luke | Healthier Communities

Send a Letter: Artificial Electromagnetic Radiation (EMR) Technologies and Emissions

luke — Wed, 08 Jul 2020 23:21:28 +0000

Artificial Electromagnetic Radiation (EMR) Technologies and Emissions

1Write Your Letter

2Review and Send

This email will be sent to the following people:
Cr Rick Baberowski
Division 1

Cr Terry Landsberg \
Division 2

Cr Peter Cox
Division 3

Cr Joe Natoli
Division 4

Cr Winston Johnston
Division 5

Cr Christian Dickson
Division 6

Cr Ted Hungerford
Division 7

Cr Jason O'Pray
Division 8

Cr Maria Suarez
Division 9

Cr David Law
Division 10
Name*
First Last
Email*
Address*
Street Address Address Line 2 City State / Province / Region ZIP / Postal Code Country
====================================================

This is the email content that will be sent.
YOU CAN ADD A PERSONAL MESSAGE AT THE END OF THE LETTER.
====================================================
To [recipient]

Re: Artificial Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Radiation (RF-EMR) Technologies and Emissions

I am writing directly to you as my elected representative to confirm my extreme concern about what appears to be the forced rollout of Telecommunications infrastructure in and around the Sunshine Coast without any obvious community consultation. Even more concerning is my awareness this infrastructure is vast and will be constantly emitting artificial RF-EMR upon my family, my self, my home and our surroundings including our parks, beaches, flora, fauna and natural living environment.

Perhaps the most worrisome aspect of this situation is the fact that I have not at any moment knowingly given my consent to be subjected to the threat of being harmed by what I understand is a category '2B carcinogen' and is defined as a 'pollutant’ and which according to Lloyds of London who “refuses to cover wireless mobile illnesses directly or indirectly arising out of, resulting from or contributed to electromagnetic fields, electromagnetic radiation, electromagnetism, radio waves or noise” - 22 Oct 2019 is uninsurable.

It is my understanding that this technology which emits artificial electromagnetic radiation has not been proven safe to the standard of “robust scientific certainty”.

I hereby call upon you as my elected representative to remember your 'declaration of office' and other mandatory responsibilities, and thereby take all necessary steps to 'faithfully and impartially fulfill the duties of the office, in accordance with the local government principles under the Local Government Act 2009 to the best of ..your...judgment and ability.’

It is my understanding as my elected representative that you also have certain principles, values and standards to which you are to abide.

Councillors' principles, values and standards

The Queensland Government “Code of Conduct for Councillors in Queensland” (revised and approved 7 April 2020), tells us the LGA (Local Government Act) lays out five local government principles with which Councillors must comply while performing their roles as elected representatives.

These principles are:
1. Transparent and effective processes and decision-making in the public interest
2. Sustainable development & management of assets and infrastructure and delivery of effective services.
3. Democratic representation, social inclusion and meaningful community engagement.
4. Good governance of, and by, local government
5. Ethical and legal behaviour of Councillors and local government employees
This Code of Conduct also provides a set of values that describe the types of conduct Councillors should demonstrate to ensure their compliance with the local government principles.

These values include: ‘committing to exercising proper diligence, care and attention when making decisions in the public interest and to clearly and accurately explain Council’s decisions.’

May I also remind you that this Code of Conduct sets out the standards of behaviour applying to all Councillors in Queensland. The behavioural standards relate to, and are consistent with, the local government principles and their associated values.

The standards of behaviour are:
1. Carry out RESPONSIBILITIES conscientiously & in the best interests of the Council & the community
2. Treat people in a reasonable, just, RESPECTFUL & non-discriminatory way
3. Ensure conduct does not reflect adversely on the REPUTATION of Council
As my elected representative, I am expecting you to adhere to the Councillors declaration, principles, values and standards above-mentioned, before making any decisions whatsoever relating to any existing and proposed installation of infrastructure which will emit artificial RF-EMR.
This extends to my expectation you will act ethically and responsibly from the awareness there is information, including considerable evidence, which has been presented over recent years around the subject of safety. There is a message of grave concern being echoed among many hundreds of experienced and independent scientific, medical and health professionals in Australia and around the world. Large numbers of people from communities here in Australia and around the world are now more informed and thereby expressing their extreme concern about the obvious absence of robust scientific evidence that the emissions from this technology are safe long term for all people including, our flora, fauna and living environment.

