Newsletter 148 Protecting Public Health in Government Vaccination Policies
The Australian government’s vaccination policies (which are now mandatory to receive some social welfare benefits and in many employment situations) are not designed to protect public health. This is because they coerce the public into using a medical intervention that is being promoted on false claims of safety, efficacy and necessity. The public is being over-vaccinated and cannot freely choose vaccines when they are linked to financial payments and their employment situations. The Australian government is not being honest by claiming that people still have a free choice in these situations. These policies are not compatible with human rights codes or the Australian Immunisation Handbook (ed.10) for informed consent and this is detrimental to human health. Doctors are also paid bonuses for increasing the “vaccination rates” of the population and this is being used as a surrogate measure for the “health” of the population – without assessing the actual health of infants and children after using multiple vaccines at the prime time of their development.
The No Jab No Pay social welfare legislation (and mandates for vaccines in employment situations) are not protecting public health. This is because the government, and research institutions, have not done the scientific studies that would prove vaccines are not causing the 5-fold increase in chronic illness that has occurred in Australian children over the last two decades. This is not an evidence-based policy and it is unethical legislation. This chronic illness correlates directly with the increased use of vaccines over this time and includes allergies, asthma, autism, autoimmune diseases, neurological damage and cancer etc. In order for governments to prove that vaccines are not the cause of this significant and life threatening chronic illness, they need to have performed the following research before they claimed that this program of vaccines was ‘safe and effective’:
1) Long-term health studies of the complete schedule of vaccines in vaccinated and unvaccinated infants/children
2) Safety studies for each vaccine using an inert placebo in the unvaccinated groups
THESE STUDIES HAVE NEVER BEEN DONE. THIS EVIDENCE IS DOCUMENTED IN MY PHD THESIS PUBLISHED ON THE UNIVERSITY OF WOLLONGONG WEBSITE.
Governments are claiming that vaccines are safe and effective without providing this evidence and this puts public health at risk. This is a breach of the Precautionary Principle that was agreed upon by the Scientific and Environmental Health Network (SEHN) to protect public health in government policies (1998). This principle states that:
“The burden of proof of harmlessness of any procedure/technology is on the proponent and not the general public”
Governments globally have not proved that vaccines are harmless, on the contrary, they have proved that they are “unavoidably unsafe” and that they are linked to allergies, anaphylaxis, asthma, autoimmune diseases, tics, neurological damage and autism.
It is not acceptable for the government to introduce mandatory vaccination legislation when it has not determined how much disability vaccines are causing in the population. Governments are falsely claiming that serious adverse events are “rare” when they have not collected the data that would prove this statement. Further, claims that “there is no evidence of harm” or that reactions are a “coincidence” are also based on ignorance of the medical literature. The academics who have attempted to investigate these issues have been vilified and discredited in the mainstream media for attempting to get transparency and scrutiny of the science that underpins vaccination policies. For 13 years the CDC has been claiming that the link between vaccines and autism has been discredited yet they knew this was based on fraudulent data that was manipulated by some CDC researchers.
The Australian government is not protecting public health when it has not provided evidence that it is not causing this illness. The government has reversed the Precautionary Principle to put the onus of proof of harmlessness on the public and not the proponent, and this is protecting industry interests in government policy. The Australian public cannot produce the studies needed to prove they are causing significant harm in the population because the Australian government has not (and is not) funding these studies. (This is referred to as undone science in government policy and it is described in my PhD thesis). Nor is the government collecting the post-marketing surveillance data that would provide this evidence (Peter Collignon, Director of the Infectious Disease Unit, Australian National University). However, children’s health is providing evidence of this plausible causal link.
Put simply, governments have never systematically evaluated the long-term health impact of using multiple vaccines on infants/children, and mandatory over-vaccination is not protecting public health. The longer the Australian government ignores this academic research the more serious the consequences will be for human health and the burden on families and the Australian health budget .
Dr. Judy Wilyman
Bachelor of Science (BSc)
Diploma of Education (Dip Ed)
Master of Science (Population Health) (MSc)
PhD in Science and Technology Studies (Humanities) – this thesis examined the science underpinning Australia’s vaccination policies to determine if they are providing more benefit than harm to human health.
A News Reporter asks to be Removed from the Email List
To University of Wollongong (UOW) Academics
20 February 2017
Re: Ben Dickinson, a Reporter at Post Newspapers WA, asks to be removed from this emailing list.
