Bradfield Resident

Information. Issues. Insight. Investigation.

Archive for the ‘Mail Sent’ Category

Tue 08 Jun 10 | To: Child Wise | B.McMenamin quote in SMH article re mandatory internet filtering

Posted by bradfieldresident on 8 June 2010

From: Bradfield Resident
Date: Tuesday 08 June 2010 04:47 (+10)
Subject: B.McMenamin quote in SMH article re mandatory internet filtering
To: Child Wise – Office

Child Wise,

I refer to an article published on the Sydney Morning Herald website:

Filter goes ahead regardless
http://www.smh.com.au/technology/technology-news/filter-goes-ahead-regardless-20100529-wmg7.html
SARAH WHYTE
May 30, 2010

The article contains the following paragraph:

But Bernadette McMenamin of the child protection group Child Wise said it was 100 per cent behind filtering illegal material. ”Sites are going to be blocked that should be blocked, and it’s absolutely essential every parent is taught about the dangers of the internet.”

Is this an accurate quote and representation of Child Wise’s position?

I note the specification of filtering ‘illegal material’; is that detail part of Child Wise’s particular position, or has it been supposed by SMH? I am inferring from the “Sites are going to be blocked” statement that Child Wise supports the filter being implemented, without restricting it to child abuse material.

I am also concerned by the quote from Ms McMenamin on three separate issues:

1. “Sites are going to be blocked” – from a technical standpoint this is known to be false and any blacklist can only ever be behind in listing any sites that could/’should’ be on the list

2. “should be blocked” – the current definition of “should be blocked”, that is, content that is or would be refused classification, is far broader than many people believe is appropriate; is not well defined (insofar as refused classification is not well defined); is certainly in excess of any child abuse prevention objectives of Child Wise or any other child protection agency; and is subject to arbitrary expansion by this or future governments and possibly even by non-representative groups and organisations.

3. I agree that “every parent is taught about the dangers of the internet”; it is my belief, and a belief held by many, that the implementation mandatory internet filter would likely lead to an actual reduction in the vigilance of parents in both monitoring and educating their children on using the internet, including by parents viewing the need to do so as less important therefore avoiding the necessary (parental) education.

I hope that Ms McMenamin (and Child Wise) are aware of these issues. If you could explain Child Wise’s position, making specific reference to these and any other publicly debated objectioned points to the mandatory filter that you choose to as additional detail, that would be of great interest to me and I imagine also beneficial to Child Wise’s public support for the filter.

Bradfield Resident
Sydney

Tuesday 08 June 2010


Bradfield Resident
bradfieldresident@gmail.com
https://bradfieldresident.wordpress.com

  • Advertisements
  • Posted in Cyber Safety Plan, Mail Sent, Sydney Morning Herald | Tagged: , , | 2 Comments »

    Wed 10 Mar 10 | To: Senator Stephen Conroy – Minister for BCDE | Cyber Safety Plan

    Posted by bradfieldresident on 10 March 2010

    [Note: instances of “BDCE” are mistakes, and should be “BCDE” for “Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy”]

    From: […]
    Date: Wednesday 10 March 2010 00:30 (+11)
    Subject: Cyber Safety Plan
    To: Senator Stephen Conroy – Minister for BCDE
    Cc: Tony Smith MP – Shadow Minister for BDCE, Paul Fletcher MP – Member for Bradfield, Senator Scott Ludlam – Australian Greens spokesperson for BDCE

    Senator Conroy,

    from some time before 11:30pm (AEDT) on Tuesday 09 March 2010 I have been trying to access the “cybersafetyplan” page on the DBCDE website, but, as my browser informs me, “The server at www.dbcde.gov.au is taking too long to respond.”

    How often is this website unavailable? Does the department maintain statistics on availability?

    If the content allegedly provided at http://www.dbcde.gov.au/cybersafetyplan is available in document form (printed or electronic), please have someone in your department forward a copy to me.

    I am also interested to know, since it seems the vast majority of people I have spoken to, or hear or read about in the news, object to a mandatory internet filter, who exactly, aside from your department, are actually in favour of and support it. Indeed, given the severe technical limitations of the proposed filter, I would like to know who proposed and drafted it in the first place.

