The clock is ticking-Talking points for your letters and visits to parliamentarians

by Meryl Dorey and Joe Guy

Extreme Law Extreme InjusticeSince my last blog post about the letter-writing campaign, there have been some developments that need to be shared. These updates demonstrate very clearly that:

1- The States of Victoria and QLD plan on stopping children from attending childcare and pre-school no matter what proof has been provided to them that this is discriminatory; it won’t achieve the goal of increasing vaccination rates; it will hurt those who are least able to withstand this sort of financial burden; it will force women out of the workforce and onto the dole; it will not reduce the burden of disease or increase the mythical ‘herd immunity’.

The Committee in QLD that treated the pro-choice representatives with such disrespect a couple of weeks ago, has recommended that Parliament pass the legislation allowing childcare centres to deny access to unvaccinated children. You can read their recommendation at this link.

The Victorian Committee is meeting on Monday, October 5th, to consider their legislation to block the admission of children to childcare and preschool. You can email your submissions to them this weekend (you do NOT need to live in Victoria to make a submission and your submission can be very short but it would be incredibly helpful to make one NOW) – the more submissions they receive, the better. Send your submissions to

Here is the Victorian information, as provided by one of this blog’s intrepid readers:

The Bill, The Explanatory Memorandum, which includes the Statement of Compatibility With Human Rights and the Second reading (scroll down and click on Bill # 45, which is called “Public Health and Wellbeing Amendment (No Jab, No Play) Bill 2015”:


2- The intent is to eventually restrict unvaccinated children from school altogether and, with the introduction of the Adult Australian Immunisation [sic] Register, to eventually discriminate against everyone who chooses not to follow the full government vaccination schedule which could include literally hundreds of different vaccines. Education, jobs and other things that we currently consider our rights will be taken away from us if the government has its way and we allow it (driver’s licenses, public transport, the right to freely mix with others).

3- The Senate Inquiry is not planning on holding public hearings at this point in time. This is a sure indication that they are simply paying lip service to our concerns. We must DEMAND the right to appear before them in public and both ask and answer questions before they sign our rights away.

4- Both Federal and State governments have been warned that these moves are unconstitutional and breach the Discrimination Disability Act 1992.  Despite this sure knowledge, they have decided to proceed with their illegal legislation. This is a waste of our tax dollars and they are only doing it because they feel safe in the knowledge that we will not take legal action against them. Foolish thought when we plan on doing just that should they proceed to enact these laws.

If you have not yet pledged to the AVN’s fund-raising appeal for legal action against the QLD, VIC and Federal Governments (remember, these pledges will only be called in should the organisation decide to proceed with legal action, and that will only happen if the government insist on discriminating against our families), NOW is the time to do so. There are nearly 20,000 people who will read this blog post. If every single one of you pledged only $5, there would be enough money to begin these actions. If you pledged more, there might not be a need for further fund-raising.

5- This came to light last night – too late to include in the talking points below – but it IS important and just another sign that the government and our legislators are ignoring the constitution and the law of the land:

“National Partnership Agreements

The first National Partnership Agreement on Early Childhood Education was signed by the Council of Australian Governments on 29 November 2008. Under this agreement, all governments committed to work together to ensure that all children have access to a quality early childhood education programme, delivered by a qualified early childhood teacher for 600 hours of preschool education in the year before they attend full-time school.”

“Under the National Partnership Agreement on Universal Access to Early Childhood Education – 2015 state and territory governments must develop Implementation Plans that set out the strategies to provide universal access including participation by vulnerable and disadvantaged children, and indigenous children.”

Every family will lose a minimum of $14,000 per child if the Federal legislation proceeds. How much can you afford to pledge in order to protect those funds? How much are you prepared to pledge to protect your children’s and your own future? How much is it worth to you to be able to continue working without having to subject your body to dozens of mandatory vaccines and an invasive register that tracks you for the rest of your life?

Here is the page where you can make your pledge. Think carefully about how much you pledge to donateare willing to donate should the need arise and please share this with every friend, family member and associate who might be willing to help as well. If you are a health practitioner, forward this link to your clients. We MUST get the word out. We MUST be active and prepared to do what is needed to protect our rights. Revolutions have started for less. Let’s have a peaceful revolution against tyrannical government measures in the courts.

Below are ‘talking points’ that were compiled by Joe Guy for you t0 use in your letters to both Federal and State Parliaments. As you can see, this was an absolutely massive effort on Joe’s part and he did it over a matter of just a couple of days (and nights without sleep). I thank him from the bottom of my heart and know that you will find his information to be invaluable! You should all read it through if you can but if not, please skim and set it aside to read later because this is an education in why the government’s actions (both state and federal) are illegal.

There are many points in this document – just choose a few that you feel are important and be sure to include your own personal stories  as well. Also DEMAND that the Senate Inquiry holds a public hearing to allow us to ask and answer questions about this legislation.

It is also vitally important to make an appointment to meet with your Federal and State Members (in QLD and VIC) to express your concerns about these proposed laws. Get friends together and go as a group for moral support if that would mean you are more likely to go. Go by yourself if you don’t need those friends. Do it this next week or the week after at the absolute latest.

If anyone in the Northern Rivers area of NSW would like to come with me to meet our Federal Member of Parliament, please email me to let me know. Give me your name and your contact number (s) – I will be back in touch. I would love your company.


Eleventh HourWhen the Australian Vaccination Network, as it was then called, turned its attention a few years ago to the apparent intent by Australian governments to introduce mandatory vaccination of children, its critics scoffed at the idea that any government would consider it.

Now that the unthinkable is before Federal Parliament and plans are well under way to make vaccination unavoidable and to extend such pressure to adolescents [G1,G2] and then to adults, these same critics, having subverted the AVN’s mission by framing the AVN for a wide range of unseemly and illegal behaviour, find themselves caught in a trap of their own devising.

Parents and others concerned to defend the freedom not to buy into vaccines are highly concerned at the spate of new state and federal legislation designed to coerce parents into having their healthy children vaccinated.  The present attempt to legislate against such freedom federally is the Australian government’s Social Services Legislation Amendment (No Jab, No Pay) Bill 2015.

The bill was presented in parliament and referred to the Senate Community Affairs Committee for inquiry and report on 17 September 2015.

Submissions to the inquiry must be made by 16 October 2015.

The committee MUCH prefers submissions using their online form by clicking this link. Next is emailing your submission to this link, and last and not preferred at all is hard copy to the following address:

Committee Secretary
Senate Standing Committees on Community Affairs
PO Box 6100
Parliament House
Canberra ACT 2600

Phone: +61 2 6277 3515
Fax: +61 2 6277 5829

Unlike the far broader “biosecurity” legislation that slipped through Federal Parliament in May and June, this bill is specifically designed to force parents to either suffer vaccination of their children or suffer financial penalties.

The present document musters arguments and resources to support the many basic human rights that vaccination coerced through economic pressure, social stigma, scientific and mass-media censorship, “biosecurity” requirements, or even the threat of imprisonment would violate.

The substance of the document takes the form of “talking points”, which fall under a number of broad topics relating to the wrongfulness of practically compelling the vaccination of infants.  You can use it as a ready tool for letting the inquiry — and anybody else — know just what you think is wrong with the idea of forcing vaccination upon the unwilling.  Many of these talking points will be useful also in fighting violation of the rights of adolescents and adults to refuse vaccination.  Copy and paste, or paraphrase, individual talking points as you see fit, and use the very solid references that accompany them to show that your claims are well founded.

The document is a living document: it will grow, and evolve somewhat, as time goes by.  It addresses one broad topic at a time. Beneath each topic are listed brief talking points.  The talking points are then treated in greater detail, for those who like detail, and, in appropriate cases, are referenced.  The references are credible enough to be beyond casual dismissal by anybody informed in the field.

The first two topics appear below.  They are:

Topic (1): Vaccine-injured and other disabled children as easy targets


Topic (2): Human rights, medical ethics, and illegal discrimination.

At present, other topics planned for inclusion in the document are:

Topic (3): Dealing with the claim that the unvaccinated pose a threat

Topic (4): Arbitrariness of the vaccinations scheduled for childhood

Topic (5): Reasons to question assumptions of vaccine harmlessness

Topic (6): Loss of the benefits of exposure to the natural diseases

Topic (7): The evolutionary perspective

Topic (8): Irrelevance of the “childhood” vaccines to historical declines in virulence

Topic (9): Infant medication by coercion as a precedent for universal forcible medication

Topic (10): Irresponsibility of medical authorities’ acting (including transmitting hearsay) without due consideration of the state of published evidence

Topic (11): The duty of governments to take the protection and social nourishment of the unvaccinated and their families, and of the vaccine-damaged and their families, into especial account in formulating legislation, regulation, and policy

Topic (12): The impossibility of informed consent, due to systematic concealment of full, relevant, accurate information and obstruction of independent evaluation

Topic (13): The urgent need for recall rather than dumping of poorly researched medical products, including all currently recommended childhood vaccines

Topic (14): The urgent need for independent investigation of the commercial and political corruption and economic distortions directly attributable to the pharmaceutical industry’s anti-human-rights campaigns.

These topics, though already partly complete, are likely to change somewhat as the work progresses.

Please remember your power as your representatives’ constituents to change governments or take them to court for violating the Constitution and international law.  The rights of parents and children are inalienable.  Our rights are neither deserved nor undeserved, but inherent in our humanity, and lie beyond the legal capacity of any government, however well meaning, to annul without the consent of the governed.

In the words of Justice Kirby, “It is important to recognise that the fundamental human rights referred to in the instruments of international law preceded the inclusion of reference to them in such instruments.  All that international law has done is to express the rights that inhere in human beings by virtue of their humanity” [G3].

Feel free!

Joe Guy

Australia, September 2015




“The Government intends to… expand the existing National Human Papillomavirus Vaccination Program Register (the HPV register) to include all adolescent vaccinations delivered in schools under the NIP.”

[G3] Justice Kirby in Wong v Commonwealth; Selim v Professional Services Review Committee (2009) 236 CLR 573), as quoted on page 199 of Thomas Faunce, “CONSTITUTIONAL LIMITS ON FEDERAL LEGISLATION PRACTICALLY COMPELLING MEDICAL EMPLOYMENT: WONG v COMMONWEALTH; SELIM v PROFESSIONAL SERVICES REVIEW COMMITTEE”, <>.


Topic (1): Disabled children as easy targets

The talking points

1A: The proposed legislation systematically targets children legally recognised as people with disabilities: the vaccine-injured, and the unvaccinated.

Talking point 1A: The proposed legislation systematically targets children legally recognised as people with disabilities: the vaccine-injured, and the unvaccinated.

The law recognises children with long-term injuries and children who are not vaccinated in full compliance with the vaccination schedule published in their state of residence as persons with disabilities [DC1].

Many of the children who have not received the full complement of vaccines that their state vaccination schedule suggests are victims of prior vaccinations and suffer long-term disabilities.  Others are the siblings of such injured children.  These and unvaccinated children, whom the law recognises as also having disability, along with their parents and representatives, are those whom this and other recent legislation systematically targets.  (See related talking points under “Topic (2): Human rights, medical ethics, and illegal discrimination”.)


[DC1] Disability Discrimination Act 1992, <>.  The relevant section, section 4, defines disability thus:

“In this Act, unless the contrary intention appears:

‘disability’, in relation to a person, means… (c) the presence in the body of organisms causing disease or illness; or (d) the presence in the body of organisms capable of causing disease or illness… and includes a disability that… (j) may exist in the future (including because of a genetic predisposition to that disability); or (k) is imputed to a person”.


Topic (2): Human rights, medical ethics, and illegal discrimination

The talking points

2A:The parents who refuse vaccination of their children are conscientious parents, and discriminating against them causes unnecessary stress on finances and health for no documented gain.

2B:This punitive measure creates expectations of individual sacrifices that are outrageously out of keeping with community norms.

2C:The proposed legislation violates several of the international human-rights instruments that the Human Rights Commission Act 1986 serves to protect.

2D:The proposed legislation seeks to subvert the genuine choices that lie at the heart of human rights.

2E:The requirement for informed consent is enshrined in medical ethics, in human-rights instruments to which Australia is signatory, and in international law.

2F:The Australian Government itself acknowledges, on the Health Department’s web site, that legally valid consent can occur only “in the absence of undue pressure, coercion or manipulation”.

2G:The Australian Constitution s.51(xxiiiA) forbids Commonwealth provision of medical and dental services to require anybody to accept those services.

2H:Imposing economic pressure to accept medical services through legislation is a form of practical compulsion that subverts legally valid consent.

2J:The proposed legislation and other recent legislation to penalize the unvaccinated systematically breach the right to privacy of medical information.

2K:The proposed legislation would breach the provisions by various human-rights instruments in force in Australia, as well as the Constitution itself, of inalienable freedom of informed choice to refuse medical products and procedures.

2L:The proposed legislation would breach the provisions by various human-rights instruments in force in Australia guaranteeing freedom from arbitrary interference, exploitation, and violence.

2M:The proposed legislation would breach the provisions by various human-rights instruments in force in Australia forbidding, in accordance with medical ethics, exploitation by forcible treatment of one person for the purported benefit of another.

2N:Discrimination against children disabled by prior vaccinations would breach international law, as would differential access to child care on the basis of this disability.

2P:Discrimination against children imputed to be carrying disease-causing microorganisms by virtue of their vaccination status (such an imputation being defined in law as a disability) would breach international law, as would differential access to child care on the basis of this disability.

2Q:Various human-rights instruments in force in Australia oblige the Government to create protections against exploitation of and discrimination against children and the disabled such as the proposed legislation embodies.

2R:The proposed legislation would violate inalienable human rights to refusal of medical goods and services, to freedom from arbitrary medical interference, to freedom from discrimination on a basis of differing beliefs, to freedom from discrimination against persons with disabilities, to freedom from torture and other cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment, to freedom from discrimination against children, to freedom from discrimination against the disabled, to freedom from exploitation of children, and to requirements of bioethical transparency.

2S:The proposed legislation can meet its putative intent only by violating the most fundamental medical ethic, which forbids exploitation by imposition of the risk of a medical procedure on one person for the sake of another.

2T:The freedom to make voluntary decisions about what you are willing to risk your life or the life of your child for is a human and civil right.

2U:Nobody deserves to be written off by a drug company or government agency as an expendable casualty of public-health policy.

2V:According to Hippocratic tradition, the safety level of a preventive medicine must be very high, as it is aimed at protecting people against diseases that they may not contract.

2W:Compromising free informed consent by imposing any of the vaccines on Australia’s childhood vaccination schedules, all experimental, contravenes the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the Convention on the Rights of Persons With Disabilities.

Talking point 2A: The parents who refuse vaccination of their children are conscientious parents, and discriminating against them causes unnecessary stress on finances and health for no documented gain.

Conscientious objectors to childhood vaccinations are by and large well-educated [HR1], and their objections truly are conscientious, as they have taken the trouble to research the important questions that the vaccination regimen raises rather than make foolhardy decisions on a basis of authoritative hearsay.  In many cases, they have sought the answers to difficult questions from their medical practitioners and health authorities and have been ignored, treated very badly, or told that the information requisite to a responsible decision to vaccinate simply does not exist.  In flagrant disregard both of legal requirements and of parental pleas for trustworthy information, parents facing vaccine decisions most commonly are not shown even the package inserts that accompany the vaccines whose injection into their children they are expected to acquiesce.

Financially penalising parents who conscientiously decide against unknown risks for undocumented benefits, rather than those who make uninformed decisions to risk drugs with little to no assurance of safety and no proof of benefit, not only entrenches irresponsible parenting but also arbitrarily discriminates against responsible parents and deprives their children of the very income with which their parents feed, clothe, house, and educate them and thereby keep them physically and mentally healthy.  The Government has made no attempt to justify violating the most fundamental medical ethics: the requirement of informed consent and the right not to bear medical risk, which is unavoidable [HR2] in vaccination, for the benefit of another.

Talking point 2B: This punitive measure creates expectations of individual sacrifices that are outrageously out of keeping with community norms.

The argument that an individual must suffer risks in order to protect others is one that, taken seriously, would have outrageous consequences.  The proposal to take punitive measures to protect others from the decisions by the parents of healthy children to forgo inherently risky medical procedures makes no sense whatever if the Government does not equally penalise:

•parents who refuse to x-ray their foetuses;

•parents who allow their children to engage in physical-contact sports;

•alcoholics who may endanger others;

•farmers who refuse to “protect” their neighbours’ crops by spraying DDT on their own;

•all who frustrate counter-terrorism operations by putting curtains in their windows; and

•those who refuse to contribute to taxation by gambling and buying alcohol.

Talking point 2C: The proposed legislation violates several of the international human-rights instruments that the Human Rights Commission Act 1986 serves to protect.

The Australian Human Rights Commission Act 1986 offers protection from interference even by well-meaning governments with the rights and freedoms enshrined in the following international instruments:

Several of these instruments safeguard parents’ rights to noninterference in their right to make medical decisions on behalf of their children, including the right to refuse vaccinations.  (The details of particular safeguards appear below.)

Talking point 2D: The proposed legislation seeks to subvert the genuine choices that lie at the heart of human rights.

The Australian Human Rights Commission states:

“Human rights… are based on principles of dignity, equality and mutual respect, which are shared across cultures, religions and philosophies.  They are about being treated fairly, treating others fairly and having the ability to make genuine choices in our daily lives”.  [HR3]

Talking point 2E: The requirement for informed consent is enshrined in medical ethics, in human-rights instruments to which Australia is signatory, and in international law.

Informed consent is the basis of medial ethics as it is of liberal democracy.  An attack on informed consent is an attack on medical ethics, on fundamental liberties, and on human rights enshrined in international law.  (See talking points 2G to 2R for specific references to the laws applicable.)

Talking point 2F: The Australian Government itself acknowledges, on the Health Department’s web site, that legally valid consent can occur only “in the absence of undue pressure, coercion or manipulation” [HR4].

Talking point 2G: The Australian Constitution s.51(xxiiiA) forbids Commonwealth provision of medical and dental services to require anybody to accept those services.

Justice Kirby declared that the Constitution (s.51[xxiiiA] HR6]) forbids the Australian Government from providing medical and dental services in such a way as to oblige parents to accept those services — an obligation that the Constitution and Kirby classify as “civil conscription” [HR6].

Talking point 2H: Imposing economic pressure to accept medical services through legislation is a form of practical compulsion that subverts legally valid consent.

Justice Aickin similarly declared, in relation to the Constitution’s proscription (at s.51[xxiiiA] [HR7]) upon providing medical services in such a way as to authorise civil conscription, that imposing economic pressure through legislation is a form of practical compulsion [HR8].  Such economic pressure, in penalising the option of non-consent, renders legally valid consent (see talking point 2F) impossible.

Talking point 2J: The proposed legislation and other recent legislation to penalize the unvaccinated systematically breach the right to privacy of medical information [HR5].

Talking point 2K: The proposed legislation would breach the provisions by various human-rights instruments in force in Australia [HR9], as well as section 51(xxiiiA) of the Constitution itself [HR7, HR6, HR8], of inalienable freedom of informed choice to refuse medical products and procedures.

Talking point 2L: The proposed legislation would breach the provisions by various human-rights instruments in force in Australia [HR10] guaranteeing freedom from arbitrary interference, exploitation, and violence.

Talking point 2M: The proposed legislation would breach the provisions by various human-rights instruments in force in Australia forbidding, in accordance with medical ethics, exploitation by forcible treatment of one person for the purported benefit of another.

Australian law acknowledges financial pressure to perform an act as a “practical compulsion” [HR8].  The proposed legislation, being specifically designed to apply such financial force to parents to vaccinate, therefore amounts to an attempt at forcible medical treatment for the benefit of others to the detriment of the treated, and violates various instruments [HR11] forbidding such exploitation.

Talking point 2N: Discrimination against children disabled by prior vaccinations would breach international law, as would differential access to child care on the basis of this disability.

Children injured by prior vaccinations commonly suffer long-term disabilities; discrimination against them on the basis of their parents’ or guardians’ recognition of their vulnerabilities therefore constitutes discrimination against the disabled.  The proposed legislation would breach the provisions by various human-rights instruments in force in Australia [HR12] guaranteeing freedom from discrimination against children and against the disabled.

Specifically, differential access to child care on the basis of this disability contravenes the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights [HR17] Article 19(1) and the Convention on the Rights of the Child [HR21] Articles 18, 23(1)&(4), 26, 27, and 31.

The Federal Government is, by virtue of international law [HR 13], obliged to take all necessary steps to prevent the discrimination that the proposed legislation would enshrine.

Talking point 2P: Discrimination against children imputed to be carrying disease-causing microorganisms by virtue of their vaccination status (such an imputation being defined in law as a disability) would breach international law, as would differential access to child care on the basis of this disability.

Children who carry microorganisms liable to cause disease are, by legal definition [DC1], disabled.  Children imputed to be disabled are, by legal definition [DC1], disabled.

Therefore unvaccinated children imputed to be carrying disease-causing microorganisms by virtue of their vaccination status are, by legal definition, disabled children.

Discrimination against such children due to their parents’ or guardians’ practical recognition of their vulnerabilities therefore constitutes discrimination against the disabled, and contravenes various human-rights instruments in force in Australia [HR12] guaranteeing freedom from discrimination against children and discrimination against the disabled.

Specifically, differential access to child care on the basis of this disability contravenes the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights [HR17] Article 19)1) and the Convention on the Rights of the Child [HR21] Articles 18, 23(1)&(4), 26, 27, and 31.

The Federal Government is, by virtue of international law [HR13], obliged to take all necessary steps to prevent the discrimination that the proposed legislation would enshrine.

Talking point 2Q: Various human-rights instruments in force in Australia oblige the Government to create protections against exploitation of and discrimination against children and the disabled such as the proposed legislation embodies [HR13].

Talking point 2R: The proposed legislation would violate inalienable human rights to refusal of medical goods and services, to freedom from arbitrary medical interference, to freedom from discrimination on a basis of differing beliefs, to freedom from discrimination against persons with disabilities, to freedom from torture and other cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment, to freedom from discrimination against children, to freedom from discrimination against the disabled, to freedom from exploitation of children, and to requirements of bioethical transparency, as enshrined:

•in the Australian Constitution, section 51 (xxiiiA) [HR7];

•in the Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Intolerance Based on Religion or Belief, Articles 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5(1)&(3) [HR14];

•in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Articles 1, 2, 7, 12, 18, 20, 22, 23(1)&(3), 25, 27(1), and 30 [HR15];

•in the Universal Declaration of Bioethics and Human Rights, Articles 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 11, 16, and 18(1) [HR16];

•in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Articles 1(3), 2, 5, 7, 17, 18, 24(1), 26, and 27 [HR17];

•in the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, Articles 1, 2(2), 4, 5, 10(1&3), and 12(1)&(2)(a&c) [HR18];

•in the Convention on the Rights of Persons With Disabilities, Articles 3(a–d,f,&h), 4(1)(a–d), (3), (4), & (5), 5(1)&(2), 7, 8, 9, 11, 12(2), 12(2)&(4), 13, 15, 16, 17, 19, 21(c & d), 22, 26(1), 28(1)&(2)(c), 30(2), and 30(5)(d) [HR19];

•in the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, Articles 2(2), 4, and 16(1) [HR20]; and

•in the Convention on the Rights of the Child, Articles 2, 3(1), 3(2), 5, 14, 15, 18, 23, 24(2)(c & e), 26, 27(1–3), 29(1)(b–e), 31, 32, 36, and 37(a) [HR21].

As well, the legislation clearly meets the International Bioethics Committee of UNESCO (IBC) tests for at least two unethical state actions: (a) III.3.1, “Disrespect for the patient’s will”; and (b) III.3.2, “Professional self-interest” [HR22].

Talking point 2S: The proposed legislation can meet its putative intent only by violating the most fundamental medical ethic, which forbids exploitation by imposition of the risk of a medical procedure on one person for the sake of another.

Talking point 2T: “The freedom to make voluntary decisions about what you are willing to risk your life or the life of your child for is a human and civil right.

“It is a human right to exercise voluntary, informed consent to medical risk taking, including taking risks with pharmaceutical products like vaccines.”

—Barbara Loe Fisher, “NVIC calls for vaccine policy & law reform to protect human and civil rights”, National Vaccine Information Center 18 May 2014, <—Law-Reform–To-Pro.aspx>.

Talking point 2U: “… every life is important and nobody deserves to be written off by a drug company or government agency as an expendable casualty of public health policy.”

—Barbara Loe Fisher, “Gardasil death & brain damage: a national tragedy”,,-February-09,-2009-Gardasil-Death—Brain-D.aspx.

Talking point 2V: “According to Hippocratic tradition, the safety level of a preventive medicine must be very high, as it is aimed at protecting people against diseases that they may not contract.”

—Marc Girard, “Autoimmune hazards of hepatitis B vaccine”, Autoimmun Rev.  2005 Feb;4(2):96–100, <;.

Talking point 2W: Compromising free informed consent by imposing any of the vaccines on Australia’s childhood vaccination schedules, all experimental, contravenes the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the Convention on the Rights of Persons With Disabilities.

Australian data on safety and effectiveness are created primarily through postmarket surveillance [HR24] (a primarily passive system relying upon physician reports and universally acknowledged to be 90% to 99% broken).  Postmarket surveillance is necessary because the vaccines remain experimental (see Topic 5): unproven in protectiveness, unproven in safety, and almost uninvestigated in long-term health outcomes [HR23].

Imposition of these experiments without free informed consent contravenes Article 7 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights [HR17] and Article 15(1) of the Convention on the Rights of Persons With Disabilities [HR19].


[HR1] <>.

[HR2] The United States 1986 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act acknowledges that vaccine injury or death may be “unavoidable even though the vaccine was properly prepared and accompanied by proper directions and warnings” [42 U.S.C.  300aa-22(b)(1)].  The “unavoidable” language in the Act is from the Restatement (Second) of Torts that applies to “products which, in the present state of human knowledge, are quite incapable of being made safe” [Restatement (Second) of Torts Section 402A, comment k (1965)].

[HR3] <;.

[HR4] <>.

[HR5] See [HR15] Article 12; [HR17] Article 17; and  [HR19] Article 22.

[HR6] Kirby J in Grain Pool (WA) v Commonwealth(2000) 202 CLR 479 at 523 and again in Wong v Commonwealth; Selim v Professional Services Review Committee (2009) 236 CLR 573 (the PSR case), as quoted on page 199 of Thomas Faunce, “CONSTITUTIONAL LIMITS ON FEDERAL LEGISLATION PRACTICALLY COMPELLING MEDICAL EMPLOYMENT: WONG v COMMONWEALTH; SELIM v PROFESSIONAL SERVICES REVIEW COMMITTEE”, <>).

“The purpose of incorporating a prohibition on ‘civil conscription’ in the provision of such services is thus to preserve such a contractual relationship between the provider and the patient, at least to the extent that each might wish their relationship to be governed by such a contract.  In this sense, the prohibition is expressed for purposes of protection, including a protection extending to the patient.  It is designed to ensure the continuance in Australia of the individual provision of such services, as against their provision, say, entirely by a government-employed (or government-controlled) healthcare profession.

“… [T]he prohibition on ‘any form of civil conscription’ is designed to protect patients from having the supply of ‘medical and dental services’, otherwise than by private contract, forced upon them without their consent.”

[HR7] The Australian Constitution, section 51(xxiiiA), <;, <;, or>.

Section 51(xxiiiA) of the Constitution states: “The Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to make laws for the peace, order, and good government of the Commonwealth with respect to… The provision of maternity allowances, widows’ pensions, child endowment, unemployment, pharmaceutical, sickness and hospital benefits, medical and dental services (but not so as to authorise any form of civil conscription), benefits to students and family allowances” (emphasis added).

[HR8] Aickin J in General Practitioners Society v Commonwealth (1980) 145 CLR 532 at 565–566, as quoted in Thomas Faunce, “COMMISSIONS OF AUDIT IN AUSTRALIA: HEALTH SYSTEM PRIVATISATION DIRECTIVES AND CIVIL CONSCRIPTION PROTECTIONS“, (2014) 21 JLM 561 at 569.

