To: Committee, Government Administration (SEN) Subject: FW: Submission - Inquiry - Qld Government Date: Wednesday, 19 November 2014 11:18:14 PM Attachments: dot points - HeV issues.docx Case History (Peachester 2007).docx very last submission PRIVATE AND CONFIDENTIAL.docx

I tried to send this last night and it was sent back. It seems I may have made one small error with the address. My apologies. I spoke with one of your representatives today who suggested I try again. Susan Richardson

From: Sue Richardson Sent: Tuesday, 18 November 2014 10:05 PM To: '[email protected].' Subject: Submission - Inquiry - Qld Government

Dear Sir/Madam

I had no idea any such thing was happening, regarding complaints about the Qld Government. I have only just arrived home and opened an email stating that submissions must be in by the close of business today. Obviously I have missed this by hours. I feel crushed. Please bear with me as I will explain. Please read further.

I am begging you to allow me a later date and here is why. My computer recently crashed and I lost all data – all of that which I would have submitted is in hard copy in boxes. I have some documents held in my computer which I have asked an interested party to return to me via USB. I have fought so long and hard and got nowhere – to the point where I have now lost my family, nearly lost my home, and in short – a grave injustice has been done to the people of Queensland, the wildlife of Queensland and I firmly believe that people have died as a result. I consider this manslaughter. I can find no other word for it but corruption.

My issues and numerous complaints all revolve around one issue. HENDRA , of which it was claimed that my beloved horse was euthanized, and later diagnosed with HeV. but with little evidence of same. This incorporates Qld Health, Qld Biosecurity (formerly the DPI) and the CSIRO. All the evidence I have seen, read and printed leads to the involvement with the United States Military Scientists (for their own gain) and scientists here in Australia. I believe two veterinarians could have been saved but for the cover up of scientific sell-offs.

I became involved with this when I sought to have my horse’s blood returned from the labs for barbiturate testing, as all evidence suggested that a deliberate poisoning/baiting took place with my horse. I have written countless letters and feel I can do no more but to sit and write a book to try to get some truths out there, so frustrated am I. I went to Parliament to meet with Biosecurity to obtain some answers – they closed the meeting as soon as I presented the questions. I presented my documents to a conference in NSW. I have spent countless hours putting in a many faceted report to the Ombudsman – in the absence of a Scientific Ombudsmen – and the point was completely missed in his final report.

What I have attached is just a sample of the correspondence and personal of issues sent regarding the issues of Hendra Virus; Inadequate testing; misdiagnosis.... the list is endless.

Even the FOI process was made extremely difficult for me and resulted in many complaint letters in and of itself.

I met with Andrew Powell (My ‘then’ MP) and presented him with many documents, and also asked that he forward these to Campbell Newman. (It must be understood that I am a layperson, a mother who was simply raising a family at the time, so even the time taken and printing costs were prohibitive to me to be sending to all and sundry.) This was before Mr Powell was elected into the position of Qld Environment Minister. When yet more trouble arose in the media, I further asked Mr Powell and Mr Newman to disclose what they knew and had seen, to the public. This was not done, and I was not even dignified with a response.

I cannot adequately cover these issues (which spanned about five years of personal research and very personal pain) in one letter to yourself. Suffice to say, I believe I have much adequate evidence to show corruption/negligence/incompetence – or at the very least – need for an inquiry. Much of this is contained in hard copy, though there may be some files lost forever with my computer failure earlier this year. I would however, know what the issues are, and where to regain such evidence or question, where it remains available. (Some things were removed permanently from public location as soon as I questioned validity.) It is simply too difficult for me to access, scan and send much of this on my home computer at this late hour (I now work long hours, in another locale) in order to have it available on your desk by the cut-off. What I do promise you, is that what I have makes very interesting reading for the investigator.

I implore you to allow my submission to stand, and ask please that you seek contact with me regarding this.

Yours Sincerely

Susan Richardson

PEACHESTER 2007 – HeV - A Case Study – June – Midwinter – cold and dry.

Events and issues with testing, process and questions and findings associated with this.

1. Following issues with media and public harassment, trespass, innuendo and stalking, a follow on from the 2006 HeV event, which was highly publicised, an attempt was made to restore the damaged reputation of the flying foxes via a small local newspaper piece. My horse had trouble rising to his back feet. (I had lodged a complaint with AVA over media harassment during neighbour’s case – for Breach of Client confidentiality for that person’s veterinary staff – complaint never dealt with – clinic involved withdrew AVA membership when advised of complaint.) Nigel Perkins refused to investigate for review.

2. Vet was called – small sedative was issued to calm horse, horse over reacted massively to sedative – nearly fell down (hated being handled by strangers) and nothing adverse was found, suggested might be colic, with limited exam. Made a slight recovery overnight.

3. Vet’s next visit, horse was leaning, very sleepy and spaced out with full weight against hitching rail,(unable to retract penis) . Full assessment made. Totally normal clinical exam. No neurological signs, no colic, nothing wrong with mucous membranes, no elevated heart rate, no raised temp. Vet suggested horse may have been drugged with barbiturate. Suggested not uncommon.

4. Then was noticed looking very ‘dopey’ standing square like a table down by the bush. Tried to walk him back to top paddock, but refusing to move past gateway. Seemed unsure about moving forward.

