to account for how the $9 billion of grants has actually benefited the health of Australians since 2000.

 This audit style examination should consider a cross section of say 10% of the grants randomly chosen with an analysis of KPI’s such as grant amount received; grant dollars spent; third party dollars leveraged in partnership or commercial collaboration; stage of translation; time to translate commercially; intellectual property capitalised; jobs creation; economic growth and related indicators; impact upon the health budget; impact on health outcomes for Australians; citation of science in peak journals such as Cochrane; whether discarded by Cochrane due to flawed methodology or bias or conflict of interest; and which “science research model” alternative was adopted under each particular grant.

 Once this audit style information becomes available, the Committee would then be armed with appropriate data to decide which of Models 1 to 3 would best maximize these key KPI’s from the last 15 years NHMRC grants’ experience.

 The NHMRC CEO, Professor Kelso, made it clear at the public forums of her key aims to ENCOURAGE CREATIVITY, INNOVATION and FLEXIBILITY.

 Please take the time to be creative and flexible with your approach to the current consultation and carefully consider my submission as a precursor to locking in a plan for the next 15 years.

My experience with the Pooled Development Fund program, which commenced in 1992, but closed for new investment in 2006, was that NO OUTCOME STUDY was completed to show how the $5 billion raised by 128 individually, managed investment companies targeting medium and small size Australian companies, actually contributed to our economy. I consider this typical approach of so many Government incentive programs using taxpayers’ money to be a disappointing one as I think there is frequently a catalytic impact rarely discovered.

 So for the sake of all Australians, please complete first a HEALTH BENEFITS OUTCOME REVIEW to satisfy your reason for existence:

 “The NHMRC is structured to meet one outcome – That Australia’s health system benefits…”.

========================================================

Unfortunately the NHMRC’s current evaluation prime tool called  Measuring up 2013, does not address how Australia’s health system benefits, but focuses upon the peer group citation frequency, a debatable correlation with Australia’s health. It states:

“Measuring up 2013 is the latest in a series of bibliometric studies, first published in 1996, of the outputs of NHMRC research funding. For the first time, this analysis focused on comparing the impact of NHMRC-supported research with that of other Australian health and medical research.

The findings in the report show continuing strong performance by Australian health and medical research overall and by NHMRC-supported research in particular. For example: 

  • 20,960 NHMRC-supported publications accounted for about 31% of all Australian health and medical research output in 2005– 2009, up from 26% in 2002–2006.
  • The number of health and medical research publications that have NHMRC support was 68% higher in 2005–2009 than in 2002-2006, whereas the total Australian health and medical research publications increased by 44% during the same period. Australia now contributes 3.1% of the world’s biomedical research.
  • NHMRC-supported publications received 60% more citations than the world average. The average citation rate for Australian health and medical research publications was 17% above the world average.
  • In all fields and sub-fields, NHMRC-supported publications had a relative citation impact above that of other Australian health and medical research publications that were not supported by NHMRC funding
  • More than 2.5% of NHMRC funded publications are in the top 1% most cited papers world wide.
  • Australia had 1,214 papers in the top 1% most cited papers in the world, and almost half of those had NHMRC support.
  • Nearly 40% of NHMRC-supported publications involved international collaborations, from over 110 countries.

Bibliometric analysis involves many variables and should not be used to draw conclusions selectively or in isolation from other measures. Some caveats to keep in mind:

  • There are differences in methodology between this report and the previous 2009 report, mainly the change to a different classification system for fields of research and the addition of three new NHMRC grants schemes.
  • As there are wide variations in citation practices between fields of research, citations are quoted relative to the norm in the field.”

 

 Do you have any comments about how our taxpayers funds can be better allocated to benefit our health?

Graeme Little né Peter Pope

glittle@fightpharmacorruption.com

www.fightpharmacorruption.com

Facebook under Peter Little: https://www.facebook.com/graeme.little.9849/about

+61 (0) 402 904749

Imagine two special mums turbocharging your life (part 2)

LI 67 – This is my first post since “forces” unknown last night stole the 66 Linkedin Posts I have written since May 2015.

Coupled with strange “goings-on” with my Facebook account in recent weeks, I am learning the hard way that being the founder of http://www.fightpharmacorruption.com.au is like being a rabbit at night with an army of shooters with spotlights. Good luck you might say. Well rabbits know a lot about holes to dive into to survive.

But, you get to the point in life at 60 when you fear nothing, particularly as I reflect today at my mum June’s second “funeral” celebration after her official funeral on 2 June 2016. This time I was at Lovell House in Caulfield, a Melbourne suburb, the amazingly caring nursing home in which my mum spent around 30 months coping with her dementia meltdown. A special memorial service was held to celebrate the sad end to eleven lives of nursing home patients who had passed on this year, from a total of around 40 resident patients.

A moving service entitled “A time of Reflection and Hope” was conducted with grieving relatives and many of the current residents in various conditions, many sadly close to their finale too. For four or five of those who passed on, no one was present to say goodbye. Wow.

I have long held the dream to establish a health retreat after my dinted faculties post a messy and devastatingly unexpected divorce in 2004, led to life changing health regimes learnt at many of Australia’s famous health retreats.

Visits started in late 2004 including the two Golden Doors, Camp Eden (now Eden), Gwinganna, and the most amazing of all, Living Valley Springs, when I was accompanied by my then teenage son Andrew, now 28, who later went on to win a State Boxing Championship at 21.

I have had two false starts launching a health retreat – one with a joint venture proposal from Golden Door in 2007 at my former majestic stud farm at Shoreham on the Mornington Peninsula, then known as The Pines Stud. The 2008 global financial crisis, finished that dream off after the lengthy divorce battle weakened my financial position.

The second false start flowed from my purchase of a special 50 acre farm on French Island in 2009, “Beauciel”, the private retreat of Australia’s iconic family, the Minogues, where Kylie and Dannii spent infrequent visits during their hectic schedule. The Minogue ownership since 2005 included the special period when Kylie was recovering from her well publicised battle with breast cancer. I often sat on the couches the family left behind wondering what Kylie was thinking back then, and whether she would ever get to sing again. Her comeback concert DVD chilled me to the bone as I watched it on my own so many times, visualising the day Kylie would join me in my fight for natural health respect.

A year prior to my French Island purchase, I recall a special time on my near month long walk in China in 2008, when I sponsored that dream of Australia’s other “Grease” fame darling, Olivia Newton-John, in her Great Walk to Beijing, to raise funds for the Austin Hospital’s proposed cancer centre to be named after Olivia. I recall the day I walked for some period alone with Dannii Minogue in the desolate Gobi Desert, when Dannii shared her feelings about her sister’s brave challenge, but also the tragic loss of her best girlfriend to cancer.