ARPANSA

A common response by various government organisations is that they refer to the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency (ARPANSA) for standards on electromagnetic radiation levels and health. ARPANSA however only provides guidelines. ARPANSA does not provide a regulatory framework with enforcement or penalty provisions. Furthermore, ARPANSA does not have authority to provide medical advice as relates to the health of individuals. In fact ARPANSA advises individuals to seek medical advice from one’s own Medical Practitioner regarding the matter of health.

ARPANSA adds that risks and risk management are the responsibility of industry and other government agencies.

ARPANSA and ACMA admit
“The exposure limits in the ARPANSA Standard are only enforceable if they are referenced in other regulatory arrangements.”
Link: https://www.arpansa.gov.au/sites/default/files/legacy/pubs/aboutus/collaboration/js_wifi.pdf

ARPANSA statement (December 2019);
“How is radiation regulated in Australia? It’s a common question, & unfortunately the answer isn’t as straightforward as it could be. While ARPANSA is responsible for regulating Commonwealth entities that use or produce radiation, the wider regulation of radiation in Australia falls within the remit of state and territory governments, or in the case of telecommunications, with the Australian Communications and Media Authority.“
Link: https://www.arpansa.gov.au/news/navigating-radiation-regulation

Also;
“Regulation of RF (Radiofrequency) exposure is thorough in the area of communications where public exposure occurs, however, only the Commonwealth regulates RF emitting devices at workplaces. This oversight is limited by the specificity of the regulations where the focus is on devices rather than exposure. In this case, there is a clear limitation in being able to address other sources of RF exposure and a risk of regulations becoming outdated based on the technology focus of the oversight. All other jurisdictions (apart from Western Australia) have no specific regulations regarding RF exposure in the workplace.”
Link: https://www.arpansa.gov.au/sites/default/files/tr182.pdf

Also refer to “Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Energy and Health: Research Needs Technical Report 178 - June 2017” in which 13 recommendations were made for ongoing research on millimetre waves, studies on children, electromagnetic hypersensitivity etc..
Link: https://www.arpansa.gov.au/sites/default/files/tr178.pdf

Conclusion

I am aware you have been sent a significant amount of information on the subject of artificial RF-EMR by many concerned voices among our community. I trust you will, as my elected representative charged with the duty of keeping yourself properly informed, appreciate the contribution made by the many concerned members of the community with the intention of assisting you with your education and duty of care.

With such support being provided to you from the community, it is expected you are in a sufficiently informed position to apply your highest integrity in your elected function and ensure we are each being represented with impeccability in any and all matters as may relate to the installation of any infrastructure which will emit artificial RF-EMR, a process which will occur twenty four hours a day, seven days a week, all year round.
It is of particular importance to remind you of my genuine concern around the increased influx of the new small cell infrastructure that is proposed to be built close to private homes, public buildings such as libraries and parks, and also near childcare centres, places of worship, community centres, business buildings, street lamps, bus shelters and so on.
It is known you are aware three (3) separate Australian Councils have recently taken decisive and affirmative action around 'pausing' and applying ‘precautionary’ measures until the matter of scientific uncertainty as relates to health and safety, are properly addressed and resolved with robust scientific evidence and which confirms the emissions are in fact 100% safe long term for all people including the flora, fauna and living environment.

As my elected representative it is expected you will take all necessary and prudent steps to forthwith;

"initiate the immediate 'pause' of any further actions and or activities as may relate to any devices and or installation of infrastructure which either emits now or will emit at some future time RF-EMR. Such actions would include initiating an immediate 'pause' and application of a 'precautionary' approach, to enable proper independent investigation to seek clear and certain confirmation from properly qualified independent professionals, the emissions from this technology are and or will be SAFE long term, for ALL people including flora, fauna and the living environment to the standard of “robust scientific certainty”.
To NOT take such affirmative actions would appear to be reckless and would indicate there exists a blatant disregard for the assurance of certainty around the enduring safety and /or health of members of this community including the flora, fauna and living environment.
I do not consent to being exposed to the risk of harm and /or threat of harm from emissions of RF-EMR a known 2B carcinogen and pollutant.
I trust you will recognize the considerable importance of your elected responsibilities in properly addressing this critical matter as a priority.
Looking forward to receiving your earliest reply.

