These days, when you raise any comment or query regarding the effectiveness of a vaccine, the mainstream media label you as an “anti-vaxer” and either ignore you or write you up in a derogatory fashion.
And isn’t it strange that a universal call for “safe vaxing” is not even mentioned, because it does not suit extreme points of view.
i2P refutes that process as being undemocratic because it creates a “hole” in the concept of the freedom of speech argument for democracy.
The proposed government policy of shutting out people from receiving government benefits for refusing to have mandated injections administered to their children is simply coercive, undemocratic and illegal.
Governments, when developing policy, are supposed to examine all of the science and have scientific consensus, and consider all of the risks before bringing it into law.
They also have to align with certain international agreements and treaties.
And there is one other overriding principle that has to be applied, particularly in the area of risk management, and that is the Precautionary Principle.
The Precautionary Principle or precautionary approach to risk management states that if an action or policy has a suspected risk of causing harm to the public or to the environment, in the absence of scientific consensus that the action or policy is not harmful, the burden of proof that it is not harmful falls on those taking an action.
This opens the door for court action by any person injured through flawed policy enforcement,
The principle is used by policy makers to justify discretionary decisions in situations where there is the possibility of harm from making a certain decision (e.g. taking a particular course of action) when extensive scientific knowledge on the matter is lacking.
If ever an area of medicine lacked scientific knowledge it is in the area of vaccines.
The principle is generally accepted because some success has been demonstrated, but safety issues have been avoided.
The Precautionary Principle implies that there is a social responsibility to protect the public from exposure to harm, when scientific investigation has found a plausible risk.
These protections can be relaxed only if further scientific findings emerge that provide sound evidence that no harm will result.
Regarding international conduct, the first endorsement of the principle was in 1982 when the World Charter for Nature was adopted by the United Nations General Assembly, while its first international implementation was in 1987 through the Montreal Protocol.
Soon after, the principle integrated with many other legally binding international treaties such as the Rio Declaration and Kyoto Protocol.
The term “precautionary principle” is generally considered to have arisen in English from a translation of the German term Vorsorgeprinzip in the 1980s.
The concepts underpinning the precautionary principle pre-date the term’s inception.
For example, the essence of the principle is captured in a number of cautionary aphorisms such as “an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure”, “better safe than sorry”, and “look before you leap”.
The precautionary principle may also be interpreted as the evolution of the ancient medical principle of “first, do no harm” to apply to institutions and institutional decision-making processes rather than individuals.
In economics, the precautionary principle has been analysed in terms of the effect on rational decision-making of the interaction of irreversibility and uncertainty.
Authors such as Epstein (1980) and Arrow and Fischer (1974) show that irreversibility of possible future consequences creates a quasi-option effect which should induce a “risk-neutral” society to favor current decisions that allow for more flexibility in the future. Gollier et al. (2000) conclude that “more scientific uncertainty as to the distribution of a future risk – that is, a larger variability of beliefs – should induce Society to take stronger prevention measures today.”
Many definitions of the precautionary principle exist.
Precaution may be defined as “caution in advance,” “caution practised in the context of uncertainty,” or informed prudence.
Two ideas lie at the core of the principle:
- an expression of a need by decision-makers to anticipate harm before it occurs. Within this element lies an implicit reversal of the onus of proof: under the precautionary principle it is the responsibility of an activity proponent to establish that the proposed activity will not (or is very unlikely to) result in significant harm.
- the concept of proportionality of the risk and the cost and feasibility of a proposed action
If coercive legislation is passed regarding mandatory vaccination here in Australia, then it would seem to open the door to large compensation claims by affected individuals or class action claims.
Unlike the US, Australia does not have a compensation system for patients affected by vaccines.
The US Vaccine Court that exists to provide compensation to injured individuals is a two-edged sword.
On one hand it does provide financial compensation for damaged patients but on the other hand, most settlements are sealed by the court so that any adverse information that could benefit future patients, is simply lost and does not enter the formal information for vaccines.
This allows other patients to be damaged unnecessarily.
Australian health policy seems not to be going down the right track.