“Other forms of ‘practical compulsion’ are easy enough to imagine, particularly those which impose economic pressure such that it would be unreasonable to suppose that it could be resisted.  The imposition of such pressure by legislation would be just as effective as legal compulsion, and would, like legal compulsion, be a form of civil conscription.  To regard such practical compulsion as outside the restriction placed on this legislative power would be to turn what was obviously intended as a constitutional prohibition into an empty formula, a hollow mockery of its constitutional purpose.”

[HR9] See references [HR7]; [HR6]; [HR8]; [HR14] Article 1; [HR15] Articles 1, 12, 18; [HR16] Articles 5, 6, 8, 18; [HR17] Articles 1(3), 2, 5, 7, 18, 24, 27; [HR18] Articles 1, 4, 5; [HR19] Articles 3 (a–d, f, & h), 4(1)&(4), 12, 15; [HR20] Articles 2, 16; [HR21] Articles 2, 3, 5, 14, 18, 36, 37(a).

[HR10] See references [HR15] Article 12; [HR16] Article 6; [HR17] Articles 1(3), 2, 5, 7, 18; [HR18] Articles 1, 4, 5; [HR19] Articles 4(1),(4),&(5), 16, 21; [HR20] Articles 2, 16; [HR21] Articles 2, 3, 5, 32, 36, 37(a).

[HR11] See references [HR15] Article 12; [HR16] Articles 3(2), 4, 5, 6, 8, 11; [HR17] Articles 5, 7, 18, 24; [HR18] Articles 1, 4, 5; [HR19] Articles 3 (a–d, f, & h), 4(1),(4),&(5), 15; [HR20] Articles 2, 16; [HR21] Articles 2, 3, 5, 14, 32, 36, 37(a).

[HR12] See references [HR14] Articles 2, 3, 4, 5; [HR15] Articles 1, 2, 7, 18, 20, 22, 23, 25, 27; [HR16] Articles 3(1), 5, 8, 11, 16; [HR17] Articles 2, 5, 18, 24, 26, 27; [HR18] Articles 2, 4, 5, 10; [HR19] Articles 3 (a–d, f, & h), 4(1),(4),&(5), 5(1), 7, 8, 9, 12, 16, 17, 19, 21, 22, 26, 28, 30(1)(b)&(5)(c)&(d); [HR21] Articles 2, 3, 5, 14, 15, 18, 23(1)&(4), 26, 27, 31, 32, 36.

[HR13] See references [HR14] Article 5(3); [HR15] Articles 7, 12; [HR16] Articles 5, 8; [HR17] Articles 2, 5, 17(2), 18(3), 24, 26; [HR18] Articles 4, 5, 10; [HR19] Articles 4(1),(3),(4),&(5), 5(2), 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13, 15(2), 16, 19, 21, 22, 26, 28, 30(1)(b)&(5)(c)&(d); [HR20] Article 4; [HR21] Articles 2, 3, 5, 18, 23(2)&(3), 24(2)(c)&(e), 26, 27, 29, 31, 32.

[HR14] The Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Intolerance Based on Religion or Belief, <;.  Relevant Articles are:

Article 1

1.  Everyone shall have the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion.  This right shall include freedom to have a religion or whatever belief of his choice, and freedom, either individually or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in worship, observance, practice and teaching.

2.  No one shall be subject to coercion which would impair his freedom to have a religion or belief of his choice.

3.  Freedom to manifest one’s religion or belief may be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary to protect public safety, order, health or morals or the fundamental rights and freedoms of others.

Article 2

1.  No one shall be subject to discrimination by any State, institution, group of persons, or person on the grounds of religion or belief.

2.  For the purposes of the present Declaration, the expression “intolerance and discrimination based on religion or belief” means any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on religion or belief and having as its purpose or as its effect nullification or impairment of the recognition, enjoyment or exercise of human rights and fundamental freedoms on an equal basis.

Article 3

Discrimination between human beings on the grounds of religion or belief constitutes an affront to human dignity and a disavowal of the principles of the Charter of the United Nations, and shall be condemned as a violation of the human rights and fundamental freedoms proclaimed in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and enunciated in detail in the International Covenants on Human Rights, and as an obstacle to friendly and peaceful relations between nations.

Article 4

1.  All States shall take effective measures to prevent and eliminate discrimination on the grounds of religion or belief in the recognition, exercise and enjoyment of human rights and fundamental freedoms in all fields of civil, economic, political, social and cultural life.

2.  All States shall make all efforts to enact or rescind legislation where necessary to prohibit any such discrimination, and to take all appropriate measures to combat intolerance on the grounds of religion or belief in this matter.

Article 5

1.  The parents or, as the case may be, the legal guardians of the child have the right to organize the life within the family in accordance with their religion or belief and bearing in mind the moral education in which they believe the child should be brought up.

3.  The child shall be protected from any form of discrimination on the ground of religion or belief.  He shall be brought up in a spirit of understanding, tolerance, friendship among peoples, peace and universal brotherhood, respect for freedom of religion or belief of others, and in full consciousness that his energy and talents should be devoted to the service of his fellow men.

[HR15] The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, <;.  Relevant Articles are:

Article 1.

All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.  They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.

Article 2.

Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.  Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.

Article 7.

All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law.  All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.

Article 12.

No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation.  Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.

Article 18.

Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.

Article 20.

(1) Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association.

(2) No one may be compelled to belong to an association.

Article 22.

Everyone, as a member of society, has the right to social security and is entitled to realization, through national effort and international co-operation and in accordance with the organization and resources of each State, of the economic, social and cultural rights indispensable for his dignity and the free development of his personality.

Article 23.

(1) Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment.

(3) Everyone who works has the right to just and favourable remuneration ensuring for himself and his family an existence worthy of human dignity, and supplemented, if necessary, by other means of social protection.

Article 25.

(1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.

(2) Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance.  All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection.

Article 27.

(1) Everyone has the right freely to participate in the cultural life of the community, to enjoy the arts and to share in scientific advancement and its benefits.

Article 30.

Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein.

[HR16] The Universal Declaration of Bioethics and Human Rights, <;.  Relevant Articles are:

Article 3 — Human dignity and human rights

1.  Human dignity, human rights and fundamental freedoms are to be fully respected.

2.  The interests and welfare of the individual should have priority over the sole interest of science or society.

Article 4 — Benefit and harm

In applying and advancing scientific knowledge, medical practice and associated technologies, direct and indirect benefits to patients, research participants and other affected individuals should be maximized and any possible harm to such individuals should be minimized.

Article 5 — Autonomy and individual responsibility

The autonomy of persons to make decisions, while taking responsibility for those decisions and respecting the autonomy of others, is to be respected.  For persons who are not capable of exercising autonomy, special measures are to be taken to protect their rights and interests.

Article 6 — Consent

1.  Any preventive, diagnostic and therapeutic medical intervention is only to be carried out with the prior, free and informed consent of the person concerned, based on adequate information.  The consent should, where appropriate, be express and may be withdrawn by the person concerned at any time and for any reason without disadvantage or prejudice.

2.  Scientific research should only be carried out with the prior, free, express and informed consent of the person concerned.  The information should be adequate, provided in a comprehensible form and should include modalities for withdrawal of consent.  Consent may be withdrawn by the person concerned at any time and for any reason without any disadvantage or prejudice.  Exceptions to this principle should be made only in accordance with ethical and legal standards adopted by States, consistent with the principles and provisions set out in this Declaration, in particular in Article 27, and international human rights law.

3.  In appropriate cases of research carried out on a group of persons or a community, additional agreement of the legal representatives of the group or community concerned may be sought.  In no case should a collective community agreement or the consent of a community leader or other authority substitute for an individual’s informed consent.

Article 8 — Respect for human vulnerability and personal integrity

In applying and advancing scientific knowledge, medical practice and associated technologies, human vulnerability should be taken into account.  Individuals and groups of special vulnerability should be protected and the personal integrity of such individuals respected.

Article 11 — Non-discrimination and non-stigmatization

No individual or group should be discriminated against or stigmatized on any grounds, in violation of human dignity, human rights and fundamental freedoms.

Article 16 — Protecting future generations

The impact of life sciences on future generations, including on their genetic constitution, should be given due regard.

Article 18 — Decision-making and addressing bioethical issues

1.  Professionalism, honesty, integrity and transparency in decision-making should be promoted, in particular declarations of all conflicts of interest and appropriate sharing of knowledge.  Every endeavour should be made to use the best available scientific knowledge and methodology in addressing and periodically reviewing bioethical issues.

Article 27 — Limitations on the application of the principles 

If the application of the principles of this Declaration is to be limited, it should be by law, including laws in the interests of public safety, for the investigation, detection and prosecution of criminal offences, for the protection of public health or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.  Any such law needs to be consistent with international human rights law.

[HR17] The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, <;.  Relevant Articles are:


Article 1

3.  The States Parties to the present Covenant, including those having responsibility for the administration of Non-Self-Governing and Trust Territories, shall promote the realization of the right of self-determination, and shall respect that right, in conformity with the provisions of the Charter of the United Nations.


Article 2

1.  Each State Party to the present Covenant undertakes to respect and to ensure to all individuals within its territory and subject to its jurisdiction the rights recognized in the present Covenant, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.

2.  Where not already provided for by existing legislative or other measures, each State Party to the present Covenant undertakes to take the necessary steps, in accordance with its constitutional processes and with the provisions of the present Covenant, to adopt such laws or other measures as may be necessary to give effect to the rights recognized in the present Covenant.

3.  Each State Party to the present Covenant undertakes:

(a) To ensure that any person whose rights or freedoms as herein recognized are violated shall have an effective remedy, notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity;

(b) To ensure that any person claiming such a remedy shall have his right thereto determined by competent judicial, administrative or legislative authorities, or by any other competent authority provided for by the legal system of the State, and to develop the possibilities of judicial remedy;

(c) To ensure that the competent authorities shall enforce such remedies when granted.

Article 5

1.  Nothing in the present Covenant may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms recognized herein or at their limitation to a greater extent than is provided for in the present Covenant.

2.  There shall be no restriction upon or derogation from any of the fundamental human rights recognized or existing in any State Party to the present Covenant pursuant to law, conventions, regulations or custom on the pretext that the present Covenant does not recognize such rights or that it recognizes them to a lesser extent.


Article 7

No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.  In particular, no one shall be subjected without his free consent to medical or scientific experimentation.

Article 17

1.  No one shall be subjected to arbitrary or unlawful interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to unlawful attacks on his honour and reputation.

2.  Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.

Article 18

1.  Everyone shall have the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion.  This right shall include freedom to have or to adopt a religion or belief of his choice, and freedom, either individually or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in worship, observance, practice and teaching.

2.  No one shall be subject to coercion which would impair his freedom to have or to adopt a religion or belief of his choice.

3.  Freedom to manifest one’s religion or beliefs may be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary to protect public safety, order, health, or morals or the fundamental rights and freedoms of others.

4.  The States Parties to the present Covenant undertake to have respect for the liberty of parents and, when applicable, legal guardians to ensure the religious and moral education of their children in conformity with their own convictions.

Article 24

1.  Every child shall have, without any discrimination as to race, colour, sex, language, religion, national or social origin, property or birth, the right to such measures of protection as are required by his status as a minor, on the part of his family, society and the State.

Article 26

All persons are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to the equal protection of the law.  In this respect, the law shall prohibit any discrimination and guarantee to all persons equal and effective protection against discrimination on any ground such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.

Article 27

In those States in which ethnic, religious or linguistic minorities exist, persons belonging to such minorities shall not be denied the right, in community with the other members of their group, to enjoy their own culture, to profess and practise their own religion, or to use their own language.

[HR18] The International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, <;.  Relevant Articles are:


Article 1

1.  All peoples have the right of self-determination.  By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.

2.  All peoples may, for their own ends, freely dispose of their natural wealth and resources without prejudice to any obligations arising out of international economic co-operation, based upon the principle of mutual benefit, and international law.  In no case may a people be deprived of its own means of subsistence.

3.  The States Parties to the present Covenant, including those having responsibility for the administration of Non-Self-Governing and Trust Territories, shall promote the realization of the right of self-determination, and shall respect that right, in conformity with the provisions of the Charter of the United Nations.


Article 2

2.  The States Parties to the present Covenant undertake to guarantee that the rights enunciated in the present Covenant will be exercised without discrimination of any kind as to race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.

Article 4

The States Parties to the present Covenant recognize that, in the enjoyment of those rights provided by the State in conformity with the present Covenant, the State may subject such rights only to such limitations as are determined by law only in so far as this may be compatible with the nature of these rights and solely for the purpose of promoting the general welfare in a democratic society.

Article 5

1.  Nothing in the present Covenant may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights or freedoms recognized herein, or at their limitation to a greater extent than is provided for in the present Covenant.

2.  No restriction upon or derogation from any of the fundamental human rights recognized or existing in any country in virtue of law, conventions, regulations or custom shall be admitted on the pretext that the present Covenant does not recognize such rights or that it recognizes them to a lesser extent.


Article 10

The States Parties to the present Covenant recognize that:

1.  The widest possible protection and assistance should be accorded to the family, which is the natural and fundamental group unit of society, particularly for its establishment and while it is responsible for the care and education of dependent children.  Marriage must be entered into with the free consent of the intending spouses.

3.  Special measures of protection and assistance should be taken on behalf of all children and young persons without any discrimination for reasons of parentage or other conditions.  Children and young persons should be protected from economic and social exploitation.  Their employment in work harmful to their morals or health or dangerous to life or likely to hamper their normal development should be punishable by law.  States should also set age limits below which the paid employment of child labour should be prohibited and punishable by law.

Article 12

1.  The States Parties to the present Covenant recognize the right of everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health.

2.  The steps to be taken by the States Parties to the present Covenant to achieve the full realization of this right shall include those necessary for:

(a) The provision for the reduction of the stillbirth-rate and of infant mortality and for the healthy development of the child;

(c) The prevention, treatment and control of epidemic, endemic, occupational and other diseases.

[HR19] The Convention on the Rights of Persons With Disabilities, <;.  Relevant Articles are:

Article 3 – General principles

The principles of the present Convention shall be:

a.Respect for inherent dignity, individual autonomy including the freedom to make one’s own choices, and independence of persons;


c.Full and effective participation and inclusion in society;

d.Respect for difference and acceptance of persons with disabilities as part of human diversity and humanity;


h.Respect for the evolving capacities of children with disabilities and respect for the right of children with disabilities to preserve their identities.

Article 4 – General obligations

1.  States Parties undertake to ensure and promote the full realization of all human rights and fundamental freedoms for all persons with disabilities without discrimination of any kind on the basis of disability.  To this end, States Parties undertake:

a.To adopt all appropriate legislative, administrative and other measures for the implementation of the rights recognized in the present Convention;

b.To take all appropriate measures, including legislation, to modify or abolish existing laws, regulations, customs and practices that constitute discrimination against persons with disabilities;

c.To take into account the protection and promotion of the human rights of persons with disabilities in all policies and programmes;

d.To refrain from engaging in any act or practice that is inconsistent with the present Convention and to ensure that public authorities and institutions act in conformity with the present Convention;
3.  In the development and implementation of legislation and policies to implement the present Convention, and in other decision-making processes concerning issues relating to persons with disabilities, States Parties shall closely consult with and actively involve persons with disabilities, including children with disabilities, through their representative organizations.

4.  Nothing in the present Convention shall affect any provisions which are more conducive to the realization of the rights of persons with disabilities and which may be contained in the law of a State Party or international law in force for that State.  There shall be no restriction upon or derogation from any of the human rights and fundamental freedoms recognized or existing in any State Party to the present Convention pursuant to law, conventions, regulation or custom on the pretext that the present Convention does not recognize such rights or freedoms or that it recognizes them to a lesser extent.

5.  The provisions of the present Convention shall extend to all parts of federal states without any limitations or exceptions.

Article 5 – Equality and non-discrimination

1.  States Parties recognize that all persons are equal before and under the law and are entitled without any discrimination to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law.

2.  States Parties shall prohibit all discrimination on the basis of disability and guarantee to persons with disabilities equal and effective legal protection against discrimination on all grounds.

Article 7 – Children with disabilities

1.  States Parties shall take all necessary measures to ensure the full enjoyment by children with disabilities of all human rights and fundamental freedoms on an equal basis with other children.

2.  In all actions concerning children with disabilities, the best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration.

3.  States Parties shall ensure that children with disabilities have the right to express their views freely on all matters affecting them, their views being given due weight in accordance with their age and maturity, on an equal basis with other children, and to be provided with disability and age-appropriate assistance to realize that right.

Article 8 — Awareness-raising

1.  States Parties undertake to adopt immediate, effective and appropriate measures:

a.To raise awareness throughout society, including at the family level, regarding persons with disabilities, and to foster respect for the rights and dignity of persons with disabilities;

b.To combat stereotypes, prejudices and harmful practices relating to persons with disabilities, including those based on sex and age, in all areas of life;

c.To promote awareness of the capabilities and contributions of persons with disabilities.

Measures to this end include:

a.Initiating and maintaining effective public awareness campaigns designed:

i.To nurture receptiveness to the rights of persons with disabilities;

ii.To promote positive perceptions and greater social awareness towards persons with disabilities;

iii.To promote recognition of the skills, merits and abilities of persons with disabilities, and of their contributions to the workplace and the labour market;

b.Fostering at all levels of the education system, including in all children from an early age, an attitude of respect for the rights of persons with disabilities;

c.Encouraging all organs of the media to portray persons with disabilities in a manner consistent with the purpose of the present Convention;

d.Promoting awareness-training programmes regarding persons with disabilities and the rights of persons with disabilities.

Article 9 — Accessibility

1.  To enable persons with disabilities to live independently and participate fully in all aspects of life, States Parties shall take appropriate measures to ensure to persons with disabilities access, on an equal basis with others, to the physical environment, to transportation, to information and communications, including information and communications technologies and systems, and to other facilities and services open or provided to the public, both in urban and in rural areas.  These measures, which shall include the identification and elimination of obstacles and barriers to accessibility, shall apply to, inter alia:

a.Buildings, roads, transportation and other indoor and outdoor facilities, including schools, housing, medical facilities and workplaces;

b.Information, communications and other services, including electronic services and emergency services.

2.  States Parties shall also take appropriate measures to:

a.Develop, promulgate and monitor the implementation of minimum standards and guidelines for the accessibility of facilities and services open or provided to the public;

b.Ensure that private entities that offer facilities and services which are open or provided to the public take into account all aspects of accessibility for persons with disabilities;

c.Provide training for stakeholders on accessibility issues facing persons with disabilities;

d.Provide in buildings and other facilities open to the public signage in Braille and in easy to read and understand forms;

e.Provide forms of live assistance and intermediaries, including guides, readers and professional sign language interpreters, to facilitate accessibility to buildings and other facilities open to the public;

f.Promote other appropriate forms of assistance and support to persons with disabilities to ensure their access to information;

g.Promote access for persons with disabilities to new information and communications technologies and systems, including the Internet;

h.Promote the design, development, production and distribution of accessible information and communications technologies and systems at an early stage, so that these technologies and systems become accessible at minimum cost.

Article 11 — Situations of risk and humanitarian emergencies

States Parties shall take, in accordance with their obligations under international law, including international humanitarian law and international human rights law, all necessary measures to ensure the protection and safety of persons with disabilities in situations of risk, including situations of armed conflict, humanitarian emergencies and the occurrence of natural disasters.

Article 12 — Equal recognition before the law

2.  States Parties shall recognize that persons with disabilities enjoy legal capacity on an equal basis with others in all aspects of life

4.  States Parties shall ensure that all measures that relate to the exercise of legal capacity provide for appropriate and effective safeguards to prevent abuse in accordance with international human rights law.  Such safeguards shall ensure that measures relating to the exercise of legal capacity respect the rights, will and preferences of the person, are free of conflict of interest and undue influence, are proportional and tailored to the person’s circumstances, apply for the shortest time possible and are subject to regular review by a competent, independent and impartial authority or judicial body.  The safeguards shall be proportional to the degree to which such measures affect the person’s rights and interests.

Article 13 — Access to justice

1.  States Parties shall ensure effective access to justice for persons with disabilities on an equal basis with others, including through the provision of procedural and age-appropriate accommodations, in order to facilitate their effective role as direct and indirect participants, including as witnesses, in all legal proceedings, including at investigative and other preliminary stages.

2.  In order to help to ensure effective access to justice for persons with disabilities, States Parties shall promote appropriate training for those working in the field of administration of justice, including police and prison staff.

Article 15 — Freedom from torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment

1.  No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.  In particular, no one shall be subjected without his or her free consent to medical or scientific experimentation.

2.  States Parties shall take all effective legislative, administrative, judicial or other measures to prevent persons with disabilities, on an equal basis with others, from being subjected to torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

Article 16 — Freedom from exploitation, violence and abuse

1.  States Parties shall take all appropriate legislative, administrative, social, educational and other measures to protect persons with disabilities, both within and outside the home, from all forms of exploitation, violence and abuse, including their gender-based aspects.

2.  States Parties shall also take all appropriate measures to prevent all forms of exploitation, violence and abuse by ensuring, inter alia, appropriate forms of gender- and age-sensitive assistance and support for persons with disabilities and their families and caregivers, including through the provision of information and education on how to avoid, recognize and report instances of exploitation, violence and abuse.  States Parties shall ensure that protection services are age-, gender- and disability-sensitive.

3.  In order to prevent the occurrence of all forms of exploitation, violence and abuse, States Parties shall ensure that all facilities and programmes designed to serve persons with disabilities are effectively monitored by independent authorities.

4.  States Parties shall take all appropriate measures to promote the physical, cognitive and psychological recovery, rehabilitation and social reintegration of persons with disabilities who become victims of any form of exploitation, violence or abuse, including through the provision of protection services.  Such recovery and reintegration shall take place in an environment that fosters the health, welfare, self-respect, dignity and autonomy of the person and takes into account gender- and age-specific needs.

5.  States Parties shall put in place effective legislation and policies, including women- and child-focused legislation and policies, to ensure that instances of exploitation, violence and abuse against persons with disabilities are identified, investigated and, where appropriate, prosecuted.

Article 17 — Protecting the integrity of the person

Every person with disabilities has a right to respect for his or her physical and mental integrity on an equal basis with others.

Article 19 — Living independently and being included in the community

States Parties to this Convention recognize the equal right of all persons with disabilities to live in the community, with choices equal to others, and shall take effective and appropriate measures to facilitate full enjoyment by persons with disabilities of this right and their full inclusion and participation in the community, including by ensuring that:

a.Persons with disabilities have the opportunity to choose their place of residence and where and with whom they live on an equal basis with others and are not obliged to live in a particular living arrangement;

b.Persons with disabilities have access to a range of in-home, residential and other community support services, including personal assistance necessary to support living and inclusion in the community, and to prevent isolation or segregation from the community;

c.Community services and facilities for the general population are available on an equal basis to persons with disabilities and are responsive to their needs.

Article 21 — Freedom of expression and opinion, and access to information

States Parties shall take all appropriate measures to ensure that persons with disabilities can exercise the right to freedom of expression and opinion, including the freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas on an equal basis with others and through all forms of communication of their choice, as defined in article 2 of the present Convention, including by:

c.Urging private entities that provide services to the general public, including through the Internet, to provide information and services in accessible and usable formats for persons with disabilities;

d.Encouraging the mass media, including providers of information through the Internet, to make their services accessible to persons with disabilities;

Article 22 — Respect for privacy

1.  No person with disabilities, regardless of place of residence or living arrangements, shall be subjected to arbitrary or unlawful interference with his or her privacy, family, home or correspondence or other types of communication or to unlawful attacks on his or her honour and reputation.  Persons with disabilities have the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.

2.  States Parties shall protect the privacy of personal, health and rehabilitation information of persons with disabilities on an equal basis with others.

Article 26 — Habilitation and rehabilitation

1.  States Parties shall take effective and appropriate measures, including through peer support, to enable persons with disabilities to attain and maintain maximum independence, full physical, mental, social and vocational ability, and full inclusion and participation in all aspects of life.  To that end, States Parties shall organize, strengthen and extend comprehensive habilitation and rehabilitation services and programmes, particularly in the areas of health, employment, education and social services, in such a way that these services and programmes:

a.Begin at the earliest possible stage, and are based on the multidisciplinary assessment of individual needs and strengths;

b.Support participation and inclusion in the community and all aspects of society, are voluntary, and are available to persons with disabilities as close as possible to their own communities, including in rural areas.

Article 28 — Adequate standard of living and social protection

1.  States Parties recognize the right of persons with disabilities to an adequate standard of living for themselves and their families, including adequate food, clothing and housing, and to the continuous improvement of living conditions, and shall take appropriate steps to safeguard and promote the realization of this right without discrimination on the basis of disability.

2.  States Parties recognize the right of persons with disabilities to social protection and to the enjoyment of that right without discrimination on the basis of disability, and shall take appropriate steps to safeguard and promote the realization of this right, including measures:

c.To ensure access by persons with disabilities and their families living in situations of poverty to assistance from the State with disability-related expenses, including adequate training, counselling, financial assistance and respite care;

Article 30 — Participation in cultural life, recreation, leisure and sport

5.  With a view to enabling persons with disabilities to participate on an equal basis with others in recreational, leisure and sporting activities, States Parties shall take appropriate measures:

d.To ensure that children with disabilities have equal access with other children to participation in play, recreation and leisure and sporting activities, including those activities in the school system.

[HR20] The Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, <;.  Relevant Articles are:

Article 2

1.  Each State Party shall take effective legislative, administrative, judicial or other measures to prevent acts of torture in any territory under its jurisdiction.

2.  No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat of war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture.

Article 4

1.  Each State Party shall ensure that all acts of torture are offences under its criminal law.  The same shall apply to an attempt to commit torture and to an act by any person which constitutes complicity or participation in torture.

2.  Each State Party shall make these offences punishable by appropriate penalties which take into account their grave nature.

Article 10

1.  Each State Party shall ensure that education and information regarding the prohibition against torture are fully included in the training of law enforcement personnel, civil or military, medical personnel, public officials and other persons who may be involved in the custody, interrogation or treatment of any individual subjected to any form of arrest, detention or imprisonment.

2.  Each State Party shall include this prohibition in the rules or instructions issued in regard to the duties and functions of any such person.

Article 11

Each State Party shall keep under systematic review interrogation rules, instructions, methods and practices as well as arrangements for the custody and treatment of persons subjected to any form of arrest, detention or imprisonment in any territory under its jurisdiction, with a view to preventing any cases of torture.

Article 12

Each State Party shall ensure that its competent authorities proceed to a prompt and impartial investigation, wherever there is reasonable ground to believe that an act of torture has been committed in any territory under its jurisdiction.

Article 13

Each State Party shall ensure that any individual who alleges he has been subjected to torture in any territory under its jurisdiction has the right to complain to, and to have his case promptly and impartially examined by, its competent authorities.  Steps shall be taken to ensure that the complainant and witnesses are protected against all ill-treatment or intimidation as a consequence of his complaint or any evidence given.

Article 16

1.  Each State Party shall undertake to prevent in any territory under its jurisdiction other acts of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment which do not amount to torture as defined in article I, when such acts are committed by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity.  In particular, the obligations contained in articles 10, 11, 12 and 13 shall apply with the substitution for references to torture of references to other forms of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

[HR21] The Convention on the Rights of the Child, <;.  Relevant Articles are:


Article 2

1.  States Parties shall respect and ensure the rights set forth in the present Convention to each child within their jurisdiction without discrimination of any kind, irrespective of the child’s or his or her parent’s or legal guardian’s race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national, ethnic or social origin, property, disability, birth or other status.

2.  States Parties shall take all appropriate measures to ensure that the child is protected against all forms of discrimination or punishment on the basis of the status, activities, expressed opinions, or beliefs of the child’s parents, legal guardians, or family members.

Article 3

1.  In all actions concerning children, whether undertaken by public or private social welfare institutions, courts of law, administrative authorities or legislative bodies, the best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration.

2.  States Parties undertake to ensure the child such protection and care as is necessary for his or her well-being, taking into account the rights and duties of his or her parents, legal guardians, or other individuals legally responsible for him or her, and, to this end, shall take all appropriate legislative and administrative measures.