The mind numbing desert walk that day finished with just three of us trudging through the sand road to a never ending finish line – myself, Andrew Gaze, Australia’s celebrated basketballer and another great Australian, fireman Scott Morrison, who last month lost his long 15 year battle with cancer, after experiencing his first bout of chemo incredibly on the same day, 9/11/2001, as the Twin Towers were brought down in that terror attack of all time. Thanks for the batton change Scottie on that final leg – one of your mottos I will carry for ever – Fear of Nothing – surely a fireman’s lot in life.

I always knew I was destined to open my French Island Retreat, with the support of the Minogue sisters. But alas, my constant visualisations failed to be realised, as strange quirks of fate have drawn me into first using my unique life, network and business experiences to do my small part in the goal to Fight Pharma Corruption, rampant I say in Australia.

One day my dream will be realised to create a rural health retreat close to the city surrounds, but I now want to expand the concept to embrace the teenagers battling for their minds and a purpose, and the elderly, in the twilight of their life. The joys of nature are such a support for fragile minds as I experienced so personally with my love of medicinal herb growing. I looked around today at the dementia home inmates and thought how cruel to effectively lock up our old in city “prisons” as their countdown to future realms takes its course. The nurses are amazing – a job well beyond me – but surely we can create something more appropriate to see out our days.

If you managed to read to here, I am deeply indebted and my mum would be proud.

So because I am saddened my post written on the day of my mum’s funeral on 2 June 2016 has been stolen last night, I am repeating it below. Maybe you can read it another time, and think of your mum, and how you think we should work together to create happier end games for those who have reared us with so much love and caring.

My mum deserved better but I did not know at the time how to help her – I did manage to wean her off anti-psychotic death drug Risperdal, subsequently banned by our TGA in August 2015 for my mother’s condition. So hopefully at least on that Big Pharma drug front, I helped my mum survive her final year in a more mobile, and less comatised state.

=================================================

My post written on 2 June 2016 (but removed from Linkedin on 22 August 2016 by forces unknown)

“Peace with my Mum” or

“Imagine two special mums turbocharging you for life”

Stairway to Heaven

Imagine two special mums turbocharging you for life.

My first mother I never met, Kathlyn Hilary Pope, born 23 December 1930 and died 26 December 1980, aged 50 years.

My real mum with the mercurial job of caring for me for over sixty years, passed away peacefully on Thursday, 26 May 2016, after 11 days palliative care at Lovell House in Alma Road, Caulfield in Victoria, a very special high care nursing home owned by the Anglican Church.

Lovell could well be short for LOVE ALL – for that is what those beautiful nurses do no matter how antagonistic the “guests” become, as agitation is a common symptom in nursing homes these days. I know I would be for sure.

My mother’s name was Irene June Little, born on 16 May 1926. They say you never really accept your mum has gone. I kinda feel she is very much with me now, and who knows, maybe we will find scientific evidence to substantiate what I very strongly feel.

So how is your maths?

That makes my mum’s lifespan 90 extraordinary years, taking in the Great Depression, of course the Second World War, then TV, then Man walking on the moon, and then well – the bulk of us know the rest of the main stories.

Luckily we got to celebrate the big milestone two days before her true birthday, with a small family gathering at mum’s nursing home with my 95 year old dad Ian, my sister Ruth, and my youngest son Andrew (27). Eldest son Christopher (29), lives and works in Copenhagen.

Christopher just flew in last night in time for the funeral today. Sadly he lost a 24 year old cousin to suicide only a few months back so sadly this trip will rekindle that horror movie of life, played out in gripping tragedy for family after family these days. They haven’t invented the drug for the suicide disease – I guess you know what I’d really like to say but today is Mum’s day and I will hold my disruptive tongue for other mental health conditions.

We have a funny family just like yours, and for reasons which I am too choked up to find answers this week, I was not asked by the family to speak about my mother at the funeral service today.

Close friends know that “making THE speech” has been my family duty at all milestone family events in the past, so this will be the first time in family history that I was denied the privilege. Fear of how I speak from the heart can be validly confronting to those who would like to be politically correct, whether family, friends or foe, and I guess particularly so on such an occasion of tribute to my mum.

Maybe I was meant by my mum to instead go public about how I feel about her, perhaps on social media, a medium which my mum never got to experience. Mum never shirked emotions with me and we often would have competitions in “door slamming” and “decibel voice training” when I was young – usually kissing and making up pretty quickly – mind you the kissing stopped for a while going through that teenager phase, such a long distant memory now. Don’t think I got too many elsewhere for that matter – a bit of a late bloomer, and incredibly shy, a trait I obviously overcame as my confidence in myself grew.

And of course, being such a special caring and empathetic mum, she was highly supportive of my attempts not long after my first divorce at 35 years of age to find out about my first mother too. My mum was always ready to talk to me about my adoption, which effectively happened on day 5 of my life back on 2 September, 1955. That makes me a “TV baby I reckon” with Australian TV starting up back then on 19 September, 1956, just after I turned one.

Hopefully one day I might be on TV again – perhaps Millionaire Hot Seat and win some money to get back on my feet again – my son Christopher won $20,000 two years ago. I am sure my mum would have been beaming when I went on that school kid quiz show called “It’s Academic” with Danny Webb the host – my two fellow school mates and I back then were in Year 7. Strangely one became a Queens Counsel, and the other is now a Victorian Supreme Court Judge.

Not easy talking about your mum but sadly on the actual day of her 90th birthday, 15 May 2016, Mum’s doctor decided it was time to start on that dreaded phase – palliative care where all medicines are eliminated, food restricted, and you can guess the rest.

Mum suffered that well known end of life disease called dementia, potentially the biggest killer of them all, and in particular, vascular dementia, involving frequent mini strokes.

All of our family have had very special experiences trying to cope with this slow meltdown over six or seven years of mum’s capacity to arrange her thoughts, recall events, or even do the simple things we take for granted like reading or eating. Curiously Mum’s childhood passion for numbers, and work experience in banking (her father was a bank manager), allowed her to still do my tests of additions of simple integers deep into the closing phase of her debilitating and sad ending in many ways.

Our minds are curious things, and mine is right up there as all my close friends and family would well know, and mum and I would often exchange ideas about how our thoughts worked, or didn’t work, or occasionally overwork, in my case. I think I did understand a lot about her failing of the mind.

Lucky for us with Mum, she always seemed to recognise us, and her close friends – I was always preparing myself for that recognition to fade away, but we were all spared that horror movie.

Visiting mum was difficult in the 11 days of palliative care, as I trundled in each afternoon, wondering if today was the day. What a fighter, she wanted to hang on – she must have had her thoughts which we can only ever surmise.

With mum being largely motionless and unable to say words after about seven days in palliative care, I just became resigned to the thought that was the end of my physical connection with Mum.