5. Rain came that night – very heavy, very cold, horse rugged heavily against rain and chill. Still standing in gateway area, which funnels run off. Wanted food, but had trouble chewing, mouth seemed ‘numb’. Later on, after dark, slipped in run- off and went down. Seemed to become lucid and was panicking about being prone. I tried to bolster him with straw and hay, to keep his head out of the water.(I was alone and vet unable to come). Attempts to rise went on all night and he could not quite find the hind leg strength to regain a stand position. Attempts to stand went on all night. I could not strip off heavy rugs because of the cold, nor erect a temporary shelter because of the horse’s struggles to rise, which became more frantic with each attempt.

6. By morning, (Still cold, torrential rain) horse was laying, exhausted, very cold, going into shock. Temp barely registering. Because of the situation, the decision was made to euthanize the horse. Lots of blood was taken for diagnostics, before euthanasia, so as to not contaminate testing. Blood sent away, for liver biochem, for toxins etc, and also HeV testing. There was no suspicion of this, but political climate within the village made it necessary.

7. Call received – PCR - weak positive on one sample at Qld Health. All Negative for DPI.

8. Placed in quarantine. Inspector and vet thought may be false positive – suggested record all matters from now on, given past history here. Followed advice.

9. Located fresh plier cuts in B. wire, hidden corner, suggestive of break in.

10. Refused any and all differential testing during HeV testing – all blood confiscated.

11. Awaited test results – close to 3 weeks in duration. Told all ‘definitively negative’

12. Informed all tiny leftover blood sample too little and too decomposed for biological testing. (see internal DPI emails. Re; volume and condition of blood.)

13. Tried (only other option) to have blood removed and taken to John Tonge Centre (suggested by Hume Field) for barbiturate testing.

14. David Waltisbuhl to seek protocol, blood would be need to be autoclaved – barbiturates stable, synthetic, sample condition and autoclaving not an issue.

15. Suddenly informed DPI were going back to the drawing board to retest.

16. What with? (internal DPI email states all blood was sent back from HD, and searches indicated that reported volume was indeed, all that was left).

17. Unbeknown at the time, HeV forum was taking place during second round of testing. Suggestions at conclusion required more infected sample for research. (see Research Adoption Forum 16.07.07).

18. Informed that horse was HeV positive. (Beg. August 2007 – horse died beg. June 2007.) My own vet suspicious of results – suddenly left to work for DPI(?) No longer available for comment.

19. Conference call with Andrew Langley and Greg Smith – supervising scientist (HD). G Smith made claims that diagnosis could not be wrong. Knew nothing of horse’s symptoms. Admitted that he had designed the test. Found this on internet – husband and wife both on abstract. Suggestive of vested interest.

20. Later found newspaper clipping claiming same man was Manager at Virology, John Tonge Centre, where horse’s blood never made it for drug testing.

21. Asked for Internal review, Minister finally claimed that it was up to the scientists to decide if blood was unfit for testing (but they did? Didn’t they?) Said reason for negative initial test was mutation of virus (see D Middleton 2009 – characterization of HeV – NO mutation. Also told ‘not enough virus in blood to register’ (See page 4 and 5 of 2010 guidelines – virus widespread through fluid and organs by time any symptoms are showing).

22. Had a long battle to obtain FOI documents. Finally arrived. 23. Not happy with what I found. Returned correspondence to Minister. Minister suggested meeting with Jim Thompson, David Waltisbuhl, and Hume Field. Hume Field did not arrive with others that day. Other commitments.

24. Before meeting commenced – informed not to bother Minister – he would only say what they told him to. Also informed they had no intention of changing diagnosis. These men only brought one paper with them (barely relevant. A paper of Hume Field’s, claiming that thoroughbreds were mostly susceptible). Repeated questions over where the blood came from for the second tests were finally answered with ‘I don’t know’ ( David Waltisbuhl). Other questions were often answered with ‘I can’t tell you that, it’s classified’. I was also told it would be pointless taking them to court because they ‘always had their ‘t’s crossed and ‘I’s dotted. I received no answers, no satisfaction and was told when they left, that if they ‘could help me with anything else, just call’. They had each other as witness – I had none.

25. FINDINGS:

26. It seems that all guidelines at that time (and before) stated that PCR testing was not definitive, without back up testing (prone to false results).

27. Test results FOI – two final reports – all negative except one very late PCR test on the second – marked revised final report, after the close of the Henipavirus forum. Tests seemed to run in opposite direction on second report as opposed to reporting in the first one.

28. Blood sample was sent in by Greg Smith – for secondary testing (designer of the PCR test, also later found as manager of virology at John Tonge Centre) with NO sample collection date – after it was stated that all sample had been returned.

29. Perusal of Peachester 2006 Review document also revealed many negative results prior to an unusual positive which was not totally consistent with HeV (This also, coincidentally just following and an forum questioning need for infected sample for research on multiplex test which appeared to cover both HeV/Nipah and WNV and Kunjin. It was largely referring to the WNV sector of the test – but what of the HeV component? – Was this just a coincidence?)

30. Neither of the Peachester cases had any differential diagnosis – despite equivocal test results, and both being found positive, confirmed with a PCR at the finality of testing. In the 2006 case, one of 3 samples had a viral reaction, at the end of testing – but was this necessarily HeV. It was stated as Paramyxovirus ‘like’. Yet other causes were not looked into.