Thank you,

Kind Regards,
Personal Message*
ADD YOUR PERSONAL MESSAGE TO BE APPENDED TO THE END OF THE LETTER

Please review the content below which will be sent on your behalf.
If there are any errors, please press the PREVIOUS button at the bottom and edit your submission.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
To [recipient]

Re: Artificial Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Radiation (RF-EMR) Technologies and Emissions

I am writing directly to you as my elected representative to confirm my extreme concern about what appears to be the forced rollout of Telecommunications infrastructure in and around the Sunshine Coast without any obvious community consultation. Even more concerning is my awareness this infrastructure is vast and will be constantly emitting artificial RF-EMR upon my family, my self, my home and our surroundings including our parks, beaches, flora, fauna and natural living environment.

Perhaps the most worrisome aspect of this situation is the fact that I have not at any moment knowingly given my consent to be subjected to the threat of being harmed by what I understand is a category '2B carcinogen' and is defined as a 'pollutant’ and which according to Lloyds of London who “refuses to cover wireless mobile illnesses directly or indirectly arising out of, resulting from or contributed to electromagnetic fields, electromagnetic radiation, electromagnetism, radio waves or noise” - 22 Oct 2019 is uninsurable.

It is my understanding that this technology which emits artificial electromagnetic radiation has not been proven safe to the standard of “robust scientific certainty”.

I hereby call upon you as my elected representative to remember your 'declaration of office' and other mandatory responsibilities, and thereby take all necessary steps to 'faithfully and impartially fulfill the duties of the office, in accordance with the local government principles under the Local Government Act 2009 to the best of ..your...judgment and ability.’

It is my understanding as my elected representative that you also have certain principles, values and standards to which you are to abide.

Councillors' principles, values and standards

The Queensland Government “Code of Conduct for Councillors in Queensland” (revised and approved 7 April 2020), tells us the LGA (Local Government Act) lays out five local government principles with which Councillors must comply while performing their roles as elected representatives.

These principles are:
1. Transparent and effective processes and decision-making in the public interest
2. Sustainable development & management of assets and infrastructure and delivery of effective services.
3. Democratic representation, social inclusion and meaningful community engagement.
4. Good governance of, and by, local government
5. Ethical and legal behaviour of Councillors and local government employees
This Code of Conduct also provides a set of values that describe the types of conduct Councillors should demonstrate to ensure their compliance with the local government principles.

These values include: ‘committing to exercising proper diligence, care and attention when making decisions in the public interest and to clearly and accurately explain Council’s decisions.’

May I also remind you that this Code of Conduct sets out the standards of behaviour applying to all Councillors in Queensland. The behavioural standards relate to, and are consistent with, the local government principles and their associated values.

The standards of behaviour are:
1. Carry out RESPONSIBILITIES conscientiously & in the best interests of the Council & the community
2. Treat people in a reasonable, just, RESPECTFUL & non-discriminatory way
3. Ensure conduct does not reflect adversely on the REPUTATION of Council
As my elected representative, I am expecting you to adhere to the Councillors declaration, principles, values and standards above-mentioned, before making any decisions whatsoever relating to any existing and proposed installation of infrastructure which will emit artificial RF-EMR.
This extends to my expectation you will act ethically and responsibly from the awareness there is information, including considerable evidence, which has been presented over recent years around the subject of safety. There is a message of grave concern being echoed among many hundreds of experienced and independent scientific, medical and health professionals in Australia and around the world. Large numbers of people from communities here in Australia and around the world are now more informed and thereby expressing their extreme concern about the obvious absence of robust scientific evidence that the emissions from this technology are safe long term for all people including, our flora, fauna and living environment.