Article 5

States Parties shall respect the responsibilities, rights and duties of parents or, where applicable, the members of the extended family or community as provided for by local custom, legal guardians or other persons legally responsible for the child, to provide, in a manner consistent with the evolving capacities of the child, appropriate direction and guidance in the exercise by the child of the rights recognized in the present Convention.

Article 14

1.  States Parties shall respect the right of the child to freedom of thought, conscience and religion.

2.  States Parties shall respect the rights and duties of the parents and, when applicable, legal guardians, to provide direction to the child in the exercise of his or her right in a manner consistent with the evolving capacities of the child.

3.  Freedom to manifest one’s religion or beliefs may be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary to protect public safety, order, health or morals, or the fundamental rights and freedoms of others.

Article 15

1.  States Parties recognize the rights of the child to freedom of association and to freedom of peaceful assembly.

2.  No restrictions may be placed on the exercise of these rights other than those imposed in conformity with the law and which are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security or public safety, public order (ordre public), the protection of public health or morals or the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.

Article 18

1.  States Parties shall use their best efforts to ensure recognition of the principle that both parents have common responsibilities for the upbringing and development of the child.  Parents or, as the case may be, legal guardians, have the primary responsibility for the upbringing and development of the child.  The best interests of the child will be their basic concern.

2.  For the purpose of guaranteeing and promoting the rights set forth in the present Convention, States Parties shall render appropriate assistance to parents and legal guardians in the performance of their child-rearing responsibilities and shall ensure the development of institutions, facilities and services for the care of children.

3.  States Parties shall take all appropriate measures to ensure that children of working parents have the right to benefit from child-care services and facilities for which they are eligible.

Article 23

1.  States Parties recognize that a mentally or physically disabled child should enjoy a full and decent life, in conditions which ensure dignity, promote self-reliance and facilitate the child’s active participation in the community.

2.  States Parties recognize the right of the disabled child to special care and shall encourage and ensure the extension, subject to available resources, to the eligible child and those responsible for his or her care, of assistance for which application is made and which is appropriate to the child’s condition and to the circumstances of the parents or others caring for the child.

3.  Recognizing the special needs of a disabled child, assistance extended in accordance with paragraph 2 of the present article shall be provided free of charge, whenever possible, taking into account the financial resources of the parents or others caring for the child, and shall be designed to ensure that the disabled child has effective access to and receives education, training, health care services, rehabilitation services, preparation for employment and recreation opportunities in a manner conducive to the child’s achieving the fullest possible social integration and individual development, including his or her cultural and spiritual development

4.  States Parties shall promote, in the spirit of international cooperation, the exchange of appropriate information in the field of preventive health care and of medical, psychological and functional treatment of disabled children, including dissemination of and access to information concerning methods of rehabilitation, education and vocational services, with the aim of enabling States Parties to improve their capabilities and skills and to widen their experience in these areas.  In this regard, particular account shall be taken of the needs of developing countries.

Article 24

2.  States Parties shall pursue full implementation of this right and, in particular, shall take appropriate measures:…

(c) To combat disease and malnutrition, including within the framework of primary health care, through, inter alia, the application of readily available technology and through the provision of adequate nutritious foods and clean drinking-water, taking into consideration the dangers and risks of environmental pollution; …

(e) To ensure that all segments of society, in particular parents and children, are informed, have access to education and are supported in the use of basic knowledge of child health and nutrition, the advantages of breastfeeding, hygiene and environmental sanitation and the prevention of accidents; …

Article 26

1.  States Parties shall recognize for every child the right to benefit from social security, including social insurance, and shall take the necessary measures to achieve the full realization of this right in accordance with their national law.

2.  The benefits should, where appropriate, be granted, taking into account the resources and the circumstances of the child and persons having responsibility for the maintenance of the child, as well as any other consideration relevant to an application for benefits made by or on behalf of the child.

Article 27

1.  States Parties recognize the right of every child to a standard of living adequate for the child’s physical, mental, spiritual, moral and social development.

2.  The parent(s) or others responsible for the child have the primary responsibility to secure, within their abilities and financial capacities, the conditions of living necessary for the child’s development.

3.  States Parties, in accordance with national conditions and within their means, shall take appropriate measures to assist parents and others responsible for the child to implement this right and shall in case of need provide material assistance and support programmes, particularly with regard to nutrition, clothing and housing.

Article 29

1.  States Parties agree that the education of the child shall be directed to:…

(b) The development of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, and for the principles enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations;

(c) The development of respect for the child’s parents, his or her own cultural identity, language and values, for the national values of the country in which the child is living, the country from which he or she may originate, and for civilizations different from his or her own;

(d) The preparation of the child for responsible life in a free society, in the spirit of understanding, peace, tolerance, equality of sexes, and friendship among all peoples, ethnic, national and religious groups and persons of indigenous origin;

(e) The development of respect for the natural environment.

Article 31

1.  States Parties recognize the right of the child to rest and leisure, to engage in play and recreational activities appropriate to the age of the child and to participate freely in cultural life and the arts.

2.  States Parties shall respect and promote the right of the child to participate fully in cultural and artistic life and shall encourage the provision of appropriate and equal opportunities for cultural, artistic, recreational and leisure activity.

Article 32

1.  States Parties recognize the right of the child to be protected from economic exploitation and from performing any work that is likely to be hazardous or to interfere with the child’s education, or to be harmful to the child’s health or physical, mental, spiritual, moral or social development.

2.  States Parties shall take legislative, administrative, social and educational measures to ensure the implementation of the present article.  To this end, and having regard to the relevant provisions of other international instruments, States Parties shall in particular:

(a) Provide for a minimum age or minimum ages for admission to employment;

(b) Provide for appropriate regulation of the hours and conditions of employment;

(c) Provide for appropriate penalties or other sanctions to ensure the effective enforcement of the present article.

Article 36

States Parties shall protect the child against all other forms of exploitation prejudicial to any aspects of the child’s welfare.

Article 37

States Parties shall ensure that:

(a) No child shall be subjected to torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.  Neither capital punishment nor life imprisonment without possibility of release shall be imposed for offences committed by persons below eighteen years of age.

[HR22] The Principle of Respect for Human Vulnerability and Personal Integrity: Report of the International Bioethics Committee of UNESCO (IBC), Paris: UNESCO, 2013, <;.  The report recommends, in respect of:

(a) III.3.1, Disrespect for the patient’s will (“The principle of informed consent is at risk whenever someone claims to know what is the right thing to do, and insists that his or her decision should prevail over the self-determination of the patient, whether that person is the physician or a family member”): that “Reinforcement of the need to protect an individual patient’s integrity, including specifically the importance of respecting the right to refuse treatment”.

(b) III.3.2, Professional self-interest: that “The creation and enforcement of safety controls for medicines and medical devices and insistence on independent ethical review of innovative treatments, including the use of medical devices”.


Universal acknowledgement of the dangers inherent in all vaccines, in combination with universal inability to predict and thus protect those individuals who will suffer the gravest injuries by their use, implies that the products are experimental.

Similarly, universal inability to predict and thus protect those individuals in whom the vaccine will fail to offer the protection that is its intended function; inability to predict the lifespan of any such protection in any individual; and total ignorance of the long-term health outcome of its use in any individual all imply that the product is experimental.

[HR24] This approach to safety of vaccines is tacitly confirmed in many places, e.g. <>.


Posted in No Jab No Pay No Way, Vaccination | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | 3 Comments

You have just over 2 weeks to protect your family’s rights

by Meryl Dorey

Family FreedomThe Federal Government is planning to introduce an amendment to current legislation that will remove a parent’s right to register as a conscientious objector to vaccination. As a result, in order to receive approximately $14,000 per year per child in entitlements, children will have to receive the full regimen of vaccines and any new vaccines that are introduced to the schedule – a virtually unlimited number since there are over 270 new vaccines currently being ‘tested’.

Thanks to the hard work of the AVN – the same group that successfully lobbied for the introduction of a Conscientious Objector clause nearly 18 years ago – the Senate Standing Committees on Community Affairs has agreed to hold a public inquiry into the legality of passing this legislation.

This is an opportunity that can help convince our legislators not to discriminate against the unvaccinated – but the opportunity comes with a very tight deadline.

The Committee has required that all submissions be received no later than the 16th of October – just over 2 weeks from now!

I am asking – begging – each and every one of you to please send in a submission prior to the deadline.

You don’t need to write War and Peace. Your submissions need be no more than a couple of paragraphs (though if you are so moved, feel free to make it longer and to include supporting documents and references) but whatever you do, please do it in a timely manner and share this information with everyone you know who believes that parents must always be allowed to make health choices for their minor children without fear of coercion, financial penalties, bullying or discrimination.

On social media, I have seen several groups of people getting together to write group submissions. This is a great idea if you feel uncomfortable with the data or simply want to support and be supported by other like-minded people.

Whatever you do, once you have completed your submission, please follow the instructions below (provided by the AVN) to submit them. Do not share your submissions online, but if you would like to send me a copy by clicking this link, I would love to have that information to keep track of the reasons people are providing to the Committee for why this law should never be passed.

Tomorrow, I will be posting some more details that have been compiled by Joe Guy that will hopefully give you some great ideas for your submissions. In the meantime, please read the details below.

I contacted the Secretariat of the Committee for general information about your submissions. Please read below for further details:

Q – What are the terms of reference of this Inquiry?

A – Because this is an inquiry about a Bill, anything contained within the Bill will be in the terms of reference so submissions should be focusing on what is in the Bill itself. You can download a copy of the Bill by clicking this link.

Q – Can people publish their submissions in advance of the hearing?

A- They can, but they will no longer be covered by Parliamentary Privilege. Once the committee publishes them, we are free to do whatever we want, but until then – your submissions should not be shared publicly.

Q- what about templates for people to sign or use as their own letter?

A- Templates are like petitions – the committee will not take them seriously and in fact, they may choose one representative template letter to publish and just publish the names of the other people who sent in the same or similar templates. Instead, people should read through the information provided below and choose from a list of topics to cover – in their own words.

Q- If you want to keep your submission – or a section of your submission private – how do you go about that?

A- You must inform the committee at the time of sending in your submission of your wishes in that regard. They will do their best to abide by your wishes.

Q- What is the best way to send your submission?

A- The committee MUCH prefers submissions using their online form by clicking this link. Next is emailing your submission to this link, and last and not preferred at all is hard copy to the following address:

Committee Secretary
Senate Standing Committees on Community Affairs
PO Box 6100
Parliament House
Canberra ACT 2600

Phone: +61 2 6277 3515
Fax: +61 2 6277 5829

I asked about large submissions and was told that it would probably be best for me – or anyone – not to put too much information in my submission. I was told that the  Senators are often on several different committees and their time to read is very limited. The Secretariat will read every word and summarise the submissions for the Senators, but if we want the Senators themselves to read these submissions, we need to keep them short. If we do make them longer (and mine will be a bit on the long side – I can’t help it!) including our own summaries will probably be best.

Remember that submissions must be received no later than October 16th so if you are mailing your submission, send it at least 2 or 3 days earlier. Emailed submissions can be sent by the close of business on the 16th.

The AVN makes the following suggestions:

Everyone is invited to make a submission to this Inquiry. The more submissions the Inquiry receives, the greater impact it will have.

To make a submission, all you need to do is write a letter listing the reasons why the Bill should not be passed. Your letter will be more powerful if you base this on your own personal experiences and circumstances, or those of people you know.

You may find that using headings is a useful way to structure and organise your thoughts and reasons/arguments.

Your submission may be as short or as long as you like. It may contain facts, opinions, arguments or recommendations.

Supporting documents may be attached.

The most important thing is to present your reasons in a consistent and clear way that can be easily understood. You don’t need to make legal arguments.

What to include at the start of your submission

Committee Secretary
Senate Standing Committees on Community Affairs
PO Box 6100
Parliament House
Canberra ACT 2600

Phone: +61 2 6277 3515
Fax: +61 2 6277 5829


Dear Sir/Madam,

Re: Social Services Legislation Amendment (No Jab, No Pay) Bill 2015

What to include at the end of your submission

Yours sincerely

(you do not need to sign your submission)

Your full name

Your phone number

Your postal address

How to send your submission


The following links may assist you in learning more.

1) The Bill;fileType=application%2Fpdf#search=%22legislation/bills/r5540_first-reps/0000%22

2) The Explanatory Memorandum, which includes the Statement of Compatibility With Human Rights;fileType=application%2Fpdf

3) Minister’s Second Reading Speech;fileType=application%2Fpdf

Of most relevance is the Explanatory Memorandum because it purports to present why the Bill is justified. In particular, the Statement of Compatibility at the end of the Explanatory memorandum aims to account for why human rights breaches are justified.

Australia has agreed to be bound by 7 key Human Rights treaties, listed here:

The most relevant Human Rights treaties in relation to this Bill are numbers
1 to 3, all of which are referenced in the Statement of Compatibility in the Explanatory Memorandum

International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights

International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights

Convention on the Rights of the Child

Posted in Health rights, No Jab No Pay No Way, Vaccination | Tagged , , , , , , , | 11 Comments

No Jab No Pay Rally Talk – Meryl Dorey

33195751_sYesterday was the long-awaited second rally against the proposed no jab, no pay legislation. Held in nearly every capital city in Australia, these rallies presented a chance for parents to express their concern and anger about government discrimination, network together to share ideas about how to fight against these draconian laws (on both the state and federal level) and just meet like-minded people for friendship and support.

The organisers of these events did an amazing job – especially considering the fact that the media (for the most part) neither attended or promoted the fact that these events were taking place. The only way to get the word out was via social media and, though this is an effective way to inform others, it is not yet as widespread as mainstream media.

I, along with hundreds of others,  attended the Brisbane rally and heard some great talks by a homeopath, Greg Beattie (former President of the AVN) and a very passionate presentation by a Brisbane mum who gave a very articulate explanation for why parents must always have the final word on medical treatments for their children.

I was asked to present a talk due to the unexpected illness of one of the speakers. Below is my presentation – a bit of modern history of the movement started in Australia by the AVN to protect parental choice.

Hello everyone. Firstly, I’d like to say thank you to the organisers of today’s rally for doing such an excellent job of publicising this event without any assistance from the corporate media. In addition, thank you to everyone here who is standing strong to support their convictions that freedom to choose what goes into our bodies and the bodies of our children must never be taken away by any government or medical community. No Jab, No Pay? No way!

My name is Meryl Dorey and I am the founder and past President of the Australian Vaccination Network.

There is an old saying that goes something like – those who forget the lessons of history are destined to repeat them.

Well, we haven’t forgotten our lessons, but the government has.

About 18 years ago, when the AVN was much younger and so was I, we found out on a Friday that the Federal Parliament was trying to sneak through an amendment to the Childcare Payments Act by attaching it to Veterans Affairs legislation. The intent was to remove childcare payments from any parent who chose not to vaccinate their children.

Immediately, we at the AVN swung into action. Groups of women with their children in tow  came from the Gold Coast and Brisbane to the AVN office that was in my home. We  spent the entire weekend photocopying packages of information for every single senator and MP. We sent hundreds of copies of our book, Vaccination Roulette, down to Canberra to be distributed to all elected representatives. We called our members asking for donations to cover the airfare and costs for our 2 representatives to get us down to Canberra and back – $1,200. We found an AVN member in the ACT who would put us up in their home while we lobbied for amendments to allow unvaccinated parents to                                                                                                                                                                  access all government entitlements their vaccinated peers received.

Lynne Grimsey and I spent nearly 2 weeks in Canberra. We saw dozens of Senators and MPs and found support amongst the Greens, the Democrats and many members of the Labor Party.

Two women who knew nothing about the legislative process had a crash-course in politics and by some miracle, 3 of our amendments were proposed by Bob Brown, leader of the Greens, and 2 were passed. Those amendments enabled an entire generation of children to be registered as conscientious objectors to vaccination and still attend preschool and childcare.  They prevented a generation of families from being financially penalised because of their legal decision not to vaccinate their children.

Yet here we are today, fighting that same battle again. And just as we did more than 18 years ago, we will win this battle and the government and corporate interests will lose. Because when you have right on your side, you will always be the victor.

Vaccination is a medical procedure that carries with it real risk of harm. The AVN has collected thousands of reports of serious adverse reactions and deaths following vaccination and those reports are just the tip of the iceberg.

How many of you here either have someone in your family who was vaccine injured or know of someone who has suffered or died because of vaccines? How many of you have a child with autism or know a child with autism?

No government can require me to give my children vaccines which I do not feel are in their best interests. No government can require me to place my own life and health on the line in order to keep or access work.

My body is my own – my children are mine to care for. The government is my servant – there to represent me, even if I myself represent a minority viewpoint.

We are often told by anti-choice zealots that “the science is in” when it comes to vaccination. Well,  they are right – the science IS in. Vaccines do not protect as we have been told. They are not safe and do cause tens of thousands of permanent injuries and deaths every year worldwide. These are inconvenient facts – but facts all the same.

In the US, more than $3 billion has been paid out for injuries and deaths following vaccination – at least 83 of those payments were for vaccine-associated autism. This is a huge amount of money but it would have been much more if the government hadn’t set the bar so high and constantly moved the goalposts as parents got closer to winning compensation.

More and more cases of pharmaceutical fraud are emerging. More and more evidence of collusion between government regulators and vested interests in the drug companies.

Dr William Thompson, a top government vaccine researcher who has published many studies via his job at the Centers for Disease Control in the US has now been dubbed “The CDC Whistleblower”. At the request of his superiors at this corrupt organisation, he and his associates shredded all of the evidence from studies proving that the risk of autism was far higher in those who were vaccinated – especially when it came to black boys. Unbeknownst to those same supervisors, Dr Thompson kept the originals of those shredded pages and has given them to Congressman Bill Posey who is now calling for a Congressional Inquiry into how and why the autism-vaccination connection was covered up for over 10 years.

Two vaccine scientists who work for Merck – maker of many of our Australian vaccines including the MMR shot, have recently been granted whistleblower protection for their claims that the mumps portion of the vaccine is not as effective as Merck has claimed and that studies – conducted by the manufacturer and never checked by any independent authority – were fraudulent. If this case is won by the government, it has the power to close this drug giant down and I personally hope that it does.

Studies are being published nearly every day by top researchers worldwide, indicating that vaccine ingredients are toxic, have never been properly tested and are simply not preventing disease. In other words, we have scientifically valid reasons to question vaccination and the government, rather than trying to squash us should be thanking us for bringing this vital data to their attention, saving them money and potentially saving our children from dangerous, ineffective vaccinations.

And please keep in mind the fact that there are more than 271 new vaccines in the pipeline. Should this legislation pass unopposed, the number of vaccines we and our children will be forced to say yes to will be nearly unlimited.

Since 2002, the AVN has been asking the Health Department to use the data already contained within the Australian Childhood Immunisation Register to compare the overall health status of the fully vaccinated with the fully unvaccinated. This simple, inexpensive test could be done at the touch of a button and has the potential of setting parent’s minds at rest regarding the safety of vaccination. But the government has consistently refused to do this. Why do you think that is? Do you think they know that this data – data we have paid for through our taxes – would show definitively that the unvaccinated are far healthier than their vaccinated peers and that would then leave the government liable to pay for vaccine injuries?

Ashley Jade Epapara, the 2 year old toddler who died following an untested flu vaccine and Saba Button, the gorgeous little 1 year old who has global brain damage from the same flu shot would still be anonymous and happy if it were not for vaccinations. And if this legislation is allowed to be enacted, their stories will become much more common as parents are forced to choose between putting food on the table and keeping their children healthy; giving their children an education or keeping them alive.

Freedom of health choice isn’t free. It is something that we must cherish and defend by our words, by our deeds and by our actions. If you haven’t yet signed the My Will letters that are available here, please make sure you do so. If you haven’t made an appointment to see your members of parliament and senators – both state and Federal – to register your opposition to this legislation, call tomorrow and bring friends or family with you for moral support if possible. Write a submission to the Senate Inquiry and submit it before the 16th of October. If you need help, talking points or information, check out the details that will be up on my blog – by tonight.

The only people threatened by healthy, unvaccinated children are those within the pharmaceutical and medical industry who are terrified that more of us will realise how healthy the unvaccinated really are. No vaccine can convey immunity. No vaccine can prevent a fully-vaccinated person from either contracting or transmitting infection to others.

I will never set my child on fire to keep your child warm nor should any moral  government ever ask me to do so.

No Jab, No Pay will fail just as previous attempts to abridge our freedom to choose have failed – because when it comes to the crunch, we are a force to be reckoned with – a force whose momentum, energy and commitment will always ensure our victory over vested interests within government, medical ignorance and drug companies using tobacco science to justify compulsion.

One thing that emerged loud and clear at the end of the day yesterday, is the necessity to band together for political power, information and support. The only reason we achieved our first goal of a Senate inquiry into the No Jab, No Pay legislation was because the AVN and a small team of dedicated individuals took the time and had the funds to fly to Canberra three times to lobby the Senators. It didn’t happen by magic. It happened through hard work. And that hard work cost a lot of money.

If you are not yet a member of the AVN, please join today. I am not on the committee nor am I anything other than a member of that organisation. But I know that our best chance of defeating this legislation is through having a strong, well-funded centralised opposition. 

Membership costs $25 a year and can be purchased by clicking here. Donations can be anything you can afford and you can donate here. Please don’t put it off. Your financial support – combined with the support of others – will guarantee victory in this battle for our freedom. How much is your freedom worth to you?

Posted in AVN, No Jab No Pay No Way, Vaccination | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | 3 Comments

URGENT – Action Plan to Protect Your Rights

UrgentYesterday afternoon, the No Jab, No Pay legislation was introduced in Federal Parliament. Please note – it was introduced – not passed.

You can (and should) read the Bill here:

Social Services Legislation Amendment (No Jab, No Pay) Bill 2015

If we do nothing, this bill will pass. If we wait for someone else to take the actions needed, this bill will pass. If we think that once this Bill passes we can somehow get it rescinded, we are living in a fool’s paradise.

We need to act – and we need to act NOW!


Thanks to the excellent work of a delegation of individuals that included representatives from the AVN. The Senate will be convening an inquiry looking into No Jab No Pay. I have no terms of reference for this inquiry as of yet but will find this information shortly. In addition to sending the letters to your State and Federal representatives, everyone needs to put together a short submission, explaining why you are opposed to this legislation and it needs to be received by the committee no later than October 16th so time is very short! I will be putting some talking points and details up about this over the weekend but be prepared to do some writing in the very near future. We need hundreds of submissions in order to show the Senators that there is a real grass-roots interest in health freedom. Be ready!

Here are 5 things you can do today to help ensure that this bill will never be enacted:

1- Send out the My Will letter to your local MP and State Senators should you have them.

2- Do the same for your federal pollies.

3- Write to Malcolm Turnbull and tell him why you oppose No Jab No Pay. Use the info from the My Will letter or use your own words. If you have a vaccine injured child – send him a picture. Make sure you use the words – “it is my will” in there somewhere so a reply will be required.

4- Join the AVN. Honestly, this is a no-brainer. For $25 a year, you will be supporting an organisation that is supporting you. Now that I am no longer President or on the Committee, I can say this – if you are not a member of the AVN, you are really not looking to the future. If you really can’t afford the $25, I believe there is a way to get a sponsored membership (but only do this if there is a real need). Contact the AVN and ask them about it. Whatever you do, join the AVN today!

5- Share this information with everyone you know – your children’s and grandchildren’s future may very well depend on what you do today. So be strong – be forthright – and be vocal. 271 new vaccines are in the pipeline. You and your family are the targets. So step forward and own your decisions. You are not alone. You are loved, supported and part of a growing community of freedom-loving men and women – speak your truth.

That’s it – a handful of steps you can take to help your family and your country. Will you please do this today?

Love to you all,


Posted in AVN, Health rights, No Jab No Pay No Way | Tagged , , , , , , , | 18 Comments

Herd Immunity – Truth or Lie?

by Meryl Dorey

I remember when it all started. 1978 – two years after High School. While I was riding the subway to college or to work, I would see the billboards and signs –

No Shots, No School!

I remember asking myself – why would anyone not want to vaccinate their children? How many crazy people are there in this world? And I was totally disgusted with the fact that such irresponsible, selfish and most likely stupid people existed.

Fast forward ten years to the vaccine injuries of my first child and, not right away, but after years of research, investigation and exhaustive reading, I answered the questions about why anyone would not want to vaccinate their children. And those reasons were scientifically valid and morally responsible.

I answered that question in the firm knowledge that my decision would have no effect on anyone else. Except for the fact that I believe my unvaccinated children are far healthier than their fully-vaccinated peers and therefore, we cost the country a fraction of what other families do in healthcare.

But I digress…

Today, I was interviewed by Radio 4ZZZ in Brisbane about the rallies occurring across Australia this coming weekend to protest against the No Jab, No Pay legislation supposedly being enacted in January 2016.. The interview will be uploaded to the website within the next few days and when it does, you can find it by clicking this link.

In that conversation, we spent a lot of time discussing the fact that the government and the medical community are using herd immunity as the reason for insisting that the vaccinated be protected from the unvaccinated.


Herd immunity is a myth. It does not exist. And in fact, the origin of the term had nothing to do with vaccines, disease eradication or even protecting people from infectious diseases.

In the 1930s, herd immunity was used to explain why epidemics were cyclical in nature so they could be predicted. The pivotal researcher into this issue described how when a certain percentage of children had contracted and recovered from measles (approximately 66%), there would be a period of 3-4 years before another outbreak occurred. And this was because measles infection gave you something no vaccine ever can – lifelong immunity.

How can you possibly have herd immunity from vaccines when vaccines don’t convey immunity? It makes no sense!

But the government today is saying that our unvaccinated children are somehow maintaining these diseases in the community – diseases that would have been wiped out if it weren’t for us refusing to ‘do the right thing’ and vaccinate. That we are preventing Australia from reaching levels of herd immunity that would see these diseases wiped out – That level being 95%

Where did that 95% figure come from?

When my son was little, the herd immunity figure that we were aiming for was 80%. But we reached 80% pretty quickly and outbreaks were still occurring. Obviously 80% must not have been enough (very scientific, don’t you see?) so, hey-presto, it went to 90%. A few years ago, we exceeded 90% but those pesky outbreaks were even worse (especially if we are talking about pertussis – whooping cough). Once again, the level needed to reach herd immunity was increased.  Now, we needed to reach 95% before the protection would kick in.

The first year we reached that Nirvana level of 95% for whooping cough vaccination was in 2008 – the same year that our current whooping cough epidemic started – an epidemic which is still ongoing and is affecting any country that uses the whooping cough vaccine routinely.

There is talk now about herd immunity not being effective until the vaccination rate is 100%. Does the phrase ‘moving the goal posts’ mean anything to you?

So the pollies and health officials who have been out there, pointing the bone at unvaccinated children and telling everyone that ‘vaccines only work if everyone does them’ are really just trying to cover up the fact that their multi-billion dollar vaccination programs are failing.

And whilst many in the community have become sheep-like in regards to this issue, bleating about how our unvaccinated children gave their fully vaccinated little darling the measles, informed parents on both sides of the vaccination divide are refusing to accept such unscientific, illogical nonsense.

Herd immunity does not exist. It is not a ‘thing’. It is a lie.

Herd ImmunityOn the radio program, I said that I would post some articles that demonstrate the myth of herd immunity (and coincidentally, a doctor from NSW just posted a comment on this blog the other day trying to convince me that vaccines induce natural immunity!) as well as the fact that those who are vaccinated against pertussis may be more susceptible to pertussis infection than their unvaccinated peers.

So here goes. And remember – for those who are reading this and have chosen to vaccinate your children, I support your choice 150%! Just as I expect you to support my right not to vaccinate by the same amount. Freedom only works if everyone gets to use it.

Hope to see you all on Sunday at the rallies!

Failure of Rubella Herd Immunity during an Epidemic – N Engl J Med 1973; 288:69-72January 11, 1973

The concept that a highly immune group of prepubertal children will prevent the spread of rubella in the rest of the community was shown by this epidemic not always to be valid.


Duration of effectiveness of pertussis vaccine: evidence from a 10 year community study-  Br Med J (Clin Res Ed) 1988;296:612

Thus the pertussis vaccine or its schedule of use does not seem to provide sufficient herd immunity to prevent outbreaks of whooping cough. Matters might be improved if vaccination against pertussis were included in the preschool immunisation programme. (ed note: the medical community’s answer to vaccine failure always seems to be – add more vaccines to the schedule. When the preschool booster was added and the rate of pertussis only increased, the only other place to go was to blame the unvaccinated.)