But then on Day 8 when she had been moved to lay on her side, rather than face up – she moved her hand and placed it on my cheek, and held it there for what seemed at least ten minutes.

Not only could I strongly feel her touch, but she was able to make a facial expression, and actually smile at me, gazing deep through my eyes as if to EYEPRINT me for life, maybe thinking:

“Graeme you are truly chosen.

Follow your passion.

You are called to stand up

Be proud

and always respect your mums”

The life of an adopted son is one of being chosen.

I sense that feeling of being chosen keeps repeating in my various life passions.

How lucky I am. In this day and age, that right to be chosen has disappeared in most western countries, as “unwanted” children are aborted legally – sadly one in four pregnancies in Australia. I certainly understand a mother’s right to freedom with her body, but I kind of feel for the foetus that never got to have a mum like I did, and an extraordinary life I have lived, with a future shaping up to be possibly my most fulfilling.

Freedom of Choice is such an exceptionally complex issue. Easy to say. Another time and place.

So I prepare to head to my mum’s funeral.

Today is that one day of the year – the day you dread. The day you have to bury your mother, and prepare for the afterlife of possibilities and speculations, which has intrigued mankind since the garden of Eden.

Whilst I no longer bat openly for any religion, I do sense an extraordinary spiritual presence at special times, and often unexpectedly.

I sense we are all connected.

I know my connection with my mum will never die.

To my brave mum – my pink ballerina we made together at the end will be near me, not that I will need any reminders.

xox

little-mum

Family Court ignores gold standard Cochrane evidence to give chemo to cancer boy Oshin Kiszko after parents refuse

The Punchline from

 https://fightpharmacorruption.com/donations/

Why did the WA Family Court IGNORE the globally accepted gold standard Cochrane evidence, before ordering chemotherapy for six year old boy, Oshin Kiszko, suffering brain cancer, after his parents refused? 

The Cochrane Collaboration review of chemotherapy treatment for brain cancer known as Medulloblastama concluded –

“The meta-analysis showed no significant difference between treatment including, and treatment not including, chemotherapy”

– see Chemotherapy for children with medulloblastoma – Michiels – 2015 – The Cochrane Library

My post covers eight points:

  1. What the Cochrane review concluded about the scientific evidence?
  2. Why did the Family Court over-ride the parents’  informed consent BUT IGNORE the gold standard Cochrane evidence?
  3. Why did the media report this legal action BUT IGNORE the gold standard Cochrane evidence?
  4. Why did the doctors overide the parents’  informed consent BUT IGNORE the gold standard  Cochrane evidence?
  5. Why did the Hospital support its doctors, and take legal action to overide the parents’  informed consent BUT IGNORE the gold standard  Cochrane evidence?
  6. Why did the WA Health Minister, and the Commonwealth Health Minister condone this legal action BUT IGNORE the gold standard  Cochrane evidence?
  7. Why did the AMA condone this legal action BUT IGNORE the gold standard  Cochrane evidence?
  8. Why did the Friends of Science in Medicine condone this legal action BUT IGNORE the gold standard  Cochrane evidence?

1. What the Cochrane review concluded about the scientific evidence? 

The Cochrane Collaboration review of chemotherapy treatment for brain cancer known as Medulloblastama found at Chemotherapy for children with medulloblastoma – Michiels – 2015 – The Cochrane Library concluded “the meta-analysis showed no significant difference between treatment including, and treatment not including, chemotherapy”.

Why is it that we “consumers” can easily read this Review at Chemotherapy for children with medulloblastoma – Michiels – 2015 – The Cochrane Library, but no treating doctor, public hospital administrator, Health Minister, legal counsel or investigative journalist could find this information?

I can always bet on the Friends of Science in Medicine and the AMA to ignore any gold standard Cochrane review of “orthodox” treatments, because they want to preserve their gravy train of subsidies, NHMRC research grants, Big Pharma “marketing benefits” and of course the public’s trust in them to be the guardian of our $150 billion p.a. health system.

Other key Cochrane conclusions include:

  • None of the studies evaluated quality of life.
  • the total number of identified RCTs was eight.
  • Seven studies compared children with medulloblastoma receiving chemotherapy as a part of their treatment with children not receiving chemotherapy as part of their treatment.
  • One study compared children with medulloblastoma receiving standard-dose RT without chemotherapy with children receiving reduced-dose RT with chemotherapy.
  • We excluded 3459 articles based on the title or abstract (or both) since they were not RCTs, did not compare children treated with chemotherapy with children treated without chemotherapy, did not include children at all or did not include children with medulloblastoma.
  • We excluded a further four articles after assessing the full-text article for reasons described in the Characteristics of excluded studies table. 
  • None of the seven studies blinded care providers and participants to treatment. However, it should be noted that due to the nature of the interventions blinding of care providers and participants was impossible.
  • In all studies, it was unclear if the outcome assessor was blinded to treatment.
  • In conclusion, selection bias (based on concealment of treatment allocation) could not be ruled out in five of the seven included studies.
  • Performance bias (based on blinding of the care provider and participant) could not be ruled out in any of the included studies.
  • Detection bias (based on blinding of the outcome assessor) could not be ruled in any of the studies evaluating EFS/DFS and adverse effects.
  • Attrition bias (based on the use of an ITT analysis and completeness of follow-up) could not be ruled out in any of the studies evaluating EFS/DFS, OS and adverse effects.
  • Unfortunately, different definitions of study end points, numerous chemotherapy regimens and doses (none of which would be considered standard of care today), changes inherent to three decades of technological and histo/biological knowledge and the fact that, in most studies, results for different risk groups were not reported separately were major obstacles in comparing the results of the different studies.
  •  The studies used three different definitions of EFS and DFS, and one study provided no definition of DFS. This made pooling of the results of all studies impossible.
  • Eleven different drugs were administered in seven different regimens and the actual received doses of chemotherapy were not mentioned in most of the studies. For evaluation of the effect of chemotherapy, this is important information. The lack of efficacy of a certain chemotherapy regimen might be due to dose reduction due to toxicity.
  • Adverse effects (grade 3 or higher) were scarcely reported. Most adverse events were only mentioned in one RCT, or data were only provided for the chemotherapy arm and not for the RT only arm. Thus, as the risk of underreporting was real, caution must be taken in interpreting these results.
  • No evidence of effect’, as identified in this review, is not the same as ‘evidence of no effect’. A benefit of chemotherapy cannot be excluded.

I have prepared a separate post on the workings of the Cochrane Collaboration and its peak standing in the medical community globally to be found at http://www.linkedin.com/pulse/systematic-cochrane-review-findings-covered-up-our-graeme?published=t

Cochrane reviews are designed simply for the public, and have a detailed analysis for the professionals as well, just like our PBS drugs do with the Consumer Medicines Information (CMI) and Product Information (PI) documents lodged by manufacturers with the TGA.