ARPANSA

A common response by various government organisations is that they refer to the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency (ARPANSA) for standards on electromagnetic radiation levels and health. ARPANSA however only provides guidelines. ARPANSA does not provide a regulatory framework with enforcement or penalty provisions. Furthermore, ARPANSA does not have authority to provide medical advice as relates to the health of individuals. In fact ARPANSA advises individuals to seek medical advice from one’s own Medical Practitioner regarding the matter of health.

ARPANSA adds that risks and risk management are the responsibility of industry and other government agencies.

ARPANSA and ACMA admit
“The exposure limits in the ARPANSA Standard are only enforceable if they are referenced in other regulatory arrangements.”
Link: https://www.arpansa.gov.au/sites/default/files/legacy/pubs/aboutus/collaboration/js_wifi.pdf

ARPANSA statement (December 2019);
“How is radiation regulated in Australia? It’s a common question, & unfortunately the answer isn’t as straightforward as it could be. While ARPANSA is responsible for regulating Commonwealth entities that use or produce radiation, the wider regulation of radiation in Australia falls within the remit of state and territory governments, or in the case of telecommunications, with the Australian Communications and Media Authority.“
Link: https://www.arpansa.gov.au/news/navigating-radiation-regulation

Also;
“Regulation of RF (Radiofrequency) exposure is thorough in the area of communications where public exposure occurs, however, only the Commonwealth regulates RF emitting devices at workplaces. This oversight is limited by the specificity of the regulations where the focus is on devices rather than exposure. In this case, there is a clear limitation in being able to address other sources of RF exposure and a risk of regulations becoming outdated based on the technology focus of the oversight. All other jurisdictions (apart from Western Australia) have no specific regulations regarding RF exposure in the workplace.”
Link: https://www.arpansa.gov.au/sites/default/files/tr182.pdf

Also refer to “Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Energy and Health: Research Needs Technical Report 178 - June 2017” in which 13 recommendations were made for ongoing research on millimetre waves, studies on children, electromagnetic hypersensitivity etc..
Link: https://www.arpansa.gov.au/sites/default/files/tr178.pdf

Conclusion

I am aware you have been sent a significant amount of information on the subject of artificial RF-EMR by many concerned voices among our community. I trust you will, as my elected representative charged with the duty of keeping yourself properly informed, appreciate the contribution made by the many concerned members of the community with the intention of assisting you with your education and duty of care.

With such support being provided to you from the community, it is expected you are in a sufficiently informed position to apply your highest integrity in your elected function and ensure we are each being represented with impeccability in any and all matters as may relate to the installation of any infrastructure which will emit artificial RF-EMR, a process which will occur twenty four hours a day, seven days a week, all year round.
It is of particular importance to remind you of my genuine concern around the increased influx of the new small cell infrastructure that is proposed to be built close to private homes, public buildings such as libraries and parks, and also near childcare centres, places of worship, community centres, business buildings, street lamps, bus shelters and so on.
It is known you are aware three (3) separate Australian Councils have recently taken decisive and affirmative action around 'pausing' and applying ‘precautionary’ measures until the matter of scientific uncertainty as relates to health and safety, are properly addressed and resolved with robust scientific evidence and which confirms the emissions are in fact 100% safe long term for all people including the flora, fauna and living environment.

As my elected representative it is expected you will take all necessary and prudent steps to forthwith;

"initiate the immediate 'pause' of any further actions and or activities as may relate to any devices and or installation of infrastructure which either emits now or will emit at some future time RF-EMR. Such actions would include initiating an immediate 'pause' and application of a 'precautionary' approach, to enable proper independent investigation to seek clear and certain confirmation from properly qualified independent professionals, the emissions from this technology are and or will be SAFE long term, for ALL people including flora, fauna and the living environment to the standard of “robust scientific certainty”.
To NOT take such affirmative actions would appear to be reckless and would indicate there exists a blatant disregard for the assurance of certainty around the enduring safety and /or health of members of this community including the flora, fauna and living environment.
I do not consent to being exposed to the risk of harm and /or threat of harm from emissions of RF-EMR a known 2B carcinogen and pollutant.
I trust you will recognize the considerable importance of your elected responsibilities in properly addressing this critical matter as a priority.
Looking forward to receiving your earliest reply.

