Editor’s Note: It was interesting to follow the recent reports about the AFL Club of Essendon and their injecting of banned supplements into 34 of their club’s players.
All 34, who were injected with the banned substance thymosin beta-4, were suspended for a period of two years.
The tribunal conducting the case noted that individual players must take personal responsibility for any substance injected into their bodies and if they did not fully understand what the substance was they should have contacted the appropriate body to find out.
It’s an interesting result when you compare this legal position with the Australian government’s policy on mandatory vaccination of our children, and with information provided being confusing at best and inaccurate and misleading at worst.
And coupled with the threat of losing any government benefit received if compliance did not occur, we have a policy of coercion that should never have been introduced in the first place.
Where is the ability for a concerned parent to take personal responsibility on behalf of their child and where is the evidence published that can be trusted?
The Internet is full of monetary awards through the US Vaccine Court for vaccine damage to children and the only real beneficiaries of this flawed policy are the major global drug companies.
Australia does not even have the equivalent of a vaccine court to allow for establishing damages in the event of vaccine damage.
Opposition has been building on a global scale since 2000 in opposition to government-mandated vaccines, as the press release below illustrates from the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, Inc.
The system prescribed for the US has been duplicated faithfully by the Australian government, and it is not accidental.
Members of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS) voted this week at their 57th Annual Meeting in St. Louis to pass a resolution calling for an end to mandatory childhood vaccines. The resolution passed without a single “no” vote. (Resolution and mandatory vaccine fact sheet posted at www.aapsonline.org)
“Our children face the possibility of death or serious long-term adverse effects from mandated vaccines that aren’t necessary or that have very limited benefits,” said Jane M. Orient, MD, AAPS Executive Director.
“This is not a vote against vaccines,” said Dr. Orient. “This resolution only attempts to halt blanket vaccine mandates by government agencies and school districts that give no consideration for the rights of the parents or the individual medical condition of the child.”
Forty-two states have mandatory vaccine policies, and many children are required to have 22 shots before first grade. On top of that, as a condition for school attendance, many school districts require vaccination for diseases such as hepatitis B — primarily an adult disease, usually spread by multiple sex partners, drug abuse or an occupation with exposure to blood.
And yet, children under the age of 14 are three times more likely to suffer adverse effects — including death — following the hepatitis b vaccine than to catch the disease itself.
Just last week, students in Utica, NY were sent home from school, and told they could not return until they had been forced to receive hep B vaccinations. Further, parents were threatened by Child Protective Services with possible seizure of their children based on “education neglect.”
“It’s obscene to threaten to seize a child just because his parents refuse medical treatment that is obviously unnecessary and perhaps even dangerous,” said Dr. Orient. “AAPS believes that parents, with the advice of their doctors, should make decisions about their children’s medical care — not government bureaucrats. This Resolution affirms that position.”
(Note: AAPS is a professional association of physicians dedicated since 1943 to the sanctity of the patient-physician relationship.)
Judy Wilyman, the i2P writer most concerned with vaccination policy is now Dr Judy Wilyman PhD.
She has sent us this note and we send our congratulations from all at i2P:
I’d like to give you the good news that I have graduated from UOW with my PhD and it is now published on the university website. However, important information was removed before it was published. Please see the letter below that I have written to the Labor MP’s – Alannah MacTiernan and Melissa Parkes – both of whom have spoken against this policy. The letter explains the concerns that many Australians have about the government’s new legislation and I have provided a complete copy of my thesis with this email.
Thanks for all your support over the last few years.
Dr. Judy Wilyman PhD
To WA Labor MP Alannah MacTiernan
Dear Ms. MacTiernan,
Re The Australian Government’s Social Welfare ‘No Jab No Pay’ legislation
I would like to applaud you for standing up for integrity and speaking out on the federal government’s new NJNP legislation that was implemented without public debate or consent. I have previously provided information to you and I am wondering if you could please meet with myself and other parents to discuss the very important issues that have been ignored in the implementation of this policy. These include the lack of safety and efficacy for many of the vaccines listed on the NIP and the 5 human rights covenants that are being breached with this legislation.
This information is provided in my thesis that is published on the University website http://ro.uow.edu.au/theses/4541/.
I have also attached the documents that were removed from this publication.
I have been studying this issue for many years and there are many doctors who are speaking against this policy but who are not being given a voice in the media to present their concerns. My thesis demonstrates that mercury was still in Australian vaccines in 2013 and it provides evidence that the safety and efficacy of mercury in vaccines is unproven. There is strong scientific evidence for the neurological damage that is being caused by mercury and many other components of vaccines (aluminium adjuvants etc) that the public is not being informed about before they vaccinate their children (see Appendix 1, 2 and 3 attached).
Please could you meet with us to discuss this policy because it has serious consequences for public health and the cost of healthcare in Australia.
Dr. Judy Wilyman PhD
Links to the deleted documents are found at Appendix 1 The Ingredients of Vaccines 150830
and Appendix 2 Case Study Thimerosal in Vaccines 150830
Not unanticipated, a range of critics have come out against the University of Wollongong for awarding a PhD on the basis of content type.
The Medical Observer has published a response by the University of Wollongong, and it is reproduced below (full story at this link):
‘In response, the university says it stands for “intellectual openness, freedom of opinion, diversity of ideas, equity, and mutual respect”.
“UOW does not restrict the subjects into which research may be undertaken just because they involve public controversy or because individuals or groups oppose the topic or the findings,” a spokesman said.
“UOW does not endorse the individual views of its academics or students. It recognises the importance of open and respectful public policy debate to the preservation of a free and democratic society.”
The spokesman said critics overlooked the fact that UOW PhD theses are assessed by at least two external examiners who have unchallengeable knowledge in the field of study, have no conflicts of interest that would impede their examination and are based in different countries.
“Dr Judy Wilyman undertook a social-science based thesis entitled ‘A critical examination of the Australian government’s rationale for its vaccination policy’ in the Faculty of Law, Humanities and the Arts which was subjected to the same rigorous supervision, assessment and review procedures as any other UOW PhD thesis,” ‘
Editor’s footnote: And so we see this frivolous debate continuing, with pro-vaxer extremists continuing to disrupt Judy’s painstaking body of work building into her final thesis and her well-earned PhD.
These same people, however, seem to always support manufacturer flawed “evidence”.
The losers in this debate are the Australian Public in terms of inflated health costs for a flawed vaccine program, Australian children in terms of their future health, and the Australian Public once again in picking up the unnecessary health bills from vaccine-induced side-effects.
We also remind readers of i2P that we stand for a safe vaccination policy and we are not against the use of any vaccine, provided it does not contain proven harmful chemicals and has also been proven efficacious.
Unfortunately, few vaccines pass that simple test and I oppose my tax dollars being used to prop up an already exorbitant profit base for a few global giant vaccine manufacturers.