2. Why did the Family Court over-ride the parents’  informed consent BUT IGNORE the gold standard Cochrane evidence?

Quite simply, the Cochrane evidence was never tabled. Why not? It rarely  is quoted when it comes to so-called “orthodox mainstream medicine” or our “safe and proven vaccine drug cocktail industry”. 

Cochrane evidence seriously challenges the safety and efficacy of most orthodox treatments in Australia, and all vaccination drug cocktails administered to our pregnant mothers, babies, children and now adults.

Even a cynical health politics advocate like me can still be quite shocked and disappointed after reading the judgment of The Honourable Justice Stephen Thackray Chief Judge of the Family Law Court of WA, a now landmark decision for medical kidnapping, all too common in the USA. The Chief Judge’s decision over-rode a naturopath mother’s decision not to consent to chemotherapy treatment for her 6 year old son Oshin, suffering the traumatic brain cancer condition of Medulloblastoma.

I have included the judgment in a separate post, and endeavoured to  highlight in bold the words I felt were most relevant, to help those of you concerned at what has happened to Australia – the once “lucky country”. Follow this link at http://www.linkedin.com/pulse/highlighted-judgment-from-oshkin-kiszko-cancer-chemo-graeme?published=t

A few highlights follow of the judgment of the WA Chief Judge of the Family Court, in the case of DIRECTOR CLINICAL SERVICES, CHILD & ADOLESCENT HEALTH SERVICES and ANGELA JADE KISZKO, First Respondent and ADRIAN COLIN ASTRACHAN, Second Respondent  [2016] FCWA 19 include:

  • “I consider that the law is beyond doubt.
  • I do take into account the fact that there will be, in all probability, a number of serious adverse impacts for Oshin.
  • But when called upon to act cautiously, recognising that I am not making the decision about my own child, but making the decision about the child of others, I consider that the prospect of the long-term cure is the matter that must most heavily weigh in the decision, and it is the reason I propose to order that the treatment commence on Sunday after Oshin has had his birthday party.”

No court should have made that order for chemotherapy to take place.

I intend to write to the Chief Judge of each Family Court and put them on notice of the existence of Cochrane Collaboration reviews – we will all be holding our breath for a lifetime waiting for any of our regulators to let these Judges in on the gold star evidence secret.

3. Why did the media report this legal action BUT IGNORE the gold standard Cochrane evidence?

This media article summarises the initial order for chemo treatment – Court orders chemotherapy for cancer-stricken boy Oshin Kiszko after parents refuse

This second media article summarises a second hearing where radiation treatment was not ordered, and proceedings adjourned – Oshin Kizsko: Win for parents of boy with brain cancer as court refuses to order radiotherapy

I intend to write to the Editor of each major Australian media outlet and put them on notice of the existence of Cochrane Collaboration reviews. Let’s see if the media bias changes – I doubt it.

4. Why did the doctors overide the parents’ informed consent BUT IGNORE the gold standard Cochrane evidence?

I think this is the most critical question of all. I will write to these doctors and let’s see if they respond. I strongly believe AHPRA should discipline these doctors to the full extent possible in a landmark medical disciplinary hearing focusing upon why they ignore scientific evidence of the highest standard, which shows treatments are not proven effective and generally have major adverse event risks.

5. Why did the Hospital support its doctors, and take legal action to overide the parents’  informed consent BUT IGNORE the gold standard  Cochrane evidence?

Child and Adolescent Health Service, Western Australia comprising:

is part of the Western Australian Department of Health. The Child and Adolescent Health Service is committed to providing high quality paediatric care to young West Australians.

A media release from Professor Frank Daly, chief executive of Child and Adolescent Health Service, said: “It is acknowledged that there are potential significant side effects to chemotherapy and radiotherapy. The response to these treatments will vary from child to child and it is not known in advance what the full impact of treatment will be for the individual child”.

Some immediate side effects can be improved with pain relieving and anti-nausea medication, to a point. Longer term it has been acknowledged publicly that Oshin could have visual, hearing and cognitive impairment. Other medical problems that will likely arise cannot be predicted.

The statement adds: “CAHS has a duty of care to ensure that all children attending Princess Margaret Hospital are provided with the best available medical treatment… treatment with the aim of cure and not palliative care, remains the best treatment for the child”.

I find it very interesting a WA government hospital can make claims it can cure cancer and take action in courts to prove it, over-riding the clear Cochrane evidence? Lucky they don’t practice natural therapies.

6. Why did the WA Health Minister, and the Commonwealth Health Minister condone this legal action BUT IGNORE the gold standard Cochrane evidence?

The Big Pharma corruption machine ensures a cover-up of Cochrane evidencewhenever it suits.

I am genuinely saddened for patients, as it always seems to be in the best interests of our Governments, Health Ministers, the NHMRC, the TGA, the ACCC and health lobby groups, like the AMA, Friends of Science in Medicine, and the Skeptics associations, to turn a blind eye when it comes to mainstream medicine and the vaccination agenda.

However, not satisfied with ignoring the evidence base behind orthodox medicine, the same unsavoury alliance of Big Pharma, regulators, scientists and lobbyists frequently drag out Cochrane evidence to attack natural therapy professions, their practitioners, and ultimately their patients like me.

I actually learnt about Cochrane evidence first hand in 2013, when our Federal Government, through health regulator AHPRA, strongly relied upon Cochrane Collaboration evidence to seek deregistration of a natural medicine practitioner, in the longest running VCAT health practitioner case, despite the practitioner citing 906 peer reviewed journal articles on his website.

Ultimately the VCAT injustices in that case transformed my life mission into my quest, with your help, to fight pharma corruption – see www.fightpharmacorruption.com.

7. Why did the AMA condone this legal action BUT IGNORE the gold standard  Cochrane evidence?

National chairman of the AMA ethics committee Michael Gannon told 720 ABC Perth it was an extremely rare case. See link at AMA ethics committee supports treatment ( 8 April 2016).

“The doctor’s responsibility is always to do the best for a patient, and when it comes to the care of a child, they need to consider the rights of the parent or guardian,” he said.

Dr Gannon said it was standard practice for complex cases to be discussed by a multi-disciplinary team including a surgeon, oncologists and others.

“I have no doubt that a case like this would’ve been discussed extensively by the doctor in charge before they took the difficult and, I think, the very brave step of involving the courts,” he said.

It is very difficult to try and make the case to a parent or guardian that you think you know better than their wishes for their own child.

Dr Gannon said it was a vexed and difficult ethical issue.

The burden of proof is very high, this is not something the doctors do commonly, it’s not something that they would want to do,” he said.

