6 Comments on The Precautionary Principle – Why did it disappear in formulating vaccine policy?

  1. A very good comment on a public health policy that is being presented to the community as being in the ‘public’s best interest’. I first commented on the reversal of the Precautionary Principle in my presentation at Australia’s National Health Promotion Conference in 2009. Here is a link to the poster that presented the correlation in the increase in chronic illness in the population and the expanded use of vaccines in Australis’s immunisation program. As correlation does not equal causation, an evidence-based policy requires that this correlation should be investigated to ensure the vaccination schedule is not the cause of the significant increase in life-threatening chronic illness that has occurred in children. Governments have not investigated this correlation and they are not acknowledging this possibility of causation. This means that government vaccination policies are not evidence-based and the PP has been reversed to put the onus of proof of harm onto the general public. Here is a link to the information I provided at this health professionals conference in 2009 http://vaccinationdecisions.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/5754-Health-PosterA4_no-logo.pdf

  2. Ghost of Dingo // August 12, 2015 at 11:38 pm // Reply

    I was just looking at disability rates in Australia, and it’s worse than I thought. According to the ABS as at 2012, approx 2.2 million people between ages 15-64 have a disability with approx 25% of those having profound disability and 47% moderate to mild disability. These figures don’t even include children under 15!

    http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/mf/4433.0.55.006

    According to the National Commission of Audit the NDIS will cost $22 billion per annum when fully rolled out in 2019/20.

    Vaccines have made us healthier, my arse. These figures should be sufficient to trigger an immediate stoppage of the vaccine programme under the precautionary principle so the source of this all this disability can be investigated.

  3. John Radcliffe // August 13, 2015 at 5:56 am // Reply

    Judy Wilyman is incorrect in stating “Governments have not investigated this correlation and they are not acknowledging this possibility of causation” when a few seconds with Google and Google Scholar reveals a number of Government studies included the ones listed here http://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/concerns/autism/ for example.

    • Ghost of Dingo // August 20, 2015 at 6:34 am // Reply

      John Radcliffe

      While there have been some published epidemiological studies purporting to show that vaccines are not a cause of Autism, all of them employ critically flawed statistical methods, and in most cases compare a population of children who have received x number of vaccines, with one that has received y number of vaccines. In these types of studies, the group which received only one less vaccine than the other group is deceptively described as unvaccinated. There have been no studies conducted to date which compare the rates of Autism, other disabilities and diseases in the completely unvaccinated with rates in the fully vaccinated.

      The US Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP) has been compensating cases of Autism since its inception in 1986. A preliminary study published in 2011, found 83 compensated cases of Autism under the alternative diagnostic labels of encephalopathy or residual seizure disorder. In other words, compensation was awarded for vaccine-related brain injury which lead to Autism.

      (Holland et al., 2011, Unanswered Questions from the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program: A Review of Compensated Cases of Vaccine-Induced Brain Injury, Pace Environmental Law Review, p 3)

      http://digitalcommons.pace.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1681&context=pelr

      Most of these cases were in relation to the DTPw vaccine, which was noted to cause Encephalopathy as early as the 1940s (Pertussis component).

      (Byers & Moll, 1948, Encephalopathies following Prophylactic Pertussis Vaccine, Paediatrics)

      http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/1/4/437.abstract

      This study only represents the tip of the iceberg too – it isn’t a question of if vaccines are one of the causes of Autism – that question has been answered in the positive. Rather, it’s a question of how many cases of Autism have been caused by vaccines.

      These articles report on other compensated Autism cases, and there have been others.

      (Kirby, 2013, Vaccine Court Awards Millions to Two Children With Autism, Huffington Post)

      http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-kirby/post2468343_b_2468343.html

      (Attkisson, 2010, Family to Receive $1.5 m in First Ever Vaccine-Autism Court Award, CBS News)

      http://www.cbsnews.com/news/family-to-receive-15m-plus-in-first-ever-vaccine-autism-court-award/

  4. With all respect John, I believe we need to look at the entire commercial and political context in which vaccination and government health policy exists. The findings need to be drawn from truly independent sources, in an era when the boundaries between science and industry are increasingly blurred. If you use the same Google functions that lead you to the sorts of glib, official online statements (which might be seen as selectively citing certain research, in order to “protect the program”), you will find that there is both refutative science whose findings have led to a recommending caution, and evidence of industry-driven media bias, censorship of dissenting science and compensation payouts for vaccine injury, and conflict of interest influencing government health policy available.

    Having read widely on the subject, and having seen the science in favour of vaccination being revised by stealth since the late 1980s, and having prior to this seen the statistics regarding disease decline, I am certain that the current push for higher levels of more vaccines, and coercive measures to achieve this, is a commercial one for which (apart form the legal and human rights issues) there is neither a need, nor strong, evidence-based justification.

  5. John Radcliffe’s comments are incorrect and the link he has provided does not list any studies that have investigated in a systematic manner the long-term health outcomes of using the full schedule of vaccines in infants for a period of 5 years or more. This study needs to be done in animals before it is done in humans. But governments have not investigated the health outcomes of the combined schedule of vaccines. I have asked the government to present this study and they have informed me it has not been done. Hence the government can claim ‘there is no evidence of harm and no action needs to be taken’ simply because the link has not been investigated. And they are not acknowledging that this link needs to be investigated. If you can provide this study to demonstrate the safety of the vaccination schedule it would be greatly appreciated.

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published.


*