31. Interestingly, it appears that a new equine arbovirus was first isolated in Peachester in 1984. This is called Stretch Lagoon virus. This has never been mentioned. Peachester was also the only place on this side of the continent where this virus was isolated, and the first isolation was registered by the CSIRO, so it should have been included as a ‘novel diagnosis. Though no symptoms are recorded in the paper for this arbovirus – I took a look at its closest family relatives, which affect equines – two of these diseases have HeV like symptoms – and one is even considered the top differential to be tested against – yet is not being done, it seems. African Horse Sickness. This has ‘classical’ HeV symptoms. The other, Peruvian Horse Sickness, has the neurological display. Why was this neither mentioned, nor looked at?

32. A new PCR test was designed using my horse’s blood and also blood from the other horse mentioned. (Mrs Ina smith was involved in that design) If either horse was not infected – and I do NOT believe mine was – would that not make the test an invalid ‘time bomb’?

33. Looking over the Redlands Review was more of the same. Equivocal PCR test results everywhere. Yet not mentioned in the recommendations by Nigel Perkins.

34. PCR testing is also used on bat urine, in an attempt to gain accurate infection rates from pooled samples. This is not even in any way scientifically accurate, even if there were no question about the validity of the test.

35. When having a look for info on bird deaths (WNV) I found that one whole study had to be suspended because the PCR was massively dysfunctional . The disease? Newcastle’s disease, also a Paramyxovirus. (Gordon and Field 2006). A paper on Ophidian (snake) Paramyxovirus claimed that accuracy of testing was badly needed. They only have a PCR available in the USA. Maybe that Paramyxovirus family and PCR simply don’t mix.

36. PCR results are still showing up as equivocal findings, in the 2011 outbreaks.

37. When Biosecurity were testing bat camps for HeV, Hume Field called me on a mobile, from an airport – more is the pity – no record of the conversation. (Apparently I had not received an email). He asked for access to PCR test the flying foxes on my property. By this time I had no faith in the PCR test, and refused access based on this. I made the statement that I was certain my horses test results were ‘manufactured’, I was stunned to hear the reply – ‘Well, it’s a bit late to do anything about that now’.

38. A study was done on the Little Red Flying Foxes 2004 – 2006 in the NT. The new Luminex Assay was used to validate SNT results – yet this test was not published (and therefore not validated, I assume) until 2007.

39. So why was this test used? – an unpublished test, over and above the standard PCR? Did they have no faith in the PCR? This is the paper which is being used to identify bats as the reservoir host for the virus. Which addresses a new question -

40. If the LRFF are considered the most virulent source of infection, why has there never been any kind of outbreak in their home territory and birthing ground, the NT?

41. Many horses died of Kunjin and other this year. This was stated not to have happened in Qld. Yet the Equine Arbovirus report did have a report from Qld – which was suspicious in its low case numbers, poor representation of diseases involved, and total lack of state information compared with other states. Yet it was known that many horses in Qld were sick, died or were euthanased, with no other diagnosis but ‘Negative for HeV’. This leaves a major hole in a valid outbreak, totally unreported by science, over a whole state, simply because no other differential diagnosis was followed. (I do know of personal cases of this happening).

42. Again – it is the use of the PC4 facility which prevents diagnostics taking place.

43. As for the NT – it is reported that an expected 90% of horses there have for the (same symptoms of neurological HeV). Yet no HeV cases. Is it possible that these Kunjin immune horses don’t get HeV because Kunjin is being misdiagnosed elsewhere as HeV?

44. If horses in Qld and the Southern states have no Kunjin immunity – and it is claimed to be a ‘hotter strain’ in these states, then is there some connection between the arboviruses and HeV?

45. Greg Smith (Qld Health, John Tonge Centre ) was informing the public in 2009, after coming under fire, that they were losing the battle to control the Asian Tiger mosquito in the Torres Strait. Later that year, the mosquito was found breeding on mainland Qld. This was given a Million dollar blanket treatment, and little was heard from then on. Is it possible that this mosquito is at large here after the floods, causing havoc. It inhabits flying fox camp type terrain, and carries just about any virus it wishes. It is a super bug, elusive and bites in the daytime. Eggs can survive months dry, waiting for water to hatch and the adult can live for up to six months. It is aggressive and has invaded far less hospitable countries than Australia.

46. Could it be that the floods have little real impact on the flying foxes than the explosion of bloodsucking insects and the subsequent arrival of virally loaded waterfowl?

47. Why have Biosecurity consistently avoided looking at arboviral involvement in their investigations? A pooled mosquito sample tested positive at Canon Hill, yet this was one of the very few PCR results claimed as a false/positive.

48. With a new, now $12 million budget – still no mention of entomological studies, as a possible involvement. This is nothing short of irresponsible.

49. THE VACCINE;

50. The work for the post exposure treatment/vaccine (as reported) was well under way by 2006 – conducted and paid for by the United States Military, done largely with Australian scientists, overseen by USA. Presumably using Australian samples. It appears as though those samples may have been legally accessed by using the Exotic Diseases Act for this endemic disease. It would be more difficult to gain legal access under the Stock Act.

51. It is reported that the USA military paid somewhere in the region of $5.4 million dollars for this, and the patent applied for in the USA before either of the two deceased vets were infected, I believe. Where was mention of it when they lay dying? I find this unforgivable. The truth was, this treatment, experimental or otherwise, was by then legally inaccessible, though designed using samples which appear to have resulted from the suffering of Australians, but not used for the benefit of Australians. But for the biowarfare concerns of another country.

52. The vaccine which was designed – here in Australia, with US scientists on board – for cats – suffered the same fate. If I have it correctly, I believe this is now being ‘fast-tracked’ overseas by those who the work was done for. Not at the CSIRO, as reported in newspapers recently.