Dear Professor Alison Jones, Professor Yeatman (and the 60 UOW academics supporting the statement about vaccination on the UOW website),
I have received a request from a reporter to remove his name from this emailing list but he has not described the reason why he is not interested in reporting on this important issue of children’s health. This includes the fact that 143,000 Australian parents have now considered that the health of their child is more important than the $15,000 financial bribe that the Australian government is giving to parents if they use all of the 16 vaccines (~24+ doses of vaccine by 4 years of age) recommended on the National Immunisation Program. This is a discriminatory social welfare policy that is not based on public health legislation. The vaccines parents are being asked to use are recommended by government advisory boards with financial ties to pharmaceutical companies and by a government regulator (the Therapeutic Goods Administrator (TGA)) that is 100% funded by the pharmaceutical companies and other industries. The government describes this as a User-Pay system (Cost-Recovery), however this arrangement completely removes any incentive for industry to ensure that its products are safe or effective because the TGA approves the drugs for the market AND monitors their safety.
Vaccines are a drug for healthy children and many of these vaccines are for diseases that were not controlled by vaccines and are not a risk to the majority of Australians. This evidence is published on the University of Wollongong (UOW) website (A critical Analysis of the Australian Government’s Rationale for its Vaccination Policies) and lobby groups (many with industry funding) have gone to great lengths to prevent the public from seeing this PhD research with credibility. Not only are academics signing their names to statements about vaccines that they have not investigated but journalists/reporters are ignoring the valid scientific evidence and not reporting it to the public.
Here is my letter of reply that I have sent to Ben Dickinson in his role as a Reporter at the WA Post:
I included you on this email list because you have previously written a story that falsely represented the concerns that parents have about vaccines. This is not about anti-vaccinationand it is your duty as a journalist to ensure that you research both sides of a scientific argument. This issue is about children’s health and the medications they are being given – in this case when they are healthy.
Parents are questioning how many vaccines are being given and how necessary they all are because children’s health is deteriorating with every new addition to the schedule. PhD’s are not awarded if they do not contain valid scientific arguments for debate. It is important to address the arguments not attack or label the messenger.
I will remove you from the email list and look forward to you and your fellow journalists researching these concerns that are being presented by academics, health professionals, lawyers and parents.
Dr. Judy Wilyman
The Science and Politics of Australian Vaccination Policies
Open letter to the Vice-Chancellor, University of Wollongong
University of Wollongong
3 March 2017
Dear Professor Wellings,
I have previously made you aware of the false claims about vaccines that are being made on the University of Wollongong (UOW) website and these claims are directly affecting children’s health. You will also be aware that the normal channels for debating academic research are not open to myself and others who wish to debate vaccination using the medical literature. This is why I have taken the unusual step of writing to you, Professor Alison Jones and Associate Professor Heather Yeatman about the concerns many professionals have about vaccines and children’s health.
It is of great concern that the UOW is remaining silent to the community’s concerns yet you are an academic institution promoting vaccination on your website. The claims being made by Heather Yeatman in this promotion do not support the medical literature presented in my PhD thesis – also published on your website. This is of serious concern because the UOW academics supporting these claims have chosen not to examine the scientific arguments I have provided in my PhD thesis or to debate these arguments. This is an important part of the academic process that is needed to maintain integrity in scientific debates.
It is of further concern that news reporters such as Kylar Loussikian, are being presented with media awards for articles that denigrate academic research with false and misleading information. This is of particular concern when this research is fundamental to children’s health. This journalist did not interview me for his articles and they were not presented in an objective manner. Kylar Loussikian has been presented with a media award for writing negatively framed articles about academic literature that are designed to discredit the research. Further, there is no journalist in Australia who has investigated the science and politics underpinning vaccination policies. Where is the accountability for accurate journalism in Australia when reporters are getting awards for misinforming the public on health issues.
What role is the University of Wollongong playing in maintaining academic integrity in health issues when the UOW academics, who have signed their names to these false claims on the UOW website will not provide evidence to support their claims or participate in an academic debate to answer the public’s concerns?
As the University of Wollongong has become involved in this debate by promoting immunisation on its website I will provide you with my latest global newsletter that clarifies the significant concerns that educated parents have about government vaccination policies. This newsletter is titled “Newsletter 148: Protecting Public Health in Government Vaccination Policies”
The community that is concerned about children’s health is copied into this email and is looking forward to your response. The longer UOW academics ignore this debate and continue to promote unproven claims, the more serious the consequences will be for human health.
Dr. Judy Wilyman