    I am deeply concerned that the filter, if it is implemented, will use a secret list of web sites, and especially that it could be the case that sites or pages that end up on the list – for whatever reason, legitimate or not – might not have any option to be removed from the list, or even be confirmed as to whether on the list or not. As the minister I am sure you are aware that such a system is obviously and easily open to abuse (either now or in the future) by design, not specifically by the good intentions (or not) of any particular people involved. If you or your department have done a thorough analysis of this risk and its implications, and subsequently found that this risk can, to a very high degree of certainty, be removed, please enlighten me with the department’s answer to this dire threat to freedom and democracy. Without a detailed guarantee of transparency and/or protection (by methodology, not just a promise) from these potential abuses, I cannot believe that the proposed filter is anything other than a tool for censorship; the thin end of the wedge, being hardware, software and processes installed at ISPs, as well as legislation, subject to feature creep, if you will, including unreasonable surveillance and spying on ordinary citizens, as well as reducing the possibilities for free and equitable access to communication (in this case via the medium of the internet).

    As a final note, about one hour since finding the DBCDE website unavailable, I find this still to be the case. A federal government department’s website should not be unavailable for this long without a serious excuse in the order of serious internet backbone failure or sustained denial of service attack. It does, however, serve to illustrate that the government would do better trying to improve access to content instead of actively trying to do the opposite.

    [name]

    [address]

    Email: [email]

    Posted in Cyber Safety Plan, Department of Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy, Federal Legislation, Federal MPs, Internet, Mail Sent | Tagged: , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

    Fri 06 Nov 09 | To: The Department of Health and Ageing | Private health insurance – legislation

    Posted by bradfieldresident on 6 November 2009

    [This message was posted via the Contact the Department feedback form on the Department of Health and Ageing website]

    091106 health.gov.au - Private health insurance - legislation

    Department of Health and Ageing screenshot

    From: Bradfield Resident
    Date: Friday 6 November 2009 16:06 (+11)  (approx)
    To: The Department of Health and Ageing
    Via: Contact the Department feedback form

    The “Private health insurance – legislation” page
    http://www.health.gov.au/internet/main/publishing.nsf/Content/health-privatehealth-consumers-legislat.htm

    holds a notice, “This page is currently being updated.”

    When was that notice posted, and when will the page actually be updated? The page also shows “Page last modified: 03 June, 2008”.

    Posted in Department of Health & Ageing, Federal Legislation, Mail Sent, Private Health | Leave a Comment »

    Sun 25 Oct 09 | To: Health On the Net | Fwd: Australian Dental Association (ada.org.au) HONcode compliance

    Posted by bradfieldresident on 25 October 2009

    From: Bradfield Resident
    Date: Sunday 25 October 2009 23:31 (+11)
    To: honcodecomplaint@healthonnet.org

    Health On the Net Foundation,

    please refer to the forwarded message below, previously addressed to honcode-en@healthonnet.org on 11 September 2009, which was not answered.

    Bradfield Resident
    Sydney, Australia

    Quoted text:
    Fri 11 Sep 09 | To: Health On the Net Foundation | Australian Dental Association (ada.org.au) HONcode compliance
    Wed 09 Sep 09 | From: Health On the Net | In response to your complaint regarding the site : http://www.ada.org

    Posted in Australian Dental Association, Fluoride, Health On the Net Foundation, Mail Sent, Water Fluoridation | Tagged: | Leave a Comment »

    Fri 11 Sep 09 | To: The Australian Dental Association | HONcode compliance

    Posted by bradfieldresident on 11 September 2009

    [Note: it appears that the email generated by the contact form bounced, so it is quite possible that no ADA representative received and read it.]

    From: Bradfield Resident <bradfieldresident@gmail.com>
    Date: Friday 11 September 2009 01:31 (+10) (approx)
    To: The Australian Dental Association – Complaints – National (ADA Inc.)
    Via: http://www.ada.org.au/contactus/ContactUs.aspx

    Australian Dental Association,

    I have contacted the Health On the Net Foundation about apparent HONcode compliance violations on the ada.org.au website.