The case of the medical evidence would have to be extremely strong before a judge would dream of going against the wishes of a parent or guardian.”

It is a scary thought that none of these pillars of the mainstream medical community could reference the gold standard independent evidence supplied by Cochrane reviewers, preferring biased medical evidence, no doubt discarded by Cochrane when completing its systematic review.

Dr Gannon has had a bit more luck lately than poor OSHIN and his parents, being since promoted to head honcho of AMA – see Dr Michael Gannon promoted to AMA President. No doubt the new AMA President’s “ethics” background cemented his appointment, as steering the AMA requires the perpetual cover-up of Cochrane evidence for conventional treatments.

When will the public wake up please – unfortunately I doubt the AMA ever will?

Why did the Friends of Science in Medicine condone this legal action BUT IGNORE the gold standard  Cochrane evidence?

The anti-Nature lobby group , Friends of “cherry-picking” Science in Medicine, highlights the importance of Cochrane gold standard evidence on its website at www.scienceinmedicine.org, to strike out against any of the 20 natural therapy professions, or a scapegoat natural practitioner from time to time.

“Speaking with a strong voice provided by our constituency we will make every effort to ensure that Australians have access to interventions and medicines backed by science-based tertiary education and scientific evidence of their clinical effectiveness.”

Check out  also this statement from the Friends of Science website

“All Research should be aimed at the evaluation of the long-term safety, efficacy and cost-effectiveness of alternative and so-called complementary interventions; all trials should be pre-registered and all results reported in mainstream, scientifically, peer-reviewed journals. With the introduction of the Cochrane Collaboration based on evidence-based health care, clinical practice and Medicine, increasing numbers of Cochrane Reviews on CAMs have uncovered the poor evidence on which their claims are based.

CAM and conventional interventions either work or do not work. Valid scientific evaluation can identify those which work. Those that do not work, whether conventional or CAM, should be discarded.”

I will also post this Post on the Friends of Science’ s Facebook page.  I am confident from past experience they will ignore my substance, and “cleverly” divert readers attention, or just simply attack me personally which is their favourite social media custom for anyone who challenges their opinion as to the adequate evidence supporting conventional medicine.

What action steps are open to Oshin’s parents now?

The government authorities are generally under a model litigant requirement to put all relevant evidence before a Court, so the Cochrane review should have been tabled.

I consider all medical practitioners involved in Oshin’s treatment should be subject to disciplinary action by the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency (AHPRA) for a start, and possibly the local health services complaints authority.

Our Federal and State governments should inform all health disciplinary Tribunals and the Family Court of the existence of Cochrane Collaboration reviews of most common medical interventions.

The legal decision should be annulled as a precedent and compensation awarded by the WA government to Oshin and his family.

A public apology to OSHIN and his parents by all relevant parties who failed to represent the gold standard Cochrane medical evidence before the Court, or in any media reporting of this case, or Ethics Committee.

Join me in Adelaide on 12 July to hear Friends of Science’s Assoc Prof Helen Marshall talk about her “proven” vaccination science for pregnant women

The punchline?

Is there any “proven” safe and effective evidence for providing whooping cough and influenza vaccines to pregnant women as claimed on Channel 9              by Assoc Prof Helen Marshall?

Before all of you in Adelaide decide to join me, first check out my letter to Assoc Prof Marshall, with lots of QUESTIONS, in relation to her forthcoming seminar at Adelaide University, entitled “Pregnancy Protection” – see Pregnancy Protection seminar by Assoc Prof Helen Marshall on Tues 12 July at 5.30pm at Adel Uni

 FROM : Graeme Little né Peter Pope

 glittle@fightpharmacorruption.com 

www.fightpharmacorruption.com

 DATE : 10 July 2016

ATT : Assoc Prof Helen Marshall, Friends of Science in Medicine Member; Deputy Director, University of Adelaide; Medical Director VIRTU & A-Prof Vaccinology / Affiliate Lecturer helen.marshall@adelaide.edu.au

tel: 08-8161-8115 http://www.adelaide.edu.au/directory/helen.marshall

Your Recent research

McMillan M, Porritt K, Kralik D, Costi L, Marshall H. Influenza vaccination during pregnancy: a systematic  review of foetal safety. Vaccine 2015;33(18):2108-2117 Conflicts disclosed by MARSHALL H. HM is supported by an NHMRC Career Development Fellowship (1016272). HM’s institution has received research grants from vaccine manufacturers GSK, Pfizer, Novartis and Sanofi Pasteur for investigator-led research. HM has been an investigator for studies funded by pharmaceutical companies INCLUDING Pfizer, GSK, Sanofi-Pasteur, Novartis. Travel support has been provided to her institutions by GSK and/or Sanofi-Pasteur for HM to present scientific data at international meetings. MM has received travel support by GSK to present at a national immunization conference. There are no other potential conflicts of interest.

Your Recent NHMRC grants

https://www.nhmrc.gov.au/national_register_public_health_research/48630 This was a four year grant of $396,061 to Assoc Prof Marshall awarded in 2011, to which a NHMRC website search showed the following results:

Grant outcome summary (if available): No data available 

Publications arising from this project: No data available

Dear Assoc Prof Marshall,

I look forward to attending your “Pregnancy Protection” talk on Tuesday 12 July 2016, and hope you will be able to address some evidence based questions, which have been raised with me, by a mother unable to get answers from the head immunisation nurse and paediatrician at a leading Children’s Hospital.

These questions relate to the Australian Immunisation Handbook’s informed consent requirements, and are adapted to also address your recommendations of influenza and whooping cough vaccination drugs during pregnancy.

I include your preliminary comments in your brochure for reference taken from this link at Pregnancy Protection seminar by Assoc Prof Helen Marshall on Tues 12 July at 5.30pm at Adel Uni

“Pregnancy can be a confusing time for soon-to-be parents, raising many questions about how to ensure their baby’s health.

 While the benefits of infant immunisations are generally well accepted, they don’t commence until the child reaches six weeks, making their lives up until then a genuine ‘danger zone’.

 Immunisation during pregnancy offers another way to protect newborns during this period of vulnerability. Proven safe and effective—and offering the dual benefit of preventing disease in both expectant mothers and their infants—vaccines to protect against influenza and whooping cough are now widely recommended, including in Australia. Yet many pregnant women miss out on being protected, often due to lack of awareness, information or opportunity.

 This timely presentation will explore the evidence for vaccination during pregnancy, and how its access and uptake might be improved.”

Your recent additional comments on Channel 9 include claims you have strong data that show vaccinations during pregnancy are safe, and that it is really the best way to protect your newborn – these can be found at this link “WATCH: Vaccinating your baby before birth – a new hope in fighting childhood disease. @TomAngley9 explains. #9News”

My questions to you follow :

Q1. Do you agree your recommendations for immunisation require the immunisation provider to obtain a valid informed consent from a pregnant woman to the medical interventions of vaccination?

