Australian Politics

Major IVF company accused of using 'wrong sperm' to create children and failing to warn of donor's potential genetic issues

This is a real horror story. Any case of an IVF clinic using the "wrong" sperm shows unbelievable lack of care. It is particularly poignant to me because, for medical reasons, my wife and I used IVF to conceive our son, and QFG was the clinic we used

Fortunately our son is now tall, bright and good looking but the donor sperm issue does not arise in our case. But what if QFG had mixed up my sperm with someone else's? On the account below they might have. Fortunately my son has characteristics that are identifiablly from me so there is no doubt about the matter.

Hospitals normally do multiple and repeated checks to see that the right treatrment is paired with the right patient so it seems to me that the mistakes reported below are clear evidence of negligence. QFG did NOT use the orthodox heavy precautions. Instead of being defensive about the matter, QFG should be energetically trying to track down the erring staff members

Anastasia and Lexie Gunn love their three children no matter what, but the mystery of what went wrong with their conception at one of Australia's biggest fertility clinics haunts them.

"We had IVF and got the wrong sperm," Lexie said.

"It's shattered what we all believe to be true."

Their three sons were conceived through donor sperm at the Queensland Fertility Group (QFG) between 2006 and 2014.

The couple paid for the same donor to be used for each child.

But DNA testing now shows their oldest son is not biologically related to their two younger boys, who have both been diagnosed with serious health conditions.

Anastasia and Lexie discovered their two younger children were not related to their older brother.(Four Corners: Ron Foley)
"It's a catastrophic error … how could they have used the wrong sperm to make children?" Anastasia said.

A Four Corners investigation into the lucrative IVF industry has found when things go wrong, corporate giants like QFG don't always own up. There's a lack of transparency and companies aren't being held to account.

'There was no match'

When Anastasia selected a sperm donor for her family in 2006, she took great care. "I went to QFG and they had a big book with the donor profiles."

"There's an age bracket for the donor, their educational background … and the health history as well. Medical background was definitely of concern to me."

Anastasia decided on Donor 227 — a fit, healthy Caucasian male 25–30 years old.

Four years after their first son was born, Anastasia and Lexie decided to have more children.

"We contacted QFG to check that we could use the same donor," Anastasia said. "We wanted them all to have the same biological father to tie them together so that then when they have children, their children are all tied together with biological history."

The couple had two more sons, born two years apart. Both had serious health issues from birth.

"Our middle child is diagnosed with hypermobile Ehlers-Danlos syndrome," Anastasia said. "Our youngest son … has joint hypermobility syndrome also. He also has a diagnosis on the autism spectrum and ADHD."

As the diagnoses kept adding up, Anastasia and Lexie wanted to find out if other children of Donor 227 had similar problems.

They sent their sons' DNA to an ancestry website to connect with other families.

The results floored them. "I was completely perplexed," Anastasia said. "I could see that there was no match between our eldest boy and our younger two."

At first, QFG doubted the reliability of DNA results from the ancestry site. Anastasia and Lexie then had their children tested at an accredited DNA testing lab used by the Family Law Court. Those results were the same.

"[QFG] have not provided any response to that legal DNA testing whatsoever," Anastasia said. "They have offered no rationale."

QFG maintains that its records show the same donor was used for all three children.

QFG is owned by Australia's largest IVF provider, Virtus Health, which has clinics all around the country. The fertility giant was taken over by private equity firm BGH Capital in 2022 following a heated bidding war.

Embryologist and IVF Patient Advocate Lucy Lines said the big business of baby-making had changed the way corporate clinics responded to mistakes. "I suspect that possibly profits are impacting the way these things are handled," she said.

Emeritus Professor Bill Ledger, a fertility specialist who's worked for 30 years in public and private IVF clinics, said transparency was vital when errors occurred.

"If you have a clinic or clinics where mistakes keep happening, then there has to be a significant inquiry and that should be external and it should be visible and 100 per cent transparent," he said.

There is a national regulator, the Reproductive Technology Accreditation Committee (RTAC), but it isn't independent. RTAC is part of the industry-funded peak body the Fertility Society of Australia and New Zealand.

RTAC's primary role is to audit clinics against a Code of Practice and grant licences that allow IVF companies to claim millions of dollars in Medicare rebates.