53. The irony here, is that for many years, the USA military have housed the Venezuelan Equine Encephalitis as a biowarfare weapon – 3 vials of it disappeared from storage. It was first used and studied for mosquitoes to spread, and then was aerosolized. It was prized for its ability to be genetically manipulated, and this was also proven by the Russians, who spliced it with the Smallpox virus. It is ironic that these people kept this virus specifically for the use of maiming and killing horses and people. Do they still harbour this disease? They claim not, but who can be sure?

In my opinion, vaccine sales and fear mongering are massive issues in all this. Timing of extended and widespread media campaigns attest to this probability. Australia has not been put first, and in order to do this, Australian biological property has been made available to the international market.

When I discovered rather belatedly that I had been placed in quarantine under the Exotic Diseases Act – and not the Stock Act, as I had assumed, I discovered that my rights were virtually zero, and the same with regards to my horses samples – if I read the Act correctly.

This Act also overrides the Conservation Act with regards to ‘suspected vectors’ and since both Lyssavirus and Hendra virus (both endemic diseases) are both scheduled under The Exotic Diseases Act, this would apply to flying foxes – who effectively now have no real protection under the law, should the decision be made to exterminate them. The only other endemic disease I could find treated in this manner – was Newcastle’s Disease – which affects birds. Even Anthrax did not appear to be scheduled on this Act.

With this in mind, and with the hell my children were (and still are) suffering from the community – I made the sorrowful decision to cease bat caring, in order to both protect my family, and the flying foxes resident on my property, in order to short circuit any potential risks to them via legal access by DERM or Biosecurity, via routine inspection of the release facility. That is why the Peachester Release site is no longer operational.

All food for thought. I urge you to seek your own answers. Were I to print all of the papers I have, some of which I am still researching and have no defined answers for, I would be severely financially compromised. Hence, I give you these discussion points, by way of encapsulating my argument that the Hendra Virus issue is by no means clear – and neither are many of the cases claimed. Especially those claimed with PCR results. Thorough investigation is warranted into these issues. PCR Testing: Issues and discrepancies - HeV

PCR testing has been giving equivocal results in cases for years. (See all Review documents – by Nigel Perkins, Ausvet) each of these is peppered with results which disagree with each other, and with other ‘definitive’ testing.

1. PCR appears to give not only false positive, but also false negative results.

Until recently, it was stated in all DPI (DEEDI) guidelines, that PCR testing was of limited diagnostic value alone, and would need to be confirmed by definitive testing. PCR results are no longer readily available. Nor is there any current comment about equivocal results.

Recent outbreaks have been ‘confirmed’ in the media after enough time elapsing only for testing by ELISA or PCR – both are tests prone to false results, both need further confirmation. (Considered ‘rapid screening’ tests).

2. If there is doubt about the validity of results – how can the true number of outbreaks be ascertained, or the percentage of flying foxes infected? 3. Peachester 2006 case had ‘viral’ results ‘confirmed’ with PCR after it had failed to detect HeV in all other tests. 4. Peachester 2007 case diagnosed positive with PCR after exhaustive battery of definitive testing showed only negative results. Then only on a second round of testing after samples were considered unfit and too small in quantity – done on samples sent in by the designer of the PCR (G Smith, QH) – shortly following a forum request for more infected sample for research. (Is this a coincidence?) 5. A PCR was later designed. (why? Designed in 2009 in part by the wife of the scientist mentioned above (I Smith, QH) also involved in the design of the 2001 model) – was this test considered dysfunctional and in need of replacement?) The 2009 version of the PCR apparently used samples from the 2006/2007 outbreaks both with highly equivocal results, and one at least with a highly questionable diagnosis. 6. If this new test (2009) was designed from equivocal cases, which may or may not in fact have been HeV, but some other cause of death – then surely the 2009 test would be even further reduced in its accuracy? 7. With such a history – why is this test still in use? 8. Why was such a massive array of equivocal test results never mentioned, nor the issue of needing to improve matters, ever mentioned by Nigel Perkins in recommendations? It was his job to do so. 9. In 2007, a new multiplex Luminex assay was designed. This test was used to confirm (as was the usual role of the PCR) other diagnostic testing as early as 2004, during a sampling survey of Little Red Flying Foxes, NT. Yet the test was not ‘published’ until 2007. Why was this test used? Was it a prototype replacement for a dysfunctional PCR test? (Bossart, CSIRO) Why was it used before being scientifically published and accepted? Does this affect the validity of those test results? 10. PCR appears to have a history of limitations when dealing with the Paramyxovirus family of virus’s. HeV is one example. A study done in 2006 on Newcastle’s disease, also a Paramyxovirus, had to be discontinued because the PCR did not work at all. The Ophidian (snake) Paramyxovirus shares similar diagnostic difficulties. (Is this why the Luminex assay was designed?

Peachester 2007 – HeV outbreak – Beg. June 2007.