Herd Immunity and Measles – Clin Infect Dis. (1983) (3): 463-466

The basic concept of herd immunity is directly applicable only under very special conditions. The agents of disease must be restricted to a single host species within which transmission occurs by relatively direct contact, and infection induces solid immunity. Also outbreaks must occur only in randomly mixing populations. In free-living populations, susceptibles are not distributed homogeneously but tend to cluster in subgroups defined by age and by such factors as ethnicity and socioeconomic status. The requisite for occurrence of epidemics, namely a large enough number of susceptibles in frequent contact with each other, exists in virtually all large populations, regardless of the total proportion of the population that is immune. Experience with measles illustrates these conditions. Total prevalence of immunity of ⩾90% in developing countries does not prevent annual epidemics among the susceptibles, most of whom are children younger than three years of age.


The following is quoted verbatim from Dr Tetyana Obukhanych’s open letter to American Lawmakers on herd immunity which you can find linked at the bottom of this post.

Randomized controlled trial of inactivated poliovirus vaccine in CubaN Engl J Med 356:1536-44

The table below from the Cuban IPV study documents that 91% of children receiving no IPV (control group B) were colonized with live attenuated poliovirus upon deliberate experimental inoculation.  Children who were vaccinated with IPV (groups A and C) were similarly colonized at the rate of 94-97%.  High counts of live virus were recovered from the stool of children in all groups.  These results make it clear that IPV cannot be relied upon for the control of polioviruses.



And some information on why those who are vaccinated against pertussis can be more likely to spread and contract the illness than their vaccinated peers:

Resurgence of Pertussis (p.6)

“Findings indicated that 85% of the isolates [from six Enhanced Pertussis Surveillance Sites and from epidemics in Washington and Vermont in 2012] were PRN-deficient and vaccinated patients had significantly higher odds than unvaccinated patients of being infected with PRN-deficient strains.  Moreover, when patients with up-to-date DTaP vaccinations were compared to unvaccinated patients, the odds of being infected with PRN-deficient strains increased, suggesting that PRN-bacteria may have a selective advantage in infecting DTaP-vaccinated persons.”


And why natural infection is far superior to vaccination in terms of protection and duration of resistance to future infection.

Warfel et al. (2014) Acellular pertussis vaccines protect against disease but fail to prevent infection and transmission in a nonhuman primate model. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 111:787-92

“Baboons vaccinated with aP were protected from severe pertussis-associated symptoms but not from colonization, did not clear the infection faster than naïve [unvaccinated] animals, and readily transmitted B. pertussis to unvaccinated contacts. By comparison, previously infected [naturally-immune] animals were not colonized upon secondary infection.”

And lastly, just for fun, are a few mainstream articles – written by doctors and parents – about the myth of herd immunity.

Herd Immunity – Junk Science at its Finest

Why is China having measles outbreaks when 99% are vaccinated?

An Open Letter to Legislators Currently Considering Vaccine Legislation from Tetyana Obukhanych, PhD in Immunology

The Deadly Impossibility Of Herd Immunity Through Vaccination, by Dr. Russell Blaylock


Please note: Blog posts are opinion pieces which represent the views of the authors. They do not necessarily represent the viewpoints of the nocompulsoryvaccination blog. This blog is a forum, support and information site and outlet for discussion about the relative benefits and risks of vaccinations in particular – and medical procedures in general. We do not provide medical advice but believe that everyone has the opportunity and the obligation to do their own research before making decisions for their families. The information we provide (including your personal review of the references we cite) should be taken in conjunction with a range of other data, including that obtained from government, your health care provider and/or other medical source material to assist you in developing the knowledge required to make informed health choices.

Posted in Health rights, No Jab No Pay No Way, Vaccination | Tagged , , | 3 Comments

Who do you think you’re Kidd-ing?

by Meryl Dorey

Dr Richard Kidd

Dr Richard Kidd, Council and Board Member of the Australian Medical Association, QLD

On Thursday, September 10th, I attended an inquiry that was held in the QLD Parliament regarding the possibility of excluding unvaccinated children from childcare. I was there as an observer and to support the AVN contingent who, I must say, did a masterful job under very difficult conditions. You can read more about that by clicking here.

I am starting this blog series with the speaker who I felt should have been the best-informed of the lot, but who unfortunately showed himself to be terribly ignorant of some basic vaccination facts.

If he were a neurosurgeon or a kidney specialist for example, one might almost understand his errors. But Dr Richard Kidd is a Council and Board Member of the Australian Medical Association, QLD and he is also a general practitioner – the sort of person who both administers vaccines and is meant to advise parents with up-to-date and accurate information.

During his testimony before the Committee, Dr Kidd was asked by the Committee Chair about boosters for measles, mumps and rubella (MMR). She said that she had boosters when she gave birth to her young children but not the MMR. She asked the doctor if that was necessary.

His answer blew me away. And it should leave you with grave concerns about the competence of Australian doctors if such basic and egregious errors can be made by someone so high up in the medical fraternity.

Dr Kidd answered that, “…we do like to give people MMR preferably before they become pregnant but you can do it during pregnancy.”

Now, if Dr Kidd is giving his pregnant patients the MMR vaccine, he is not only putting their unborn children at risk, but he is also acting in direct contravention to the Australian Government’s guidelines on vaccination!

According to the Australian Immunisation Handbook which is published on the Australian Government Department of Health website:

“MMR-containing vaccines are contraindicated in pregnant women. Pregnancy should be avoided for 28 days after vaccination.”

Pregnancy VaccinesThere is no doubt about this; no controversy. The rubella portion of the MMR vaccine has been contraindicated in pregnancy since it was first manufactured in the 1960s. Rubella vaccines are meant to prevent congenital rubella syndrome, which it is thought can cause congenital malformations and death in a percentage of infants whose mothers contract it during pregnancy. Because the vaccine contains the live attenuated rubella virus, it is possible for it to cause the very same condition it’s meant to prevent if administered during pregnancy – especially during the first trimester. So Dr Kidd’s advice is deceptive, misleading and dangerous.

It is not the only error he made during his testimony. During the same answer to the Committee Chair, Dr Kidd stated that:

“We are routinely giving people boosters for tetanus in particular and attached to that is diphtheria. Maybe we should have the pertussis attached to that as well.” 

The mind boggles.

Dr Kidd was speaking about vaccination for adults (because that is what the question was about). There is only ONE vaccine that is recommended for adults who are seeking to have booster shots against diphtheria and tetanus. It is called Boostrix and it is a trivalent vaccine containing antigens for diphtheria, tetanus and pertussis. Did the good doctor really not know that?

There is a vaccine that is only for diphtheria and tetanus – called ADT (Adult diphtheria and tetanus) but it is not recommended for boosters and is only used in rare instances. Most doctors’ offices would not even have this shot in the fridge.

There were several other instances where Dr Kidd made statements that were either verifiably incorrect or were riding the thin edge of what is provable. I don’t have time to deal with all of those here. But I will end with one of the more bold-faced incorrect statements he made, towards the end of his testimony.

One of the other committee members, a doctor himself, asked Dr Kidd about information that had been provided earlier in the day regarding the possibility of vaccines causing immune dysfunction. The AMA representative was asked if this was true.

His response was:

“There have been a couple of studies but they have been flawed.”

Oh, really?

The link between vaccinations and immune dysfunction/autoimmunity is so strong, it has been given a name in the medical literature – Autoimmune/inflammatory syndrome induced by adjuvants (ASIA). Adjuvants are extremely toxic ingredients intentionally added to vaccines to induce an immune response. ASIA is autoimmunity caused by these ingredients. Again, there is no controversy about this – it is an accepted phenomenon within medical circles. So why is Dr Kidd, a GP who deals with vaccinations in his own practice (a practice he claims has a 96% vaccination rate) ignorant of this?

For one thing, there is a textbook by THE world authority on autoimmunity, Dr Yehuda Shoenfeld (you can read his CV at this link – it is very impressive indeed!), called Vaccines and Autoimmunity. This book was co-authored by Nancy Agmon-Levin, a professor in the Faculty of Medicine at Tel Aviv University and Dr Lucija Tomljenovic, a PhD researcher at the Neural Dynamics Research Group at the University of British Columbia.

This text is used to teach advanced immunology to students at universities around the world. And it has not been found to be ‘flawed’. It was presented by one of the speakers representing the AVN but the AMA representative was not present in the room at the time so he would not have seen that. The Committee members should have, however.

Below is a small selection of other articles from peer-reviewed journals discussing the link between vaccines and immune system dysfunction – there are many more respected (not flawed) studies. If you are interested in seeing some of them, just click this link to go to a Google Scholar search for studies discussing whether or not vaccines cause autoimmunity. Interesting note – there are 33,000 results – so much for Dr Kidd’s “couple”:

Vaccination and autoimmunity-‘vaccinosis’: a dangerous liaison?; J Autoimmun. 2000 Feb;14(1):1-10.

Vaccination and autoimmune disease: what is the evidence?; THE LANCET; June 3, 2003

Vaccine-related Risk of Autoimmune Reactions; Rheumatology. 2011;50(8):1358-1365

Self-Organized Criticality Theory of Autoimmunity; 10.1371/journal.pone.0008382

I will be sending a copy of this blog to all sitting members of the QLD Parliament – including those who sat on the Committee that heard Dr Kidd’s testimony. They need to be aware that the information they consider to be sacrosanct because it comes from doctors isn’t necessarily so. I hope to receive appropriate responses in the near future and I will share any and all responses on this blog.

In conclusion, while it is not necessarily surprising (since I have spoken with many doctors over the years who were not well-informed about vaccination ingredients, safety or efficacy), it is disappointing that someone in such an esteemed and responsible position would not be better informed. Doesn’t Dr Kidd realise that as a doctor, he holds a sacred trust? Parents come to him anticipating that he is an expert because the government says he is. The government says all doctors are experts.

But if Dr Kidd has been giving MMR vaccines to pregnant women, he has seriously breached that trust and needs to be held accountable.

Once again, it is clear that when making a vaccination decision, though you should be speaking with your doctor, you should also be seeking independent information from other sources including doing your own research. Taking this responsibility and doing your own research is the only way to keep yourself and your children safe.


Posted in No Jab No Pay No Way, Vaccination | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | 10 Comments

Testimony of Greg Beattie before QLD Parliamentary Inquiry

Meryl Dorey, Brett Smith, Tasha David and Greg Beattie at QLD Parliament

Below is the testimony that Greg Beattie, past President of the AVN, would have given had he not had his time unexpectedly shortened. If you would like to read the details of how the AVN was treated at this public inquiry at QLD Parliament, please click here to read the summary.

An interesting thing to note is that in the transcript of the hearing – and please remember that a transcript is supposed to be an exact record of what someone has said – someone either on the committee or employed by them changed the way in which Greg introduced himself. He said that he was a past President of the Australian Vaccination Network and the Transcript was changed to read, “I am a past president of what was then known as the Australian Vaccination Network…”

Someone there did not like Greg saying Australian Vaccination Network, though that WAS the name of the organisation previously, so they took it upon themselves to alter an official transcript!

Without further ado, here is Greg Beattie’s testimony:

I am a past president of the Australian Vaccination Network. I am also an author of two books on the issue. But I speak today as someone who, 20 years ago, challenged a government-run childcare centre that refused to accept my unvaccinated children. The very thing that this Bill promises to protect childcare centres from.

It can’t. This is the first point I’d like to make, and it’s a very important one so I’ll take a couple of minutes to explain. It would be extremely unfortunate if this Bill were to achieve the opposite of its intention, and invite childcare centres to do something which exposed them to, rather than protected them from, liability. But in my estimation, and that of the NSW government, that’s precisely what it will do.

NSW parliament debated an amendment identical to the Bill proposed here in 2013. It didn’t pass because the government recognised that it would expose childcare centres to challenge, and that that challenge would come via the Commonwealth Disability Discrimination Act – the same Act I used 20 years ago.

Advice from the attorney general confirmed that such a move would place childcare centres in breach of the Act, and that their state legislation was powerless to protect them from that. I’ll quote selectively from the Hansard record of that debate:

“The Government does not support the amendment…. Allowing childcare facilities to adopt their own policies …. is not supported by the childcare industry peak bodies. Public health experts, including the National Centre for Immunisation Research and Surveillance, have strong objections to such an ad hoc approach.”

“…the proposed amendment would open childcare facilities …. to claims that the facility is in breach of the Commonwealth anti-discrimination law.”

And on the capacity of the NSW public health Act to protect childcare centres from this challenge:

“Exemptions under a Commonwealth or State law apply only to actions taken in direct compliance with a prescribed law. The New South Wales Public Health Act is not a prescribed law under the Commonwealth Disability Discrimination Act.”

And in case you’re wondering, I’ve checked and the Queensland public health Act is also not a prescribed law.

So, in a nutshell, this Bill promises something it can’t provide. It invites childcare centres to make a decision, and promises to support them in that decision, but it cannot deliver on that promise.

Childcare centres WILL get challenges. They won’t come from me. My children have flown the coop. But there are 1000’s of others out there, ready and waiting. And if you want to meet some, come downtown on Sunday week. A rally against the proposed federal laws has been organised. The last one, a couple of months ago, was attended by several thousand. These are parents who are sick and tired of being pushed around, and are prepared to act.

The second point I’d like to make is that there is no imperative to legislate in this area.

Vaccination has not produced the tremendous benefits that its marketing machine would have us believe. It didn’t save us from the high death rates of the past. Measles deaths peaked in Australia at 175 per 100,000. A century later, when we were about to introduce a vaccine for it, that figure was down to 0.1. The deaths had declined by more than 99% before we started vaccinating for it.

Whooping cough similarly declined around 90%, and diphtheria about 80%, before we started vaccinating for them. But the marketing machine has given all the credit to vaccination. And most people have swallowed that.

Also, experts frequently claim that vaccination saves 3 million lives each year. But ask for the evidence of that and you’ll find they don’t have it. Just that so-and-so said so. And if you ask so-and-so they’ll tell you the same thing. If you’re persistent, and drill down to the source, you WILL find the answer:

“We modelled it on a spreadsheet. We started with the assumption that vaccination prevents 90-odd% of deaths. So we just added up all the vaccines given out and – there’s our figure.”

That figure is of course paraded as evidence of how well vaccination works. Which in turn appears to validate the assumption in the model. It’s called a feedback loop. There IS no empirical evidence. That’s vaccine science. And they wonder why people question it! But there are many more reasons people question it, as can be seen in our submission.

With my third and final point I’d like to make a recommendation to the committee. Given that this Bill will be counter productive, why don’t we try something new? Something daring. Discussion.

Last year a Healthy Lifestyles Expo was run on the Sunshine Coast. The organisers decided to include a short forum on vaccination, since the issue was topical at the time. They approached the state’s chief health officer, Dr Jeanette Young, who you heard from earlier today, as well as our organisation, to supply speakers for a debate. We accepted. Dr Young refused. Her reason – “there’s nothing to debate”. The organisers tried elsewhere, even publicising their request, but no one could be found to speak in support of vaccination.

Unfortunately this happens all the time. Ordinary citizens organise a forum so that the competing viewpoints can be aired publicly, but the pro side refuses to participate. They’ll only turn up if the so-called anti side isn’t allowed to speak. These are classic playground antics.

And who misses out? The public. Those who are trying to make sense of the opposing stories.

Dr Young should relish the opportunity to defend and promote vaccination. In fact, she should facilitate such forums.

This government can do something in this area. It could direct the health hierarchy to promote ongoing and open discussion. Have them encourage questions, concerns, and dissenting voices. Have them provide forums where the so-called anti side is actively INVITED to debate. Have them facilitate similar on-line discussions, as well. Show the community they’re not frightened of dissent. That they’re capable of having their claims publicly scrutinised.

And organisations such as ours should be welcomed, embraced, not demonised. We represent the concerns of the community. Engage us, and address the concerns publicly and cooperatively. Don’t ignore us, or bring a big stick out. That won’t chase us away. It will only galvanise us.

In this way the public will feel secure that the emerging information is robust.

For years our organisation has been subjected to almost every form of inquiry and government sanctioned intimidation you can think of. Why? Because we question vaccination. And we demand attention to our concerns. But we’ve prevailed. And we always will prevail because the reason for our existence is still there. Dissenting voices on vaccination are still being handled with playground antics.

This government, if it were to implement this sort of approach, could be a nation leader – in fact, a world leader – in resolving the divisiveness that this issue brings to our community.

Posted in AVN, No Jab No Pay No Way | Tagged , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

QLD Parliamentary Inquiry into allowing Unvaccinated Children to be excluded from Childcare

QLD ParlimentOn the 19th of August, 2013, then AVN President, Greg Beattie, gave a presentation before a QLD Parliamentary Inquiry looking into changes to the way in which unvaccinated children are admitted to childcare facilities. The intent was to exclude the unvaccinated or make it more difficult for them to attend.

The Committee Chair was Trevor Ruthenberg and he was both fair and competent in the way he managed the day.

The AVN put together a scientifically-based, well-referenced submission and was treated with great respect by most on this committee whose ultimate decision was, thankfully, not to go ahead with the intended legislative changes.

This last week, On September 10th, due to very similar changes being proposed in QLD, the AVN once again took the time to put together a submission and was called upon to testify.

We assumed that the procedure would be the same and that the Committee would, once again, treat all those who took the time to testify with respect.

Unfortunately, that was not the case.

I was there as an observer so I was able to closely watch both the previous speakers and the AVN representatives.

Altogether, were 12 speakers who were in support of government policies regarding the exclusion of unvaccinated children (actually, Professor Julie Leask, though an avid supporter of vaccination, was not happy with the bill in its present state and said – amongst other things – that it was unethical) and 4 speakers who believed in free and informed health choice. The AVN’s group consisted of Greg Beattie, Tasha David (current AVN President) and Brett Smith, a member of the AVN.

In addition, there was to be a presentation from Ms Rebecca Hansen-Smith, a QLD mother who has been researching this issue extensively and who gave an excellent presentation at the last Committee Meeting.

The AVN was told that they would have 20 minutes in total and they were to present after Prof Julie Leask testified by telephone hookup. They therefore prepared a 3-minute opening statement each (9 minutes in total) and allowed 11 minutes for questions.

Ms Hansen-Smith was also given 20 minutes and she was supposed to be the last speaker of the day, immediately following the AMA (there will be a very long blog about the presentation of Dr Kidd from the AMA within the next day or two).

The Committee members listened to the pro-medical speakers with great attentiveness and asked many, many questions – the majority of them, Dorothy Dixers.

When it came time for the AVN to speak, however, the Committee called Rebecca Hansen-Smith at the same time.

The AVN just assumed that their time had been extended to 40 minutes (which would have been fair) and the Committee just wanted them all to speak together since they were covering the topic from the same point of view.

Less than 2 minutes into Ms Hansen-Smith’s opening statement however (the Committee asked her to go first), the Chair interrupted, asking if she could please wrap it up! Of course, none of us expected this and Rebecca said that she still had important information she had prepared and wanted to get to.

The Chair said that the Committee was running overtime after the previous speakers so the AVN was going to have to cut its time short and also merge its time with another, unrelated person!

Of course, everyone was most upset about this. Tasha had flown in from Melbourne, Brett from Sydney and Greg had travelled from the Sunshine Coast. In their voluntary capacity, they had spent hours putting together submissions and opening statements and now, they were not going to be allowed to put them on the public record!

Greg’s opening statement (in the next blog following this one) was cut in half and neither Brett nor Tasha got to use their statements at all.

To add insult to injury, whilst the Committee had listened very intently to the pro-vaccine speakers, they chatted amongst themselves nearly the entire time the AVN and Ms Hansen-Young were presenting.

You can read the Transcript of the day’s testimony at this link – and as I said previously, I am going to be writing an in-depth analyses of several of these presentations, but I would just like to close by saying that the Committee showed extreme rudeness and disdain for those who were in opposition to the passage of this law.

This was a public hearing and they were the only ones representing the general public. Instead of listening to them and allowing them the requisite time they had been promised, they were ignored and their talks were cut short.

Lastly, when the final presenter of the day, Dr Richard Kidd from the AMA QLD rose to speak, he assured the Chair that he would be as brief as possible. The Chair replied, “We have made up time. Thank you.”

Of course they had made up time! They had cut the two health consumer talks in half in order to give that time to a medical lobby group.

I am hoping that they will at least be fair when determining the outcome of this legislation (and please do take the time to read Greg’s opening statement because it explains why this legislation cannot go ahead in its present state).

Only time will tell.

Posted in Accountability, Health rights, No Jab No Pay No Way | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments

Pardon me, but your bias is showing…

As some of you may be aware, many doctors who practice natural therapies have been found dead in suspicious circumstances in the US. You can read a bit about this on the HealthNut website, but needless to say, the fact that so many have died unexpectedly in suspicious circumstances is concerning, to say the least.

That’s why, when I read a couple of days ago about a conference where 30 holistic medial doctors were poisoned in Germany, it seemed to be just a continuation of the US story and, just like the US story, there has been little to no mainstream coverage.

Below is the story as it showed up on the NZ TV website. As you can see, they took this very seriously, said that it was a poisoning and that police were investigating.







Contrast this with the treatment the Medical Observer (MO) gave to the story. The tags (keywords that indicate what a story is about to make it easier for search engines or website searches to categorise and find) Drug Abuse – implying that the drugs were taken intentionally, and Lighter Side (Is there really a lighter side to someone poisoning someone else?).

In addition, the entire thrust of the article is that this was a group of homeopaths and therefore, the ‘overdose’ (they did not use the word poisoning even once though all other media have called it that) may have been self-inflicted, somehow.

This was a crime. The police are investigating it as such. People could have died. The drug that was used on them could cause life-long disability. But because they were natural therapists, apparently, this is a ‘lighter side’ joke piece to this pro-pharma paper. For shame, Medical Observer, for shame!


Posted in Medical Bully-Boys | Tagged , , | 2 Comments

September 20, 2015 – Mark it in your calendar

by Meryl Dorey
No Jab No Pay Rally






A couple of months ago, rallies were held in many locations across Australia to protest against planned legislation that would remove a parent’s right to make basic health choices for their children. Thousands of parents came together to demonstrate against these changes – many of them having seen their own children die or become permanently injured as a result of vaccination. Some of them were even vaccine-injured themselves. Please scroll down the page for a small selection of videos covering these marches from independent media outlets. The reason I can’t share any mainstream videos or reports is because the corrupt, bought mainstream media did not attend or cover these rallies.

Parliament is still intending to pass this legislation and, even though the bill has not even been tabled yet so I cannot give you any details of what it will contain, according to the government, the plan is to remove payments from families who don’t completely vaccinate their children and also to stop them from attending childcare today – school in the future.

If the intent is anything like the bills being passed in the US (especially SB277 in the State of California), legislating against unvaccinated children is just the beginning. Debate is taking place about expanding the California legislation to prevent unvaccinated parents from volunteering in schools and forcing teachers, aides and school staff to be fully vaccinated as well or lose their jobs.

This is the thin end of the wedge, in other words.

More rallies will be held in Australia on September 20th, 2015 – less than 2 weeks from today.

We need to send a strong and unified message to the Federal and State governments – that this is an issue we are passionate about. We take our roles as parents, protectors and decision-makers seriously. We will not have those roles taken away from us.

Even if you vaccinate, you should be concerned at this attempt to interfere with parental choice. Today, it is vaccination – what will the government try to force on us tomorrow?

In addition, there are currently over 270 new vaccines in development. Many of them are being fast-tracked into approval (as Gardasil was fast-tracked with disastrous results!) and, should this legislation be allowed to go ahead, you and your children could be forced to take not just dozens of shots (as we see today), but hundreds in the near future.

Rights we are born with

The fact is that there are some rights that are inherent. These are basic human rights we are born with and that no government can or should be allowed to interfere with. The government cannot tell us what treatments or preventatives we can or can’t use in our own bodies or in the bodies of minor children who are under our protection. Despite this, they are trying to do just that.

If you believe strongly in human rights; if you want to support these families whose children have been injured or killed by vaccines (or you or your family has had a negative experience with vaccines), I urge you to set this date aside and to attend the rally nearest you.

Below is a list of the rally locations. I am waiting on information regarding any rallies in  Tasmania or other locations. If someone has any details to share, please do so in the comments section and I will update this blog post.

We MUST stand together against repressive, discriminatory government legislation as citizens of a free, democratic nation. If we don’t protect our children and ourselves, we cannot expect others to do it for us.

No Jab, No Pay? No Jab, no Play? No Way! Rallies

Please note – there have been several changes to the schedule and one addition (Tasmania). I am updating this blog post but also bookmark the No Jab No Pay NO WAY page for the most up-to-date information going forward. I hope you are ALL planning on going to the rallies in your own areas. I will be at the Brisbane rally and would love to meet you if you wouldn’t mind coming up to say hi.

Sunday, September 20th check times for the various locations below:

Brisbane, QLD – Emma Miller Place, Roma Street, Brisbane – 11:00 am to 1:30 PM click here for more information

Sydney, NSW – Sydney Town Hall, 483 George Street, Sydney, Australia – 1:00 PM to 4:00 PM click here for more information

Melbourne, Victoria – Flagstaff Gardens, Corner Latrobe Street and King Street, Melbourne 11:00 AM to 2:00 PMclick here for more information

Adelaide, South Australia – Parliament House, North Terrace, Adelaide – 11:00 AM – 2:00 PM please click here for more information

Perth, WA – Parliament House Steps 10:30 AM – 11:30 AMPlease click here for more information

Launceston, TAS – Launceston City Park, 43 Tamar Street, Launceston – 1:00 PMPlease click here for more information


Posted in Medical Bully-Boys, No Jab No Pay No Way, Vaccination | Tagged , , , , , , | 4 Comments

Medical Myopia


by Meryl Dorey

I was driving home from the post office just after 4 PM today when my mobile phone rang. I didn’t recognize the number so I almost didn’t answer it but curiosity got the better of me and when I picked up the phone, I discovered t37255797_shat it was a journalist from the Medical Observer.

Was he calling to ask questions about why so many parents are up in arms over the government’s discriminatory and illegal “No Jab, No Pay” policy that is supposedly being introduced in January (though the legislation hasn’t been tabled in Parliament as of yet)?


Was he interested in finding out why the health of Australia’s children is now worse than it’s ever been, with nearly 50% of our kids under the age of 12 being treated for at least one chronic condition and childhood cancers, diabetes, asthma, autism, ADD and other autoimmune conditions soaring to new records every year?


Was he calling to ask about why the Australian government is still recommending HPV vaccines when Japan withdrew their recommendations over a year ago due to a large number of serious reactions with France, Spain and other European countries also asking whether they should continue pushing this dangerous shot?


Or, while we are on the subject of the HPV vaccine, was he wanting to discuss the dozens of young women in Mexico who had seizures immediately after getting this shot – and the fact that those seizures were caught on video and shared around the world.


The reason he was calling – and the reason why I had to laugh when he started talking (nothing personal – I’m sure he is a lovely man), was because at a time when there are so many pressing issues surrounding vaccinations today, the Medical Observer wanted to know why I was no longer the Public Officer of the AVN.

I told him that this is not a story. And if he wanted to write a REAL story, how about covering the issue of Dr William Thompson, the CDC Whistleblower, who has admitted to colluding with his superiors at the Centers for Disease Control in order to hide a strong, scientifically-proven link between vaccinations and autism – especially in black children.*

You may find this hard to believe, but he had never heard of William Thompson!

When I told him that there would be a Congressional Inquiry into this crime and that Congressman Bill Posey had been given thousands of pages proving the cover-up, the journo said that this was no doubt an important issue but, why was I no longer on the AVN Committee and were there any hard feelings between myself and Tasha David, the AVN’s President?

I again reiterated that this was NOT a story! I fully supported the AVN and was simply retired from the committee after more than 20 years as its head. But how about writing an article about vaccine injuries?

Every day in Australia and around the world, children were being killed or injured by vaccines. They needed a voice in the media. The Medical Observer should BE that voice. They should be covering these issues instead of chasing or manufacturing rubbish articles about nothing at all.

He then asked me about the AVN’s finances and whether I was concerned about an apparent drop in membership.

