Sending Valuable Information to the Wrong Person can be very Costly, Dangerous, and or cause you to lose your low or high paying Job, and maybe even lose you entire Career.

Sending a Message or Mail to the Wrong Person

Don’t you hate it when you finally realize that you sent someone the wrong information?

This happened to me many times, which included valuable content that wasn’t meant for that particular person to see.

However, it hasn’t happened to me for a while, and will never happen again because I’m now able to retrieve or delete those emails before and after my email arrive or gets to the receiver’s in-box or mailbox by using this new 21st Century Email Technology.

You can find more details about it at http://mailbox.eCa.sh/protectemails

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

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″.

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

[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 http://bradfieldresident.wordpress.com

More specifically under
http://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

[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 (http://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

http://bradfieldresident.wordpress.com

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 http://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

http://bradfieldresident.wordpress.com

[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]

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

http://bradfieldresident.wordpress.com

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

From: Bradfield Resident <bradfieldresident@gmail.com>
Date: Thursday 27 August 2009 16:52 (+10)
Subject: Swine flu safe? on Wednesday morning (26 August 2009)
To: Sunrise <sunrise@seven.com.au>

Sunrise,

according to footage shown on Wednesday morning (26 August 2009), the Australian swine flu vaccine manufactured by CSL Biotherapies contains “0.01% w/v Thiomersal, as preservative”. Otherwise known as Thimerosal, Thiomersal is nearly 50% mercury by weight, meaning each 0.5mL dose of the Panvax H1N1 vaccine contains around 25 micrograms of mercury.

Why was that not mentioned in the segment?

Why was it not mentioned that, even if the vaccine itself is safe, that the method of delivery in multi-dose vials has a significant risk-factor attached compared to single-dose packaging?

I have written more at http://bradfieldresident.wordpress.com/2009/08/27/sunrise-channel-7-swine-flu-vaccine-safe/

Bradfield Resident
Thursday 27 August 2009

–
Bradfield Resident
bradfieldresident@gmail.com

http://bradfieldresident.wordpress.com

Correction: Under the Principle 5 heading, “The AMA site” should read “The ADA website”. Correction emailed to the same HON address at 07:13 (+10).

From: Bradfield Resident <bradfieldresident@gmail.com>
To: honcodecomplaint@healthonnet.org
Date: Tuesday 25 August 2009 07:01 (+10)
Subject: HONcode principles and the Australian Dental Association

Health On the Net Foundation,

from a review the HONcode guidelines on the Health On the Net Foundation website (http://www.hon.ch/HONcode/Guidelines/guidelines.html), it appears that the Australian Dental Association’s site (http://www.ada.org.au), which currently displays a HONcode seal, does not respect the HONcode principles.

Clicking through to verify the HONcode certification (https://www.hon.ch/HONcode/Conduct.html?HONConduct282436), I find that the ADA site is presently undergoing an “annual review”.

A minor point here is that the seal image displayed on the ADA website (https://www.hon.ch/HONcode/Seal/HONConduct282436_s1.gif) – shows “HONcode Certified 09/2009″, and not a “REEXAM” seal as suggested might appear in your documentation (for example at http://www.hon.ch/HONcode/Patients/sample_certificate.html).

Seal-graphics aside, below are my reasons for thinking that the ADA site does not respect the HONcode principles.

Principle 1 – Information must be authoritative

All medical information presented on your web site must be attributed to an author and his/her training in the field must be mentioned.

This may be done on each of the pages with medical information or on an “Advisory Board” or “Editorial Board” information page.

The qualifications of the information provider (author, webmaster or editor) must be clearly stated (i.e. patient, Internet professional, medical or health professional).

If the information provider is a medical doctor, his/her specialty must be mentioned.
If the author is not a medical professional, this must be clearly stated on the web site.

The ADA site does not attribute authorship on individual pages and there does not appear to be any page (at least not obviously) designated as an “Advisory Board” or “Editorial Board” information page.

The site’s disclaimer page (http://www.ada.org.au/disclaimer.aspx), apparently last updated on 18 January 2004, states:

Information presented in the “Consumer Information” section was authored by the ADA Inc. Oral Health Education Committee. This Committee meets regularly and is responsible for reviewing and updating the “Consumer Information” section. All Oral Health Education Committee members are fully qualified and board registered dentists. In addition to this process, all information posted on the ADA inc website is reviewed and approved by the ADA Inc IT Manger/webmaster who also is a fully qualified and board registered dentist.