Q2. Do you agree that the Australian Immunisation Handbook guidelines (“Handbook”) should be taken into account from the immunisation provider in relation to the provision of your recommended vaccinations during pregnancy?

Q2A. Why do you assert the initial vaccinations take place at six weeks in your brochure when the Australian Immunisation Schedule states 2 months for the initial eight vaccinations? {****Addendum – since writing this letter, a member of my network has pointed out The Handbook does actually recommend starting at 6 weeks, even though the official “due” age is 2 months, here: http://www.immunise.health.gov.au/internet/immunise/publishing.nsf/Content/Handbook10-home~handbook10part4~handbook10-4-12#4.12.7 under the heading “4.12.7 Recommendations, Infants and children, Primary doses”. It states that “giving a 1st dose at 6 weeks of age rather than 2 months of age is estimated to prevent an additional 8% of infant pertussis cases” and references these 2 articles: (Ref. 33) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20811313 and (Ref. 49) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18977982}

Q2B. {***Addendum – see Q2A} – Have babies in South Australia been administered vaccinations at six weeks of age, and if so, what is the science to support this departure from the Australian Immunisation Handbook recommendations to be found at this link http://www.immunise.health.gov.au/internet/immunise/publishing.nsf/Content/national-immunisation-program-schedule?

Q2C. Why do you refer to a genuine danger zone” in the first six weeks of a baby’s life, but recommend pregnant women only have one vaccination out of the eight required under the Schedule at two months, excluding Hepatitis B, diphtheria, tetanus, Haemophilus influenzae type b, inactivated poliomyelitis (polio) (hepB-DTPa-Hib-IPV), Pneumococcal conjugate (13vPCV) and Rotavirus. What is the science behind this selective policy to address your notion of a “genuine danger zone”?

Q2D. Would you be prepared to announce at the commencement of your seminar on Tuesday 12 July 2016 that you have at least six conflicts of interest, I have identified so far, namely :

  • Pfizer,
  • GSK,
  • Sanofi-Pasteur,
  • Novartis
  • Membership of lobby group member, Friends of Science in Medicine, the prime opposition to the practice of natural therapies in Australia
  • NHMRC grant for $396,061 – NHMRC Career Development Fellowship (1016272), the authority which approves the Australian Immunisation Handbook, without reference to any mandatory guidelines which have been applied to NHMRC reviews of Natural Therapies. 

Q3 (Not relevant to vaccinations during pregnancy).

Q4 Do you accept the Handbook requirements at page 26 require that valid consent must be voluntary, and after conveyance of sufficient, appropriate and reliable information?

Q5 Do you agree that the Handbook guidelines differ from other NHMRC guidelines as stated on page 3 of the Handbook?

Q6 Do you agree the Handbook has omitted some or all of the mandatory guidelines detailed on the NHMRC website drafted pursuant to the NHMRC Act?

Q7 Are you able to provide any sufficient, appropriate, or reliable information to me, as to what information the Handbook has omitted by excluding reference to the mandatory guidelines normally applied by the NHMRC CEO, when approving other clinical guidelines for medical and clinical interventions under section 14A of the Act?

Q8 Do you agree the immunisation provider has discretion whether to provide immunisation when the provider is unable to convey sufficient, appropriate and reliable information in response to question 7?

Q9. Do you agree the immunisation provider has discretion whether to provide immunisation when a pregnant woman considers there is not sufficient, appropriate and reliable information in response to question 7?

Q10 Are you aware of the reasons the Handbook guidelines have decided to withdraw or omit the NHMRC mandatory guidelines, and in particular, whether this omission impacts the adequacy of the evidence base supporting the efficacy, effectiveness and safety of administration of the whooping cough and influenza vaccine drugs to pregnant women?

Q11 Are you aware of any systematic reviews, which consider the efficacy, effectiveness or safety by combining the whooping cough and influenza vaccines, in comparison to individual vaccine injections? Can the whooping cough vaccine be administered individually in Australia?

Q12 Are you aware of any systematic reviews of the whooping cough and influenza vaccines, which examines the efficacy, effectiveness or safety of those vaccines, based upon a comparison of those vaccines, with a placebo trial that excludes the adjuvants, or other ingredients specified in each vaccine?

Q13 Are you aware of any controlled studies as to the safety of the the whooping cough and influenza vaccines, in which comparison of health outcomes in vaccinated pregnant women versus unvaccinated pregnant women is documented?

Q14 (Not relevant to vaccinations during pregnancy).

Q15 (Not relevant to vaccinations during pregnancy).

Q16 (Not relevant to vaccinations during pregnancy.)

Q17 What weight do you consider reports by Cochrane Collaboration into vaccination efficacy or safety should have, in relation to other studies referred to in the Handbook, or in your presentation on 12 July 2016?

Q18 (Not relevant to vaccinations during pregnancy).

Q19 – Q31 are based upon page 3 of the Handbook, 10th ed in so far as they relate to administration of the whooping cough and influenza vaccine drugs to pregnant women.

Q19 Which are your recommendations based upon strategies in the absence of high-quality evidence?

Q20. Which are the less rigorous studies such as uncontrolled clinical trials, case series and/or other observational studies?

Q21. Which immunisation handbooks, produced by comparable countries, were also consulted by ATAGI?

Q22. Which public sources were inadequate, resulting in recommendations being based upon expert opinion?

Q23. What are the limitations and challenges to developing recommendations, which continue to exist?

Q24. What are the unaddressed scientific questions?

Q25. What are the complex medical practice issues?

Q26. What are the differences in expert opinion, and which experts were ultimately followed?

Q27. What were the conflicts of interest of those experts who were ultimately followed when resolving differences in expert opinion?

Q28. Given all these limitations, which recommendations of ATAGI were not possible to provide clear and relevant recommendations?

Q29. Are there guidelines of NHMRC older than the 1975 Ist edition of the Australian Immunisation Handbook?

Q30. How does the scope of the Handbook differ from other NHMRC guidelines?

Q31. How does the complexity of the Handbook differ from other NHMRC guidelines?

Q32. What would be the grades of evidence assigned to your recommendations for the administration of the whooping cough and influenza vaccine drugs to pregnant women.

Thank you Assoc Prof Marshall for your attention to this matter.

Yours sincerely

Graeme Little né Peter Pope

Health Politics Advocate/Lawyer

https://fightpharmacorruption.com/donations/

Chance for Natural Health Providers to attend Structural Review of NHMRC’s Grant Program Public Consultation July 2016

Post 1 – FY 2017 – www.fightpharmacorruption.com

NHMRC staging public forums in each State in July

Tune in all natural health  practitioners

and their patients like me. Here is your chance to put your view to our Federal Government’s National Health and Medical Research Council as to how structural reform should address the extraordinary NHMRC bias against all natural health therapies.

