Australian Vaccination Policy and Autism/Chronic Illness

Since I publicised my graduation in December 2015 there have been many inaccurate stories written about my research in the mainstream media.
Most of these stories and comments have been made by journalists who have presented statements from my thesis out of context and used labels such as ‘conspiracy theory’ and anti-vaccination’ to influence the readers opinion.  

The journalist for the Australian newspaper, Kylar Loussikian (13 January 2016) provides a good example of the biased way in which my research is being presented to the public.
He has labelled his article ‘Uni accepts thesis on vaccine ‘conspiracy’.
By taking statements from my thesis out of context he has tried to represent the academic literature as a ‘conspiracy’ and therefore remove credibility from the arguments.
It is also claimed that some material in my thesis is unreferenced.
I have provided below a list of the arguments in my thesis that have been misrepresented in the Australian media with the references for these statements.

My thesis provides evidence that:

  • There is no legitimate public health purpose for mandating all the vaccines currently recommended on the NIP.
    The majority of these vaccines were introduced after the deaths and illnesses to infectious diseases declined in Australia (Fiona Stanley, 2001, Australian of the Year 2003).
  • The Australian government is not required to provide proof that the vaccines listed on the NIP create herd immunity (Terry Nolan, ATAGI chair from 2005-2014). Eviden
  • Australian government vaccination policies are not designed by the Australian government in response to health conditions in Australia (Terry Nolan, chair of ATAGI).
    They are designed by the Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunisations (GAVI) with industry input.
  • The Australian government has not investigated the correlation between the increased use of vaccines and escalating chronic illness in Australian children (NCIRS 2004-2015).
  • This amendment bill removes the public’s right to choose not to vaccinate to receive financial benefits and to attend childcare centres.
    This is a discriminatory policy against educated parents and their healthy children, and it infringes on human rights without justification.
  •  Government health policies can only infringe on human rights if they are for a legitimate public health purpose proportionate to the risk of the diseases (Tim Wilson, Australian Human Rights Commissioner).
    The Australian government has not provided evidence that mandating all the vaccines on the NIP is for a legitimate public health purpose proportionate to the risk of infectious diseases.
  • All the public health officials of the 20th century have stated that most of the vaccines listed on the NIP were NOT responsible for the decline in deaths and illnesses to these diseases.
    Therefore mandating these vaccines is not necessary or proportionate to the risk of these diseases in Australia.
    There is no responsibility to vaccinate for the community good if there is no evidence that they were responsible for the decline in deaths and illnesses to the disease by creating herd immunity.
  • This policy could cause more harm than good to the health of Australians and there is no reason to remove the right to choose this medical procedure for an increasing number of vaccines.
    This is a step towards mandatory vaccination for the Australian population.

 Here is a link to my thesis titled A critical analysis of the Australian Government’s rationale for it’s vaccination policy‘ that has been partially published on the University of Wollongong’s website.
Some information has been removed.
The information that has been removed includes Appendix 1: The Ingredients of Vaccines (Reference: The Australian Immunisation Handbook (Ed 9 and 10), Appendix 2: Case Study on Thimerosal (Mercury compound) in Vaccines and Appendix 3: The Australian Government NIP (Reference: Australian Government’s Immunise Australia Program (IAP) website (2013), and the potential financial Conflicts of Interest (COI) that many government representatives on vaccine policy advisory boards have with pharmaceutical companies.
The COI for members of the Australian government’s vaccine advisory boards were not presented on the government website until 2015, after many requests from myself and Elizabeth Hart (

Over the next month I will be presenting the information in my thesis that describes a plausible link between vaccines and autism / chronic illness in the population. The inaccurate presentation of this information in the Australian media is resulting in the public and politicians making harmful decisions about our health, a situation that has consequences for the fabric of society.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *