Independent Australian researchers have been denied access to the RCD/RHD human health serology data
under the Freedom of Information Act. Numerous attempts were made to obtain this data together with the actual
survey data which recorded sicknesses in those exposed to RCD/RHD. All attempts have had access denied.
What does this imply? It may imply that the human health serology data may expose
a scenario that Australian authorities do not wish the public to see. (And why did human
health serology data supposedly have a cut-off level of 50% when animals were regarded positive above a 30% cut-off [why?] ).
There are several reasons that Australian authorities may not want independent evaluation of the human health serology data.
1. Testing methods may not be refined enough to produce accurate results.
2. The results of such testing may show high levels of RCD/RHD antibodies in humans.
3. The results of testing human blood for RCD/RHD may be invalid or may have large variations
due to cross-reactivity with other already pre-existing human calicivirus antibodies.
4.There may be large variations in testing human blood from one batch to another due to factors such
as cross-reactivity and lack of a relevant base-line.
5.Some unknown reason.
Rabbit Information Service suggests that the lack of access to the human health serology data
and human illness data (taken from questionnaires), is both sinister and undemocratic.
Australian authorities have declared rabbit haemorrhagic disease a biological control agent
of European rabbits. They have declared this deadly live virus product as safe to spread
amongst human beings and other non-target species. This is evidenced by the NRA (National Registration Authority for agricultural and
veterinary products in Australia) registering this deadly live RCD/RHD virus as a veterinary/agricultural
chemical product! (a world first which should concern all nations because of the sinister
interpretation of "Biological Control Agent to now include germ warfare using deadly disease).
The registration of RCD went ahead despite submissions to the NRA from overseas scientists and
independent Australian researchers NOT to register RCD as a biocontrol on the grounds of the
instability of this deadly RNA virus and potential dangers to non-target species.
Surely the continued denial of access to the human health serology data and human illness data
taken from questionnaires of those exposed to RCD only adds to the speculation that access to this
data may raise more questions as to the perceived "safety" of RCD/RHD than it answers.
End