    You can view my correspondence with the Health On the Net Foundation at https://bradfieldresident.wordpress.com

    More specifically under
    https://bradfieldresident.wordpress.com/category/health/organisations/health-on-the-net-foundation-organisations-health/

    You are invited to comment by email addressed to bradfieldresident@gmail.com

    Bradfield Resident
    Friday 11 September 2009

    Posted in Australian Dental Association, Fluoride, Health On the Net Foundation, Mail Sent, Water Fluoridation | Leave a Comment »

    Fri 11 Sep 09 | To: Health On the Net Foundation | Australian Dental Association (ada.org.au) HONcode compliance

    Posted by bradfieldresident on 11 September 2009

    [Note: the “AMA” reference toward the end was a typo accidentally propagated from the previous email and should, of course, be “ADA”.]

    From: Bradfield Resident <bradfieldresident@gmail.com>
    Date: Friday 11 September 2009 00:39 (+10)
    Subject: Australian Dental Association (ada.org.au) HONcode compliance
    To: honcode-en@healthonnet.org

    Health On the Net Foundation,

    it is unclear as to whether your email is in response to my original email complaint on 25 August (https://bradfieldresident.wordpress.com/2009/08/25/to-health-on-the-net-foundation-honcode-principles-and-the-australian-dental-association/), to my online form submission on 28 August, or both. I write here assuming the email complaint (with considerably more information than the online form submission) was considered.

    I find some of the explanations offered with regards to the Australian Dental Association website’s compliance with the published HONcode guidelines to be quite weak, especially considering the ostensible aim of the HONcode to improve the quality of medical information published online.

    Principle 1 – Authority

    The “ADA Inc. Oral Health Education Committee” is not identified. It is not a person – one might also suppose its members change over time – and as such I do not understand how it can be considered to be the “author”. As the committee is not identified, it follows that its (members’) qualifications have also not been identified. Additionally, the site does not indicate what the “Consumer Information” section is, which this committee allegedly authored. The statement that “[t]he views and opinions expressed on this site are not necessarily those of the ADA Inc., the ADA State Branches or their affiliates” on the disclaimer page (http://www.ada.org.au/disclaimer.aspx) further clouds the situation.

    Principle 2 – Purpose of the website

    The ADA site makes good on the requirement to declare that the site is not to replace the advice of a health professional. It goes on to disclaim any impression of reliability, accuracy, completeness or usefulness. Although not being able to stand behind one’s documentation (website) erodes the reader’s confidence, it is in keeping with the HONcode guidelines, and I haven’t complained about that aspect of the requirements.

    I have noticed that the website has been updated/repaired since my complaint; the About page (http://www.ada.org.au/about/default.aspx) links to the Overview (http://www.ada.org.au/about/overview.aspx) and Functions (http://www.ada.org.au/about/functions.aspx) pages are now functional.

    However, there is no “description of the website’s mission, purpose and intended audience”:

    • “All information is intended for your general knowledge only” is not a description of the website’s purpose
    • “its aim the encouragement of the health of the public and the promotion of the art and science of dentistry” is the aim (purpose/mission?) of the ADA (“also necessary”); there is no separate description for the website itself
    • You write, “[t]his site contains three portals for General public, Dental Professionals, and Members. / Therefore it is understood that this site is for the General public and health professionals.” Whatever you happen to mean by there being three “portals”, and whether or not one might infer that this site is for (effectively) everyone, there is no actual description of the intended audience.

    Personally, I think these are minor issues and very easily addressed (eg “the purpose of the ADA and of this website is to…”, “the intended audience of this site is…”). However it does concern me that your evaluation drops the bar so low on “necessary” requirements to the point where they are not actually required – either your guidelines are enforced or they are pointless and the overall quality of the entire HONcode accreditation comes under question.

    Principle 4 – Information must be documented: Referenced and dated

    Sources information are not needed, becuase this site information was authored
    by fully qualified dentists.

    Did an authorised Health On the Net Foundation representative really write that, or am I reading a forged email? This statement is completely ludicrous. I quote again from the HONcode Guidelines documentation (http://www.hon.ch/HONcode/Guidelines/guidelines.html):

    All sources of the medical content must be given. You have to clearly indicate the recognized, scientific or official sources of health information quoted in your articles. If you used another website, a book, an article, a database or any other support, it has to be specified. You have to provide a precise link to the source, whenever it is possible and the references should be in relation with the content referred.