There does not appear to be any obviously designated “Consumer Information” section; I hazard a guess that this wording refers to some older version of the site. I have not seen any indication as to who makes up the “ADA Inc. Oral Health Education Committee”, nor who the “ADA Inc IT Manger/webmaster” is. This same disclaimer  even says that

The views and opinions expressed on this site are not necessarily those of the ADA Inc., the ADA State Branches or their affiliates.

so there is possibly content that is not authored by the ADA, and that the ADA doesn’t even agree with.

The qualifications and training of the anonymous group of authors is mentioned only as “fully qualified and board registered dentists”, without explaining what that means, nor even who or what the board is they are registered with. Perhaps, for the HONcode requirements, saying “registered dentist” is sufficient. If so, this should be clarified in the HONcode guidelines.

Principle 2 – Purpose of the website

A statement clearly declaring that the information on the website is not meant to replace the advice of a health professional has to be provided. E.g. of such a statement is ‘The information provided on [your web site] is designed to complement, not replace, the relationship between a patient and his/her own physician.’

A brief description of the website’s mission, purpose and intended audience is necessary.

Another brief description of the organisation behind the website, its mission and its purpose is also necessary.

The ADA site does not appear to offer a clear description of its mission, purpose and intended audience. Content apparently approaching this is found on the disclaimer page (http://www.ada.org.au/disclaimer.aspx):

The information contained in this online site is presented in summary form only and intended to provide broad consumer understanding and knowledge of dental health care topics.

Currently, the “About the ADA” section (http://www.ada.org.au/about/default.aspx) has broken links to content called “Overview” and “Functions”. The brief introduction on that page may be sufficient to describe the organisation, mission and purpose, though they are not obviously denoted as such:

Overview The Australian Dental Association is an organisation of dentists which has as its aim the encouragement of the health of the public and the promotion of the art and science of dentistry.

Functions There are Branches of the Association in all States and Territories. Membership is voluntary and over 90% of dentists in Australia are members.

Strategic Plan The Australian Dental Association Inc is a national association of dentists committed to promoting the art, science and ethical practice of dentistry, improving the oral health of the community and enhancing the professional lives of its members. To achieve this Mission for the period 2005 to 2008, seven major goals have been set.

Principle 4 – Information must be documented: Referenced and dated

All medical content (page or article) has to have a specific date of creation and a last modification date.

Date of last modification must also be included on every page describing ethical and legal information, author(s), mission, and the intended audience.

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.

Note: – The last time the whole site was updated or the copyright date only, are not sufficient to comply with this principle. The ‘last update’ date should not be set to automatically display the current date.

-Depending on the website and its content, you may gather a bibliography instead of having a specific source for each medical article or page. This bibliography should clearly outline each reference to each medical subject.

Large swathes of (medical related) content on the ADA site are completely unattributed (authorship), without sources and not dated. This includes both “webpages” (usual HTML content) and linked PDF documentation. Very few dates appear for any of the content displayed on webpages. Even the copyright notice (on the disclaimer page) shows “2002″, two years prior to the apparent last modfication of that page. The FAQs section (http://www.ada.org.au/oralhealth/faqs/default.aspx) does have dates, though they appear to be mostly only “12/1/2001″ or “1/1/2002″; perhaps batches of information were uploaded on a couple of dates and attributed to these dates (1 January seems an unlikely date given that it is a public holiday in Australia, but given that it is 7+ years ago the exact date isn’t so much an issue).

Of special concern are numerous medical claims made regarding the overall safety of products and chemicals, well outside of what I expect “dentistry” to cover, for which significant research findings have been made in recent years.

Principle 5 – Justification of claims

All information about the benefits or performance of any treatment (medical and/or surgical), commercial product or service are considered as claims. All claims have to be backed up with scientific evidence (medical journals, reports or others).

All medical information must be balanced.

All brand names have to be identified (with ® for example). Unless the purpose of the site is clearly stated to be the commercial platform of a particular product, it must include alternative therapies or products (including generics).

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 simplificatioin, 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).

