All Australian adolescent girls and boys participating in school-based HPV vaccination programs need to be aware that the Japanese government placed a moratorium on the use of HPV vaccines (Gardasil) in 2014 and many other countries are considering similar action.
This was due to its unproven outcomes. Gardasil and its GlaxoSmithKline equivalent, Cervarix, are vaccines which claim to prevent a non-infectious disease – cervical cancer.
Yet there is no consensus amongst researchers about the safety and efficacy of this vaccine, Researchers from the independent institute, Med Check -TIP, have stated that “the harm experienced to date is overwhelmingly greater then the benefit expected“.
Year after year vaccines continue to be added to the Australian schedule and the government has now made vaccination mandatory for welfare recipients. In other words, anyone who is on welfare and doesn’t agree with vaccinations (for whatever reason) loses their welfare. It gets worse. The new vaccines have been added to the program at different times and some children now need more vaccines than others. Hence, there are 4 different vaccination catch-up schedules according to the year a child was born. Yet the government is informing the public thatall these vaccines are necessary for community health and this is why they are mandatory for social welfare recipients. GlaxoSmithKline; a company that in 2012 was fined US $3 billion in a criminal and civil settlement in the US for failure to disclose safety data, making false and misleading statements about drug safety and paying kickbacks to physicians, are providing inducements to Australian medical practices to increase their vaccination rates with grants valued at $80,000.
My doctorate thesis demonstrated that infectious diseases declined well before each vaccine on the Australian schedule was introduced. In most cases it was basic health measures like those used in East Africa recently to halt the spread of Ebola i.e. quarantine, better hygiene, clean water, and improved diet. This topic should be of interest to all Australians, not just recent parents, because the Australian government is planning to expand vaccination to all individuals from birth to death. The new bio-security laws introduced in early 2014 also include forced vaccinations or arrest in declared pandemics of infectious diseases. This legislation has been passed without debate in public forums and despite the doubtful efficacy and safety of many of the vaccines included on the government’s schedule.
Here is a copy of the abstract for my thesis that discusses the development of Australia’svaccination policy. A full copy of the thesis can be obtained from the University of Wollongong website.
Vaccination policies in Australia need to be scrutinised because the use of a medical intervention in the prevention of infectious disease has serious health and social implications. Deaths and illnesses to infectious diseases were significantly reduced due to environmental and lifestyle reforms prior to the use of most vaccines in the mid-20th century. Mass vaccination campaigns were adopted after this time as the central management strategy for preventing infectious diseases and many new vaccines are being recommended in the National Immunisation Program (NIP). The implementation of mass vaccination programs occurred simultaneously to the development of partnerships between academic institutions and industry. The Australian government’s NIP, like all member countries of the World Health Organisation (WHO), is recommended by the Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunisation (GAVI). This is a partnership with the WHO and UNICEF that includes the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, the International Federation of Pharmaceutical Manufacturers and Associations (IFPMA), the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (BMGF), the Rockefeller Foundation, the United Nations Development Fund (UNDF) and other private research institutions. All members of this public-private partnership have equal influence in the development of WHO global health policies.
It is important that independent research is carried out to assess whether all the vaccines being recommended today are safe, effective and necessary for the protection of the community. It is also important to have comprehensive evidence that it is safe to combine multiple vaccines in the developing bodies of infants. The framework for undone science is used to analyse the Australian government’s claim that the ‘benefits of vaccines far outweigh the risks. Whilst the government claims serious adverse events to vaccines are rare this is not supported by adequate scientific evidence due to the shortcomings in clinical trials and long-term surveillance of health outcomes of recipients. A close examination of the vaccine for human papillomavirus (HPV), intended to prevent cervical cancer, shows shortcomings in the evidence base and rationale for the vaccine. This investigation demonstrates that not all vaccines have been demonstrated to be safe, effective or necessary. It also concludes that the government’s claim that the benefits of vaccines far outweigh the risks cannot be sustained due to the gaps in the scientific knowledge resulting from unfunded research and the inadequate monitoring of adverse events after vaccination.
Dr. Judy Wilyman