Thank you,

Kind Regards,

{personal message:10}

Yours sincerely,
{Name (First):1.3} {Name (Last):1.6}
{Email:2}
{Address (Street Address):3.1}, {Address (Address Line 2):3.2}
{Address (City):3.3} {Address (State / Province):3.4} {Address (ZIP / Postal Code):3.5}
{Address (Country):3.6}
Consent*
I agree for you to send this email on my behalf (using the email address I provided), to the addressees indicated on the PREVIOUS PAGE.

Send a Letter: Influenza Vaccine may increase the risk of Coronavirus Infection

luke — Sun, 19 Apr 2020 22:20:24 +0000

Influenza Vaccine may increase the risk of Coronavirus Infection

1Write Your Letter

2Review and Send

This email will be sent to the following people:
Federal Minister for Health, Greg Hunt: greg.hunt.mp@aph.gov.au
Shadow Minister for Health, Chris Bowen: chris.bowen.mp@aph.gov.au

State Ministers for Health:

ACT Minister for Health, Rachel Stephen-Smith, stephen-smith@act.gov.au
ACT Shadow Health Minister: Vicki Dunne, Dunne@parliament.act.gov.au
VIC Minister for Health, Jenny Mikakos, jenny.mikakos@parliament.vic.gov.au
VIC Shadow Health Minister, Georgie Crozier, Georgie.Crozier@parliament.vic.gov.au
NSW Minister for Health, Brad Hazzard, wakehurst@parliament.nsw.gov.au
NSW Shadow Health Minister, Ryan Park, keira@parliament.nsw.gov.au
SA Minister for Health, Stephen Wade, Ministerforhealth@sa.gov.au
QLD Minister for Health, Steven Miles, health@ministerial.qld.gov.au
QLD Shadow Health Minister, Ros Bates, Mudgeeraba@parliament.qld.gov.au
NT Minister for Health & Chief Medical Officer, Natasha Fyles, minister.fyles@nt.gov.au
NT Shadow Minister, Lia Finocchiaro lia.finocchiaro@nt.gov.au
TAS Minister for Health, Jeremy Rockliff, jeremy.rockliff@parliament.tas.gov.au
TAS Shadow Health Minister, Sarah Lovell, sarah.lovell@parliament.tas.gov.au
WA Minister for Health, Roger Cook, Minister.Cook@dpc.wa.gov.au
WA Shadow Health Minister, Zak Richard Francis Kirkup, zk@kirkup.com.au

Australian Government Chief Medical Officer: Brendan Murphy Brendan.murphy@health.gov.au
Acting Chief Health Officer: Dr Di Stevens dianne.stevens@vu.edu.au

Chief Health Officers – each State
ACT: Dr Kerryn Coleman ACTHealthCMO@act.gov.au
Executive Assistant ACT CHO Amanda.Thies@act.gov.au
VIC: Professor Brett Sutton, brett.sutton@dhhs.vic.gov.au
NSW: Dr Kerry Chant, Kerry.chant@health.nsw.gov.au
QLD: Dr Jeannette Young, Jeannette.young@health.qld.gov.au
SA: Professor Paddy Phillips. healthcommunicablediseases@sa.gov.au
TAS: Nicola Dymond, Nicola.dymond@ths.tas.gov.au
WA: Dr Andrew Robertston andrew.robertson@health.wa.gov.au
Chair of Standing Committee on Health, Aged Care and Sport Trent.Zimmerman.MP@aph.gov.au
Name*
First Last
Email*
Address*
Street Address Address Line 2 City State / Province / Region ZIP / Postal Code Country
====================================================

This is the email content that will be sent.
YOU CAN ADD A PERSONAL MESSAGE AT THE END OF THE LETTER.
====================================================
To [recipient]

Re: Influenza Vaccine may increase the risk of Coronavirus Infection

I am writing to urgently express concern that you may not be up to date with the science showing that influenza vaccines can make recipients more susceptible to other respiratory viruses, including coronavirus. Several studies and medical journal articles discuss these unintended ‘non-specific’ side effects and I would like your scientific advisors to be aware of this information. I have made a list of findings from some reputable medical journals in relation to this below:

1) Increased Risk of Noninfluenza Respiratory Virus Infections Associated with Receipt of Inactivated Influenza Vaccine

https://academic.oup.com/cid/article/54/12/1778/455098

Receiving an influenza vaccine increased fivefold the risk of acute respiratory infections (ARI’s) caused by a group of non-influenza viruses, including coronaviruses. I am extremely concerned that most Australian children are about to receive a flu shot which may make them more susceptible to suffering serious effects from Covid-19. Presently, children are considered a low risk for suffering adverse effects from Covid-19, but receiving this year's influenza vaccine may make them more susceptible.