I told him that any questions about money should be addressed to the AVN’s President or their Treasurer. I am just a member. You wouldn’t just scroll through the membership of the Liberal party and call random members to ask them whether they were concerned about the Liberal party’s spending, would you?

Yes, he told me, he would!

So, I realised at this point that trying to get him interested in covering a real story or trying to get the Medical Observer to take this issue, our children and our rights seriously was, sadly, a lost cause.

One day, in the not too distant future, when the evidence of vaccine risks and ineffectiveness becomes so overwhelming, even the Australian media can no longer suppress or ignore it, this journalist might look back on our conversation and wonder why he didn’t choose to report the real news instead of the fluff.

At that point, regardless of what he has done in the intervening months, he will never be able to say that he didn’t know or that he was just following orders.

Please note: Blog posts are opinion pieces which represent the views of the authors. They do not necessarily represent the viewpoints of the nocompulsoryvaccination blog. This blog is a forum, support and information site and outlet for discussion about the relative benefits and risks of vaccinations in particular – and medical procedures in general. We do not provide medical advice but believe that everyone has the opportunity and the obligation to do their own research before making decisions for their families. The information we provide (including your personal review of the references we cite) should be taken in conjunction with a range of other data, including that obtained from government, your health care provider and/or other medical source material to assist you in developing the knowledge required to make informed health choices.

Posted in Accountability, Autism, AVN, Health rights, No Jab No Pay No Way | Tagged , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Serious flu risk could be identified with genetic test | Science | The Guardian

Your ability to sail through flu infections (as most of the population seems to) has nothing to do with:

1- Your diet;

2- Your lifestyle choices (do you drink to excess, smoke, take pharmaceutical drugs);

3- Exercise status;

4- Living conditions.

No, none of this really matters so don’t even worry about them. New anti-viral$ will be developed by Big Pharma to help ‘treat’ your flu infection$. I’m $ure they will be every bit a$ $afe a$ Tamiflu was. Ohwait a minute…

So pay no attention to the man behind the curtain. Don’t be concerned with the choices you make regarding your health – there is nothing you can do to improve it outside of the needles and pills your doctor pushes at and into you. 

Western medical practitioners and researchers – the Calvinists of ‘science’!

Findings show that the severity of infection can be partially governed by a person’s genetic make-up, and opens the door to new types of anti-viral drugs

Source: Serious flu risk could be identified with genetic test | Science | The Guardian

Posted in Vaccination | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Vaccination During Pregnancy – Untested, Unsafe and Recommended by the CDC

By Benjamin Rush

Below is a table of vaccinations which are recommended before, during and after pregnancy for American women. The table is from the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) -the corrupt American Government body that has been implicated in colluding with pharmaceutical interests to cover up and suppress information on the link between vaccinations and autism (amongst other things).*

Please note that NONE of these vaccines have ever been tested for safety during pregnancy  and that since the US Government began recommending vaccines to pregnant women, the number of fetal deaths has exceeded postnatal deaths the first time ever. (Fetal and Perinatal Mortality: United States, 2013)

Australia also started to recommend vaccinations during pregnancy – even during the first trimester when moms are supposed to avoid exposure to any and all toxins and drugs.

Are millions of children being killed and permanently injured in the womb where their parents will never suspect the involvement of vaccines? Will children who are born with multiple birth defects and congenital issues or being miscarried hours or days after their mothers were vaccinated ever be counted in the official toll of vaccine victims?

If you know of someone who is currently pregnant or is thinking of getting pregnant sometime in the future, please share this information with them.

If you are a pediatrician, obstetrician or other health professional, please become informed about the risks of the procedures you recommend. Primum non nocere – Firstly, do no harm.pregnancy chart

Please note: Blog posts are opinion pieces which represent the views of the authors. They do not necessarily represent the viewpoints of the nocompulsoryvaccination blog. This blog is a forum, support and information site and outlet for discussion about the relative benefits and risks of vaccinations in particular – and medical procedures in general. We do not provide medical advice but believe that everyone has the opportunity and the obligation to do their own research before making decisions for their families. The information we provide (including your personal review of the references we cite) should be taken in conjunction with a range of other data, including that obtained from the government, your health care provider and/or other medical source material to assist you in developing the knowledge required to make informed health choices.

Benjamin Rush is nocompulsoryvaccination’s USA Correspondent and the owner of the Fans of the AVN Facebook page.

Posted in Accountability, Autism, Death, Miscarriage, Vaccination | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

A new Pro-Choice political party needs your help URGENTLY!

iStock_000011256677XSmallI am reposting this extremely important information here. Please everyone, read, share and consider! I have just joined this party this morning (was previously a member of the Greens – HAH! With di Natale as head, that party is now nothing more than a pro-pharma joke!). If you believe in freedom of choice in Australia; if you believe in justice for Australians, consider joining this party too and do it soon because they MUST get 700 more members by Monday. The septics are out to shut them down – let’s show them that our voices count! Read and share, read and share!




As you all know I have been telling you about Jeff Hodges from the Consumer Rights and No Tolls political party.
Unfortunately the anti-choice community have decided that he should be silenced and have put in a complaint to try and get his website domain taken away. He now has until Monday to get 700 members to register as a national party.
This assault on anyone who dares question the status quo needs to stop, it is unnecessary and ridiculous. Please join me and showing them that we are sick of being pushed around and let’s get some politicians in parliament that will be our voice!
Jeff’s party has been running since 2012/13 and are getting close to having enough members to register with the electoral commission, if any of you can support his party please check out his website and register.
He needs your name, address and birth date, if you are already a member of another party you have the option to join his party and take your allegiance over to Consumer Rights and No Tolls party it is your right and your choice.
It is free to join and if you feel like changing your mind later on you can do that too, but let’s get Jeff’s party up and running and let the cyber bullies know enough is enough!

“Hello, I am Jeffrey Hodges, Founder and secretary of the new Consumer Rights & No Tolls party, and we really need your help please.

We want to stand at the next election for consumer rights issues, and we stand strongly beside you in regards the rights of people to refuse vaccinations and not be discriminated against. We will do whatever we can when elected to repeal the discriminatory ‘No jab, No pay’ legislation which both the ALP and LNP support.

However, to become a registered party we need at least 700 foundation members – and we need you to provide your full name, date of birth and residential address as per the electoral roll.

There is no cost – membership is totally free – and there is no obligation for you to be involved in any way. You would just be helping us ‘have a go’ and stand against ‘No jab, No pay’ and other important consumer rights issues. Please have a look at our website and join us if you agree with what we stand for.
You can join online at

There is an urgency in this as we are wanting to register the party next week – so please, please, join us by the weekend!
If you have any questions, you can call me personally on 07 5445 7994.

Thanks for your help.

Posted in Censorship, Health rights, Medical Bully-Boys, No Jab No Pay No Way | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | 11 Comments

The Fallacy of False Balance


17319874_sAs you probably know, thousands of Australians marched in every capital city in Australia on June 21st to protest against the Abbott government’s planned “No Jab, No Pay” legislation.

The only reason you would know this is because you read about it on Facebook, or on this blog or another website since NONE of the Australian media actually attended or covered these marches. Some independent outlets such as and Fair Dinkum Radio did, but the majority of Australians who will be affected by this new legislation are totally unaware of the potential implications of these tyrannical government moves or of the efforts to oppose them.

The reason for this news blackout is a policy that has government and ‘scientific community’ approval called False Balance.

According to False Balance, there are some issues that are so widely accepted, it would be wrong to report on them except from the point of view of the mainstream.

Climate change is one of these issues and I personally have very little knowledge of those who oppose climate change, but the fact is that those who oppose the government view have had their concerns suppressed and denigrated by mainstream media.

The dangers of fluoride is another such issue and has been for decades, despite mountains of scientific proof that fluoride does not improve the risk of dental caries and can cause significant harm to the health of the population.

Information on vaccination risks and ineffectiveness, however, is the single issue which the media, the government and the medical community have been trying with all their might to completely obliterate. To the point of censorship. To the point of criminalising those who even ask reasonable scientific questions. To the point of destroying the careers of scientists and researchers who have done studies pointing to valid concerns about the harms vaccines can and do cause and the obvious corruption involved in pharmaceutically-sponsored vaccine ‘studies’.

The excuse for this suppression and censorship is False Balance.

Now, I truly believe that the Australian (and world) population is intelligent and discerning enough to view both sides of any scientific issue – as long as they are given information in order to become educated about it. That is what I have always believed but apparently, neither our elected government nor the media agree with that viewpoint.

Because they say that allowing Australians to hear both sides of the vaccination debate is False Balance. That the scientific data proving that – for a percentage of those who receive vaccines – the outcomes can be fatal or life-changing and/or the vaccines themselves may not work to prevent disease or make the person healthy will ‘confuse’ us; that we are not capable of understanding or making our own decisions and as a result, we need the government to tell us what to do with our children’s and our own bodies.

The only excuse for exercising censorship in the name of False Balance is an incorrect assumption that Australians are too stupid to read or view information and understand how that information relates to their own lives.

False Balance is the reason why every single doctor, medical authority, scientist and health minister has said no when challenged to present their information on the safety and effectiveness of vaccines to a live audience. In fact, even when the magazine I used to publish, Informed Choice, asked for an article on the benefits of vaccination, that request was declined by everyone who was asked.

Using False Balance, the government and the medical community can continue to hide behind their lies about vaccination. They can persist in making claims that are completely unsupported by evidence (such as the claims that vaccines don’t cause reactions or deaths; and that vaccines will only work if everyone takes them).

There is no such thing as false balance – there is only freedom of information and the ability to make decisions without fear of bullying, financial penalties or other forms of duress.



Posted in Censorship | Tagged , , , , , , , , | 4 Comments

If you do nothing else today, please watch and share this video of Lissa Weckert speaking at the No Jab, No Pay rally in Brisbane on June 21, 2015. There is another march scheduled for September this year. Please be sure to subscribe to this blog as we will keep you informed of all future actions to protect health rights and prevent compulsory vaccination.

Video | Posted on by | Tagged , , , , , , , | 2 Comments

Red flag: grand experiment: the plan for a future Australia


Governments Are

Is Big Brother using Australia as his ‘testing ground’ for repressive policies? Will Australians stand idly by whilst their rights, their livelihoods and their children become nothing more than profit centres for corporate interests? The future will see what the result will be. But I am hoping that our proud Australian nation will stand up and draw a line in the sand – only this far and no further!

Originally posted on Jon Rappoport's Blog:

Red flag: grand experiment: the plan for a future Australia

by Jon Rappoport

June 22, 2015

(To read about Jon’s mega-collection, Power Outside The Matrix, click here.)

A new report, undoubtedly overblown in its predictions, but still important, states that up to 40% of Australian jobs could be transferred to machines in the next several decades, with a projected loss of five million human jobs by 2030.

See “Australia’s Future Workforce,” issued by CEDA, the Committee for Economic Development of Australia. Stephen Martin, the head of CEDA, states:

“Australia and the world is on the cusp of a new but very different industrial revolution and it is important that we are planning now to ensure our economy does not get left behind.”

Martin is talking about automation, not just in the mining and trucking sectors, but in offices, healthcare, many transportation services—wherever machines can do the jobs now…

View original 847 more words

Posted in Accountability, Health rights | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

Not ALL mainstream media is ignoring our side of the vaccination issue

On June 18, 2015, the Sacramento Bee, a major daily newspaper from California’s capital city, published an article about the funding push behind SB277 – legislation intended to take away parent’s rights to philosophical and religious exemptions to vaccination.

The attempts to remove parental choice that we are seeing in Australia are happening in just about every country around the world and are being coordinated and funded directly by the companies that produce and profit from vaccines.

Entitled, Drug companies donated millions to California lawmakers before vaccine debatethis article in a major, mainstream newspaper, paints a sordid picture of corruption occuring in plain view. Senator Richard Pan, a medical doctor who introduced this bill and has been playing all sorts of nasty tricks to prevent the opposition from having a say. He has had over $500,000 donated to his campaign by drug companies over the last 4 years. Many others in the California Senate have had similar amounts ‘given’ to them by these vested interests and I personally believe that these politicians have been bought in order to gain their support for this tyrannical legislation. 

As bad as this information is, at least in the US, it is available to the public. In Australia, there is no way to find out how much money our politicians  have taken from Big Pharma (and other corporate interests) in order to promote their products.

A Voice for Choice, a consumer organisation that supports freedom of choice on this subject, is funding a week’s worth of political cartoons in the Sacramento Bee newspaper. Even if I had the money to do the same here in Australia, I doubt that any newspaper or magazine would run these cartoons because they answer to their advertisers – not their readers.

Here is the first cartoon – I will publish the others on this page as they are published in the US.



Posted in Health rights, Medical Bully-Boys, Vaccination | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

More than 1,000 people march for freedom of choice in Brisbane

A solid wall of people extended for more than 2 city blocks.
A solid wall of people extended for more than 2 city blocks.

On June 21, 2015, groups of parents marched in every capital city across Australia to support the right to make free and informed vaccination choices for their children and themselves. These events were coordinated by groups of volunteers who worked very hard to try and make sure that as many people as possible were able to attend. Unfortunately, the (mainly) Murdoch media refused to either publicise or report on these marches. In Brisbane, more than 1,000 people showed up to have their say and to hear speakers talk about why vaccinations must never be made compulsory nor should financial penalties or discrimination be government-supported. Anna-Marie Stancombe, who was present at the Brisbane march, has been kind enough to provide us with her take on this very successful day – the first of many. Please be sure to sign up for updates on this blog as we will shortly be providing you with other ways in which you and your family and friends can act to support your health rights. 

By Anna-Marie Stancombe

It was a beautiful winter’s day with Brisbane shining from the warmth of the sun, the public enjoying their Sunday of shopping and coffees. They were oblivious to what was coming. On the horizon there was a storm brewing over in the picturesque Queens Park.

A few hundred people had started to gather. The young, the old, those with children and those without. The mothers, the fathers, the grandparents, brothers and sisters. They also were enjoying the glorious weather, but they were there for a purpose – a very important purpose.

Brisbane 6

We all had one common goal – to defend our absolute God-given right to ‘valid consent’. Our right to choose medical procedures for ourselves and, most importantly, for our children. Our human rights to speak out against medical and government tyranny.

The theme of the day was ‘No Jab, No Pay, No Way’. This protest was in response to the purposely controlled and planned campaign by Rupert Murdoch’s papers of ‘No jab, No play’. This has resulted in the Government announcing legislative reform to revoke family tax benefits and child care rebates of conscientious objectors to vaccinations. There will also be no religious exemptions.

People gathered to promote freedom of choice against state-enforced measures that used lies, deception, coercion and propaganda.

Brisbane 7

By 11 am there was more than 600 peaceful protesters gathered with their placards and t-shirts. They all asked for the same result – freedom to choose. Some of the slogans said:

‘We are protesting for your democratic right’,

‘The bill contradicts valid consent, we will not be manipulated’,

‘If it comes with a risk, there must be a choice’,

‘Human rights = Health choice’,

‘Discrimination alive and well in Australia’,

‘Our child, our choice’,

‘Pro choice, Pro democracy’

‘Stop violating Human Rights’

‘Always vote no to biased media’

And of course ‘No Jab, No Pay, No way.

There were guest speakers, who bravely talked of personal experience of their children who were damaged by vaccines. There were speakers who presented the other side of the vaccination debate – the information doctors and the medical field neglect to openly talk about. The dangers and risks of vaccinations. No one was promoting not vaccinating, they were simply presenting a balanced view of the pros and cons of vaccination and the risks involved.

Brisbane 3

We even had an ex-police sergeant, Chris Savage, who passionately told of his battle to expose the incredibly heartbreaking abuse by the ‘system’ where innocent parents have been accused or worse still, charged with ‘child abuse and murder’ of their children when they have sadly and suddenly died from an adverse vaccine reaction. He lost his career and was ostracised after trying to help these innocent families.

Mainstream media was very obviously absent when more than a thousand people marched through the streets of Brisbane in solidarity. We sang in We sang in unison – ‘Where there’s risk, there must be choice. Where there’s risk, there must be choice’.

Representatives from Brisbane's own VAIS were on hand to give out information to parents and others. They have been volunteering for over 25 years on this issue.
Representatives from Brisbane’s own VAIS were on hand to give out information to parents and others. They have been volunteering for over 25 years on this issue.

Shopkeepers and shoppers both came out to look; people put down their coffees to ask what was happening. What was all the noise about, they wanted to know? Our message was loud and clear and it was getting through.

‘We are fighting for your democratic right’

‘No Jab, No Pay, No way’

Similar rallies were held all around Australia’s capital cities and were well attended. Brisbane reportedly had the biggest turn out. It must be the weather.

Photos by Anna-Marie Stancombe, Ken Dorey and VAIS 


Posted in No Jab No Pay No Way, Vaccination | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | 7 Comments

Vaccination – The Most Heated Debate In History.

baby shot

Vaccination – yikes!

This surely must be one of the most heated debates in existence. For any parent, who honestly and objectively looks at both sides of the issue it is so unbelievably confusing. Google ‘child vaccination’ and I’m sure you’ll see what I mean (as you probably have already done!)

I’m neither for vaccine nor against it. I’m also certainly not an expert on the subject. My view with this issue is about simply protecting my child the best way I can. I have never been one to just go along with the crowd however, and so I have had many serious questions about vaccination. I wanted to find out particularly why some people are so very against it.

Unfortunately as everything is so PRO vaccination, one of the most particularly challenging things I found as a parent with questions about it, was the hard hitting criticism I received simply by asking! All I wanted to do is make an informed decision.

This judgement (or fear) from people comes from the deep beliefs in the decision that they have made to protect themselves and their child’s health. The thought of finding out that you may have possibly seriously harmed your child is devastating for a parent. Often for many people, this fear will present itself as an outburst of abuse. You have probably noticed how heated the issue becomes on the forums and message boards online which really is such a waste of energy on both sides.

Click the link below to read more

Vaccination – The Most Heated Debate In History. 

Posted in Vaccination | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

No Jab, No Pay? NO WAY! Please join the protest

The following information is taken verbatim from the website No Jab, No Pay? NO WAY!

If there is a peaceful protest being held within driving distance of where you live, please plan to add your voice to the calls for health freedom. Our rights are under threat like never before and everyone needs to get involved before this draconian legislation sails through Parliament. Thank you to the organisers for taking the initiative in bringing these events together. May they be well-attended and reported on fairly.


We are a group of individuals and parents who believe in freedom of choice and the right of all parents to make their families medical choices free from coercion, manipulation and blackmail! We have a nationwide peaceful protest marches being held across Australia on Sunday 21st June 2015, Please join us and stand up for parental rights and the human rights!

Parliament House

Queens Park
11am – 1.30pm

Parliament House
12 – 1pm

Parliament House

Town Hall

Launceston City Park

Synergy Energy Park Playground, Kings Park (Near Vietnam Pavilion)
weekly Sunday gatherings to discuss ideas up until the 21st at same time, same place.

Posted in Health rights, Vaccination | Tagged , , , , , | 1 Comment

About nocompulsoryvaccination

The managers of this blog believe that all medical procedures must be a matter of personal informed choice.

Posted in Vaccination | 3 Comments

VAERS -The US Government’s Human Garbage Dump – Reaches Half-a-Million Cases – AGE OF AUTISM

6a00d8357f3f2969e201b7c784cbbc970b-150wiIn recent days the US Vaccine Adverse Events Reports database (VAERS), opened a quarter of a century ago, was updated to top more than half a million reports. While listing on VAERS does not mean a vaccine injury report is confirmed it is also as a passive reporting database likely to under-report by many times and may represent numerically no more than 1 or 2% of cases.

Although monitored by both the Centers for Disease Control and the Food and Drug Administration it is doubtful whether the database has ever led to the official acknowledgment of any single injury. It may be that in one instance a product, Wyeth’s Rotashield, was removed from the market as a result of evidence from the database. On that occasion the removal of the product was greatly to the benefit of the nation’s leading vaccine advocate, Paul Offit, who was piloting a rival product. On other occasions VAERS data may have contributed modestly to policy changes which would anyway have occurred .

via VAERS -The US Government’s Human Garbage Dump – Reaches Half-a-Million Cases – AGE OF AUTISM.

Posted in Accountability, Vaccine-related conditions | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Are those who want to mandate vaccines completely clueless?

by Meryl Dorey

Anti-choice campaigner, Alison Gaylard

Anti-choice campaigner, Alison Gaylard

My local newspaper, The Northern Star, ran the following article regarding the proposed punishments of law-abiding Australians trying to make informed choices for the protection of their children. These parents — the majority of whom are (according to numerous Australian government studies) highly educated and well-researched on this subject — believe that:

1- Vaccines carry serious risks including the risk of lifelong disability or death. 

2- Vaccines are not as effective as doctors have claimed them to be.

3- Healthy unvaccinated children do not carry or transmit diseases to others, though their vaccinated counterparts do (e.g. those who have received live virus vaccines and those who have been vaccinated against pertussis (whooping cough), who recent studies show may be more likely to infect others with the illness)

4- In a democratic nation such as Australia, that is a signatory to the Nuremburg Code, personal informed choice is sacrosanct and must never be abridged in any way.

Many of you may not know this, but the AVN was instrumental in the lobbying efforts to introduce a conscientious objector clause into Federal legislation so that a generation of parents between then (the late 1990s) and now was able to access all government benefits. Now, moves are afoot to wipe out our hard work on your behalf.

Below are my responses to this article (the original article is in block quotes below). I would love to hear your feedback on what you are willing to do to protect your rights. Please suggest ideas (visits to politicians, protest marches, letters, petitions, etc.), and let me know whether you would be prepared to be one of those who takes action against these tyrannical moves by our pharma-controlled government, by clicking here to send me an email with your contact details and ideas.

Vaccination supporters welcome government crack down

Luke Mortimer

Northern Star

11 April, 2015

NORTHERN Rivers Vaccination Supporters has welcomed moves by the Federal Government to crack down on parents avoiding vaccinating their children.

Well, this is no surprise! The Northern Rivers Vaccination Supporters is a small group of people involved with Stop the AVN (SAVN). They have always favoured compulsory vaccination. I would be very surprised if they were ever quoted as being supportive of health rights or the right to freedom of choice or speech. That is not their way.

ALISON GAYLARD: Everyone’s entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts. And science is factual.

No, Alison; I’m sorry to have to tell you that science is neither factual nor wrong. Science is a process by which hypotheses are tested. And there are few hard and fast rules in science. Some examples of indisputable facts are: yes, the sun always rises in the east and sets in the west; yes, living things respire, reproduce, and die. Scientific conclusions are, by their very nature, open to debate, interpretation, and testing. That process is what we call science.

In recent days, Social Services Minister Scott Morrison confirmed to media outlets the government was reviewing ambiguous legislation that allowed parents to object to immunisations for personal or philosophical reasons.

It’s strange that Minister Morrison describes this legislation as ‘ambiguous’. It is anything but. The legislation describes exactly how those who object to getting their children vaccinated can still access government entitlements. And the important word there is ‘entitlements’ — because these are things that ALL citizens and residents of Australia are entitled to. Our Federal Government is signatory to many international treaties and codes that enshrine our right to make free, informed health choices.

In fact, the Australian Medical Association (AMA), the National Health and Medical Research Council (NH&MRC), and various other government and medical industry bodies all state — quite unambiguously — that they support this right and that it is one of their core values.

So is Minister Morrison unaware of these facts? Or was he elected into public office to protect a multi-trillion-dollar international business model (that of Big Pharma) instead of the rights and needs of his constituents?

Mullumbimby’s Alison Gaylard, a founding member of Northern Rivers Vaccination Supporters, hoped the review would go some way towards improving the North Coast’s immunisation rates, which were the worst in the country in 2014.

The vaccination rates may or may not be “the worst in the country”, but no matter how bad they are, they are still orders of magnitude higher than they were in 1991, when our rate of infectious diseases such as whooping cough was far lower than it is today. So we have had an overall increase in vaccination rates along with a concomitant increase in disease. How, then, is it possible to blame the unvaccinated? And yet, read on and see that Ms Gaylard does just that!

Ms Gaylard helped start the group after her two daughters became ill with whooping cough.

Please note that both Ms Gaylard’s daughters had been vaccinated against whooping cough. Read that again: they had been vaccinated. The vaccine failed them both. But Ms Gaylard, rather than face up to the known ineffectiveness of the vaccine (not conjecture on my part: many, many studies have and still do demonstrate that the vaccinated may be unprotected), Ms Gaylard blames some nameless, faceless unvaccinated people for the failure of the vaccine to protect her children.

If I go out for a drive today and run into a light pole, I have as much right blame the full moon or the orange juice I had for breakfast as Ms Gaylard has to blame the unvaccinated for the failure of a vaccine. In fact, I would go further and state that placing the blame on the unvaccinated is not only unscientific and without any evidence; it is plain dumb.

We have a high number of conscientious objectors in this area, especially in Mullumbimby. I think it will (improve immunisation rates),” she said.

Well, no doubt there are some families who will vaccinate their children because they rely on government payments to put food on the table, a roof over their head, and clothes on their children’s backs. It is those least able to afford these financial penalties who are being targeted and who will be most likely to make the decision to vaccinate purely for financial reasons. Do we really want to live in a society in which people are forced to give their children medical procedures that — let’s face it — have real and (in some cases) quantifiable risks, against the informed choice of those who love them most, their parents? In my case, the answer is, no: I do not want to live in such a society. It is immoral, unethical, undemocratic, and just plain wrong. If there is a risk, there must always be a choice.

We have a high number of people who’ve bought into the anti-vaccination stance, so as to whether they’ll be concerned about whether they’ll lose childcare benefits or facilities, I’m unsure how it’ll impact here. We’ll be watching with interest. Our demographic here is so diverse.”

Those who have “bought into the anti-vaccination stance” — which is how Ms Gaylard and her ilk characterise anybody who doesn’t buy into their peculiar brand of magical thinking — have generally made their choice after:

1- having a child who was injured or killed by a vaccine or vaccines;

2- knowing someone who was injured or killed by a vaccine or vaccines; and/or

3- spending many hours (commonly in the hundreds or thousands of hours) researching this issue for themselves.

After all, it is so easy to say yes to vaccination; it is far harder to say no in today’s society. So that decision must be respected by a government that is truly representative of its citizen’s rights.

Ms Gaylard said there was indisputable evidence regarding immunisation’s benefits.

I would welcome Ms Gaylard’s providing such “indisputable evidence” of vaccination’s benefits. Calling vaccinations immunisations is the first clue that Ms Gaylard has no idea what she is talking about since even immunologists and paediatricians admit that vaccines don’t immunise and therefore, the words cannot truthfully be used interchangeably.

If Ms Gaylard is a woman of her word, I would like to challenge her to a public debate on this issue. Since she is so sure she has this “indisputable evidence”, let her present it in a fair and open forum to allow those in attendance to hear and see it and decide that for themselves.

If she feels that she is not qualified to present the facts behind the benefits and safety of vaccination, she is more than welcome to find a medical professional, government health official, or anyone else to take her place.

Come to the party, Alison. If you really are firm in your convictions, support them with the evidence.

Please note: Blog posts are opinion pieces which represent the views of the authors. They do not necessarily represent the viewpoints of the AVN National Committee. The AVN is a forum, support and information organisation and outlet for discussion about the relative benefits and risks of vaccinations in particular – and medical procedures in general. We do not provide medical advice but believe that everyone has the opportunity and the obligation to do their own research before making decisions for their families. The information we provide (including your personal review of the references we cite) should be taken in conjunction with a range of other data, including that obtained from government, your health care provider and/or other medical source material to assist you in developing the knowledge required to make informed health choices.
Posted in Health rights, Medical Bully-Boys, Vaccination | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | 39 Comments

There is nothing trendy about not vaccinating your child…

by Tasha David

Not vaccinating your child is not something you take lightly as a parent. The bombardment of vaccine propaganda is in your face everywhere you look and some are scared to even let others know that they don’t vaccinate because they don’t want their children to face the stigma of going against the crowd. Going to the doctors can be a battleground where you are berated and belittled for not conforming to the status quo.  The simple act of going to the emergency room because your child broke their arm always starts with the question “Is your child up to date on their immunisations?” and you think to yourself – here we go again!