1. Horse’s symptoms consistent with barbiturate poisoning, or some such other poisoning. 2. Attending veterinarian made tentative diagnosis of Barbiturate Poisoning. 3. Blood samples taken before euthanasia. 4. (Break in to paddock was located during testing.) 5. Weak positive PCR was obtained on only one sample of two from QH 6. Placed in quarantine. 7. DPI confiscated all samples. 8. Result not repeated by DPI (AAHL) – negative only. 9. All differential testing refused – even when owner offered to pay to transport testing equipment into the lab, and for its subsequent cleaning. 10. Told no other diagnostic equipment in lab (so how are differential tests performed?). 11. Full battery of tests returned only negative results. Negative results reported to vet and owner by phone. 12. Owner asked to have drug/toxin tests done on remaining blood sample. 13. Was informed quantity too small and sample too degraded. (confirmed in internal DPI email – also confirmed that all sample had been returned from QH). 14. Decided to push for remaining autoclaved sample to be removed to human forensic facility for barbiturate testing. 15. Protocol to be checked by DPI at this facility (John Tonge Centre). 16. No reply from this request – instead DPI announced intentions to retest the horse’s blood) 17. Owner questioned lack of suitable sample. DPI dismissed question. Told again to be patient and await results. 18. Informed beg. August – Horse Positive for HeV. 19. Vet suddenly relocated short while after, to work for DPI – after verbalizing mistrust of the results to owner. 20. Owner consistently requested test results in writing. None forthcoming. Began proceedings with FOI. Long protracted process, had to fight for acceptance of free rights to information. 21. FOI package finally arrived. Test results conflicting. Wrote to Minster to ask for internal review. 22. Ongoing property intrusions and public harassment by locals involved in 2006 HeV Case. Children and pets harassed. Police refused to intervene because of HeV diagnosis, claimed it was none of their concern. 23. Internal review results finally arrived – none of owners questions answered, statements did not tally with written events. Owner complained of this. 24. Meeting suggested by Minister. 25. DPI (2 person) delegation arrived at home. Spokesperson and scientist attending were totally unprepared for meeting and would not answer many questions asked of them. Some statements were somewhat intimidating in nature, and implied lack of cooperation towards settling issues. Left without answering or resolving any of the owners concerns. 26. Owner’s family continued to suffer harassment, gossip, bullying, property intrusions, personal issues pasted on a website, local book written contained nasty but well covered insinuations. The cause of this was stated to be that the family were registered volunteer bat carers, and raised and released wild orphans.

Vector testing issues/discrepancies

1. Mosquito sample PCR positive at Canon Hill – dismissed as false positive. 2. Many samples of other ‘potential vectors’ taken from archived and irrelevant sources. Misrepresenting. 3. Bats from Peachester claimed a ‘high incidence’ of HeV – yet the carer submitting samples was informed by H. Field that all sampled flying foxes were either negative or inconclusive because of sample degradation. This included samples from a GHFF abortion storm. 4. Recent testing of mosquitoes as potential vectors refused after flooding caused arbovirus outbreaks (despite HeV cases rising to unheard of proportions at the same time). This is despite incursions into Qld of a very dangerous invasive vector which inhabits the same terrain as flying foxes. 5. If mosquitoes or other biting insects such as horseflies are known not to carry paramyxoviruses – then why were they tested to begin with at Canon Hill? 6. If insects cannot carry paramyxoviruses, why are nycteribids even sampled? Why also is the snake mite then thought to be the primary vector of the snake Paramyxovirus? 7. With no proof obtained from transmission studies that flying foxes are capable of infecting horses, why is it stated in the media, often as a fact, that they do? 8. The most plausible study done to suggest the flying fox as the reservoir host was confirmed with a new test, not even published (or presumably ‘accepted’) until approx 3 years after the beginning of the study – and this being done in a state where no HeV outbreak was ever recorded. 9. Cats were the only animal to be scientifically proven to pass HeV to horses – yet cases of sick cats around sick horses were often dismissed. 10. A sick possum which died unexpectedly (with symptoms similar to that recorded for Nipah) was also dismissed as ‘no interest’, shortly following a claimed outbreak. 11. Biosecurity was given $11 million to attempt to control/eradicate feral pests from Qld. During this ongoing initiative, it would appear that none of these relevant sampling opportunities of caught and killed wild dogs, foxes, dingoes, cats or feral pigs – were ever subjected to HeV testing? It was always claimed that there was no money to test these types of species (who could plausibly be spreading the virus) yet here was a cheap, relevant opportunistic way of obtaining samples for research – and it was completely ignored. Why? These corpses are sent to landfill daily. This is a waste of opportunity and taxpayers/ratepayers money. 12. Stable pests such as rodents appear to be treated with little interest – yet along with the rising mosquito population, rose a mouse plague, following extensive flooding. This also coincident with the rise in arboviral disease in horses, and a spate of rising HeV cases. 13. If animals are to be euthanized in accordance with policy because of a belief that the virus could re-emerge and re-infect others, why are not human survivors treated with similar caution. There have been at least two television events where a human HeV survivor has been seen working with horses after recovery – and that being in a place where horses were immuno-suppressed.