    To say now that sources of information are not needed is a complete farce. I would also reiterate that the authors of the information are not identified, but that is hardly the point here. Is it truly the Health On the Net Foundation’s intention for principle 4 to be something like “All sources of the medical content must be given unless the author is a dentist”? If so, please amend the HONcode guidelines documentation accordingly.

    You write:

    The complaint regarding the principle 4 – Date is justified.
    Therfore we are taking care of your complaint. A member of the HONcode team has
    contacted this site about this matter.

    So, we agree on one point at least. Perhaps an investigation of your procedures is in order to determine how the lack of dates was missed in previous reviews.

    Principle 5 – Justification of claims

    You write:

    we were not able to find any treatment information on the following link:
    http://www.ada.org.au/oralhealth/FLN/flfaqs.aspx

    This page contains some information about Fluoride, but not the treatments.

    Again I have to ask, did an authorised Health On the Net Foundation representative write that, or am I reading a forged email? The entire page is about fluoride treatments in all shapes and sizes. The first occurrence of the word “treatment” on the page is in the statement: “Drinking fluoridated water several times a day is the ideal way to give your teeth a quick fluoride treatment.”

    Some unjustified claims from that page:

    • Large numbers of studies over the last fifty years have shown conclusively that fluoride strengthens teeth against decay without causing harmful effects.
    • Fluoride acts in a number of ways to strengthen teeth and make them more resistant to tooth decay.
    • Topical fluoride can not only stop the development of tooth decay, but also make the enamel more resistant to future acid attacks. It also helps by reducing the amount of acid produced by the bacteria in your mouth.
    • While most of the fluoride effect is topical, a systemic effect still occurs, and enamel with built-in fluoride is still more decay resistant.
    • Very high levels can even cause brown staining or pitted enamel. This is very uncommon, and usually results from children swallowing too much fluoride from toothpaste or fluoride tablets rather than from drinking fluoridated water.
    • While these [other fluoride treatment methods] are still beneficial, the safest and most cost effective method, with the greatest reduction in tooth decay is seen when teeth are exposed to frequent, low concentrations of fluoride as in water fluoridation.
    • Because of the mainly topical effect of fluoride, people of all ages and backgrounds will benefit [from water fluoridation].
    • When fluoride is in the mouth, the teeth become much more resistant to decay.
    • Fluoridated water is the safest, most effective, and least expensive way to reduce tooth decay in children and adults.
    • In speaking about Sydney’s water fluoridation, the New South Wales Chief Health Officer in 2002 reported “a significant dental health benefit, by reducing dental caries, along with the associated savings in the cost of treatment.”
    • All Australian capital cities (except Brisbane) have been fluoridated for decades and have not seen an increase in bone fractures or other ill effects.

    Your brief comment here refers to just this page, which I suppose is the one I listed in the online complaint form. I repeat below further comments from my initial email complaint which have not been addressed by your email.

    The AMA site makes numerous claims about products and treatments that, aside from on occasion appearing to be patently false or contradictory, are completely unjustified.

    The site also repeatedly directs readers to, if not a specific brands of products, specific types of product, such as fluoride toothpaste, fluoride tablets, fluoride gels, fluoridated food products and additives, and even fluoridated water, without any “alternative therapy” offered for cleaning teeth and maintaining dental health.

    As a simplification, the product/treatment here is fluoride and its application/consumption. There are a number of documents provided on the website, for example, on the Fluoride Resources page (http://www.ada.org.au/oralhealth/fln/flresources.aspx) that might be intended as justification, however there is little or no association made between the majority of claims made in the rest of the site and these documents.

    General safety claims are also made about mercury-containing dental amalgam as a type of product.

    The medical information is certainly far from balanced. Concerns about harmful effects are, if mentioned a all, mentioned only briefly and in a significantly dismissive way, giving the impression that concerns have been raised only by an uneducated public, when in fact thousands of qualified dental and medical professionals around the world have very strong concerns about the potential harmful effects, and indeed questions about the efficacy of the use of fluoride in the first place. Documents on the website make claims for efficacy of “about half” and even “60%”, which are significant exaggerations at best. Statements such as “There is universal agreement between all the major public health bodies throughout the world regarding the benefits of water fluoridation” (“Fluoride – Nature thought f it first”, prefaced by a letter from the president of the ADA, at http://www.ada.org.au/app_cmslib/media/lib/0609/m16777_v1_fluoride%20-%20nature%20thought%20of%20it%20first.pdf) are grossly misleading (it is an undeniable fact that many countries do not support nor implement water fluoridation).