2) Influenza vaccination and respiratory virus interference among Department of Defense personnel during the 2017-2018 influenza season.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264410X19313647

Receiving influenza vaccination may increase the risk of other respiratory viruses, a phenomenon known as virus interference. Vaccine-derived virus interference was significantly associated with coronavirus and human metapneumovirus. While this study did not conclude that influenza vaccination caused viral interference with Covid-19, this should be urgently investigated as a possible consequence of administering influenza vaccine during a Covid-19 pandemic. This study was conducted on healthy adults, US military personnel who would be at peak physical fitness and be less inclined to catch other viruses, unlike the many immune-compromised people who receive a flu shot as routine medical care. I believe the results of this study should be taken seriously and be enough to warrant using the Precautionary Principle in relation to allowing those mandated to receive an influenza vaccine to make an informed decision to refuse the flu vaccine, without discrimination. This would particularly apply to healthcare and aged care workers who are mandated to receive a flu vaccine.

3) Assessment of temporally-related acute respiratory illness following influenza vaccination

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264410X18303153

This study found that, compared with unvaccinated children, children who received the influenza vaccine had an increased risk of acute respiratory illness (ARI) caused by non-influenza pathogens (not covered by the vaccine) during the 14-day post-vaccination period. Are we soon going to have a huge outbreak of Covid-19 or other respiratory illness in the Australian population, after receiving their flu vaccines?

4) Increased Risk of Non-influenza Respiratory Virus Infections Associated with Receipt of Inactivated Influenza Vaccine

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3404712/

Influenza vaccine recipients had a higher risk of confirmed non-influenza respiratory virus infection (RR, 3.46; 95% CI, 1.19–10.1). The majority of the non-influenza respiratory virus detections were rhinoviruses and coxsackie/echoviruses, as well as coronavirus. The increased risk among vaccine recipients was also statistically significant. It was concluded that Influenza vaccine recipients may lack temporary non-specific immunity that protected against other respiratory viruses. Again, there is a clear risk for people receiving an influenza vaccine being more susceptible to Covid-19 after receiving their flu vaccine.

5) Annual Vaccination against Influenza Virus Hampers Development of Virus-Specific CD8+ T Cell Immunity in Children

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3209321/

Results from this study found that annual influenza vaccination, while effective against seasonal influenza strains found in the vaccine, prevents heterosubtypic immunity (immunity to other influenza subtypes and potentially pandemic influenza A/H5N1 viruses) through inhibiting the development of virus-specific CD8(+) T cell responses in children. The consequences of these findings have wide-ranging implications affecting the rate of viral shedding in the absence of cross-protective antibodies in the community.

6) Yearly influenza vaccinations: a double-edged sword?

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(09)70263-4/fulltext

This article summarises issues around influenza vaccine preventing heterosubtypic immunity and its implications for immunologically naive people during times of a pandemic.

7) Breadth of concomitant immune responses prior to patient recovery: a case report of non-severe COVID-19

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-020-0819-2

These Melbourne-based researchers have analysed the immune response needed to fight Covid-19 and found a multi-factorial immune response (including CD8(+) T cells mentioned above) were required by a patient to recover from Covid-19. With the knowledge we now have of influenza vaccines inhibiting development of virus-specific T cell responses, administering a flu vaccine could potentially be preventing the recipient from mounting an effective response to the Covid-19 virus.

8) Repeated annual influenza vaccination and vaccine effectiveness: review of evidence

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/10.1080/14760584.2017.1334554

Published in 2017, this international review concluded “The public health impact of repeated immunization and the immunologic mechanisms leading to reduced protection or increased risk remain poorly understood . . Our current understanding of repeated vaccination effects is inadequate to inform vaccine policy recommendations".