Vaccine and Media Issues

1. It appears that Australian scientists have been using Australian samples to do HeV work for overseas Governments, when entrusted by Australians to take care of state and national issues. 2. Work done in Australia for a post exposure treatment was well underway, and lodged as a patent within the USA, (done in collaboration with USA military scientists) for which a sizeable sum of money was taken, prior to the infective states of both of the veterinarians which died as a result of exposure, and the permanent disability of a young woman. Were Australian samples used to make this treatment – and it then withheld from those who needed it? Why was this kept so quiet? 3. Why was the work done on a vaccine similarly moved to another country, and also done in collaboration with the scientists from that country? 4. Is it not true that the vaccine, if made and retained by Australia, (presumably again using samples obtained by Australian suffering and events) would have been available for use long before the now expected date? 5. Is Australia now having to buy this work back from overseas, to appease needs in this country? Why then are certain scientists taking the credit and more money for this? 6. Why is it reported that the vaccine is being made and tested in Australia when there is much evidence and patents to suggest that this is not the case? 7. It appears that a media campaign used to escalate HeV concern in Qld began in May 2011, shortly after horses began to die of arboviruses. This campaign was intensive and ongoing. The media campaign turned shortly thereafter to what appeared to be a pre- sales pitch for the HeV vaccine. This too was intensive and extended, with a clear division between the two subjects. Very shortly after this vaccine media campaign, Qld experienced it’s first of many HeV outbreaks for this unprecedented season. 8. Throughout the intense 2011 HeV ‘season’, it would appear that BQ and the CSIRO have maintained something of an incestuous relationship with the media. Hysteria regarding flying foxes (being an as yet unproven vector) has been at an unprecedented level, leading to panic, fear and cruelty events. This can and does erupt into violence between people. Nothing has been done to quell this fear, and it actually appears to have been fuelled and utilised by BQ and the CSIRO. The damage to a vital native species who remain to this day unproven as the cause of the spread of the disease, can never be undone. The clear link between this native species, and an introduced species, remains the subject of a theory only. 9. The current transmission theory, as shown by 2011 events, has massive holes in it when closely viewed. With testing far from perfect – (or even acceptable) and other potential vectors ignored as a scientific possibility, it is likely that the transmission vector will remain scientifically unproven. Until it is proven for sure, the flying fox will continue to take the brunt of media fuelled hatred.

Arboviruses v HeV

1. With major extensive flooding events, Australia has seen a massive rise in mosquito borne diseases in 2011. This has shown extensively within the horse population, given that they appear to be perfect physiological amplifiers of virus. Many horses have been sick, died or euthanized with mosquito borne diseases. 2. When the arbovirus ‘season’ was assessed – and there are cases, it appears, still ongoing – it seems that the major involved were Kunjin Virus, Murray Valley Encephalitis and . These appeared to mainly concern SA, Vic NSW and to a much lesser extent, Qld. 3. These diseases (mostly Kunjin and MVE) have almost identical symptoms to those ‘accepted’ for HeV. 4. To begin with, Qld claimed no rise in neurological symptoms. Only to have cases of HeV. Yet it was clear within the horse community that horses were sick and/or dying of unknown causes. These were often diagnosed simply as ‘negative for Hendra’ within Qld. A good deal of these horses still remain undiagnosed. This is dangerous from a zoonotic perspective, as these animals become the reservoir host for diseases passed to humans by mosquitoes. It is also heartbreaking for the owners who are then left with no closure. There was mostly no differential diagnosis. Surely it is the duty of BQ to identify and notify QH of such diseases where they are present? Kunjin for example is a notifiable disease within human health circles. 5. When the outbreaks were assessed and reported, Qld had an abnormally low arboviral record for the season compared with other states – and an abnormally high HeV outbreak level. Given that symptoms were identical, and HeV cases were ‘confirmed’ (as it would appear) with what appears to be a massively dysfunctional PCR test – it does rather beg the question of whether some of these HeV cases were misdiagnosed arboviruses. Since the public was hardly ever privy to the definitive testing which followed, it always had to be taken at face value. 6. It is not feasible that Qld had such lower numbers, given that we had the same flooding issues, and the state is known for its mosquito issues. 7. Arboviral outbreaks in cooler states in cooler months, may suggest a stronger, more resilient vector. There is one known which could handle causing such issues in winter, in cooler states. It is a mosquito known to have made incursions into Qld. Qld has put millions into preventing and eradicating this pest, and claim they have succeeded. But the question remains: ‘Is it here, and are we even looking for it?’ 8. Qld was the only state affected with sick and dying horses who did not provide proper records of these accounts. Other states provided maps, graphs and disease make ups. 9. There was a new equine arbovirus isolated in Peachester in the 1980’s. It may have been causing issues in the NT. It is very similar to Peruvian Horse Sickness (which has an almost identical fatality rate to HeV – and the same neurological symptoms). It is a virus very close to PHSV on the orbivirus family tree. It is called Stretch Lagoon Virus. Has this virus too, been causing issues in Qld and other states? Recently there has been money put into designing a PCR test for this virus. It was not characterized until 2009, and even then without a symptom list. 10. Reasons given for elevated ‘spillover events’ of HeV were conflicting – some said it was because of a bad season for bats – some said it was because of a really good season for bats, which caused them to breed in much higher numbers. If they were truly ‘flying fox experts’ as claimed, they would know that this is simply not possible, given the physiology of the flying fox. Increasing mortality events over recent years have made this even less possible.

1

PRIVATE AND CONFIDENTIAL

30th October 2011

Mrs Susan Richardson

Your Ref: 2009/11507 Attn: Jessica Wellard Senior Investigator

Office of the Queensland Ombudsman GPO Box 3314 4001 QLD

Dear Ms Wellard

Further to my last letter, I stated that I would send no more for your perusal, but when this latest paper ‘Identifying Hendra Virus Diversity in Pteropid Bats’ arrived in my inbox - I felt I must send it on as I feel it pertains strongly to questions surrounding my own case. I have included all papers I am aware of pertaining to this aspect of my case, so that you do not have to hunt through past mailings for the information I refer to.

As you would be aware from past correspondence, I personally question the scientific ethics of Dr Greg Smith – and now that of his wife, too, Dr Ina Smith – both of the Queensland Health Scientific Services. I suspect that in both cases, these two scientists have put their own personal advancement ahead of duty and ethics. This very recent paper would also explain the reaction I received from Dr Hume Field at the conference I attended in August (whereupon the mention of the name of these scientists simply drew an audible groan from his lips). I was unaware at the time that Dr Field had just completed this paper with both of these people. Indeed, he seemed to have that reaction to much of what I said, but no answers for either myself or the audience, regarding my fair questions.