"RTAC has no power to govern the corporate nature of IVF," Ms Lines said. "It looks after the scientific and the medical side of the clinics. And they're very well-respected in that space, but when it comes to the corporate decisions of the businesses, they don't have that power."

Single mum Danielle Patorniti has her own battle against QFG. She's fighting to warn other parents.

Danielle's son was conceived with donor sperm. He was diagnosed with level 3 autism spectrum disorder, the most severe form, as well as hypermobility, ADHD and apraxia of speech.

In 2019, she informed QFG of her son's medical update.

"Early intervention is so important," Danielle said. "I thought there was a process where the information was passed on [to other families]."

At the time, QFG told her there were no other reports of medical issues with the donor's offspring.

Two years later, Danielle connected with another mum who'd used the same donor to conceive her son. Nikita Taylor's child also had a diagnosis of autism spectrum disorder, speech delays and ADHD.

"We started comparing them … and they were almost identical. Different severities but identical presentations," Nikita said. "That's when we started getting worried that other families needed to be contacted."

Danielle and Nikita asked QFG to share information about their sons' matching health issues with other families. But QFG determined there was no clinical requirement to notify patients.

"They pretty much told us it is just something that happens, 'autism is a neurological condition, it happens to lots of kids'. And we just continued to say 'this is just not autism, though. We are talking about apraxia of speech, we're talking about motor dyspraxia. We're talking about severe anxiety,'" Danielle said.

Late last year, they connected with a third family who used the same donor.

Maree Anderson's daughter had recently been diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder as well as speech difficulties, anxiety and was being assessed for ADHD. Her four-year-old son's autism diagnosis was also pending.

"When Maree told me about her children, I literally felt sick," Danielle said. "It just felt like for those three years that we had been fighting, she'd missed out on those years."

Months after Maree informed QFG about her two children, the fertility giant finally decided other families with donor-conceived children should be informed, but only about the clinical diagnosis of autism.

"I did ask about why I wasn't told about all of this other information, and they've never specifically answered that question," Maree said.

"There's been things that have been uncovered that weren't disclosed and I think QFG are forgetting that these are people, these are children, born thanks to them, and I'll be forever grateful for that. "I don't think the duty of care ends when the baby is born."

The donor is still being used by QFG to conceive more children.

In a statement, QFG told Four Corners the donor sperm was only available to patients who had previously used the donor and wanted more children.

"Patients … are required to undertake further clinical and genetic counselling so they have all relevant information to make informed decisions as to whether to proceed."

The three mums are extremely concerned. "There is apparently someone that's pregnant, and there's three embryos that have been created sitting in a freezer ready to make another three families," Danielle said.

"It's continuing to be sold as probably gold-class Australian sperm. "I just don't understand how they can create kids with something that there's a higher chance of it turning into disability. It's just money. It's all it is."

Following further questioning by Four Corners, QFG conceded that there was still one family who used the donor who it had not informed of the diagnoses.

Anastasia and Lexie Gunn are now suing QFG in an attempt to hold the clinic to account.

The fertility giant refuses to concede it used the wrong sperm to conceive two of their children

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-06-24/ivf-clinic-qfg-used-wrong-sperm-fertility-industry-four-corners/104007234

**************************************************

Conservative activists launch pre-election attack on the Greens

The conservative activist group that torpedoed Anthony Albanese’s voice referendum will pump millions of dollars into a sole election campaign vehicle designed to drag down the Greens’ vote and expose the party’s radical policies.

The Australian can reveal that Advance, backed by 306,000 supporters and 32,000 donors, will spend $5m on phase one of a national election campaign titled “Greens Truth”, aiming to inflict “significant damage” to the left-wing party’s brand.

Armed with a post-voice war chest and new research showing voters remain disillusioned by the major political parties, Advance is launching its pre-election campaign to disrupt and halt the expanding electoral success of the Greens.

Amid rising speculation of an early election, and Peter Dutton’s Coalition making ground on the Albanese government, there is growing probability the Prime Minister could be forced into striking a deal with Adam Bandt to form minority government in a hung parliament.

With Greens preferences helping Mr Albanese claim victory after Labor secured a paltry 32.6 per cent primary vote at the 2022 election, Advance is warning voters of “catastrophic” outcomes for families if the left-wing party’s agenda is implemented.

