It appears that your government may withhold Centrelink payments from parents who choose to not vaccinate their children, do so partially, or on a delayed basis.
In light of this can you please answer some questions.
- There is no medical debate that adverse events can occur after vaccination. In some instances they can be extremely serious, even resulting in death.
The World Health Organisation states that such injuries resulting from vaccination can be ‘severe’ and require a life time of care, and that it is an ‘ethical necessity’ that a compensation scheme be in place. (1) If you are injured in an accident in a taxi, you can get attorney help from here!
Australia has no such scheme. What provisions does your government provide for those who have suffered a vaccine injury? Will you foot the bill?
- In May last year the French government held an open enquiry into the effects of aluminium adjuvants.
There have been numerous papers published on possible harmful effects. Professor Chris Shaw has raised “plausible concerns” (2) over possible neurological harm, and Professor Yehuda Shoenfeld who recently spoke in Australia, believes they can play a role in autoimmune dysfunction.
Does your government guarantee that the current ‘epidemic’ of neurological disorders in our nation’s children is not being caused by aluminium adjuvants?
- One of our nation’s foremost experts in infectious disease, Peter Collignon, has stated that we have an ‘inadequate’ adverse event reporting system.
How can your government quantify the level of risk associated with different vaccines, without agreed upon statistics for adverse events? (3)
- In 2002 British medical journal The Lancet revealed that around 90% of clinical guidelines are being written by people with financial links to pharmaceutical companies.
It has also been revealed that articles in medical journals are being ghost written by drug company employees, and that negative data is routinely withheld.
The ‘All Trials’ initiative has shown that the medical evidence base has been massively corrupted by pharmaceutical marketing.
Will your government sign up to ‘All Trials’, and will you guarantee that any research presented in support of vaccination is independently audited?
And further to this are you prepared to categorically guarantee that existing research used to support the current schedule is 100% reliable and free from the influence of pharmaceutical marketing concerns?
- Professor Shaw has also stated the following:
“…..in spite of the widespread agreement that vaccines are largely safe and serious adverse complications are extremely rare, a close scrutiny of the scientific literature does not support this view.” (2)
Are you 100% confident this is not the case given the corruption of the medical evidence base as outlined above?
- Australia’s vaccination schedule is far more intense than most other Western nations.
We are also suffering an ‘epidemic’ of neurological and auto immune disorders in our children.
Does your government guarantee that there is no correlation?
- Up until very recently there was no declaration of conflicts of interest relating to policy advisers on vaccination.
Does your government guarantee that advisors to policy makers are completely insulated from pharmaceutical marketing concerns, and have been in the past when important decisions were made to add products to the schedule?
- Are you aware of the very many legal actions and penalties directed at pharmaceutical companies?
In the last two decades there has been over $30bn in fines for what the independent Cochrane Collaboration has described as a ‘laundry list’ of crimes including withholding adverse data, allowing products that are known to kill people, to remain on the market, bribing medical professionals and much more.
To give just one example, currently the company Merck is being sued by its own scientists for a massive raft of frauds relating to its MMR vaccine.
“Merck, the pharmaceutical giant, is facing a slew of controversies over its Measles-Mumps-Rubella (MMR) vaccine following numerous allegations of wrongdoing from different parties in the medical field, including two former Merck scientists-turned-whistleblowers.
A third whistleblower, this one a scientist at the Centers for Disease Control, also promises to bring Merck grief following his confession of misconduct involving the same MMR vaccine.” (4)
If their own scientists feel strongly enough to sue their employer, can you explain why it is that regular Australians should have trust in this product, or in fact any product of pharmaceutical companies – an industry that Forbes magazine states is ‘addicted to fraud’ (5)?
- Each year Australians are said to suffer 1.5 million adverse reactions to pharmaceutical products.
Would you agree that this is unacceptable and the government should be prioritising solving this problem, ahead of coercing people to ingest yet more pharmaceutical products?
- If there is a general concern about ‘immunity’ does your government plan to do more to educate parents about the agreed upon benefits of breast feeding and sound nutrition?
- Are you aware of the international conventions against coercive medical procedures and the ethical basis for rejecting ‘greater good’ approaches to medicine given the unique nature of individual physiology, especially when applied to people who are healthy in the first instance?