So there really is nothing trendy about not vaccinating your child…

little-rock-segregationBut do you want to know what IS really trendy right now? It is the demonising and current witch-hunt against parents who choose not to vaccinate their children.

The world has become a bully’s wonderland right now. You can harass and be hateful towards ‘anti vax’ parents and no one will even consider it to be bullying.

You can tell them how crap they are as parents!

You can tell them to go and take their disease-ridden brats away from your [fully-vaccinated] children!

You can tell them how they are stupid, selfish, moronic, irresponsible, tin foil hat wearing, rabid ‘anti vaxxers’ who are child abusers and whose children should be taken away from them!

You can even tell them that you hope that they and their children die to clean out the stupid from the gene pool!

No one will even pull you up for those cruel and despicable comments because ‘anti vaxxers’ deserve it, right?


No loving parent and especially their children, deserves to be treated like lepers and outcasts. Whether they vaccinate or not is irrelevant, and frankly I am astounded at the hate speech that has been allowed to flow freely since the Disneyland measles outbreak. (for example, Jail ‘anti-vax’ parents and Measles Can Kill, And It’s Spreading. Sue Parents Who Didn’t Vaccinate? Absolutely

You cannot shame a parent in to harming their child and yet, that is what you are asking us (especially the parents of vaccine injured children) to do.

All the bullying, vilifying, suing, incarcerating or (completely illegally) making their names and addresses publicly available to the world, will not change a thing.  By the way Joe Matthews (the author of the afore-mentioned article), the whole sticker idea to show who the outcasts of society are? That’s already been done before. The last time, they were made to wear yellow stars. I guess tyrannical minds think alike.

It also shows how very little you know about parents who choose not to vaccinate. Let’s get one thing straight. I do not choose to inject pharmaceutical products in to my children’s bodies anymore because vaccines hurt them and caused not just “a week of hell”, but a lifetime of hellish challenges.

I don’t blame others for my children’s health issues, I realise that we are all just trying to do the best we can for our children. Anyway I am too busy trying to heal my children’s bodies to run around pointing fingers.

My choice to not be informed about what I was injecting in to my babies caused them numerous health issues and robbed three of my children of ever being able to live an independent life, of being able to fall in love or able to have a family of their own and those facts will haunt me for the rest of my days.

6579263459_f7437cede5_zThere is nothing in this world you could do to me to make me forget this no matter how much I want to, because you cannot unsee the damage done to your child.

I cannot unsee having to search for my child when she absconded from my parent’s back yard and then find her running down the middle of a busy street surrounded by cars beeping their horns and yelling at her to get off the road, because she has no sense of danger.

I cannot unsee waking up in the early hours of the morning to see my other daughter covered head to toe in her own faeces that she ate while smearing it all over the walls.

I cannot unsee my son trying so hard to speak so that he could play with the other children in the playground but all he could do was scream, till they ran away.

I cannot unsee the vast difference in health between my vaccinated and unvaccinated children and not know that it is my fault.

There is nothing you could do that would ever make me vaccinate them again. I would rather die than see them be hurt. Luckily I have found that there is a better way to raise healthy children and my children have thrived because of it. It is called taking responsibility for the health of your own children. Learning how to naturally support and boost their immune systems and not expect other parents to put their healthy children at risk of injury or death just because you believe that that will protect yours.

You want to know the most important reason why I and many other parents don’t vaccinate their child? We do it because we love them, just like you love your child and no amount of legislation or shaming tactics will ever overcome that.

Please note: Blog posts are opinion pieces which represent the views of the authors. They do not necessarily represent the viewpoints of the AVN National Committee. The AVN is a forum, support and information organisation and outlet for discussion about the relative benefits and risks of vaccinations in particular – and medical procedures in general. We do not provide medical advice but believe that everyone has the opportunity and the obligation to do their own research before making decisions for their families. The information we provide (including your personal review of the references we cite) should be taken in conjunction with a range of other data, including that obtained from government, your health care provider and/or other medical source material to assist you in developing the knowledge required to make informed health choices.

Posted in Autism, Health rights, Medical Bully-Boys, Vaccination | Tagged , , , , , , , , | 34 Comments

Utah mother of five left isolated, bullied and threatened by community after not vaccinating child | Daily Mail Online

Utah CoupleA Utah mother-of-five has been isolated in her community after receiving threats for not vaccinating her child.

During the national debate over measles and vaccines, Ursula Porter, of Salt Lake City, and her husband made it public that one of her kids has not been vaccinated.

She said that four of her five children, aged two to nine years old, had been vaccinated and three of them suffered severe reactions. 

Utah mother of five left isolated, bullied and threatened by community after not vaccinating child | Daily Mail Online.

Posted in Health rights, Medical Bully-Boys, Vaccination | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Dr Sherri Tenpenny: Bound for Botany Bay, until…


dr tenpennyMy wonderful late husband, George Maxwell, MD, was the professor of paediatrics at University of Adelaide. As I recall, he had full faith in childhood vaccination. But if he were alive today and saw the new research on vax, I think he would do a turn-around.
He’d be sad that his teachers at Edinburgh did not tip him off to the fact that Edward Jenner, who fired the first ‘shot’ in 1796, was a con artist. All doctors today stand to be embarrassed by this, but let’s just get the embarrassment over quickly.

As for the visit to Oz of a doctor named Sherri Tenpenny, George would certainly approve of her offering her opinion on vax, even if it were diametrically opposed to his. Isn’t that what science is all about? If her message were harmful, George would be licking his chops at the thought of combatting her ideas.

Originally posted on Gumshoe News:

by Mary W Maxwell, PhD, LLB

My wonderful late husband, George Maxwell, MD, was the professor of paediatrics at University of Adelaide. As I recall, he had full faith in childhood vaccination. But if he were alive today and saw the new research on vax, I think he would do a turn-around.

He’d be sad that his teachers at Edinburgh did not tip him off to the fact that Edward Jenner, who fired the first ‘shot’ in 1796, was a con artist. All doctors today stand to be embarrassed by this, but let’s just get the embarrassment over quickly.

dr tenpennyDr Sherri Tenpenny

As for the visit to Oz of a doctor named Sherri Tenpenny, George would certainly approve of her offering her opinion on vax, even if it were diametrically opposed to his. Isn’t that what science is all about?  If her message were harmful, George would be licking his chops…

View original 998 more words

Posted in Health rights, Vaccination | Tagged , , , | 1 Comment

Lies, Damned Lies and Medical Science


Dr John Ioannidis

Dr John Ioannidis

“Indeed, given the breadth of the potential problems raised at the meeting, can any medical-research studies be trusted? That question has been central to Ioannidis’s career. He’s what’s known as a meta-researcher, and he’s become one of the world’s foremost experts on the credibility of medical research. He and his team have shown, again and again, and in many different ways, that much of what biomedical researchers conclude in published studies—conclusions that doctors keep in mind when they prescribe antibiotics or blood-pressure medication, or when they advise us to consume more fiber or less meat, or when they recommend surgery for heart disease or back pain—is misleading, exaggerated, and often flat-out wrong. He charges that as much as 90 percent of the published medical information that doctors rely on is flawed. His work has been widely accepted by the medical community; it has been published in the field’s top journals, where it is heavily cited; and he is a big draw at conferences. Given this exposure, and the fact that his work broadly targets everyone else’s work in medicine, as well as everything that physicians do and all the health advice we get, Ioannidis may be one of the most influential scientists alive. Yet for all his influence, he worries that the field of medical research is so pervasively flawed, and so riddled with conflicts of interest, that it might be chronically resistant to change—or even to publicly admitting that there’s a problem.

Originally posted on AntiCorruption Society:


David Freedman, The

ioannidis Dr John Ioannidis

So why are doctors—to a striking extent—still drawing upon misinformation in their everyday practice? Dr. John Ioannidis has spent his career challenging his peers by exposing their bad science.


Indeed, given the breadth of the potential problems raised at the meeting, can any medical-research studies be trusted?

That question has been central to Ioannidis’s career. He’s what’s known as a meta-researcher, and he’s become one of the world’s foremost experts on the credibility of medical research. He and his team have shown, again and again, and in many different ways, that much of what biomedical researchers conclude in published studies—conclusions that doctors keep in mind when they prescribe antibiotics or blood-pressure medication, or when they advise us to consume more fiber or less meat, or when…

View original 839 more words

Posted in Vaccination | Leave a comment

Why vaccinations are a religion

Forced vaccination is unconstitutional

by Rixta Francis

899696_sThe self-proclaimed (and generally accepted) gold standard of the pharmaceutical industry is the double-blind,  placebo-controlled study (a placebo being a neutral, ineffective substance; in the case of vaccinations, a saline solution). There is a lot wrong with this gold standard, but let’s just accept that it is the standard that a drug’s claims to effectiveness and safety are expected to meet. Without positive studies like this, drugs will rarely be accepted by the government regulators.

Vaccines are drugs, and they are made by the pharmaceutical industry. But they are the exception to the rule, for the abovementioned gold standard is NOT applied to vaccines. There is no double-blind, placebo-controlled study that shows that vaccines are either safe or effective, let alone a study that shows the effects of multiple vaccines given, as is common practice, simultaneously. Those studies simply are not done. The reason the pharmaceutical industry gives for that is that it would be unethical to withhold a vaccine from the children in the placebo group. It seems to bother nobody that this means that children (and adults) are injected with drugs that have in no way been proven to be either safe or effective.

Vaccine efficacy is fatally flawed as a substitute for vaccine effectiveness. A vaccine’s efficacy is measured by the proportion of vaccinees developing a certain concentration of antibodies, a concentration believed to be protective. But scientists have already known for three decades that antibodies do NOT equal immunity. The only way to measure vaccine efficacy in a lab is completely useless for measuring its effectiveness in an epidemic. But that too seems to bother nobody; in lieu of its effectiveness at protection, the drug’s efficacy in antibody production is still used universally to sell it.

Those who try to impose their beliefs on others, we call zealots.

The reason people don’t care about these facts is that they have such a strong BELIEF in these shots that it doesn’t seem to matter whether there is any evidence of safety or efficacy. But anyone can believe anything; that doesn’t mean it’s true. And it doesn’t matter either that most doctors believe in it and that many people believe their doctors. There are some 1.5 billion people who believe in Jesus, some 800 million who believe in Allah, some 800 million who believe in Shiva. That’s considerably more than the number of doctors who believe in vaccinations. Still everyone agrees that these are religions and not science. So ‘everyone believes it’ doesn’t make a belief anything more than a belief.

Our freedom NOT to practice the religion of vaccination

The Australian constitution grants us freedom of religion. Section 116 of the constitution says:

“The Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing any religion, or for imposing any religious observance, or for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion, and no religious test shall be required as a qualification for any office or public trust under the Commonwealth.”

It’s clear: the Australian constitution prohibits forcing any kind of religious practice onto anybody else. That prohibition includes government discrimination that is based in any way on submission or non-submission to any religion or religious practice.

This implies that nobody can be denied government payments or a job or anything else solely based on refusal to submit to the religious practice of vaccination. If the government, an employer, or anybody else is to implement discrimination on the basis of vaccination, then it will have to show clear, indisputable proof that the vaccine’s claimed safety and efficacy are based on science and not on beliefs. The burden of proof is not on those who refuse to accept those beliefs; it’s solely on those who want to force others to submit to them.

If the government (or anybody else) denies Australian citizens the FULL freedom to accept or reject vaccinations for themselves or their children, then it does so in contravention of the constitution. And that means the end of Australia as a democracy.

Please note: Blog posts are opinion pieces which represent the views of the authors. They do not necessarily represent the viewpoints of the AVN National Committee. The AVN is a forum, support and information organisation and outlet for discussion about the relative benefits and risks of vaccinations in particular – and medical procedures in general. We do not provide medical advice but believe that everyone has the opportunity and the obligation to do their own research before making decisions for their families. The information we provide (including your personal review of the references we cite) should be taken in conjunction with a range of other data, including that obtained from government, your health care provider and/or other medical source material to assist you in developing the knowledge required to make informed health choices.

Posted in Health rights, Medical Bully-Boys | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | 25 Comments

Is Segregation acceptable in Australia?

by Tasha David

21532137_sThe Australian just published an article stating that Dr Paul Willis from the Royal Institute of Australia (RiAus) believes that unvaccinated children should be isolated (segregated) in not only schools, but other public facilities as well. 

Yes, that is right. In 2015, Dr Willis is calling for the segregation of children!

You can be forgiven for thinking that we are actually talking about the 1950’s when segregation of children in schools and public was commonplace, even though that policy was based on the colour of one’s skin. This time however, the focus is on one’s vaccination status.

How would this be enforced? Will there be signs stating ‘No unvaccinated allowed’ or ‘Vaccinated only’? Or will our children wear a symbol of some kind to indicate whether they are indeed now untouchables?

It is absolutely inconceivable to me that any educated person would try to bring us back to a time when segregation and discrimination plagued our society. Has nothing been learned from the end of Apartheid in South Africa or the civil rights movement in the US?

What reason would any person have for calling for such draconian measures in Australia or any other developed country?

Dr Paul Willis, who is he?

Dr Paul WillisIs he an immunologist, infectious disease expert, a GP or a medically-trained expert? According to his bio on the RiAus website, he is a vertebrate palaeontologist whose specialty is in reptile fossils, rocks and dinosaurs. Yet his view about vaccination is being held up as something to take notice of.

Meanwhile, Dr Viera Scheibner, an Australian retired senior scientist and critic of vaccination who has an extensive and well-respected scientific background in a similar speciality, micropalaeontology, and has studied well over 100,000 pages of medical research data about vaccination, has been criticised for not being properly qualified to speak about vaccination. Go figure!

So what has changed?

Fast forward to 2015 and we are greeted with headlines in major newspapers like

No jab, no play: children face lockout from childcare

RiAus director Dr Paul Willis says children whose parents refuse to vaccinate them should be isolated from others

Jail ‘anti-vax’ parents: Column

You could not be blamed for thinking that they are talking about terrorists rather than healthy children and their loving parents. The fear and hatred that these media outlets are carelessly creating is having a horrific effect on parents. There is a line being drawn and families are being divided, friendships lost and politicians looking for ways to punish parents for not complying with supposedly ‘optional’ medical interventions.

Discrimination and segregation ideals that used to be abhorred in the post-apartheid era are now being called for vehemently by everyday Australian parents and scientists against other everyday Australian parents.

Why the hate and fear towards the non-vaccinated?

The Australian vaccination rates in 1995 were around 53% for fully vaccinated children under 6 and yet there were no epidemics of Whooping Cough and certainly no parents terrified of non-vaccinated children spreading deadly diseases. Nowadays the vaccination rate in Australia is around 92-93% so they are higher than they have ever been.


Routine childhood diseases are not worse than they were in the past, with the exception of Whooping Cough which has become more prevalent. The growth in Whooping Cough cases may actually have been caused by the pertussis vaccination itself. A recent study by the University of New South Wales has shown that the Pertussis bacteria has actually evolved, not only in Australia but simultaneously in other highly vaccinated countries, to avoid being affected by the vaccine. There are also animal studies showing the acellular pertussis vaccine actually inhibits the ability of the immune system to fight a similar bacteria, parapertussis, also inflating the number of pertussis cases. And as for vaccinating ‘for the herd’, animal studies have shown that vaccinated individuals pass on the disease to others. Even the FDA, an American health authority, has warned that vaccinated individuals pose an infection risk to infants.

In the 90’s when I was raising my eldest children, no one knew or cared whether I vaccinated them (even though I did) and I didn’t know or care if other parents at school or childcare did either. There was no media-fuelled hysteria instilling fear in us about these so called deadly diseases, we knew them as childhood diseases that we all went through and that afterwards, we would have lifetime immunity.

Fear…unsubstantiated fear…

34438386_sSo the only real difference I see between the 90’s and now is that we have a media, government and a medical machine that is whipping up fear, hysteria and persecution of innocent children and their parents.

I originally wrote a blog called Anti vaxxer: the new dirty word. In it, I said that the vilification and discrimination against unvaccinated children would lead to segregation and persecution. As the headlines here in Australia and over in the United States show, my warnings are coming to fruition.

“If you’re not careful, the newspapers will have you hating the people who are being oppressed, and loving the people who are doing the oppressing.”

― Malcolm X

This quote rings especially loud right now….

Please note: Blog posts are opinion pieces which represent the views of the authors. They do not necessarily represent the viewpoints of the AVN National Committee. The AVN is a forum, support and information organisation and outlet for discussion about the relative benefits and risks of vaccinations in particular – and medical procedures in general. We do not provide medical advice but believe that everyone has the opportunity and the obligation to do their own research before making decisions for their families. The information we provide (including your personal review of the references we cite) should be taken in conjunction with a range of other data, including that obtained from government, your health care provider and/or other medical source material to assist you in developing the knowledge required to make informed health choices.

Posted in Health rights, Medical Bully-Boys | Tagged , , , , , , , , | 6 Comments

There is no Anti-Vaccination Movement


This is what the AVN has been saying for decades! Great article and an important perspective too.

Originally posted on Levi Quackenboss:

AS Alicia Silverstone dares to “give you information” that you “might want to consider.”

It’s been 5 years since the mainstream media began writing about the “dangerous and misinformed anti-vaccination movement.” Who are the kooks in this crazy unhinged movement? Surely they are hanging out in labor and delivery rooms, throwing mercury on expectant mothers, making threats against anyone who vaccinates their newborn for a sexually transmitted disease. Certainly they are sneaking into Boy Scout meetings by posing as den mothers and brainwashing neighborhood parents into hosting chickenpox parties. They organize violent protests, vandalize the homes of known pediatricians, and detox children at slumber parties without parental consent.

Take a look around you—undoubtedly someone from this “anti-vaccination movement” has infiltrated your very own social circle. Thank goodness for the media, otherwise you would never have known.

Except, there is no such thing as the “anti-vaccination movement.” A “movement” is a growing…

View original 1,005 more words

Posted in Health rights, Medical Bully-Boys, Vaccination | Leave a comment

Interview on 2CC Canberra: Ken McLeod and Meryl Dorey

Sherri Tenpennyby Meryl Dorey

As mentioned in the last blog post, Canberra Radio 2CC interviewed both Ken McLeod from Stop the Australian Vaccination-skeptics Network (SAVN) and myself regarding the up-coming vaccination seminars with Dr Sherri Tenpenny.

SAVN admins appear to be a little bit embarrassed by Mr McLeod’s ‘performance’ on the program and the usually resourceful admins were unable to find the audio file for this interview. When a member of the Facebook group asked if Ken McLeod had been interviewed on 2CC, SAVN admin, Katie Brockie Kate Squires (correction by admin) replied:

It did indeed happen. Our own Ken McLeod was on as well, but was hoodwinked by Ms. Dorey’s appearance. Not sure if there’s a copy of audio. 

Well Katie, never fear! We have a copy of that audio and have transcribed it for your reading pleasure! And perhaps, while we’re at it, you can explain how I hoodwinked Mr McLeod when he was interviewed before me and was able to say whatever he wanted to say without interruption?

Freedom of speech? Not in their Australia!

SAVN has been trying their hardest to get Dr Tenpenny’s visa to enter Australia revoked and to bully the venues where she will be speaking to break their contracts to host these talks.

It is obvious, listening to Mr McLeod, that SAVN has no respect for personal rights or freedom of speech. He is also not above bending the truth in order to besmirch the reputation of the good doctor.

Below is a transcript of the interview which took place on January 7, 2015. I have provided a copy of the text to the presenter, Mr Rod Henshaw, and if he provides me with any corrections, I will be sure to update this blog. I do not believe there are any errors in this text however.

Interviewer: Rod Henshaw (R)

Interviewees: Ken McLeod (K), Meryl Dorey (M)

R:              A number of Australian doctors and expats … experts I should say, not expats. Well, maybe they’re expert expats, but a number of Australian doctors and experts are calling on the federal government to stop a prominent anti-vaccine campaigner from entering the country. Sherri Tenpenny is the author of the Saying No to Vaccine and is due to begin an Australian speaking tour in March, but Immigration Minister Peter Dutton is currently receiving advice on the issue, but Ken McLeod is from the Stop the AVN organisation. Ken, thanks for joining us.

K:              Oh, good afternoon Rod.

R:              Why shouldn’t we let Sherri Tenpenny into the country?iStock_000011256677XSmall

K:              She’s a very effective campaigner against vaccines and that’s not a good thing. She claims that vaccines are responsible for mass murders, including the Sandy Hook School massacre, that vaccines cause SIDS, autism, they disconnect the brain from the universe, etc, etc. We’re afraid that the end result of her tour is that some well-meaning parents will be conned. Sherri Tenpenny is not your average ratbag, she’s in a class of her own. We’re frightened that if enough parents are deceived the end result is misery, extra stress on the health department budgets, occasionally death and so on.

R:              But aren’t you underestimating the average intelligence of the average Australian in this case? I mean, aren’t you … there’s two questions I’ve got here, but that’s a first one. Are you … aren’t you assuming that the parents can’t pick and choose for themselves and work out what’s right and what’s wrong?

K:              You’re quite right. Most people, and I’m saying right up there in the 90% of the population can follow good advice, but there is that small number who can be dissuaded and that’s been proven in the statistics and that percentage of it is the number of people that we are worried about.

R:              But we do hear people from other walks of life coming out with totally outrageous things and we’ve heard it with Muslims in this current climate and all that sort of thing. Now, this doesn’t really differ too much from there because we can actually say well you’re an idiot, we don’t believe you, go back home if you want to and all this sort of thing, but at least we give them the right of free speech which you don’t seem to be willing to give … to extend to this person.

K:              That’s right. Yeah, it is a very difficult issue and I would say that your right of free speech ends where it has any effect on … an effect on the health of my children.

R:              Yeah, is that really the answer? You haven’t really answered the question. You’re saying she can’t come because we don’t agree with what she’s saying and you put a few very vibrant examples there, sure, I give you that, but still she’s surely entitled to express those opinions if she so desires and we’re so entitled that we can say bugger off, go home, we don’t want you and we don’t believe you, but let’s hear you first.

K:              Oh well, the problem is of course that in … what you might call an opinion is actually a disproven fact. She shares things that are clearly untrue, disproven by the science, and it wouldn’t matter if no one was hurt. So Australia has a proven track record of barring entry to people who can cause disharmony or endanger public health and I’m referring to Julien Blanc, the chap who ran seminars on how to seduce women and just use them for sex, David Irving, the Holocaust denier. We would say that Miss Tenpenny is up there in that league, but we do recognise that this is an incredibly difficult decision for the minister. We should … we are saying that the minister should, at the very least, deny Tenpenny a working visa, which mean that there would be no speaking fees, no payments, no entry fees, etc, etc.

R:              Okay, I am playing devil’s advocate with this, as you can probably tell (both laughing), but I am serious about the democracy thing, I mean, it reminds me of an old line out of one of those BBC television series, I forget which one, where they say democracy is fine, but why give it to the people? And it comes back to …

K:              (Laughing)

R:              … my original thing is couldn’t … shouldn’t we be …

K:              Yeah.

R:              … trusted enough to make our own minds up on this?

government-lies-truthK:              Yeah and that is the problem. I mean, if we’re discussing the existence of aliens and flying saucers and so on no harm is done, but where someone is using misinformation to persuade parents not to vaccinate their children and being very, very convincing about it, we think, you know, there’s a barrier there. There’s a bar that has to be brought down.

R:              Okay, well we’ll have to leave it there. We do have somebody from the Australian Vaccination-skeptics Network, but I’ll put you on hold just in case you want to have a listen and we’ll go to her and then … but in the meantime I do thank you very much for your time this afternoon.

K:              Yeah, thanks Rod.

R:              Thanks Ken. Ken McLeod is the … from the Stop the AVN organisation and, as I mentioned, we do have somebody from basically the other side of the coin, if you like. Meryl Dorey is founder of the Australian Vaccination-skeptics Network. Meryl, good afternoon.

M:            Good afternoon. Thank you.

R:              I don’t know how much you heard of that. Do you have a comment, a response?

M:            Oh, well I heard much of it. I don’t know how long Mr McLeod was on, but I heard some of the things that he claimed that Doctor Sherri Tenpenny was saying and it reminds me of a statement made by, I think his name is Goebbels, tell a lie long enough and often enough and it becomes the truth because what Mr McLeod was saying was not what Doctor Tenpenny has ever said. She has never claimed that vaccines cause mass murder, she’s never linked them with Sandy Hook, this is all just an attempt to smear her and personally …

R:              But can …

M:            … I think that if …

R:              Just before you go any further, I got to play …

M:            Sure.

R:              … devil’s advocate with this one too. How can you say she hasn’t said them? Can you prove that she hasn’t said those sort of things, those statements … made those statements?

M:            Well I’ve been following Doctor Tenpenny for over 20 years. She is above all an extremely moderate and intelligent person. All of her information comes from peer-reviewed journals. She has done over 20,000 hours of research in mainstream medical journals to gain the information that she shares with people who come to listen to her, so I would be very strongly … I would say very strongly that she’s never said any of those things. You know, if Mr McLeod has any proof of that let him prove it, let him show it.

R:              He seemed pretty …

M:            Until he does that …

R:              … straightforward and pretty strong with his views on that …

M:            He …

R:              … so I don’t think … I think … in fact, I would just suspect that in the court of law the defamation laws might come in if he’s wrong.

M:            Well, I hope they would too. I really do hope they would, because I don’t think that people have a right to tell lies about other people …

R:              That’s what I’m …

M:            … simply because ….

R:              That’s why I’m questioning whether he would actually go so … be so silly as to make those sort of statements if he couldn’t back them up.slander

M:            Oh, he’s done it before, so … I mean I have no doubt that he does not have the information to back that up. Like I said, let him prove it. If he proves it I will apologise and say sorry Ken, I was wrong, but I’m pretty confident that I won’t have to do that and what I want to say about this whole situation is that Australia is a democracy and in a democracy we have the right to disagree with each other, but we should also be defending others’ rights to say things that we disagree with. Australian parents are intelligent, they are very concerned about their children, they have every right and every ability to make these decisions for themselves after looking at both sides and asking appropriate questions from both sides. This …

R:              Meryl, it does come back … it’s incumbent on me to come back to say how can you prove that not vaccinating your children is going to be a good thing when we know so well that there is so many research papers and there has been so much documented evidence that kids do die unless they’re not vacc … unless they’re vaccinated?

M:            Okay, now first of all we have documented evidence as well. There is science on both sides and both sides … we don’t tell anyone that they shouldn’t vaccinate. Nobody tells anyone that. Doctor Tenpenny does not tell anyone that. All the AVN says is that there are risks and benefits to vaccination and it behoves all parents as responsible adults to get both sides of this information before making a choice for their children. The woman who is organising this series of seminars actually lost a child because of vaccination. My eldest child was vaccine-injured. Many parents who have chosen to look into this issue only did so after seeing one of their loved ones either die or suffer a serious reaction to a vaccination. We were not told that these things could happen. All the AVN is saying is that you need to get this information so that if your child has a reaction you know how to respond, you know what to do. You have a choice; vaccination is not compulsory. Everyone has the right to make this decision and it is wrong for any government, any medical community, to suppress, actively suppress, information that is sourced from peer-reviewed, mainstream medical literature that discusses the known risks and side effects …

R:              Well Immigration Minister …

M:            … of vaccination.

R:              Immigration Minister Peter Dutton is currently receiving advice on this issue, as I mentioned. How do you reckon he’ll go? Do you reckon …

M:            I have no idea.

R:              Do you think that there is a weight of evidence on the side perhaps of the people like Ken McLeod? And I will add that he is only one of a number of Australian doctors and experts who are calling on the government to stop her coming over here in the first place; it’s not just him.

M:            Okay. Ken McLeod is neither an expert nor a doctor. Ken McLeod is a member of a hate group called the Australian … Stop the Australian Vaccination-skeptics Network. Their founder had an AVO order against them for making threats against myself for having phone calls coming from their home making threats against myself. This is the sort of organisation that they are dealing with. If the Minister for Immigration is making a judgement based on the law he will allow Sherri Tenpenny … Doctor Sherri Tenpenny to come to Australia. If he is making an emotional decision based on peer-pressure brought about by these people then he probably won’t and if he doesn’t it’s going to be a shameful situation for Australia. We should all have the right to speak our truth and people can listen to it. If they don’t want to … not listen to it if they don’t want to and they can also argue it and discuss it. I have been trying for many years to set up a public debate on this issue with everyone from the health minister on down and they continually refuse to present their information to the general public to let them make a decision. The parents of Australia are capable of doing this, they should be allowed to.