Summary

Details of the water fluoridation argument (and safety of mercury in fillings, etc) aside, it is apparent that the current ADA website does not respect a number of the HONcode principles – to an obvious and significant extent – and I imagine this to have been the case for a number of years, if not from the original review in January 2004. This example does not instill confidence in the credibility of the Health On the Net Foundation seal used for medical and health websites. I seek your explanation as to how a site reviewed numerous times with such glaring inconsistencies could be certified. I have not particularly listed examples of the inconsistencies since they appear on almost every page of the ADA website – if you cannot see them, I hold little hope for the HONcode’s reputation at all.

This complaint will be published online for public review and comment (at least at http://bradfieldresident.wordpress.com), and I intend to publish your response.

Bradfield Resident
Sydney, Australia

Tuesday 25 August 2009

–
Bradfield Resident
bradfieldresident@gmail.com

http://bradfieldresident.wordpress.com

From: Bradfield Resident <bradfieldresident@gmail.com>
Date: Friday 21 August 2009 00:02 (+10)
Subject: Fed up to back teeth with crisis article
To: The Border Mail <bmm@bordermail.com.au>

I am writing to express concern at the content of John Conroy’s 18 August article “Fed up to back teeth with ‘crisis’” (http://www.bordermail.com.au/news/local/news/general/fed-up-to-back-teeth-with-crisis/1598723.aspx). I understand that the article is about a forum for which Professor Anthony Blinkhorn was the keynote speaker, but I think it is inappropriate to present his words as scientific truth.

A single example of increase in dental care after removal of fluoridation is proffered to suggest dental care costs always increase, which is absolutely not the case.

“It strengthens dental enamel on a daily basis” has never, to my knowledge, been proven. In fact it has been shown that water fluoridation weakens teeth and bones.

“He said 95 per cent of people in NSW drank water with fluoride added and did not protest,” is hardly an argument, besides which is it not true. I am a resident of NSW, and I protest. The reason most people haven’t protested is because flouridation has been in place virtually unquestioned for many years, and most people are under the non-proven belief that it is good for your teeth and the non-proven belief that it is harmless.

“We have emotions on one side and science on the other,” neglects the private sector profits on the pro-fluoridation side, the fact that there exists zero high-quality scientific research demonstrating the claimed benefits of water fluoridation (even after some 70 years since it was introduce in the United States), government and health agencies misinterpreting and misrepresenting data from studies such as the York Report (the authors of which have publicly criticised UK health and dental organisations for the conclusions they have drawn), and the fact that there is scientific evidence against the use of fluoride (from all sources including water fluoridation).

It is the case that most of Europe has rejected water fluoridation, and you will find that they do not have a dental health crisis as a result. In fact it has been shown in numerous cases that flouridated areas can have worse dental health than non-fluoridated areas.

My understanding is that the science, overall, is uncertain with regards to the efficacy and safety of water fluoridation, though it has been said before in reports that more research needs to be done. Problems will not be found unless someone is looking for them, and it just so happens that the world mostly didn’t consider so much the problems and wasn’t looking for them. Regardless, it has never been proven to be safe, and yet people allow it. Why is it pushed so hard? Because there is a fortune to be made in turning a difficult and expensive to dispose of toxic waste product into a water additive.

Bradfield Resident, NSW
Friday 21 August 2009

From: Bradfield Resident <bradfieldnsw@gmail.com>
Date: Monday 17 August 2009 20:58 (+10)
Subject: No answers from Health Ops [Re: Questions about Pandemic H1N1 2009 influenza]
To: Ms Fay Gardner <fay.gardner@health.gov.au>
Cc: Health.Ops@health.gov.au, NIR.Incident.Coordinator, NIR.Operations.Manager, bradfieldresident@gmail.com

Ms Gardner,

on Tuesday 4 August 2009 you passed my questions on to “Health Ops”. Jamie Geysen replied suggesting a proper response “within the next week”.

Near two weeks have passed without any further information, nor a reply to my concern about testing on children, especially those with suppressed immune systems.