The Greens, who have come under fire over accusations they are fanning anti-Semitism, push a range of extreme economic, defence, health, education and social policies that the major parties warn would wreck Australia’s economy and undermine national security.

Advance, initially established as a rival to left-wing activist group GetUp, has raised just over $900,000 from more than 5000 donations since soft-launching the Greens Truth campaign with supporters in May.

New donations data obtained by The Australian shows Advance continues to attract grassroots backing following its influential role in the Indigenous voice referendum campaign.

In the past 12 months, 18,492 out of 22,485 donations up to $499, were received, 3652 of $500-$4999, 329 of $5000-$24,999, 71 of $25,000-$99,999, and 31 of $100,000-$999,000.

A key driver of the anti-Greens campaign, which has been in the works since January, is the dramatic shift away from major parties and rise in protest voting.

Almost 32 per cent of Australians voted for a minor party or did not vote at the 2022 election, representing the biggest drift from the major parties in a century. Highlighting the protest vote trend, almost 258,000 people voted for the Greens in 2022 but preferenced the Liberal Party higher than Labor.

Research by Advance reveals 52 per cent of voters still believe the Greens look after the environment, water and wildlife, 26 per cent think they take action on climate, 20 per cent feel they stand for nothing, 8 per cent believe they look after the disadvantaged and 6 per cent categorise them as left-leaning, progressive and socialist.

Advance executive director Matthew Sheahan said the Greens Truth campaign would be an “all-out assault on the party that is a toxic and extreme influence on Australian politics”.

The campaign is targeted at erasing House of Representatives and Senate electoral gains made by the Greens over eight years and shining a light on extreme policies and culture, with Advance warning voters the party founded by Bob Brown is “not who they used to be”.

“Australian voters need to know that every election sees the Greens with more influence and closer to implementing their full agenda, which would be catastrophic for mums and dads, and their kids,” Mr Sheahan told The Australian.

“The Greens are not who they used to be, and there is no greater threat to Australia’s freedom, security or prosperity. This election day no reasonable Australian mum or dad should be voting Green.”

The campaign will publicise darker sides of the party, including “the lie that the Greens are a party of transparency and integrity (and the) litany of cover-ups of toxic and sexist behaviour”.

Mr Sheahan said this includes “the cover-up of assaults, accusations of bullying, claims of rape, and even MPs resigning over sex scandals”.

“The Greens have a track record of being a disgraceful and dysfunctional party that has failed its female supporters, volunteers and candidates time after time,” he said.

Advance said the Greens, who have won major concessions from the Albanese government in return for their votes, have been left unchecked for more than 40 years.

With the Greens eyeing off government seats Macnamara and Richmond at the next election, after winning Griffith off Labor and Brisbane and Ryan from the Liberals in 2022, Mr Sheahan said the left-wing party’s free ride “ends today”.

A campaign priority is exposing the Greens’ “fraudulent brand positioning as a party that is only concerned with the environment”. Advance research shows when voters think of the Greens, “they think of who they used to be – an environmental movement who fought against the Franklin Dam in the 1980s, who stood in front of old-growth forests”.

“Forty years later, this is obviously untrue and, when tested, voters start looking for an exit.”

Mr Sheahan said Advance research shows “Australians are not across some of the Greens’ more extreme policies including defunding non-government schools, implementing an inheritance tax and decriminalising hard drugs including ice and heroin”.

“Australian families have every reason to fear this agenda and its impact on not only cost of living, but the future and safety of their children.”

He said another major line of attack focused on debunking the Greens’ “outsider reputation”.

“The Greens like to perpetuate the idea that they are a protest party with no influence. The reality is much different. The Greens are already deciding what legislation passes or at least having a major say in parliaments across the country.

“Their policies are already being implemented as they hold Labor governments to ransom with their preferences all over the electoral map.”

https://www.theaustralian.com.au/nation/politics/antivoice-activists-launch-preelection-attack-on-the-greens/news-story/3538b043c620aa608a22776a962ba476

**************************************************

Fresh warning over ‘politicised’ schools

Lowering the voting age to 16 could “politicise” schools and divide teachers and students, a leading constitutional law expert has warned.