R:              Okay, you make a fairly strong argument. Then again, so does Ken, but as you say Ken has got to back that up and …

M:            Yes.

R:              … it’ll be interesting to see where it goes. So if he’s wrong and you’re right why don’t you serve him with a legal notice?

M:            Well, it’s not my name he’s smeared here, but I certainly think that Doctor Tenpenny would be interested in hearing what he has said, especially since she can prove that it’s not true and he has to prove that it’s true. He can’t just go about saying things like that without the proof to back it up.

R:              Yeah. It’s only one flaw there in Australian law … defamation law, truth is not necessarily a defence, that’s the trouble, but I think …

M:            Yeah.

R:              … you’re on the path there, you could be … it could be a very interesting result in court when both side … where both sides are presented accordingly.

M:            Thank you for the opportunity to speak here.

R:              Thank you Meryl.

M:            I appreciate it. Bye bye.

R:              Bye bye. Meryl Dorey, founder of the Australian Vaccination-skeptics Network. On 2cc. It’s 3:42.

Please note: Blog posts are opinion pieces which represent the views of the authors. They do not necessarily represent the viewpoints of the AVN National Committee. The AVN is a forum, support and information organisation and outlet for discussion about the relative benefits and risks of vaccinations in particular – and medical procedures in general. We do not provide medical advice but believe that everyone has the opportunity and the obligation to do their own research before making decisions for their families. The information we provide (including your personal review of the references we cite) should be taken in conjunction with a range of other data, including that obtained from government, your health care provider and/or other medical source material to assist you in developing the knowledge required to make informed health choices.

Posted in Censorship, Health rights, Seminars / Webinars | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | 12 Comments

Strangers to the Truth

By Meryl Dorey

Hi there, and hasn’t it been a long time since I’ve posted anything to this blog? That’s because I’ve been on a sabbatical in the U.S. with my sisters since the middle of August this year. I got back into Australia on December 18th and am settling back in, happy to be home (though not happy about the heat!).

I want to thank Stop the AVN (SAVN) and their mates at the Australian (Pseudo) Skeptics for waiting until my return to stir up trouble – it would have been terrible to have missed all the fun!

Now, I have a front-row seat to view the excitement and am enjoying seeing them lather themselves into a frenzy of terror at the idea that – shock, horror – parents may be able to hear a medical doctor provide referenced, scientific information demonstrating that vaccines don’t always work as expected and may cause harm and even death in an unknown number of those who take them.

The truth is being told”, says Jack Skeptic – “we can’t have that!”

No worries”, replies Jill Skeptic; “I believe in science, so we will pull in our tame pollies and journos and handle this situation quick smart!”

Giving Pinocchio a run for his money

13760385_sBut I have to say that there are a LOT of long noses appearing in SAVN’s camp.

As you probably have already heard, Dr Sherri Tenpenny is coming out from the U.S. to speak to parents about the risks and ineffectiveness of vaccines. (And if you support the right to free and open communication about this issue, I urge you to click this link and book your tickets to the seminar nearest you as well as the dinner with Dr Tenpenny.) These seminars will, according to SAVN, cause the end of the world as we know it and they must be stopped! SAVN have even gone so far as to approach the Minister for Immigration to demand that he cancel the travel visas of Dr Tenpenny and other speakers coming in from overseas. Incredible, I know; but these are the same people who approached the Minister for Immigration to try to get me deported a couple of years back because I question the medical mantra regarding vaccination. Unfortunately for them, I’m an Australian citizen, so things didn’t quite go as well as they had expected.

Bad publicity is good publicity

Publicity like this – even if most of it is negative – can’t be bought. And the constant shrill cries of “Cancel her visa – and off with her head!” from that lovely gang of terrorists has gotten even the most pro-vaccination among us scratching their heads and asking, “Why?”.

The truth hurts

First, I was approached by a producer at The Project – a programme with a long history of not reporting fairly on this subject. His name was James Pattison, and he said that he wanted to interview me regarding Dr Tenpenny’s speaking tour. I explained that neither I nor the AVN were organisers of these events, and that I could not comment on what would be covered at the seminars, but I would be happy to discuss the freedom-of-speech aspects. The only stipulations I had were that they devote more than the 2 minutes planned for the piece (since this is a serious issue and deserves more time to do it justice) and that the interview be live so that they couldn’t quote me or any of the other speakers out of context.

James checked with his higher-ups, and approval was given. In addition, we agreed, that he would get his supervisor to send me the list of questions prior to the crew arriving. A camera crew would be out just after 5:30PM to go live to air at 6:30 PM.

At 4:31 that afternoon, James left a message on my answering machine saying that they couldn’t go ahead with the interview. When I called him back, he said that because I was in regional NSW, they were unable to get a camera crew here. They were, however, able to get a crew out to Allison Gaylard’s house in Mullimbimby, 20 minutes away.  I guess there must be some kind of territory for these things, and that I am right outside of it. So sad!

For those who have never heard of Ms Gaylard, she is a founding member of the Northern Rivers Vaccination Supporter Group – an organisation set up to help increase the vaccination rate on the Far North Coast of NSW because the tens of millions of dollars spent by Federal and State governments on vaccine promotion apparently aren’t working!

Ms Gaylard has two fully vaccinated children who contracted whooping cough several years ago. Despite this evidence of vaccine failure, Ms Gaylard lays the blame for her children’s illness at the door of some imaginary unvaccinated children, stating that the ‘low’ vaccination rate in this area meant that there wasn’t herd immunity and that, according to her, herd immunity would have stopped the bugs, germs and viruses from “penetrating in”.

But back to The Project

Members of SAVN were reporting that The Project had a blanket policy to never interview anyone with an opposing viewpoint on the vaccination issue – freedom of speech at its finest – and that poor James, being new on the show, had been unaware of that policy.

Word to the wise, Jimmy, me boy-o: if you have to compromise your word over this issue, how many more times will you be asked to do so, and how far are you willing to go to keep that job?

But, then again, James may have felt justified if he’d listened to the lying liars at SAVN. Liars like the brave, anonymous Ancient Illyria (cited below) who told him at 1:54 PM on the 7th of January that I was ”…telling people that she [I] refused to go on the show.”

James Pattison

The ridiculous thing is, Illyria linked to the post below where I specifically stated that I had been asked to go on the show but The Project had not followed through.

The Project

Whoopsies, Illyria, I smell something burning! Could it possibly be your pants?

Then, I was interviewed on Canberra Radio, 2CC along with Ken McLeod, one of the founding members of SAVN.

Ken uttered some real corkers! He claims that Dr Tenpenny had stated that vaccinations were the cause of many mass murders in the U.S., including the Sandy Hook shooting.

His ‘evidence’ for this is a Facebook posting Dr Tenpenny made back in 2012:

Sherri Tenpenny

The article Dr Tenpenny referred to can be found at this link. It was written by the mother of a violent child who posed the question – why is my son like this? Why are so many children in America like this and who is going to take care of them and prevent them from committing the tragic mass murders that are becoming so much more common of late?

Did Dr Tenpenny say that vaccinations caused the Sandy Hook shootings? Of course not! Anyone with a brain (which apparently excludes many of SAVN’s most prominent voices) knows that she didn’t. She posited that vaccinations, antibiotics, fluoride, GMOs, and environmental chemicals – all of which are known to be able to adversely affect the brain – could have contributed to the increase in mental illness and violence in the U.S.

Is this a controversial statement? Not at all – it is based in science. It is simply not considered to be politically correct.

So Ken McLeod – no stranger to quoting things out of context in order to make it appear that vaccine sceptics are wrong or worse – has done that again on the radio. No big surprise there. Just another shameful exaggeration to advance his aim of suppressing our right to discuss health issues in Australia.

A case of mistaken identity

Lastly, and most amusingly, a SAVN member posted on the SAVN’s Facebook page, “Banned from the AVN: Celebrate it Here”.


He claims to have been right next to me and my family at Sydney Airport this morning whilst I was returning from a trip overseas. Apparently, I am very sick and spreading germs, and he announced who I was at the top of his lungs in the terminal, loudly enough so that I and my family were able to hear it. Unfortunately for him however, I was up in Bangalow at the time and haven’t been at Sydney Airport since December 18th!

My deepest sympathy to that poor woman who must bear some sort of resemblance to me. It can’t be easy to have to go through life being mistaken for someone so hated by so many lunatics!

Speak up or be judged by the company you keep

It is obvious that some SAVN members are complete strangers to the truth. I don’t judge them all on the behaviour of their ‘leaders’, but I do judge them for being members of a hate group that is actively trying to suppress and censor debate on a scientific issue. And I judge them for not speaking up and opposing the hatred being spewed by the group they have joined. Their silence speaks volumes.

Please note: Blog posts are opinion pieces that represent the views of the authors. They do not necessarily represent the viewpoints of the AVN National Committee. The AVN is a forum, support and information organisation, and outlet for discussion about the relative benefits and risks of vaccinations in particular – and medical procedures in general. We do not provide medical advice, but believe that all have the opportunity and the obligation to do their own research before making decisions for their families. The information we provide (including your personal review of the references we cite) should be taken in conjunction with a range of other data, including that obtained from government, your health-care provider, and/or other medical source material, to assist you in developing the knowledge necessary to make informed health choices.

Posted in AVN, Censorship, Medical Bully-Boys | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , | 13 Comments

False Balance? You mean, censorship, don’t you?


by Meryl Dorey

Radio 4BC in Brisbane had the temerity to call me a few days ago to comment on a new QLD government initiative which would send out reminders to everyone who hasn’t vaccinated either their children or themselves and will also allow pharmacists to administer more vaccinations to more people.

As one of the representatives of an organisation supported by thousands of Australians who are skeptical about the medical evidence regarding vaccine safety and effectiveness, this radio station obviously felt that it was important to give a balanced view on the issue. And balanced, for those who don’t understand it, means at least two sides.

The pseudo-skeptics, on the other hand, disagree with the station’s decision to interview someone from the AVN.

Now, it’s OK to disagree – don’t get me wrong. Discussing and even arguing (politely and respectfully) about important issues is the basis of a civil and democratic society. And both I personally and the AVN as an organisation believe strongly in the right to discuss and examine all sides of any issue. This is the reason our organisation was formed 20 years ago and it is our core belief to this day.

But the hate groups, the Australian Skeptics [sic] and their splinter group, Stop the AVN, want the right to call the free and open airing of information on this issue ‘false balance’. They say that because they disagree with questions about vaccination (and other medical issues) and they are self-proclaimed arbiters of all issues scientific, anyone who does not support their point of view should not be given a platform to present their information. And make no mistake – it is their open intention to suppress this information and to harass, abuse and have the government cite anyone who dares to discuss the problems with vaccination publicly.

Below are links to the recordings of that program – I am putting them here in case the radio station gives in to pressure from these groups and takes those recordings down – this has happened before.

Dr Dylan Wilson


Meryl Dorey


Here are some of the hate-filled posts and tweets from SAVN members, including Rachael DunlopRachael Dunlop, VP of the NSW Skeptics [sic] (see one of her tweets for an idea of how this so-called professional deals with scientific issues). This organisation and SAVN have initiated a campaign to target this radio station to prevent them from ever allowing anyone on air who does not toe the party line on vaccination.

I hope you will take 5 minutes to drop the station a quick line and thank them for their fairness in allowing this information to be aired and to ask them to continue to do so. Here is their Contact Page.

Rachie re 4bc


Tierney re 4BCPlease note: Blog posts are opinion pieces which represent the views of the authors. They do not necessarily represent the viewpoints of the AVN National Committee. The AVN is a forum, support and information organisation and outlet for discussion about the relative benefits and risks of vaccinations in particular – and medical procedures in general. We do not provide medical advice but believe that everyone has the opportunity and the obligation to do their own research before making decisions for their families. The information we provide (including your personal review of the references we cite) should be taken in conjunction with a range of other data, including that obtained from government, your health care provider and/or other medical source material to assist you in developing the knowledge required to make informed health choices.


Posted in Censorship, Health rights, Medical Bully-Boys, Vaccination | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | 6 Comments

Marketing based medicine: how bad is it? – On Line Opinion – 7/7/2014

It should be the scandal of the century. It potentially affects the health of almost everyone. Healthcare providers and consumers alike should be up in arms. But apart from coverage in a few credible news sources the problem of Marketing Based Medicine, as psychiatrist Dr Peter Parry terms it, hasnt as yet generated the kind of universal outrage one might expect.

If you bought a new car and there was only a one in twelve chance that it would work properly, how would you feel? And what if there was a one in three chance that it was downright dangerous? Faced by these sorts of statistics, most consumers would be furious. And yet according to an articlein the ‘Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics’, entitled ‘Institutional Corruption of Pharmaceuticals and the Myth of Safe and Effective Drugs’ this may well be the state of affairs with pharmaceutical products.. The “…..proportion of new products with clinical advantages seems to have moved from about 1 in 8 down to 1 in 12, while the proportion with serious harms has gone up from 1 in 5 towards 1 in 3 .…..”

Strangely a public outcry seems slow coming.

via Marketing based medicine: how bad is it? – On Line Opinion – 7/7/2014.

Posted in Accountability, Fraudulent Research, Medical ethics, Vaccination | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Did NSW Fair Trading Illegally Leak Private AVN Information?


In November 2013, the Administrative Decisions Tribunal affirmed that the NSW Office of Fair Trading (OFT) may lawfully order us to change our name. Then, in December, our attempt to process the new name was thwarted when that name was somehow leaked to outside parties. This happened within hours of our payment failing due to an unauthorized access on our credit card. This enabled them to ‘get in first’ and register the name for themselves.

(Note: individuals can register business names immediately, whereas incorporated associations have to wait for OFT to register an official name on their behalf.)

This was not the first time we suspected sensitive information had leaked from OFT. Just one month prior, members of ‘Stop the AVN’ publicised the decision regarding our forced name change (mentioned above) before we ourselves were aware of it. At the time, the only parties with access to this information were OFT and the Tribunal itself. The event in December galvanised our suspicions.

Our contact at the OFT undertook to investigate the alleged leak, but despite this promise, it appears that no investigation has taken place and all communication with our contact has been cut off by the OFT without explanation.

During the past six months, many of our members have asked about the progress of this investigation. Each time, we have had to reply that we were still waiting. To date, we have had no adequate response nor any indication that an investigation has or will take place.

On May 15th of this year (six weeks ago) we issued the Commissioner with a statement of events, and asked for confirmation of its accuracy. We indicated the statement would be used to brief our members about what had occurred thus far.

We have been asked to sit tight ever since while a response could be prepared. And we have, until now. Our final deadline to OFT passed five days ago. The Committee has now decided to go ahead and release the statement.

Below is the letter, complete with the statement and an outline of our concerns. In addition, you will find subsequent correspondence between OFT and AVN.


May 15, 2014

The Commissioner,
NSW Fair Trading

Ref: Your correspondence of 14/3/2014
by email to

Dear Commissioner,

Regarding the possible leakage from your office of sensitive information concerning our organisation.

Please read the following document and advise as to whether any of the information in the enclosure or the summary (below) is inaccurate. We request your response in writing no later than the close of business on Thursday, May 29, 2014. Should you require more time to respond, please contact us. In response to queries from our members regarding this issue, we intend to inform them using the information in the summary and full-text letter below. If we do not hear from you within this timeframe, we will presume that you agree with these statements and will proceed accordingly.

In summary:

1- No formal investigation took place. It is clear that sensitive information provided by the AVN, somehow flowed from NSW Fair Trading to third parties. Despite the disturbing nature of this situation, NSW Fair Trading has neglected to conduct an investigation.

2- Ms Lunney, our contact at the department, expressed deep concern about what had occurred. We were surprised then to be told that she was unavailable to speak with us subsequently.

3- It seems that someone within NSW Fair Trading did indeed release information to a third party. However, instead of treating this situation with the seriousness it deserved, a carefully-worded letter was sent to the AVN by Mr Stowe, the Commissioner of Fair Trading, giving us assurances of things we hadn’t alleged whilst avoiding those we had.

Kind regards,
Greg Beattie,
Australian Vaccination-skeptics Network Inc

Divider 1

Is the NSW Office of Fair Trading leaking privileged information?

Members of Stop the AVN have obtained information that was not in the public arena at least twice in recent months.

The first instance occurred on the 25th of November. When the Administrative Decisions Tribunal (ADT) decision was handed down in the case of the AVN against NSW Fair Trading, members of Stop the AVN issued tweets about our loss before we ourselves were informed and before this information was public knowledge. We confirmed with the Registrar at the ADT that the only person who had knowledge of this decision at the time the tweets were issued was the solicitor for NSW Fair Trading.

The second instance occurred in December of 2013.

At 11:36 AM on the 20th of December, Meryl Dorey faxed and emailed a copy of a Form A1 (application to reserve a name) as well as a credit card payment form to the Department of NSW Fair Trading.

Unfortunately, due to an unauthorised access of the AVN’s credit card, the payment was rejected on December 24th.

1- Within hours of the payment failure, members of Stop the AVN had registered the exact same name we had tried to reserve as well as three variations of that name with ASIC.

2- On Boxing Day (December 26th), the AVN’s President, Mr Greg Beattie, received a call from Mr Rick Morton, a journalist with the Australian newspaper, who asked him why our name registration had failed. At this point, we ourselves were unaware of any problem with the payment and Mr Beattie told him as much.

3- On January 2nd, Mr Morton published an article (Appendix A) stating that the AVN had failed to register the name Australian Vaccination-Sceptics Network. The only time that name (including the hyphen) had been written down was on the paperwork the AVN had submitted to the Department on the 20th of December.

4- That same day, January 2nd, the AVN was made aware of a blog post from Mr Dan Buzzard (the text of which was later posted to the AVN’s PO Box in Bangalow). (Appendix B). Mr Buzzard stated that on the 24th of December, his “investigators” notified him that we had attempted to register the name Australian Vaccination-Sceptics Network.

5- Also on the 2nd of January, the following online comment was posted on the website of the Northern Star newspaper in response to their story about the AVN’s ‘failure’ to register our name.

Sandra_Harvey of Ocean Shores wrote:

“So to reserve a name without paying for it until their hand is forced once again by NSW Fair Trading has backfired. Dan Buzzard registered the name Australian Vaccination Sceptics Network with ASIC. If they had simply paid up like any sane person who wanted to register a name, they would have nothing to complain about”

All of these events took place well before we ourselves were aware of the failure of our payment and at a time when our name reservation should not have been public knowledge.

When ASIC reopened in January, the AVN enquired as to whether any of the above information might have been available to the public on their database. We were informed that name reservations do not appear on the database until they have been registered with the relevant state authorities. In fact, they themselves don’t have access to name reservations from the various states so nobody could have found out about this from them.

On Monday, January 6th, Mr Beattie spoke with Ms Robyne Lunney, our contact at Fair Trading, to inform her of Mr Buzzard’s claims and the article published in the Australian newspaper. Ms Lunney was disturbed by these events and said she would investigate and get back to Mr Beattie. She requested more details which were provided later that day by email. [Appendix C]

On trying to follow up with Ms Lunney, Mr Beattie was twice told by Fair Trading that she was not available and would no longer be available to speak with him.

On the 11th of February, Mr Beattie sent an email to Ms Lunney asking how the investigation was progressing. [Appendix D].

He received a response on the 13th of February, but not from Ms Lunney. Instead, Ms Christine Gowland was the correspondent.
Her only response to Mr Beattie’s question about the ‘investigation’ was:

“A response to the other issues raised in that email and your earlier email regarding events following your name reservation will be provided shortly under separate cover.”

After having no other contact with the Department regarding this matter, Mr Beattie sent the following request to Ms Gowland on March 3rd, 2014:

Dear Ms Gowland

I understand from the last sentence in your email (below) that the matter of sensitive information falling into the hands of a third party is still being investigated by your office. Can you please advise me of the name and contact details of the branch or person conducting this investigation so that [I] may ask further questions directly?

[It is our understanding that proper procedure for such an investigation is that it be conducted by a separate branch and that the party requesting the investigation (in this case, the AVN) be informed of these details.]

Ms Gowland did not respond to Mr Beattie’s request for further details about this investigation. Instead, the next correspondence from her was received by the AVN on the 12th of March 2014. It was a letter informing him that the AVN had 5 days in which to comply with the order to ensure that our name was changed on all documents and on our website.

On March 13th, Mr Beattie wrote to Ms Gowland acknowledging her advice regarding our name change and reminding her that he had yet to receive a response to his request from the 5th of March for details on the internal investigation.

Ms Gowland responded on the same day as follows:

“A formal response will soon be provided to you regarding issues raised in regards to information surrounding the new name.”

On March 14th, Mr Beattie sent the following email to Ms Gowland:

Dear Ms Gowland

Thank you for your email. I must ask why you have neglected to identify the party conducting the investigation. Surely we are entitled to make enquiries to this party regarding time-frames and other issues. Is it a formal investigation? I ask because these are the questions being asked of me by our members.

I look forward to your response.

Kind regards
Greg Beattie
Australian Vaccination-skeptics Network Inc.

On the 21st of March, the AVN received a letter by postal mail from Mr Rod Stowe, Commissioner of NSW Fair Trading. This letter [Appendix E], was signed on March 14th but not posted until March 19th. The letter simply stated that Mr Stowe assured the AVN that NSW Fair Trading had not disclosed any details regarding the name Australian Vaccination-Sceptics Network to the media or in any public forum.

The use of this language is interesting. Whilst members of the media were clearly privy to this information, the AVN has never alleged that NSW Fair Trading had released it directly to them. Why then did Mr Stowe use these words? The fact is that information which was not in the public domain and was sent by us to NSW Fair Trading under current privacy legislation, somehow made it to these parties. The question is – how did this happen?

Divider 1

From: <>
Date: Wed, May 21, 2014 at 5:02 PM
Subject: Re: Correspondence from Australian Vaccination-skeptics Network     Inc.

Dear Mr Beattie

Thank you for your further correspondence on this issue, which is currently being considered. A formal reply will be forthcoming following careful consideration of the points raised.

I will shortly provide you with an updated reference number for this matter.

Office of the Commissioner | NSW Fair Trading

Divider 1

From: <>
Date: Mon, May 26, 2014 at 10:05 AM
Subject: Ref: FTMIN14/1376 – Correspondence from Australian     Vaccination-skeptics Network Inc.

Dear Mr Beattie

I write again to further acknowledge your latest correspondence.

The reference number for this matter is FTMIN14/1376.

Unfortunately, the Commissioner will not be able to meet your stated deadline for a response to the issues raised, especially due to the fact he has only just today returned from overseas leave. However, please be assured the matter is under consideration and a response will be forthcoming as soon as possible.

Office of the Commissioner | NSW Fair Trading

Divider 1

From: Greg Beattie
Date: Fri, Jun 13, 2014 at 2:00 PM
Subject: Re: Ref: FTMIN14/1376 – Correspondence from Australian Vaccination-skeptics Network Inc.


Your ref: FTMIN14/1376

Please be advised that our committee intends to commence preparing the information for our members after close of business next week (June 20). We request that the Commissioner notify us before that date if he feels that any of the information in the timeline we sent him is inaccurate or otherwise not in order. We presume the Commissioner is familiar with the issue, having previosly considered the allegations. If any substantial inaccuracies can be identified before the time mentioned above, we will be happy to delay informing our members to allow further time for investigation.

Please ensure a copy of this email is forwarded to the Commissioner.

Kind regards

Greg Beattie
Australian Vaccination-skeptics Network Inc.

Divider 1

From: <>
Date: Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 11:38 AM
Subject: Re: FTMIN14/1376 – Correspondence from Australian     Vaccination-skeptics Network Inc.

Dear Mr Beattie

Thank you for this latest e-mail, which will be considered in the preparation of the Commissioner’s response to your previous correspondence on this issue (FTMIN14/1376).

Office of the Commissioner | NSW Fair Trading

Divider 1

Date: Fri, Jun 20, 2014 at 7:17 AM
Subject: Re: FTMIN14/1376 – Correspondence from Australian Vaccination-skeptics Network Inc.

Thank you for your email. It has now been more than five months since this matter was raised. Despite its concerning nature (something clearly acknowledged by your own representative) we still have not had an adequate response. I reiterate that our committee intends to prepare the information for members after close of business today (June 20, 2014). We will also consider whether further action is warranted.
Please ensure the Commissioner receives this email.
Thank you for your assistance.
Yours sincerely
Greg Beattie
Australian Vaccination-skeptics Network Inc.

Divider 1

From: <>
Date: Fri, Jun 20, 2014 at 2:35 PM
Subject: Re: FTMIN14/1376 – Correspondence from Australian Vaccination-skeptics Network Inc.

Dear Mr Beattie

I acknowledge your email and have made the Commissioner aware of it.
We are expediting the Commissioner’s response and hope to send it to you today.
Office of the Commissioner | NSW Fair Trading
Posted in Accountability, Vaccination | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , | 11 Comments

Autism Risk Increased With Combined Vaccine – Journal Paper Confirms Risk of Seizures is Doubled Compared to Separate Vaccines

Originally posted on ________________Child Health Safety_________________:

A new study in the Canadian Medical Association Journal confirms combining two common childhood vaccines into one rather than administering them separately doubles the risk of febrile seizures in children: Combined vaccine doubles seizure risk in childrenThe Vancouver Sun By Elizabeth Payne, Ottawa Citizen June 9, 2014.

This is the study concerned: Risk of febrile seizures after first dose of measles–mumps–rubella–varicella vaccine: a population-based cohort studyCMAJ June 9, 2014.  It compared MMR and MMRV vaccines, which is MMR combined with chickenpox [varicella] vaccine.

The study does not suggest the risk of autism is increased but people are no longer so gullible as to not make the connection.  A risk of seizures brings the risk of a brain injury and a consequent autistic condition: MMR Causes Autism – Another Win In US Federal Court  and Vaccination Causes Autism – Say US Government & Merck’s Director of Vaccines


View original 302 more words

Posted in Autism, Seizures / Epilepsy, Vaccination | Leave a comment

A Response to “Anti-Vaxxers are Stupid and Contagious” –

Vaccine SalesmanOur kids aren’t vaccinated. If yours aren’t either then I guess that makes us all “stupid and contagious,” at least according to this winner of an article in the HuffPost.Apparently, not vaccinating is akin to someone getting drunk, getting behind the wheel of a car, and killing somebody. We’re also responsible for bringing back not-so-deadly diseases that were never eradicated, and putting the “supposedly protected” vaccinated children and the immunocompromised at risk. We’ll overlook the fact that most immunocompromised children actually can be vaccinated and that those who aren’t can’t be around vaccinated children either.

Our rational for not vaccinating apparently has nothing to do with the fact that we’ve actually taken the time to read the vaccine inserts and do the research, and everything to do with Jenny McCarthy. Oops, apparently I missed researching “her” when I was busy looking up the toxicological profiles of the additives in vaccines. Then again, my higher education left me without the ability to read a vaccine insert entirely. 

(click the link below to read the full article and to subscribe to the excellent LivingWhole blog)

A Response to “Anti-Vaxxers are Stupid and Contagious” –

Posted in Health rights, Medical Bully-Boys, Vaccination | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Timeline to a Tragedy:Part 3 – Lessons go Unlearned

Monday, April 19, 2010

PMH sends 23 more reaction reports to the TGA. TGA receives them on April 20, 2010.

Divider 1

PMH emails the CDCD to say that over the previous 3 days, a further 22 emergency department admissions had presented following vaccination, bringing the total from that one hospital to 111.

Divider 1

CDCD emails PMH to say that there will be a meeting on Wednesday, April 21st in Canberra and they hoped to get more information then.

Divider 1

481354-saba-buttonChild admitted to the emergency department at PMH in the evening with a severe reaction following flu vaccine. Later transferred to the intensive care unit (ICU) (please note – this refers to Saba Button)

 Divider 1

Michael Rutherford from QLD Health, emailed Kerry White:

In response to your inquiry about the Ch 10 item of the death of a child the day after she had a swine flu vaccination, I am informed that there is no evidence to conclude the death was in any way related with the vaccination.