I have since found an article about Ebony Shearer, a 6 year old girl mentioned in a story I heard on television last week:

http://www.illawarramercury.com.au/news/local/news/general/appin-girl-6-trials-swine-flu-vaccine/1591049.aspx?storypage=0

Illawarra Mercury
Appin girl, 6, trials swine flu vaccine
BY ANGELA THOMPSON
10/08/2009 4:00:00 AM

The article indicates that Ebony was trecently contracted whooping cough:

However, [Ebony's] rocky beginning left her lungs forever compromised and as a result she is prone to chest infections and colds, and has only just recovered from a bout of whooping cough she picked up in January.

My recollection of the television story was that Ebony had been “immunised” (vaccinated) against whooping cough, not mentioned in this Mercury article.

The story shows the mother’s desperation

Mrs Shearer pulled her daughter out of school two weeks ago.

She wanted to protect her from the swine flu pandemic, and was so keen to see her vaccinated she was preparing to fly her to the Royal Adelaide Hospital, where adult vaccine trials began on July 22.

and comes with a very convenient feel-good quote:

”She knows she’ll be able to play with the other kids if she gets the needle,” Mrs Shearer said.

At issue is not just that vaccination offers a false sense of hope but that it is outright deceptive. Vaccination does not afford immunisation, as ably demonstrated by Ebony’s vaccination against and subsequent contraction of whooping cough, if not the millions of people worldwide who have contracted various diseases for which they had supposedly been “immunised” (actually vaccinated) against.

Baxter, another pharmecutical company producing vaccines, only earlier this year exported what was essentially a weaponised bio-weapon in the form of an “experimental vaccine” that actually contained live a avian flu virus to some 18 countries, despite the facility purportedly being a BSL3 (Biosafetly Level 3) facility where such a “mistake” could not have accidentally occurred, and which, if it had gone undetected by external testing, may have lead to a massive worldwide disaster.

What external testing will be done on this vaccine made in Australia? How is the Australian public to know what is in it and what harm it may cause?

The millions of doses of “swine flu” vaccine given in 1976 lead to large numbers of deaths, serious illness and permanent disablement of recipients in the United States – and that was from a “scare” on a military base where only one person actually dies from the virus, and that was after they had been sick and subsequently went on a forced marh, dying only after the stress of the forced march.

Why, instead of seriously investigating the sordid history of vaccines and vaccination programs worldwide, do we instead give phamecutical companies billions of dollars to poison us, infect us with diseases and ultimately kill us? Some scientists say that this current “pandemic” virus strain is almost certainly man-made, containing elements from swine, avian and human influenzas. What is the Australian Government’s scientific advisory about such claims?

I am waiting for some serious answers to my questions abot the contents of the vaccine currently under trial, and any modification to or alternate vaccine that will (apparently) be suppled by CSL or any other company to be used in Australia, as are a number of my contacts. Other countries have announced population-wide vaccination programs (Greece and UK as examples). What is Australia’s plan?

Bradfield Resident, NSW
Monday 17 August 2009

Note: this discussion is publicised at http://bradfieldresident.wordpress.com

Quoted text:
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

Strikethrough = confirmed received

Things that were sent on August 15:

POSTCROSSING TAGS
candy54449 – “lighthouse” tag
crizle – “US to Australia” tag
Magl – “Show the Card You Offer 2″ tag
Michaela0705 – “I’m offering…” tag
Micio – “Vertical Postcard” tag
Ninon – “Russia – rest of world” tag
willempie – “Lighthouse” tag
Xpaula – “Europe to rest of world viewcard” tag
### – “I don’t want this card, do you?” tag

Strikethrough = confirmed received

I had to pick up a friend from town, so I sent these things today:

POSTCROSSING TAGS
hootnoodle – “US states viewcard” tag
JVmakai – “Show the card you offer 2″ tag
Kiti – “Dear Diary…” tag
*** – “I don’t want this card…Do you?” tag

Strikethrough = confirmed received

Today I sent these things:

POSTCROSSING TAGS
Adeleide – “Panoramic” tag
Aina77 – “Germany to any country” tag
Awardedshitsu – “City/Country view” tag
CsCJanni – “Black and White” tag
Diashaliz – “Will You Send Me…” tag
Doumik – “National/regional/folk costume” tag
Margarita88 – “Europe – USA” tag

POSTCROSSING OFFICIAL CARDS (hidden so no one’s surprise is spoiled)

Inkkuli – official card
Nordic78 – official card