    Finally

    It is my expectation that the HONcode seal displayed on the Australian Dental Association website (http://ada.org.au) should indicate that the site is undergoing a reexamination. This is not presently the case.

    Bradfield Resident
    Sydney, Australia

    Friday 11 September 2009

    Quoted text:
    Wed 09 Sep 09 | From: Health On the Net | In response to your complaint regarding the site : http://www.ada.org


    Bradfield Resident
    bradfieldresident@gmail.com
    https://bradfieldresident.wordpress.com

    Posted in Australian Dental Association, Fluoride, Health On the Net Foundation, Mail Sent, Water Fluoridation | Tagged: | 4 Comments »

    Sat 05 Sep 09 | To: Health On the Net | Re: Confirmation of receipt of complaint

    Posted by bradfieldresident on 5 September 2009

    From: Bradfield Resident <bradfieldresident@gmail.com>
    Date: Saturday 05 September 2009 21:48 (+10)
    Subject: Re: Confirmation of receipt of complaint
    To: honcodecomplaint@healthonnet.org

    HONcode Team,

    I am yet to receive a response with regards to my complaint about the Australian Dental Association website (http://ada.org.au) which I made over a week ago. I sent an email to honcodecomplaint@healthonnet.org on Tuesday 25 August — see a copy at https://bradfieldresident.wordpress.com/2009/08/25/to-health-on-the-net-foundation-honcode-principles-and-the-australian-dental-association/ — and subsequently used your online compliance violation form on Friday 28 August (the receipt for which is below).

    The ADA website still shows an apparently valid HONcode seal, and the HONcode verification page still shows “REEXAM” status, as it did when I first looked on 25 August.

    Bradfield Resident
    Sydney, Australia

    Saturday 5 September 2009

    Quoted text:
    Fri 28 Aug 09 | From: Health On the Net | Confirmation of receipt of complaint


    Bradfield Resident
    bradfieldresident@gmail.com
    https://bradfieldresident.wordpress.com

    Posted in Australian Dental Association, Fluoride, Health, Health On the Net Foundation, Mail Sent, Water Fluoridation | Tagged: | Leave a Comment »

    Fri 04 Sep | To: Members of Federal Parliament | Do Not Introduce Mandatory Swine Flu Vaccination AFHA Petition

    Posted by bradfieldresident on 4 September 2009

    [This is a copy of the email sent for the Mandatory Swine Flu Vaccination (Federal Parliament) petition on the Health Petitions Australia website, copied from a Member’s response.]