University of Sydney professor Anne Twomey, appearing before a House of Representatives inquiry into civics education in Australia, said a push to lower the democratic franchise from 18 to 16 had some “upsides” but also contained a sweep of risks.

Chief among them, schools could become political zones, as “political parties see a new market for voters”, she said.

The professor added teachers could be swept up into politics and find themselves accused of political activism.

The inquiry, chaired by Labor Jagajaga MP Kate Thwaites, is conducting hearings into how to support greater democratic engagement and participation in an era of escalating misinformation and disinformation.

“In a time when we’re seeing challenges for democracies across the world, and a rise in mis and disinformation, it’s important that every Australian has the opportunity to be informed about and engaged in our democracy,” Ms Thwaites said when starting the inquiry.

“The committee wants to hear Australians’ experiences of civics education and what we can do better to support democratic engagement and participation.

“So many young Australians are passionate about social and political issues, but they may not have access to relevant and reliable information about democratic and electoral processes.”

Some witnesses, including youth democracy organisation Run For It, have argued the voting age should be lowered to engage youngsters in the democratic process.

“Lowering the voting age is not a groundbreaking idea – this policy has already been implemented across many countries,” the group said in its submission to the committee.

“Argentina, Ecuador and Brazil, who also have compulsory voting, have all lowered the voting age to 16.

“Other countries that have enfranchised 16 and 17-year-olds include Cuba, Nicaragua, Austria, Ecuador, Argentina, Malta, Scotland and Wales.

“These countries have seen meaningful benefits as a result of lowering the voting age, including increased political engagement from young people. In some cases, young people participated in elections at higher rates than older age groups.”

The Greens Party supports lowering the voting age, and independent Kooyong MP Monique Ryan has also expressed support for the idea.

Professor Twomey, a leading expert in constitutional law, said the move could make voting seem more important to 16 and 17-year-olds and trigger more interest in civics education.

But she also said it would be “wrong” to fine school-age teens for not voting, the current system in place for Australia’s compulsory voting laws.

She also flagged issues of “maturity and influence” and said young people were sometimes not as sophisticated as they might believe themselves to be.

“I am very embarrassed by some of the views I had at that age,” she said. “That also gives me some pause to think as well. “I really wasn’t as sophisticated as I thought I was.”

Professor Twomey recommended critical thinking courses be included in school curriculums to help youngsters defend themselves from wild conspiracy theories and slovenly thinking on the internet.

She also argued social media companies had a “responsibility” to keep discourse civil.

She said anonymity on the internet was “corrosive” and those participating in online discussion should also post their names.

“You need to do that openly, you need to do that with your name and your face,” she said.

She said social media companies should accept they were a “part of the community” and uphold civil standards on their platforms.

https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/australia/fresh-warning-over-politicised-schools/ar-BB1ou13z?ocid=msedgdhp&pc=U531&cvid=83e693e5575547cc8605cf581e027e77&ei=32

**********************************************

Pandemic: Government Misinformation On Australian Excess Mortality

Written by Dr Wilson Sy

The Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) has deviated from international standards of calculating excess deaths during the pandemic (based on 2015-19 average) by using computer
models ‘adjusted’ for factors like population growth, resulting in significantly lower statistics

The ABS approach, questioned by the Australian Senate inquiry, effectively reduces excess deaths to merely COVID-19 fatalities.

Both the Australian Government and ABS have conflated scientific theory with statistical data. Unlike scientific research bodies, the ABS’s role is in national statistics collection and publication.

Despite this, the ABS has proposed a hypothesis that its model assumptions adequately explain Australian excess deaths as attributable solely to COVID-19. Hypothetical estimates have been published as data.

The disclosure of excess death data should initiate rigorous scientific inquiries into their underlying causes, rather than conclude them. By endorsing ABS’s interpretations, the Government will risk misleading the public into believing that Australian excess deaths require no further investigation.

I formally addressed these concerns in an individual submission to the Senate Committee on excess mortality, highlighting the Government’s inadequate scientific approach to the COVID-19 pandemic. Although my submission was censored, its content is reproduced below.

My main concern is the lack of scientific rigour in the Australian response to the COVID pandemic, in which misguided government policy has caused high excess mortality.