If the Australian Government goes ahead with mandating influenza vaccines for any part of the population, in the knowledge that these vaccines may increase susceptibility to other diseases, the Government may be held legally liable by those harmed by these policies. Given that the Australian Government is now mandating Influenza vaccine for healthcare, childcare, aged care professionals, residents, staff and visitors and now you are informed of the conflicting science listed above, does this not make you and/or the Government guilty, morally and financially liable in the event of death, disability and injury from mandating influenza (and other) vaccines?

If the influenza vaccine leads to further Covid-19 deaths does this not make the Government guilty of causing death?

I would like your Department to formally respond, acknowledging receipt of this information and to answer the questions raised by this research:

1) What is the Government’s response to being presented with the above evidence that influenza vaccine causes non-specific / unintended adverse effects, such as increased susceptibility to other respiratory viruses, including coronavirus?

2) If the Government continues to recommend influenza vaccine in the knowledge that it causes vaccine-derived virus interference and increased risk of acute respiratory illness (ARI), what evidence does it have to continue to recommend influenza vaccination in the time of a Covid-19 pandemic, when doing so may affect the recipient’s ability to recover from Covid-19?
Personal Message*
ADD YOUR PERSONAL MESSAGE TO BE APPENDED TO THE END OF THE LETTER

Please review the content below which will be sent on your behalf.
If there are any errors, please press the PREVIOUS button at the bottom and edit your submission.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
To [recipient]

Re: Influenza Vaccine may increase the risk of Coronavirus Infection

I am writing to urgently express concern that you may not be up to date with the science showing that influenza vaccines can make recipients more susceptible to other respiratory viruses, including coronavirus. Several studies and medical journal articles discuss these unintended ‘non-specific’ side effects and I would like your scientific advisors to be aware of this information. I have made a list of findings from some reputable medical journals in relation to this below:

1) Increased Risk of Noninfluenza Respiratory Virus Infections Associated with Receipt of Inactivated Influenza Vaccine

https://academic.oup.com/cid/article/54/12/1778/455098

Receiving an influenza vaccine increased fivefold the risk of acute respiratory infections (ARI’s) caused by a group of non-influenza viruses, including coronaviruses. I am extremely concerned that most Australian children are about to receive a flu shot which may make them more susceptible to suffering serious effects from Covid-19. Presently, children are considered a low risk for suffering adverse effects from Covid-19, but receiving this year's influenza vaccine may make them more susceptible.

2) Influenza vaccination and respiratory virus interference among Department of Defense personnel during the 2017-2018 influenza season.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264410X19313647

Receiving influenza vaccination may increase the risk of other respiratory viruses, a phenomenon known as virus interference. Vaccine-derived virus interference was significantly associated with coronavirus and human metapneumovirus. While this study did not conclude that influenza vaccination caused viral interference with Covid-19, this should be urgently investigated as a possible consequence of administering influenza vaccine during a Covid-19 pandemic. This study was conducted on healthy adults, US military personnel who would be at peak physical fitness and be less inclined to catch other viruses, unlike the many immune-compromised people who receive a flu shot as routine medical care. I believe the results of this study should be taken seriously and be enough to warrant using the Precautionary Principle in relation to allowing those mandated to receive an influenza vaccine to make an informed decision to refuse the flu vaccine, without discrimination. This would particularly apply to healthcare and aged care workers who are mandated to receive a flu vaccine.

3) Assessment of temporally-related acute respiratory illness following influenza vaccination

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264410X18303153

This study found that, compared with unvaccinated children, children who received the influenza vaccine had an increased risk of acute respiratory illness (ARI) caused by non-influenza pathogens (not covered by the vaccine) during the 14-day post-vaccination period. Are we soon going to have a huge outbreak of Covid-19 or other respiratory illness in the Australian population, after receiving their flu vaccines?