My issue lies largely not with what is said or discovered within this paper, (though again, most of these recent HeV papers have a tendency to pose more questions, rather than answers) but with whom was involved.

Going back to the beginning of my horse’s case, in 2007, I questioned the availability of viable sample for the second and ‘Revised Final Report’ of my horses test results, dated 2nd August 2007. If you would please read the enclosed internal DPI emails, please consider the following:

1. Email dated 12th June 2007 (to Allison Crook – from Greg Storie). If you see the highlighted area, you will see that after testing, the samples and serum were retrieved from Queensland Health, and returned to AAHL . This was well before the ‘final report’ from the CSIRO read only negative test results across the board (dated 26th June 2007). 2. Email dated 27th June 2007, (to Allison Crook, David Waltisbuhl, Laurie A Dowling and Greg Williamson – from Greg Storie) This email backs up what I was informed over the telephone, in that the blood sample left from my horse was in no fit state to be tested for anything of a biological nature (which HeV is, being a virus) due to its age, since being drawn from my horse. 2

3. Email dated 09th July 2007, (to Martin Jeggo and Ron Glanville – from Peter Daniels ) states (as I was again informed at the time, on the telephone) of the miniscule and limited amount of sample available for further (differential) testing – and this after samples were retrieved from QHSS. 4. Email dated 24th July 2007 (to Allison Crook, cc. Hume Field, Jim Thompson, Ian Douglas, Greg Storie – from David Waltisbuhl) which refers to my request to have that tiny leftover sample, which I had been informed was too little in volume for further testing (which had tested totally negative at AAHL – and still, in accordance with policy – need to be autoclaved) moved into the John Tonge Forensic Laboratory for barbiturate testing – and David Waltisbuhl’s offer to request policy from ‘Senior Management’ at the John Tonge Laboratory.

I never received an answer to this request – but was asked to await further test results. I questioned the availability of samples.

It seems that the samples sent to AAHL for the second round of testing (the second and ‘Revised Final Report’ dated 2nd August) were sent to AAHL on the 22nd June 2007 (some ten days after they were all sent back) from Greg Smith of QHSS – this ‘sample’ did not even carry a sample collection date. The ‘sample information’ on this form stated that the sample comprised of EDTA and Serum – and this was sent back to AAHL already according to the email of the 12th June 2007. So this sample could not have existed!

The was a later email – 3rd of August 2007 (see enclosed) stating that AAHL tested ‘material’ derived from samples sent to QHSS for HeV exclusion – yet the sample that Greg Smith claimed to have sent for testing – were EDTA and Serum – which had already left his laboratory by 12th of June at least. ‘RNA extract’ was not mentioned at all on the ‘sample information’ on this form. Yet apparently it was this which tested positive on PCR on the 31st of July 2007. (Close to 2 months after the animal was euthanized).

I OPENLY QUESTION THE VALIDITY OF THE SAMPLE SENT TO AAHL BY DR GREG SMITH.

This was also highly coincidental with the recommendations of the enclosed ‘Henipavirus Research Adoption Forum’ (16th to 17th of July 2007) – see particularly page 12. Hume Field was one of the steering committee of that Forum – but I do not see other attendees named – it appears that the proceedings and delegates are listed on pages 20 – 82 of this 18 page document. So I cannot state further who was attending.

I later discovered that Dr Greg Smith was the Virology Manager at the John Tonge Centre (via an opportunistic newspaper cutting, enclosed.) If this was the man who refused my horse’s minute, negative, autoclaved sample into this highly respected institution– on the basis of work he was claiming at QHSS – as he and his wife were the designers of the PCR test – see enclosed abstract - (which was showing highly equivocal results) - I cannot fathom what this means to the integrity of Australia’s top criminal forensic facility!!! The mind truly boggles. I do not know when this man’s employ began at the John Tonge Centre, but I was under the impression that he had left his employ with QHSS to take on this position. I had always wondered whether or not this man was ‘wearing two hats’, as it were. This latest paper (Identifying Hendra Virus Diversity in Pteropid Bats) is clearly suspicious to me that this man appeared never to have left employ with QHSS – and therefore, where my own case was concerned – had clearly conflicting interests with regards to making decisions of the nature of my horse’s case. If this were the case, and it were he, himself who refused my horse’s negative sample entry into the John Tonge Centre – based on his own desires and assumptions arising from work he had done – or overseen – at another place of employ – then this is a clear 3 breach of interests and ethics. At the very least, it is a breach of confidentiality from one place of employ, to another. It was made very clear to me at the time, that Greg Smith was the scientist pushing for retesting of my case at AAHL, and when I revisited the question of my 2nd test results with Jim Thompson, at the meeting at my home, he told me (quote) ‘That was nothing to do with us, that was QH’. To which I replied, ’But you then adopted those results as your own, did you not?’ He replied ‘Well, yes.’ I then told him ‘So you must now stand by that decision and be equally liable for it’. He did look very uncomfortable at that prospect.