The need for the NHMRC to adopt a consistent, transparent and honest “level playing field” for evaluating evidence based treatments has never been greater for our pharmaceutical drugs, vaccination drugs and natural therapies.

The NHMRC structural bias against natural health is the fundamental core issue for natural health therapies to address for the following reasons:

(a) the damaging NHMRC 2015  Review of the Australian Government Rebate on Natural Therapies for Private Health Insurance which concluded a lack of clinical efficacy supporting the 17 natural therapy professions has led to my conclusion that the state based health complaints legislation has effectively abolished the right to practice these well accepted therapies. See my explanation in my post at SIMPLY why I say 17 Natural Health Professions…

(b)  the same review led directly to the Labor Party policy to drop rebates for natural health therapies in its recent election campaign promises;

(c) the NHMRC committees are littered with participants with major conflicts of interest, either through links with the anti-Nature sect, Friends of Science in Medicine, or through direct conflicts with pharmaceutical companies, sometimes disclosed;

(d) the Friends of Science in Medicine initially created its membership base by inviting NHMRC recipients of grants to become their foundation members, so escalating the conflict of interest issue when it comes to “creating” appropriate review conclusions;

(e) the NHMRC has provided a very small proportion of research funds to advance the science base behind natural therapies.

So health practitioners, and your patients, and of course your Association leaders, lets plan a co-ordinated strategy to have your voice heard finally by the NHMRC and its Health Department staffers.

Time for the natural health professions to stand up and be counted.

 

Here is the release today from the NHMRC.

“NHMRC plans to release a public consultation paper in July 2016 and invite all interested individuals and organisations to lodge written submissions in response to the paper.

 Additionally, NHMRC will hold public forums in several capital cities for researchers and organisations to hear from NHMRC and ask questions about the review.

 Attendance at each venue will be limited. Those wishing to attend are encouraged to register via the links provided below.

 Any questions should be directed by email to Structural.Review@nhmrc.gov.au(link sends e-mail). Further information about the consultation paper will be provided in July, when it is released for public comment.”

Graeme Little né Peter Pope
Health Politics Advocate/Lawyer
glittle@fightPHARMAcorruption.com 

www.fightPHARMAcorruption.com 

Gofundme donations can be made at this link https://www.gofundme.com/fightPHARMAcorrupt

Fraudulent electoral advice being given to enable tampering of your vote – TAKE YOUR OWN PEN

I just got the tip off from one of our network of democracy lovers of nature, being abused by the ANTI NATURE satanic sick rulers of our nation.

Ignore Electoral officers lying about your rights to use your own pen to vote – do not follow any advice you have to use their silly fraudulent pencils – this is a FAQ n democracy – Frequently Ask Questions

Click on the above link and Go to page 14 of this document above put out by the Electoral Office !!!!!!!!!! headed –

Where do I mark my ballot paper?

“You may see other voters at cardboard voting screens.

Voting screens let you mark your vote where no one else can see.

Take your ballot papers to a voting screen.

The voting screen will have a pencil. You can use this to mark your vote on your ballot paper.

You do not have to use this pencil.

You can use your own pencil or pen.”

Why does Health Minister Sussan Ley like “killing” our mothers with a USA banned dementia drug, the anti-psychotic Risperdal?

Why does Health Minister Sussan Ley like “killing” our mothers with a USA banned dementia drug, the anti-psychotic Risperdal?

The punchline :

Q1 Why do we need this drug for dementia when the manufacturer’s own country bans it use and provides a massive black box warning of its death risk for our elderly in its consumer document disclosure?

Why has Australia’s TGA recently partially banned Risperdal for vascular dementia and mixed dementia but censored the revised science evidence belatedly announced six months after Health Canada announced this new science?

Who is guilty of corruption or manslaughter or misleading information or professional misconduct or cartel behaviour or ????

A. Why did Minister Ley in mid July 2015 reject, in writing, my request to ban Risperdal for dementia in Australia, following my earlier meeting with my Federal electoral representative, Environment Minister Greg Hunt on 29 May 2015?

B. Why did Minister Ley choose to censor the USA’s black box warning system, which noted Risperdal was not approved for dementia and carried a significant increased death risk?

C. Why did Minister Ley say to me, in writing, her health system policy rejects the USA black box warning system of serious adverse events for around 700 other pharmaceutical drugs marketed in Australia to “dumbed down” consumers?

D. Why did Minister Ley say to me in writing that Australia follows the health regulation protocols of the United Kingdom and Canada?

E. Why did Minister Ley fail to act in prohibiting Risperdal for dementia conditions back on 18 February 2015, when Health Canada so did on the back of revised safety information provided by Johnson & Johnson?

F. Why did Minister Hunt, and Alzheimer’s Australia Chairman Graeme Samuel, attempt to stop my private campaign to ban Risperdal for dementia on Saturday 1 August 2015, whilst Minister Hunt was trapped on his three week electoral campaign walk around his 500 km electorate, raising funds for autism awareness?

G. What was the link between my correspondence to Minister Hunt and Graeme Samuel on Sunday 2 August 2015, which resulted in the TGA reversing its position and adopting the “Canadian style” prohibition announced by Health Canada some six months earlier on 18 February 2015.

H. When did Minister Ley and Minister Hunt, become aware of the upgraded safety data announced by Health Canada on 18 February 2015, which was supplied to Health Canada prior to that date by Johnson & Johnson?

I. What date, and to whom in Australia, did Johnson & Johnson supply the upgraded safety data announced by Health Canada on 18 February 2015?

J. Would no action have been taken in Australia had I not written firm letters on Sunday 1 August 2015 to Minister Hunt and Graeme Samuel, resulting in the ban being announced by the TGA 48 hours later, whilst Minister Hunt was visiting his primary school constituents?

K. What was the other major side effect I raised back then with Minister Ley and Minister Hunt affecting the use of Risperdal for young male autistic children, which remains a cover up, despite massive litigation over this side effect in the USA, and a serious adverse warning? 

=========================================================

To help me, and my alarmed network of natural medicine practitioners and patients, fight this war on big pharma corruption, please consider helping out by making donations at https://fightpharmacorruption.com/donations/ or help me by any other legal means. Fighting pharma corruption does not attract paying customers easily, as I have found to my financial detriment the last five years.

Check out the world’s leading whistleblower, former Merck executive, Brandy Vaughan’s website at http://www.learntherisk.org/ . I was blown away again just listening to her live internet seminar as I was writing this post today. Lucky for me Brandy has linked in with me some time back, and is very keen to come to Australia to help us fight the war of words here too.

A few short statements by Brandy Vaughan from 2.40pm today say it all:

“They are focusing on keeping us sick, not healthy”.