Flawed COVID Data

The health policy response to COVID in Australia has been marred by reliance on selective and biased research, leading to misinformation. Official COVID data, upon which much of this research is based, has been shown to be flawed and unreliable due to inadequate scientific rigor in data collection processes [1].

In the realm of formal logic, it’s well understood that a false premise can be used to validate any arbitrary conclusion. This concept, epitomized by Bertrand Russell’s famous quip which demonstrated that from the false statement “1=0,” one could deduce absurdities like he was the Pope.

This fallacy is commonly summarized as “garbage in, garbage out.” During the COVID crisis, Australian authorities have relied on flawed data to draw conclusions, resulting in numerous erroneous assertions.

A critical flaw in much of published research is the failure to cross-validate official COVID data against independent sources. Despite the availability of alternate datasets often aligning more closely with common sense and broader empirical observations, these were systematically disregarded. Such selective acceptance of evidence, without rigorous scrutiny or falsification, undermines the integrity of scientific inquiry.

Cherry-Picking Evidence

The practice of cherry-picking evidence by purported “experts” lacks scientific validity. In genuine scientific practice, the collective body of evidence, not the opinions of select individuals, guides conclusions. Without proper evaluation, the Australian government has dismissed contrary evidence of elevated excess deaths during the pandemic, which is antithetical to sound scientific methodology.

Through flawed research methodologies, the Australian government has misled both itself and the public, asserting that elevated excess deaths can be solely attributed to COVID-related fatalities. The Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) has further exacerbated this issue by manipulating raw data through complex modelling, resulting in significantly diminished excess death statistics [2]. Such manipulations obscure the true extent of excess mortality and hinder meaningful investigations into its causes.

Comparisons with pre-pandemic all-cause mortality benchmark (2015-19 average) reveal a stark increase in excess deaths during and after the COVID outbreak, far exceeding benchmark figures. This high excess deaths suggest a systemic failure in accurately recording COVID-related deaths, which fall short of being able to account for Australian excess deaths.

Unreliable COVID Deaths

Contrary to official narratives, substantial evidence challenges the assertion that COVID alone is responsible for excess mortality. Instances such as the spike in deaths in England in April 2020, coinciding with the widespread misuse of Midazolam and opioids in elderly care, underscore the errors in attributing deaths to COVID [3]. Similarly, evidence from Australia suggests that a significant portion of reported COVID deaths may actually be misclassified cases of influenza and pneumonia [4].

While COVID may indeed contribute to excess mortality, the rush to attribute all excess deaths to the virus overlooks other potential causes, including systemic issues within healthcare systems and inappropriate medical interventions. The correlation between rising excess deaths and the rollout of mass vaccination campaigns warrants thorough investigation, particularly considering the possibility of adverse effects associated with vaccination.

A different approach is needed, not relying on flawed official COVID data, to address the issue of Australian excess deaths in the pandemic.

Granger Causality

Granger causality analysis, named after a 2003 Nobel Laureat, offers a methodological framework [5] for examining causal relationships between variables, such as COVID vaccination and excess mortality. By analysing independent time series data, it’s possible to establish temporal associations and assess the likelihood of causality. Granger causality hinges on the principle that a cause must precede its effect, and that the causal variable should consistently lead the outcome variable by a fixed period with high correlation.

Our Granger causality analysis reveals a significant relationship between Australian COVID vaccination and subsequent excess deaths, with a lag time of five months or 21 weeks and an accuracy rate of approximately 70 percent. In our initial study [4], we shifted the COVID vaccination data forward by five months or 21 weeks and observed a strong and consistent correlation with excess deaths, as depicted in Figure 1.

Notably, the vaccination data, extending until May 2023, which also provides an out-of-sample prediction of future excess deaths.

Conclusion

Due to flawed official COVID data, Australian governments and the public have been misled by research based on that unreliable data. The numbers of COVID deaths are inaccurate, probably exaggerated, but regardless, the numbers fall well short of being able to explain excess deaths.

Australian excess deaths may have several causes, but we have shown by Granger causality that COVID vaccination explains about 70 percent of Australian excess deaths. The issue extends beyond my individual submission.

The government’s practice of collecting data to support its policies raises concerns about potential conflicts of interest, particularly regarding accountability.

Australia requires a data integrity commission to rectify official data inaccuracies.

https://principia-scientific.com/government-misinformation-on-australian-excess-mortality/