In the latest HeV paper – it appears as though Ina Smith, is also ‘wearing two hats’. That of QHSS, and now AAHL. This woman, (closely personally associated with Greg Smith) was considered even more foremost in the design of the 2001 PCR test. She was then involved with the newer design of the 2009 PCR test (though if there were faith in the ability of the first – why would the second (2009) even be necessary?). If you look at the highlighted area on the second page (but numbered 53) of the Feldman ‘Design and evaluation of consensus PCR assays for ’ you will see that diagnostic submissions were involved from the 2006 and 2007 outbreaks (unpublished AAHL). If I am assuming correctly that these two cases were my own case, and that of my neighbour, I know personally from reading these cases that both were highly equivocal in their testing results. As to why they were unpublished – if there were enough integrity in the results – I think it fair to assume that they should have been published!

It does seem that a later paper – (with Glenn Marsh, Kim Halpin, Hume Field etc – also very familiar names, but lacking the Smith’s, it seems, which I sent to you in a prior mailing) ‘Genome Sequence Conservation of Hendra Virus Isolates during Spillover to Horses, Australia’ was in fact published – claiming a genbank No. for my horse, when his test results clearly stated that no virus was isolated. As a layperson, I am personally beginning to doubt any validity at all in the existence of differing isolates of HeV – given that the scientific interest in them appeared to only become aroused following the two equivocal cases of 2006/2007 – both of which had PCR results which made no logical sense either with other test results, and not even agreeing with PCR results during the same two cases. Were the test functioning properly – one should be able to expect PCR results to agree with all samples across the board, during investigation of those cases. Not only did they not – but neither of these cases, to my knowledge, had any other form of differential diagnosis – and that being in an area where other almost identical equine diseases were becoming apparent, but not investigated. It seemed that the scientific belief and interest in other HeV Isolates was first apparent to me during the ‘Henipavirus Research and Adoption Forum’, 2007 during the time my horse was undergoing a second round of testing, with samples that appear to be fictitious in origin – at the time when infected sample was being called for, for further research. It is interesting to note that D Middleton was involved in the abovementioned paper, when her experimental characterisation of HeV (Redland Bay 2008) infection in horses claims no mutation of the disease.

(Hume Field ‘explained ‘ to me personally, and with what amounted to a somewhat ‘condescending patience’ that the PCR test is a test only for ‘live’ virus – this may be oversimplifying things – but if it can only test for ‘live virus’ – why is it then used to back up results of tests, and also used (and taken as validated) – at the very end of an investigation on older samples – where it had failed to detect live virus on fresh viable samples. Especially where the virus, and the integrity of the sample both have a limited lifespan. Surely this suggests that ‘dead’ or ‘aged’ virus would give a less viable result? I asked him this question, and he did not appear to understand what I was asking. I thought the question unambiguous, in laypersons terms, and he is an expert in his field. Why was I told then, with a confused frown ‘I do not understand what you are asking?’ (the audience certainly seemed to 4 understand – and was equally waiting for an answer) and why am I still waiting now for the answer to this simple question? – and many others.)

From a layperson’s point of view – it does tend to look as though someone here is ‘drumming up business’. I noticed also that even though there was also interest in assessing other intermediate vectors at the time of the Henipavirus Research Adoption Forum – there appears to have barely been lip service in this regard. The latest paper was headed by Ina Smith, and testing done apparently with the PCR designed in (2009). One has to assume. Given that the recent (enhanced) media attention has elevated many of these people to ‘Hendra Hero’ status – it is obvious that there are great personal / career gains to be had by being seen to be affiliated within HeV circles at this time. I have only one problem with that;

I STILL HAVE NO DIFFERENTIAL DIAGNOSIS AND I WAS PREVENTED FROM OBTAINING ONE – I still have very personal reasons to disbelieve the HeV diagnosis in my horse’s case (and I was here – with my horse – from start to finish – these people were not.) If there is any of my horse’s blood left in archives – or any of my companion horse’s blood left in archives – and I have good reason to believe that there is - In which case – in light of the discrepancies shown in my horse’s samples and test results, where Greg Smith was involved – I believe I have more right to access that sample than these people do! A moral right at the very least. I would love to have my Arabian’s blood tested by an independent source (I most certainly have no faith left within the Australian laboratories, from what I have witnessed) failing this – as the chance for justice, truth and closure was stolen from me – I would like access my companion horse’s blood (now deceased) at the very least, taken during that time – for the same reasons. He was tested negative on all occasions – throughout 2 claimed outbreaks – and therefore I would like to know by what legal right his blood is held and kept from me? If it has no ‘official’ HeV status – then it should be free and clear for retrieval by its rightful owner - myself. I see no reason either why this Dept should put me through a long and protracted – not to mention expensive – legal battle to obtain these samples either. This department had no such qualms about extensive testing to acquire a differential diagnosis on the Kooralbyn horses.

I can now see that integrity and justice for what happened to my horse – was never going to be an option, nor a probability. I feel personally devastated by this matter – and overwhelmed by the resultant, unfair and unnecessary devastating consequences this has had upon my family life. I feel the system – and the justice system, has completely and utterly failed myself and my family. I can easily see why the man who lost his horses in the Kooralbyn incident (as yet unknown causes) still sent his own samples to a lab in America instead. Were I even to have been given the foresight or the option – I think my life would be very different today. I now face a very hard road forward, very likely alone with my children, who have both been shaped in an emotionally negative manner, by the fallout and consequences of these issues.

I please ask that you assess this latest paper as potential evidence that Dr Greg smith had conflicting interests as regarding my case in 2007, and also that the matter of his providing sample for the 2nd and Revised Final Report (2nd August 2007) be assessed as part of this. I thank you in anticipation.

Yours Sincerely

Susan E Richardson (Mrs