The Australian Senate Inquiry into the ‘No Jab No Pay’ legislation which will remove parents choice in the number of vaccines they use in their children (up to 20 yrs of age) for the receipt of welfare payments, has been passed by the Australian Senate. This is despite the thousands of submissions against this policy that were received by the Senate Committee.
Only 400 of these submissions were available on-line before the public hearing for this bill and many were published on the government website the Sunday before the report was due (9 November 2015) – but thousands of submissions have not been published on the government website and there has been no debate of the freedom to choose this medical procedure in the mainstream Australian media: a fundamental right in all international human rights conventions.
Instead journalists consistently refer to the ‘anti-vaccination debate’ and to stigmatise these educated people further Australian journalists, usually refer to them as ‘anti-vaxers’.
In the Senate Inquiry Report, it is acknowledged that conscientious objection (CO) tovaccination is increasing and the government states that it is educated people who are choosing not to vaccinate. Instead of public debates on the reasons why CO’s are increasing and why thousands of submissions were against this legislation, the Australian Medical Association (AMA) has justified removing our right to choose a medical procedure by claiming the measure will increase vaccination rates in children. This claim is contradicted by Julie Leask from the government NCIRS. Further, an increase invaccination rates in children is only acceptable if it increases the health of children.Neither the AMA or the NCIRS have provided evidence that children’s health increaseswith higher vaccination rates and the use of more vaccines. The available evidence very clearly shows that the opposite is true – the health of children has declined significantlywith the increased use of vaccines since 1990 in Australia, the US and UK and other developed nations. Chronic illness and life-threatening diseases are escalating as politicians are provided with selective evidence to make decisions about vaccines that will have life and death consequences for children.
This bill has been passed by politicians even though:
- Peter McIntyre (NCIRS), Robbert Booy (NCIRS) and Terry Nolan (ATAGI), the designers of the current National Immunisation Policy (NIP) for 10 years, have not provided evidence that all the vaccines on the NIP are for a legitimate public health purpose. Most were introduced after deaths and illnesses fell to infectious diseases (Staney F, 2001).
- These government representatives have also ignored the medical literature that shows that many vaccines are not safe or effective.
- The information provided to the Senate Committee Inquiry was largely provided by powerful consumer lobby groups – Northern Rivers Vaccination Supporters, SAVN and Friends of Science. Many of these groups have subscribers from the Australian Skeptics Inc (a non-scientific lobby group)
- The available evidence shows that children’s health has significantly declined since general practitioners were given bonuses for increasing the vaccination rates of their practices and they risk de-registration if they do not promote vaccines.
- All government regulators including the Australian TGA, the US FDA and the European Medicines Agency (EMA) are 100% funded by industry. There is no incentive for these agencies to set up a monitoring system that can make causal relationships between vaccines and adverse events – so they haven’t. These regulators are concluding that many adverse events to vaccines are a ‘co-incidence’ and ‘rare’ because they have not done the science that would prove otherwise. The clinical trials for all vaccines do not use an inert placebo to investigate safety and therefore they do not provide strong evidence to be concerned about safety,
- Governments do not have the data to conclude that adverse events to vaccines are rare and politicians are incorrectly stating that all vaccines are ‘safe and effective’.
The Australian government intends to implement this bill on 1 January 2016 despite the thousands of submissions made against it and the selective information that has been provided to politicians to make their decisions. Please watch this video from New Zealand where investigative journalists have provided a balanced account of the dangers associated with the HPV vaccine that is promoted to prevent cervical cancer: a vaccine that is given to all Australian boys and girls to prevent a non-communicable disease.
What Tha…..? Sorry Judy Wilyman but what are your medical qualification to write such a load on one sided drivel? My opinion of this Newsletter to give a balanced point of view have just gone down … a lot.
Dear David,
Judy normally has a brief profile accompanying her writing. As editor, I accept that this profile was not published in this particular edition, but the following has appeared with most other articles “Judy Wilyman is a Ph D student and her whole academic life revolves around “evidence”. That she has picked vaccination policy as her chosen subject has seen her life bombarded by a range of controversial commentators who claim to be on side with evidence, but mouth only Pharma marketing propaganda. There is something sinister when a government coerces its constituency by mandating the compulsory use of vaccines when all rational argument would be on the side of freedom of choice.”
Those words are mine and in terms of balance, you are invited to write an article in response to Judy’s. It can be assertive but not aggressive.
Because you appear to work in a government department I will allow you to write anonymously. For the record, both Judy and i2P are for safe vaccination. We are neither “anti” nor “pro”
David I invite you to demonstrate that you are interested in the health of the population by addressing the information I am providing instead of attacking the messenger. Your suggestion that a person requires a medical qualification to debate vaccination is false. If you have the arguments against the information I am providing there is no need to resort to attacking the messenger, their qualifications or I2P. Similarly your suggestion that it is ‘biased’ is false. Debating issues requires people to present the weight of evidence for the arguments and this necessarily means that a person will take a position on the issue. This is the case for pro-vaccine supporters just as it is for those questioning many vaccines. I am inviting you to provide evidence to refute the arguments I have presented and I would hope that you feel confident enough to put your name to your comments, particularly if you work for the government and are influential in policy decisions.