4) Increased Risk of Non-influenza Respiratory Virus Infections Associated with Receipt of Inactivated Influenza Vaccine

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3404712/

Influenza vaccine recipients had a higher risk of confirmed non-influenza respiratory virus infection (RR, 3.46; 95% CI, 1.19–10.1). The majority of the non-influenza respiratory virus detections were rhinoviruses and coxsackie/echoviruses, as well as coronavirus. The increased risk among vaccine recipients was also statistically significant. It was concluded that Influenza vaccine recipients may lack temporary non-specific immunity that protected against other respiratory viruses. Again, there is a clear risk for people receiving an influenza vaccine being more susceptible to Covid-19 after receiving their flu vaccine.

5) Annual Vaccination against Influenza Virus Hampers Development of Virus-Specific CD8+ T Cell Immunity in Children

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3209321/

Results from this study found that annual influenza vaccination, while effective against seasonal influenza strains found in the vaccine, prevents heterosubtypic immunity (immunity to other influenza subtypes and potentially pandemic influenza A/H5N1 viruses) through inhibiting the development of virus-specific CD8(+) T cell responses in children. The consequences of these findings have wide-ranging implications affecting the rate of viral shedding in the absence of cross-protective antibodies in the community.

6) Yearly influenza vaccinations: a double-edged sword?

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(09)70263-4/fulltext

This article summarises issues around influenza vaccine preventing heterosubtypic immunity and its implications for immunologically naive people during times of a pandemic.

7) Breadth of concomitant immune responses prior to patient recovery: a case report of non-severe COVID-19

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-020-0819-2

These Melbourne-based researchers have analysed the immune response needed to fight Covid-19 and found a multi-factorial immune response (including CD8(+) T cells mentioned above) were required by a patient to recover from Covid-19. With the knowledge we now have of influenza vaccines inhibiting development of virus-specific T cell responses, administering a flu vaccine could potentially be preventing the recipient from mounting an effective response to the Covid-19 virus.

8) Repeated annual influenza vaccination and vaccine effectiveness: review of evidence

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/10.1080/14760584.2017.1334554

Published in 2017, this international review concluded “The public health impact of repeated immunization and the immunologic mechanisms leading to reduced protection or increased risk remain poorly understood . . Our current understanding of repeated vaccination effects is inadequate to inform vaccine policy recommendations".

If the Australian Government goes ahead with mandating influenza vaccines for any part of the population, in the knowledge that these vaccines may increase susceptibility to other diseases, the Government may be held legally liable by those harmed by these policies. Given that the Australian Government is now mandating Influenza vaccine for healthcare, childcare, aged care professionals, residents, staff and visitors and now you are informed of the conflicting science listed above, does this not make you and/or the Government guilty, morally and financially liable in the event of death, disability and injury from mandating influenza (and other) vaccines?

If the influenza vaccine leads to further Covid-19 deaths does this not make the Government guilty of causing death?

I would like your Department to formally respond, acknowledging receipt of this information and to answer the questions raised by this research:

1) What is the Government’s response to being presented with the above evidence that influenza vaccine causes non-specific / unintended adverse effects, such as increased susceptibility to other respiratory viruses, including coronavirus?

2) If the Government continues to recommend influenza vaccine in the knowledge that it causes vaccine-derived virus interference and increased risk of acute respiratory illness (ARI), what evidence does it have to continue to recommend influenza vaccination in the time of a Covid-19 pandemic, when doing so may affect the recipient’s ability to recover from Covid-19?

{personal message:10}

Yours sincerely,
{Name (First):1.3} {Name (Last):1.6}
{Email:2}
{Address (Street Address):3.1}, {Address (Address Line 2):3.2}
{Address (City):3.3} {Address (State / Province):3.4} {Address (ZIP / Postal Code):3.5}
{Address (Country):3.6}
Consent*
I agree for you to send this email on my behalf (using the email address I provided), to the addressees indicated on the PREVIOUS PAGE.

luke | Healthier Communities

Send a Letter: Artificial Electromagnetic Radiation (EMR) Technologies and Emissions

Artificial Electromagnetic Radiation (EMR) Technologies and Emissions

This is the email content that will be sent.

Send a Letter: Influenza Vaccine may increase the risk of Coronavirus Infection

Influenza Vaccine may increase the risk of Coronavirus Infection

This is the email content that will be sent.