    From: [name, email]
    Sent: Friday, 4 September 2009 10:49 AM
    To: Abbott, Tony (MP); Adams, Dick (MP); Albanese, Anthony (MP); Andrews, Kevin (MP); Bailey, Fran (MP); Baldwin, Bob (MP); Bevis, Arch (MP); Bidgood, James (MP); Billson, Bruce (MP); Bird, Sharon (MP); Bishop, Bronwyn (MP); Bishop, Julie (MP); Bowen, Chris (MP); Bradbury, David (MP); Briggs, Jamie (MP); Broadbent, Russell (MP); Burke, Anna (MP); Burke, Tony (MP); Butler, Mark (MP); Byrne, Anthony (MP); Campbell, Jodie (MP); Champion, Nick (MP); Cheeseman, Darren (MP); Chester, Darren (MP); Ciobo, Steven (MP); Clare, Jason (MP); Cobb, John (MP); Collins, Julie (MP); Combet, Greg (MP); Higgins Electorate (P. Costello, MP); Coulton, Mark (MP); Crean, Simon (MP); Danby, Michael (MP); D’Ath, Yvette (MP); Debus, Bob (MP); Dreyfus, Mark (MP); Dutton, Peter (MP); Elliot, Justine (MP); Ellis, Annette (MP); Ellis, Kate (MP); Emerson, Craig (MP); Farmer, Pat (MP); Ferguson, Laurie (MP); Ferguson, Martin (MP); Fitzgibbon, Joel (MP); Forrest, John (MP); Garrett, Peter (MP); Gash, Joanna (MP); Georganas, Steve (MP); George, Jennie (MP); Georgiou, Petro (MP); Gibbons, Steve (MP); Gillard, Julia (MP); Gray, Gary (MP); Grierson, Sharon (MP); Griffin, Alan (MP); Haase, Barry (MP); Hale, Damian (MP); Hall, Jill (MP); Hartsuyker, Luke (MP); Hawke, Alex (MP); Hawker, David (MP); Hayes, Chris (MP); Hockey, Joe (MP); Hull, Kay (MP); Hunt, Greg (MP); Irons, Steve (MP); Irwin, Julia (MP); Jackson, Sharryn (MP); Jenkins, Harry (MP); Jensen, Dennis (MP); Michael.Johns@smtp2.aph.gov.au; on.MP@aph.gov.au; Katter, Robert (MP); Keenan, Michael (MP); Kelly, Mike (MP); Kerr, Duncan (MP); King, Catherine (MP); Laming, Andrew (MP); Ley, Sussan (MP); Lindsay, Peter (MP); Livermore, Kirsten (MP); Macfarlane, Ian (MP); Macklin, Jennifer (MP); Marino, Nola (MP); Markus, Louise (MP); Marles, Richard (MP); May, Margaret (MP); McClelland, Robert (MP); McKew, Maxine (MP); McMullan, Robert (MP); Melham, Daryl (MP); Mirabella, Sophie (MP); Morrison, Scott (MP); Moylan, Judith (MP); Murphy, John (MP); Neal, Belinda (MP); Nelson, Brendan (MP); Neumann, Shayne (MP); Neville, Paul (MP); Oakeshott, Robert (MP); O’Connor, Brendan (MP); Owens, Julie (MP); Parke, Melissa (MP); Pearce, Chris (MP); Perrett, Graham (MP); Plibersek, Tanya (MP); Price, Roger (MP); Pyne, Chris (MP); Raguse, Brett (MP); Ramsey, Rowan (MP); Randall, Don (MP); Rea, Kerry MP (Constituents); Ripoll, Bernie (MP); Rishworth, Amanda (MP); Robb, Andrew (MP); Robert, Stuart (MP); Roxon, Nicola (MP); Ruddock, Philip (MP); Saffin, Janelle (MP); Schultz, Alby (MP); Scott, Bruce (MP); Secker, Patrick (MP); Shorten, Bill (MP); Sidebottom, Sid (MP); Simpkins, Luke (MP); Slipper, Peter (MP); Smith, Tony (MP); Smith, Stephen (MP); Snowdon, Warren (MP); Somlyay, Alex (MP); Southcott, Andrew (MP); Stone, Sharman (MP); Sullivan, Jon (MP); Swan, Wayne (MP); Symon, Mike (MP); Tanner, Lindsay (MP); Thomson, Craig (MP); Thomson, Kelvin (MP); Trevor, Chris (MP); Truss, Warren (MP); Tuckey, Wilson (MP); Turnbull, Malcolm (MP); Jim.Turnour.M@smtp2.aph.gov.au; P@aph.gov.au; Vale, Danna (MP); Vamvakinou, Maria (MP); Washer, Mal (MP); Windsor, Tony (MP); Wood, Jason (MP); Zappia, Tony (MP); petitions@health-freedom.com.au
    Subject: Do Not Introduce Mandatory Swine Flu Vaccination

    Dear Member of Parliament,

    I wish to express my concern to you with regard to mass vaccination of the Australian public for swine flu, using a vaccine with no long term studies yet potential for dangerous side effects.

    There is much 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.

    To put things into perspective, malaria kills 3,000 people every day, and it’s considered “a health problem”… But of course, there are no fancy vaccines for malaria that can rake in billions of dollars for drug companies in a short amount of time. For example; Chinese scientists have already found the cure for malaria yet it is not a drug that can be patented by big corporate money. http://www.sbs.com.au/dateline/story/about/id/600026/n/The-Last-Bite

    But getting back to the H1N1 issue, 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?