“There is a lot of information we are not being told”.

“Drop in the bucket compared to what is coming along the line, including adult vaccinations.”

Nearly 300 vaccines under development”

“passports and driving licences will be linked to mandatory adult vaccination schedules”

Check out the Huffington Post exposé of the $3 billion corruption settlement by Johnson & Johnson for their marketing of this Risperdal drug in the USA in my earlier post of 22 September 2015 at Huffington Post’s “The Credo Company”.

In Australia, Minister Ley ensures all her various health regulatory arms turn a blind eyeso our mums in dementia homes can be fed this “killer” as if it was like lolly water.

Let’s try and keep this post simple and to the point my supporters keep telling me. I find everything with Big Pharma extremely complex, detailed, often confusing, and leading into endless further streams of enquiry into ever more cover-ups. But let me try to sum this up and have a short rest before I tell you about the WA chemo boy and that outrageous injustice and hypocrisy.

  1. I say Health Minister Sussan Ley has been party to a grand plan to prematurely kill our elderly.
  2. This premature death plan has been condoned by Graeme Samuel’s Alzheimer’s Australia.
  3. This premature death plan has been supported by our corrupted Therapeutic Goods Administration.
  4. This premature death plan has been supported by the Labor Party and the GMO driven leader of the Greens Party, Dr Richard Di Natale.
  5. This premature death plan has been supported by our corrupted National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC).
  6. This premature death plan has been supported by our corrupted Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, which subsidises the cost of this drug by nearly 1500%.
  7. This premature death plan has been supported by our corrupted Medicare Benefits Scheme.
  8. This premature death plan has been supported by our corrupted Australian Medical Association, which ignores all Cochrane Collaboration Reviews expressing negative conclusions about Big Pharma’s drugs.
  9. This premature death plan has been supported by our satanic Friends of Science in Medicine, and its sister organization run by Prof Dwyer, the Australian Healthcare Reform Alliance, comprising 54 individual associations.
  10. This premature death plan has been supported by our corrupted nursing home structure administered by our Federal Government’s Human Resources Department.
  11. This premature death plan has been supported by our “fear driven” registered nurses “paralysed into silence” in the face of intimidatory tactics, and the inevitable loss of job for being a whistleblower.
  12. This premature death plan has been supported by our ACCC and Federal and State Attorney-Generals, who have ignored a litany of successful corruption cases overseas, particularly by the US Department of Justice.
  13. This premature death plan has been supported by our Coroners Office, who has made no effort to understand why dementia has crept into the no 2 slot for cause of death in women.

 So if you think I am making outlandish statements, read on. 

Fact One: Health Canada, the equivalent of Australia’s TGA, acted to ban Risperdal for vascular dementia and mixed dementia, and restricted its use for Alzheimer’s Disease in Canada on 18 February 2015 as described at  

Risperidone – Restriction of the Dementia Indication

 Fact Two – 18 February 2015 is now the critical start date for my first proposed class action, being the relevant date of Health Canada’s change, nearly 6 months before Minister Ley reluctantly partially ended her deadly cover up.

 So confidentially email me at glittle@fightpharmacorruption.com

or phone me on 0402 904749

if you are concerned as to why your “dementia diagnosed” mother or father has been administered Risperdal

since 18 February 2015.

Fact ThreeOn 18 February, 2015Health Canada noted the manufacturer Johnson & Johnson, through its subsidiary Janssen Inc., “submitted a review of safety information related to antipsychotic drugs, which indicated a higher risk of cerebrovascular adverse events in patients with mixed and vascular dementia compared to those with dementia of the Alzheimer type.”

Fact FourOn 18 February, 2015, the indication for risperidone in dementia was restricted by Health Canada “to the short-term symptomatic management of aggression or psychotic symptoms in patients with severe dementia of the Alzheimer type unresponsive to non-pharmacological approaches and when there is a risk of harm to self or others. The indication no longer includes the treatment of other types of dementia such as vascular and mixed types of dementia.”

Fact 5On 18 February, 2015, Health Canada advised “Physicians to assess the risks and benefits of the use of risperidone in elderly patients with severe dementia of the Alzheimer type, taking into account risk predictors for stroke or existing cardiovascular comorbidities in the individual patients.”

Fact 6Janssen Inc., in consultation with Health Canada,

 would like to inform healthcare professionals, caregivers and patients

of important updates to the indication of risperidone for severe dementia. The decision to limit risperidone’s indication to severe dementia of the Alzheimer type is based on a comprehensive evaluation of the safety information related to all antipsychotic drugs which indicated a higher risk of cerebrovascular adverse events in patients with the mixed or vascular dementia compared to those with dementia of the Alzheimer type.”

Fact 7 – Products affected were:

  • “RISPERDAL® (risperidone tablets and oral solution)
  • RISPERDAL M-TAB® (risperidone orally disintegrating tablets)
  • All generic versions of risperidone oral formulations”

Fact 8 – Background information provided by Health Canada –Prior to this dementia indication update,

risperidone was approved for use in Canada for severe dementia.

The indication for risperidone in dementia has been limited to Severe Dementia of the Alzheimer type – Symptomatic management of aggression and psychotic symptoms.

Elderly patients with dementia treated with antipsychotic drugs present an increased risk of death compared to placebo, mostly due to cardiovascular events and infections.”

Fact 9 – Health Canada advised consumers as to who is affected 

Risperidone belongs to a group of medicines called antipsychotic drugs. 

Risperidone may be used for short-term treatment to control aggression or psychotic symptoms (hallucinations or delusions) in severe dementia of the Alzheimer type. Dementia is a brain disease that decreases the ability to think and remember. Risperidone is no longer recommended for use in other types of dementia such as vascular and mixed types of dementia.

Patients and caregivers should contact their Healthcare Professional for further information and questions about risperidone therapy. Additional information about risperidone is also provided in the Part III: Consumer Information section of the RISPERDAL® Product Monograph.”

Fact 10 – Health Canada provided Information for health care professionals

“Physicians are advised to assess the benefits and risks of the use of risperidone in elderly patients with severe dementia of the Alzheimer type, taking into account risk predictors for stroke or existing cardiovascular comorbidities in the individual patient.

Please refer to the RISPERDAL® Product Monograph for full prescribing information.

The current RISPERDAL® Product Monograph can be found at the Janssen Canada Web site and Health Canada’s Web page.”

Fact 11 – Health Canada noted for more information

“The update to the product monograph was not a result of a Health Canada safety review. Therefore a Summary Safety Review is not available.”

 So confidentially email me at  glittle@fightpharmacorruption.com

or phone me on 0402 904749

if you are concerned as to why your “dementia diagnosed” mother or father has been administered Risperdal

since 18 February 2015.