What is your rationale for breaking such conventions?
- It is my understanding that twenty years ago vaccination rates were a little above 50%, and the schedule was considerably less than now. Illnesses such as measles were recognised as having very low morbidity rates in robust individuals, with the sole outcome most usually being a period of discomfort followed by lifelong natural immunity.
If these sorts of formerly ‘routine’ illnesses are now being marketed as being vaccine preventable, would you not agree that any vaccine used for this purpose must be unequivocally safe and effective?
Given Merck’s own scientists do not believe this about MMR, why are we replacing a health issue with extremely low morbidity, with what may be a potentially far worse set of health outcomes?
- Australia has a massive problem with obesity and related illness.
We also still have a significant portion of the population that smoke.
Although the CDC in America claimed in 1958 that smoking was perfectly healthy, we now accept it causes a range of disease, and that smoking in front of children causes significant harm.
Given you want to link Centrelink payments to parental decisions regarding the health of their children, can we look forward to Centrelink payments being withheld from people who smoke?
How about people who eat fatty and sugar laden junk foods?
Given that heart disease is our number one killer, can you understand that many people would see this as being a far more significant threat to the nation’s health than illnesses that were until very recently regarded as entirely routine?
- Given you are seemingly setting a precedent do you have plans to link Centrelink payments to the use of psychiatric drugs on children with behavioural issues, given such children also have the potential to impact others?
- If parents have already experienced an adverse reaction to vaccination in their children, and currently rely upon Centrelink payments, it seems their choice will be to either risk re injuring their child / exacerbating an existing problem, or possibly going without adequate food, clothing and so forth. Do you think that any reasonable person would find this acceptable?
- Finally…..according to the Huffington Post, about half of medical professionals including doctors and nurses in Western nations refuse routine vaccinations.
A Canadian Nurses’ Union representative stated that this was because they had seen how many adverse reactions can occur.
National Nurses United (Canada) president Karen Higgins said last year, “nurses, joined by many physician organizations and researchers, reject the notion that vaccination is a fail-safe solution ……. there are health reasons why some elect not to be vaccinated.
Some vaccine products have been withdrawn, as when Bell’s palsy developed for many recipients.
It has just been reported that 800 European children contracted narcolepsy, an incurable sleep disorder, after receiving the swine flu vaccine.” (6)
Given the misgivings of medical professionals all around the world, can you truly expect Australian consumers to unquestioningly accept a procedure and products that are clearly dividing the medical community?
I appreciate that the vaccination issue superficially seems like a ‘no brainer’ as the Americans like to say, but it is my hope that the elected government of Australia will strive for global best practice and insulate itself from pharmaceutical marketing in its many different guises, including corrupted medical literature, front groups, and a complicit media.
Pro vaccination lobby group SAVN (Stop the Australian Vaccination Network) has issued a statement saying they do not support this policy; that they respect choice, and an issue such as this requires a ‘nuanced’ approach.
I applaud their stance on this, and wonder who actually does support this policy, other than pharmaceutical company shareholders, and segments of the community hystericised by irresponsible and inflammatory elements of the media.
The ‘pro/anti’ dualism on this issue is an artificial construct according to the many medical professionals I have interviewed for my contributions to I2P – their viewpoints range from being supportive of vaccination in principle, to criticising certain products or ingredients, through to being less enthusiastic about it overall and suggesting it may not be the best approach to some diseases.
In short there is a huge diversity of opinion, and this issue must take account of this.
There is no argument that vaccination can lead to adverse reactions, and in some instances injury, or even death.
As The Lancet, Forbes and many other publications have shown the pharmaceutical industry is ‘addicted to fraud’ on every conceivable level, from bribing medical professionals and policy advisers, to withholding data on products which are dangerous.
In this context the decision to take coercive measures relating to the use of any pharmaceutical product must be questioned. This is a very slippery slope and Australians of all backgrounds are starting to register their shock at what is beginning to look like corporate totalitarianism.
As with many other Australians I will look forward to your responses.
(1) WHO statement re vaccination injury programs.
(2) Shaw, Chris and Tomijanovic, Lucija (2012) Mechanisms of aluminum adjuvant toxicity and autoimmunity in pediatric populations. Lupus.
(3) Family sues over flu vaccine reaction. ABC News.