    As of August 28th 2009 (update 63) ( http://www.who.int/csr/don/2009_08_28/en/index.html ), there have been 2185 deaths world wide from H1N1. Compared to seasonal flu, this does not constitute a pandemic let alone justify mandatory mass vaccination 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=scienceNews&sp=true

    Tami Flu vaccine, used against seasonal flu, does not work effectively and is not a safe drug. 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 Tami flu 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 vaccine 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 breath.

    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. ( http://www.soilandhealth.org/02/0201hyglibcat/020119hadwin/020119hadwin.toc.html )
    The Hadwen Documents

    • 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 begain in the USA. Within a few months, claims totaling $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 pediatricians 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.

    Yours sincerely

    [name]
    [address]
    [email]

    Posted in Federal Government, Federal MPs, Health Petitions Australia, Mail Sent, Pandemic A(H1N1)v 2009, Swine Flu H1N1, Vaccines | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

    Thu 03 Sep 09 | To: BOC Australia | Making water safe

    Posted by bradfieldresident on 3 September 2009

    From: Bradfield Resident <bradfieldresident@gmail.com>
    Date: Thursday 03 September 2009 17:42 (+10)
    Subject: Making water safe
    To: [BOC contact address]

    BOC,

    in your currently airing television commercial there is a mention that you do something to help make our water safe. Could you please indicate what that is, or how you are involved in water treatement?

    I expect that it involves perhaps the supply of chemicals, such as chlorine, and possibly also plant equipment, advice to governments (Federal, State and local) on treatment procedures, safety, and so on.

    Does BOC have any contract(s) to supply materials for water fluoridation? If so, what can you say about the content and source of these materials?

    Bradfield Resident, NSW
    Thursday 3 September 2009


    Bradfield Resident
    bradfieldresident@gmail.com
    https://bradfieldresident.wordpress.com

    Posted in Mail Sent, TV, Water Fluoridation | Tagged: | Leave a Comment »

    Thu 03 Sep 09 | To: Fay Gardner (DoH) | Mercury in the swine flu vaccine – and what else?

    Posted by bradfieldresident on 3 September 2009

    From: Bradfield Resident <bradfieldresident@gmail.com>
    Date: Thursday 03 September 2009 16:48 (+10)
    Subject: Mercury in the swine flu vaccine – and what else?
    To: Ms Fay Gardner <fay.gardner@health.gov.au>, Dr Rachel David [CSL Director of Public Affairs]
    Cc: Health.Ops@health.gov.au, NIR.Incident.Coordinator, NIR.Operations.Manager

    Ms Gardner,

    one month after issuing questions to your department about the swine flu “pandemic” and the swine flu vaccine, I have still not received answers.

    According to video footage of a vial of CSL’s Panvax H1N1 Vaccine seen shown on television last week, the vaccine contains Thiomersal, which is nearly 50% mercury by weight.

    What else does the vaccine contain? (See the attached message history for a list of possible contents of interest, including MF59 or squalene)

    What is different about this swine flu vaccine in terms of manufacture and testing?

    In what way(s), if any, does the WHO pandemic level, and/or equivalent Australian medical emergency status affect the development and usage of the vaccine and the liability that the manufacture will (or will not) face in the case of problems?

    To Dr Richard David, if you are able to address these questions (please refer to the message history below), please do.

    Bradfield Resident, NSW
    Thursday 3 September 2009

    Quoted text:
    Mon 17 Aug 09 | To: Fay Gardner (DoH) | No answers from Health Ops

    Tue 11 Aug 09 | To: Jamie Geysen (DoH) | Re: Questions about Pandemic H1N1 2009 influenza
    Tue 04 Aug 09 | From: Jamie Geysen (DoH) | Re: Questions about Pandemic H1N1 2009 influenza
    Fri 31 Jul 09 | To: Fay Gardner (DoH) | Questions about Pandemic H1N1 2009 influenza

    Posted in CSL Biotherapies, Mail Sent, Office of Health Protection, Pandemic A(H1N1)v 2009, Thimerosal/ Thiomersal/ Thimersol/ Merthiolate, Vaccines, WHO (World Health Organization) | Leave a Comment »