Kerry White responded:


Thanks Michael, what was the source of this information? What kind of evidence would prove that the child died from a vaccine adverse event.


To which, Michael Rutherford replied:

Dear Mr Swine Flu,

This lady, a member of the public who I would say anti-vaccine, asked me why QH [Queensland Health] had not issued a warning after the death of a 2-y-o from the vaccine. As you can see I responded to her that there was no evidence.


Kerry White, then responded with:

Michael, we have not referred specifically to this event – we have said only that there have been no deaths reported in Queensland or Australia associated with swine flu vaccination.

Tuesday, April 20, 2010

A paediatric nurse at Rockingham General Hospital (RGH) emailed PMH to say that they have been noticing adverse reactions being admitted to the emergency department. They asked if this was happening elsewhere.

PMH confirmed that they have been seeing admissions as well and asked for the number of patients presenting to RGH emergency department.

Divider 1

CIC stops using both Fluvax and Fluvax Junior.

Divider 1

The Microbiology Registrar calls the Paediatric Immunologist at PMH and the Director of the Vaccine Trials Group at the Telethon Institute to inform that that they had been notified of a very sick child following the seasonal flu vaccine who was now in intensive care.

Divider 1

St John of God hospital at Murdoch emailed the CDCD to say that 10 people had presented to their emergency department with flu vaccine reactions.

Wednesday, April 21, 2010

Triage nurses assigned to collect data on reactions at RGH.

Divider 1An expert teleconference takes place between various federal and state health officials. There are issues with the Australian Childhood Immunisation Register (ACIR) – the database that collects information on who is being vaccinated. 130 people have presented to emergency departments with seizures and fever following vaccination. Most are not admitted. SA has also reported reactions with ‘anecdotal’ reports coming in from Victoria and Sydney. Decided that there is no need to go to the media yet.


Divider 1The AVN received this email from a practitioner in WA:

… We are a surgery in WA and within the last 48 hours, have had 4 babies (all aged 1) that are patients of our clinic hospitalised for flu vaccine reactions. One has apparent permanent brain damage. We are ONE small clinic. There is no way, I believe, that the number is limited to just 45 cases of unwell children. (ed. note – at this point, WA had officially reported a total of 45 reactions to the vaccine)

Thursday, April 22, 2010

PMH sends reports of 8 reactions following flu vaccine to the TGA.

Divider 1

The Executive Director of Public Health is informed of reactions and the child in ICU. A request is made to inform the Minister for Health regarding suspension of the vaccination program.

Divider 1

During the teleconference, febrile reactions and the increase in emergency department visits are discussed. The rate is higher than in previous years. A full investigation is required which runs the risk of damaging the [vaccination] program.

Divider 1

Director of public health recommends suspending the vaccination program with the possibility of finding an alternative vaccine.

Divider 1

AVN receives report via a third party of a nineteen year old male who died within a few days of getting a flu vaccine.

I have just had word about a nineteen year old male (kids’ friend) who has died as a result of a flu vaccine he received last week. How do I find out more about the stats of this vaccine?  I would like to inform his grieving parents about the entire vaccine fraud currently going on….they have no idea and are probably believing the GP who dosed him.  I am still in shock that a healthy young male has died as a result.

In a follow-up email, after checking for further details, this person reported that:

I spoke to one of our son’s friends who visited the grieving parents today. The boy, 19 years old, received the flu vaccine on Monday (this week), was admitted to hospital Wednesday night with pneumonia and died last night. He was symptomless and well on Monday.

(Please note: This death has not been reported by the media)

AVN receives a telephone call from a nurse at PMH stating that every time an ambulance pulls up to the emergency department, all staff members look around and say – “I hope this isn’t another flu vaccine case.” The nurse told me that they had seen dozens of infants and children in just the last 2 weeks and that if the doctors did not ‘do something about it soon’ they were going to take matters into their own hands and go to the media.

Divider 1WA Health suspends flu vaccination program for children five years of age and younger and informs the Federal authorities.

Friday, April 23, 2010

The AVN received this email from one of our WA members:

… I also heard some very sad news about a family here in Perth today. They had their child vaccinated with their 1 year old injections last week. He is due to turn one on anzac day. 12 hours after his vaccination he had a severe reaction and is now brain dead. They are looking at turning off the life support in the next couple of days. I nearly cried when I heard this. Can you believe it? PMH is even admitting that it is a reaction to the vaccine.

(Please note that this death has never been discussed in the media.)

Divider 1

PMH sends 5 more reaction reports to the TGA.

Divider 1

Commonwealth Chief Medical Officer, Jim Bishop, suspends the national flu vaccination program for children.

Divider 1

CSL, the vaccine manufacturer, stops distribution of paediatric flu vaccines nationally.

Divider 1

Dr Jeannette Young, CHO for QLD, issues a media statement giving parents assurance that the ‘swine flu’ vaccine is safe and effective and that they should be giving it to their children over the age of six as well as taking it themselves.

Divider 1

Samantha Keegan emails Christine Selvey, Kerry White and Greg Shaw from the Federal Health Department following the CHO’s press release mentioned above.

Heard this previewed on Mad King for 830 – said have been 44 kids admitted to hosp in WA after vac.

Could mean the fuss on dead 2 year old after swine flu injection flares up.


Saturday, April 24, 2010

Email from Naomi Ford, A/Media Manager (South), Queensland Health to Dr Jeannette Young:

I have just received a call from Suellen Hinde from the Sunday Mail. She says she’s been told that a set of twins from Browns Plains received the seasonal flu vax (some time ago – she’s not sure of the exact date) but word is they both had an adverse reaction and one twin died. Is this true?

I assume that from the info yesterday that this is incorrect but can you please advise.

Dr Young replied to Naomi Ford as follows:

There has not been any notification to the relevant national body or to QH of any death in qld as a result of receiving the seasonal flu vaccine. If she has names and permission of the parents I am very happy to look into whether there has been any specific information about the two children.

Naomi Ford provided Dr Young with the following information:

The journo advises that the child’s name was ASHLEY EPAPARA who died unexpectedly at home on 9/4/2010 at age 2 years 4 mths. I’m told this patient had the seasonal flu shot on the afternoon of 8/4/2010.

Are you aware of this? Please advise.

Dr Jeannette Young then authorised a media response to Suellen Hinde, a reporter with the Sunday Mail. In that response, she claimed that:

Neither Queensland Health nor the relevant national body have been advised of, or are aware of any death allegedly related to a 2010 seasonal flu vaccination or Pandemic (H1N1) 2009 (human swine flu) vaccination in Queensland.

Monday, April 26, 2010

In an email from Dr Young to Naomi Ford – please note: The subject line of the email is ADVICE re: CH10 story on child death vaccination link – dropped at this stage:

Perhaps in hindsight (such a wonderful thing) I should have asked the coroner about whether a child had died in mt gravatt after receiving a flu vaccine. We certainly were not told until Saturday and I have again checked yesterday with the hospitals around mt gravatt if they had heard anything. I note that was done at the tim

Tuesday, April 27, 2010

Email from Alisha Lucas, Southside Area Health to Dr Russell Schedlich:

Further info from Friday. Has this all settled now? We have the scripts all in place.

I heard only through my family that a 2 yr old died on the weekend after having swine injections and now all docs have been told to cease giving the vac. Is this true?

Thursday, April 29, 2010

QLD Health issues a press statement to the effect that Dr Amir Mohammad Eskandari has been reported to the QLD Medical Board for failing to report the death of Ashley Jade Epapara less than 12 hours after the seasonal flu vaccine.

Tuesday, May 18, 2010

Email from Naomi Ford to Dr Jeannette Young:

Ch 10 has phoned wanting comment saying the phoned the dept on 9 April telling them about the little girl who allegedly died after having flu shot. She’s wanting to know how we can say we weren’t aware when they called and advised us. Please advise.

Posted in Accountability, Censorship, Medical Bully-Boys | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Timeline to a Tragedy: Part 2 – The cover-up deepens

Saturday, April 10, 2010

Christine Selvey emailed Dr Jeannette Young, Chief Health Officer (CHO), QLD Health:

Russ (Dr Schedlich) contacted DOHA yesterday to try to find out what has been reported to the TGA. …


Dr Young replied to both Christine Selvey and Dr Schedlich:

I assume the death is unrelated to the school clinics but have we heard of any death related to pandemic vaccine?

Monday, April 12, 2010

Dr Russell Schedlich sends the following email to Dr Jeannette Young:

Have not yet heard back from DOHA (Commonwealth Department of Health) and will follow up with them today, but they were certainly not aware of any Australian deaths. I understand that WHO (the World Health Organisation) is saying that there have been a few reported deaths temporally associated with vaccination.

Divider 1

Six cases of suspected flu vaccine reactions reported by nurses at the emergency department at PMH.

Divider 1

Parent in Geraldton calls CDCD after seeing several children at the Geraldton hospital reacting to flu vaccine. CDCD called the hospital to ask them to report any reactions to them and to the TGA.

Divider 1

Mother calls CIC to report that her daughter had an adverse reaction to the flu vaccine. She had called PMH and was told that they were experiencing an increase in admissions at their emergency department. The CIC rang the CDCD to express concern after receiving calls from 3 parents advising them of flu vaccine reactions.

Divider 1

PMH reports that three children had presented to the emergency department experiencing seizures within 24-48 hours of flu vaccination.

Divider 1

CDCD called the TGA to ask if other states have been reporting reactions to the flu shot.

Divider 1
A nurse at PMH contacted the director of the emergency department at that hospital to advise them that there were currently 6 children being treated in emergency after suffering reactions 24-48 hours after flu vaccination.

Tuesday, April 13, 2010

Craig Davis sends an email to Christine Selvey:

NOCS (ed note: Notifiable diseases unit in QLD) has nothing recorded about a death following vaccination. I’ve checked with Kay Campbell in NOCS data-entry and she has confirmed that she has seen nothing either.

Divider 1

Ten patients presented to PMH emergency department reported as experiencing adverse reactions to flu vaccines. Hospital requests a check back through the EDIS (Emergency Department Information System).

Divider 1
The CDCD emailed the TGA to follow up from their phone call the previous week. Again, they notified the TGA about seizures, febrile convulsions and other reactions being experienced and asked whether other states were experiencing similar. The TGA advised that a medical officer would be back in touch.

Divider 1

Samantha Keegan sends the following email to the QLD Minister for Health’s office, cc’ing several other QLD Health employees:

Channel 9 is asking about a link between the Sudden Unexpected Death of a 2-yr-old girl on Friday and the child’s vaccination against swine flu 24 hours before her death.

Channel 10’s News Editor gave me his word he would not run anything on Fri-then ran a short 3 par ‘live read’ (no vision or interviews).

ABC and Courier Mail agreed not to run anything after I discussed the public health ramifications of children not being vaccinated with them.

An autopsy has been done on the child, but the cause of death is unknown. …

Divider 1

The following media response is sent to Channel 9. In the footer, it says it was written by Kerry White and approved by Jeannette Young and Christine Selvey:


In relation to the above press statement, Dr Jeannette Young responded to Kerry White as follows:

Assuming Christine [Selvey] is ok with it then I am fine.

Wednesday, April 14, 2010


CDCD emails the TGA because there has been no return phone call re-reactions. TGA sends a return email to the CDCD advising that there have been a number of reactions reported to Panvax (adult flu vaccine) and Panvax Junior (the vaccine for infants and children). TGA says there were four reactions notified nationwide at that time.

Divider 1

CDCD emails summary of reactions being experienced in WA to that point and requests information from other states.

Divider 1

Public Health nurse gives verbal report of 3 or 4 children with high temperatures for 12 hours following vaccination.

Divider 1

SA Nursing Director Immunisation Section calls CDCD asking if there have been any adverse events reported in WA as SA was seeing them after flu vaccination.

Divider 1

CDCD emails regional public health units informing them that they may be seeing flu vaccine reactions and requesting that these be reported.

Thursday, April 15, 2010

PMH reports that there were more reactions presenting overnight. A database is established and reports are sent to the TGA. The TGA states that these reports are not received until April 20th, 2010.

Divider 1

A microbiology registrar calls a paediatric immunologist at PMH to report that his own child had a febrile convulsion after receiving flu vaccine.

Divider 1

PMH emails the CDCD and confirms that 27 patients have presented – 5 with confirmed febrile convulsions following vaccination.

Divider 1

SA Nursing Direction Immunisation Section emails TGA, DoHA and all State Health Departments to inform them that SA is seeing increased numbers of children with high fever and vomiting after flu vaccine.

Divider 1

CDCD emails all public health units informing them that all reactions must be promptly reported – “not in a month’s time”.

Friday, April 16, 2010

The AVN is contacted by a QLD mother who sent the following email:

I contacted Channel  10  Brisbane on Monday to confirm the details stated here (Please see news report quoted on 9th April, 2010). All correct and the newsroom guy said that a Post Mortem was going to be done on Monday.

No press release from the Health Minister  appears to have  been released yet and no other TV or radio station  or Queensland  newspaper appears to have reported on this.

I have today, Friday 16th April about 11.30 am  contacted Janelle Miles the medical reporter for the Courier Mail, who said she was aware of the story but they (the Courier Mail) chose not to report it.

I asked why, she said there was no proof it was due to vaccination. I asked her if she knew about the Post Mortem , she said she knew a little .

I will go through the Courier Mail for the last week and see if any death or funeral notices for the toddler.

Don’t know if you guys can find out anymore….. or how you find  out if there will be a Coroners report.


PMH emails CDCD to report that there have been 90 possible presentations following flu vaccination – 22 of which were notifiable (seizures, temperatures over 40℃.

Divider 1
CDCD calls parents of children reacting to flu vaccine to find out what brand of vaccine had been administered and where it was given.

Divider 1
The TGA emails SA Nursing Director Immunisation Section to inform them that there had been 62 reactions reported so far – 22 of which were in people 18 years of age or younger. They requested all unsubmitted reaction reports from all states.

Divider 1
The Victorian Health Department emails TGA, DoHA and all State Health Departments to say that they have been receiving reports of high fevers and vomiting after flu vaccination.

Last part of timeline will be uploaded tomorrow

Posted in Vaccination | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Timeline to a Tragedy: Did incompetence, lies and a government cover-up lead to deaths?

The AVN has created a timeline of events surrounding the ill-fated flu vaccination campaign, from its launch in WA on the 19th of March, 2010 up to the 18th of May, 2010. It paints a disturbing picture of government incompetence; bureaucrats whose only aim seems to be avoiding having their policies questioned; lies from those responsible for protecting the health of the community; and a group of caring parents kept in the dark about the real risks of a medical procedure that caused hundreds of hospitalisations and an unknown number of deaths.George Orwell1

We have merged 3 sets of data to bring you this information:

1-    The timeline included in the Stokes Report, commissioned by the WA government to examine what went wrong with the flu vaccination campaign and make suggestions as to how to prevent the same happening again.

2-    The Right to Information (RTI) request revealing how Ashley Epapara’s death was covered up to prevent criticism of the vaccine. The correspondence in this RTI also proves that both the Chief Health Officer (Jeannette Young) and the Minister for Health were alerted within hours of Ashley dying, despite their claims to the contrary.

3-    Phone calls and emails from parents and health practitioners received by the AVN during the worst of the reactions in WA and elsewhere. Most concerning is the fact that the AVN’s information includes two reports of deaths following flu vaccine – one an infant in Perth and another a 19-year old young man near Newcastle. Neither of these has ever been reported in the media nor, to the best of our knowledge, have they been included on Australia’s national database of vaccine reactions.

The recommendations of the Stokes report have, for the most part, been ignored. What happened four years ago, can happen again. Protecting vaccination policy still appears to take precedence over alerting consumers to warning signs of an unfolding tragedy.

Our health officials are claiming there is no vaccination debate; minimising the known risks and exaggerating the unproven benefits to declare vaccines beyond question. They follow this up with an agenda of vilification against those who have the greatest stake in the issue – the parents of Australia’s children.

Timeline of WA Flu Vaccine Disaster

(Please note – all emphasis has been added by the AVN and this blog will be uploaded in 3 sections due to the large amount of information included.)

Official studiesFriday, March 19, 2010

Flu vaccination campaign launches in WA with letters being sent to all families whose children are in the target age group, urging them to be vaccinated against influenza. No information is provided to alert them to the fact that this is an experimental, untested vaccine.

Wednesday, March 31, 2010

A local health service in WA contacted public health to report reactions in six out of nine children who had received the flu vaccine the day before. One child was hospitalised.

Thursday, April 1, 2010

A public health nurse contacted the Communicable Disease Control Directorate (CDCD, WA), telling them of flu vaccine reactions and one child who was hospitalised. Authorities reassured this nurse that “reactions are common” and asked her to report to the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA)

Tuesday, April 6, 2010

An immunologist working at the Princess Margaret Hospital (PMH) contacted the Telethon Institute (the organisation being paid by pharmaceutical manufacturers to conduct a trial on flu vaccination in children) with concerns that their own child was experiencing a reaction to the Fluvax vaccine.

Thursday, April 8, 2010

A senior nurse emailed CDCD to inform them of a number of calls from parents reporting vomiting and fever after receipt of flu vaccines.

Divider 1
Ashley Jade Epapara, her twin sister and her older brother received their flu shots from a local doctor. That night, all three became ill.

Friday, April 9, 2010

Reports received from the nursing staff at PMH that children were presenting to the emergency department “unwell” after receiving the flu vaccine.

Divider 1

Bunbury hospital called the CDCD to report that an adult had presented to their emergency department suffering a suspected reaction to the flu vaccine.

Divider 1

CDCD emailed the Central Immunisation Clinic (CIC) at the WA Department of Health to confirm that they had heard of some children who were experiencing high fevers, pain and vomiting leading to hospitalisation after flu vaccinations.

Divider 1

Ashley Jade

Ashley Epapara and her family

Ashley Jade Epapara was found dead in her bed at 6.30 on the morning after receiving the vaccine. Her twin sister and older brother who also received the shot are ill.

Divider 1

Channel 10 News runs the following report at 5:00 PM:

Possible swine flu vaccination death – toddler dies in Brisbane

The Brisbane 5pm  Channel 10  TV News  – Friday 9th April 2010 reported  Mt Gravatt police are investigating the sudden death of  a 2 year old toddler .

The death occurred a day after the girl and most of her family had been immunised with the  Swine Flu vaccination.

The Queensland  Health Minister (Paul Lucas) said that no-one should avoid Swine Flu vaccinations.

Divider 1

Samantha Keegan, A/Manager (Corporate) QLD Health, sent the following email to other QLD Health Officials:

Channel 10 have rung saying they have been informed by a very reliable source a 2-year old has died following some kind of flu vaccination.

Sounds a bit suspect as they said QPS is ‘aware’ – Police media know nothing.

Kerry White, Senior Public Affairs Advisor to QLD Health sent the following email to the Commonwealth Health Media Unit as well as to various officials with QLD Health:


Gday all, just to let you know (UNOFFICIAL) a two year old had died at Mt Gravatt, a Brisbane suburb, with “no suspicious circumstances”, we have had a TV inquiry already who says police suggested the only thing different in their lives recently was swine flu vaccination. Police seem to have left this as a possibility for post mortem investigation.

That is all we have at the moment, nothing official yet. Awaiting more detail.

Please advise total number of vaccinations in Australia, adverse events, any deaths attributed? And global?


Samantha Keegan, A/Manager (Corporate) with QLD Health wrote the following email:

Had a call from Channel 10 about a story they wanted to do on a two-year-old girl who died at Mt Gravatt this morning.

The QAS was called and police attended. There were no suspicious circumstances.

However, someone involved (think it was a police officer) told the journalise the death may have been linked with a flu vaccination given to the child 24 hours before its death, and an autopsy will be performed Monday to rule it out.

I have spoken to police media who followed up with the area to make sure no further statements of the nature were made and spoke to CH 10 News Editor about the unlikeliness of a link and the possible panic such a story could cause.

He has agreed to drop the story at this stage. No other media have called.


Email from Kerry White to Neil, Media Unit, Commonwealth Department of Health and Ageing

Gday Neil, a police office apparently made some comment to a Channel 10 reporter abt a possible vacc connection. Samantha has spoken to police media and got them to put a stopper on that talk, and to Channel 10 who have agreed to go no further, not run anything.


Email from Neil to Kerry White:

Thanks Kerry, and thanks Samantha for setting the coppers straight.

The irony is that I provided a one-hour briefing to reps of all State and Territory Premiers and Police media units about pandemic flu in Adelaide only last week. Part of that presentation included my thoughts on how people in authority (ie. Doctors in my case) can totally undermine health programs by making silly comments about perceived safety issues.


Email from Neil to Kerry White:

Much appreciate the heads up. Please keep me posted on this one.

I’m keen to hear if this blows up. Certainly has the potential to seriously undermine the confidence in the program and I’d like to jump on it before it does blow up (if possible).


Email from Kerry White to Dr Russ Schedlich, State Health Incident Controller, Pandemic H1N1 2009:

…In QLD it seems on the latest info I can find that we have had 199 adverse events (33 hospitalised) reported from 717,167 immunisations administered. (AVN note: 717,167 vaccines may have been distributed but there is no information on how many of those were actually administered.).

To be continued tomorrow, May 23, 2014…

Posted in Accountability, Censorship, Death, Influenza, Vaccination | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 4 Comments

Apparently “…there’s nothing to debate”

by Greg Beattie

Queensland’s Chief Health Officer, Dr Jeanette Young, has refused to participate in a panel discussion on vaccination at this weekend’s Healthy Lifestyles expo on the Sunshine Coast, saying “there’s nothing to debate”. In the wake of this, disturbing details have now emerged of a cover up by her office regarding the death of a child following vaccination.

sopa-censorship-billBrisbane two-year-old, Ashley Jade Epapara, died shortly after a flu vaccination on April 9, 2010, just two weeks before the vaccine was withdrawn nationally in a blaze of publicity due to severe reactions. Police attending the scene of the death told reporters there were no suspicious circumstances apart from the vaccine. But Queensland Health staff acted quickly to quash that suggestion, instructing police to “ensure no further statements of the nature were made”, and securing agreement from media outlets to not pursue the story.

With the story suppressed, the vaccine continued on a path of destruction, particularly in Western Australia where an aggressive campaign was underway to vaccinate every child in the state.

It was not until April 22 that the vaccine was withdrawn from use in children. During and immediately following this period, many children endured severe reactions including Saba Button, who remains profoundly disabled. One wonders whether Saba’s parents, or those of the many other children affected, would have taken their child for the shot had they known about the tragedy in Brisbane. Unfortunately few knew about the vaccine connection in the Brisbane tragedy because of the cover up.

The following email excerpts were recently forwarded to us by a concerned third party. They are part of a Right to Information (RTI) release. They demonstrate clearly that health department staff deliberately and successfully prevented Australian parents from being warned about the potential for danger with this vaccine. (You can read the entire RTI by clicking this link for part 1 and this link for part 2.)Government Censorship

“…someone involved (think it was a police officer) told the journalist the death may have been linked with a flu vaccination given to the child 24-hours before its death, and an autopsy will be performed Monday to rule it out.

“I have spoken to police media, who followed up with the area to make sure no further statements of the nature were made and spoke to the CH 10 News Editor about the unlikeliness of a link, and the possible panic such a story could cause.”
– Samantha Keegan, A/Manager, Corporate, Queensland Health.


“I’m keen to hear if this blows up. Certainly has the potential to seriously undermine the confidence in the program and I’d like to jump on it before it does blow up (if possible).

“…and thanks Samantha for setting the coppers straight.
Neil, Media Unit, Department of Health and Ageing, Canberra.


“Channel 9 is asking about a link between the Sudden Unexpected Death of a 2-yr-old girl on Friday and the child’s vaccination against swine flu 24 hours before her death.

“Channel 10’s editor gave me his word he would not run anything on Fri – then ran a short 3 par ‘live read’ (no vision or interviews).

“ABC and Courier Mail agreed not to run anything after I discussed the public health ramifications of children not being vaccinated with them.”
– Samantha Keegan, A/Manager, Corporate, Queensland Health.

There were many more emails exchanged, as can be seen in the RTI release, and Dr Young was kept informed the whole way. Within two weeks, a disaster had evolved forcing an urgent national withdrawal of the vaccine. When Dr Young was again approached by the media she issued a press release, feigning ignorance:

“Until now, neither Queensland Health, nor the relevant national body had been advised of, or were aware of, any death allegedly related to a 2010 seasonal  flu vaccine in Queensland”.
Jeanette Young, Chief Health Officer, Queensland Health – April 25, 2010

The problem with the current approach
In the following days, we will be publishing a detailed series of articles regarding a more in-depth account of these events. One thing is clear: the current approach of our health authorities sometimes involves withholding, or suppressing vital information. In this case, the approach had clearly devastating consequences for some families.

Free SpeechWhat’s not immediately apparent is that this is actually the general ‘modus operandi’ of health authorities when dealing with vaccination. Whenever possible, they avoid discussing concerns raised by the media or consumer groups. Even worse, they openly state that these concerns are unjustified or dangerous in and of themselves. In short, “there’s nothing to debate”.

The refusal by Dr Young to provide a spokesperson for this weekend’s Healthy Lifestyles Expo is an example of this modus operandi. Her comments that the organisers should have exercised due diligence and not allowed anyone from the AVN to speak is another. Accusing the AVN of spreading ‘misinformation’ and ‘debunked theories’ is something Dr Young should be prepared to defend publicly. Her reluctance to do so is simply in keeping with this approach.

Parents are entitled to all information that may matter to them. If the police, or the media, or any other group feel the information is important, then it is. The AVN speaker at the expo, Ms Meryl Dorey, will be raising issues that are of concern to all potential consumers of vaccines. The public deserves to have these issues addressed at the forum and they rightly request the presence of a representative from their taxpayer-funded health department to explain why such concerns should not be considered important.

Suppression of vital information when parents are faced with making informed decisions about their children’s health is clearly not the answer. Responsible health officials tend to prefer education over coercion when it comes to health choices. It is essential that any information which matters to consumers is never actively withheld from them, and that any discussion this prompts is welcomed by our publicly funded health officials.

Please read the attached Right to Information documents (part 1 and part 2) to follow the trail of suppression by health officials in both the Queensland and the Commonwealth governments.

Further analysis will be available on this blog in coming days.

Timeline to a Tragedy: Part 1 – Did Incompetence, Lies and a Government Cover-up Lead to Deaths?

Timeline to a Tragedy: Part 2 – The Cover-Up Deepens

Timeline to a Tragedy: Part 3 – Lessons Go Unlearned

Posted in Accountability, AVN, Censorship, Medical Bully-Boys | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Another day – Another Courier Mail Hit Piece

Laura Chalmers - Courier Mail Censorship Specialist

Laura Chalmers – Courier Mail ‘Journalist’

by Meryl Dorey

I don’t know why Laura Chalmers from the Courier Mail even bothers to contact anyone from the AVN before writing about us?

This is the third time she’s been in touch with me about a story in recent weeks and yet, she has never  reporting anything I’ve said. A few weeks ago, she even sent me a 2 or 3-page summary of our talk so I could approve it before she went to print –  and she  never used one word of what I had to say.

Let’s look at the bright side though – if she isn’t reporting fairly or in a balanced manner, at least she isn’t misquoting me or taking me out of context.

She has done the same thing with the AVN’s President, Greg Beattie – wasting so much of our time for nothing. Is this just window dressing for the Courier Mail? Are they just pretending that they really care or are interested in presenting both sides whilst continuing to report whatever will make their Board and their advertisers happy?

Who knows. But here, for the record, is what I sent Laura Chalmers last week when she contacted me about this ‘story’ (you can read the entire ‘hit piece’ by using the link at the bottom of this blog post) – and how ironic is it that the media is openly calling for censorship on ANY subject? Such a slippery slope!:

Dear Laura,

This is not the first time that attempts have been made to block the presence of someone from the AVN at a public event. SAVN did this a few years ago at Woodford and it resulted in a record number of people in attendance at the vaccination discussion. They were literally standing in the aisles and lined up out in the street 8 or 10 deep to hear the talk. The same thing can and most probably will happen if a similar campaign is run regarding my talk at this event.

Don’t forget that one of the SAVN stalwarts, Peter Bowditch, publicly confirmed he would debate me at the Healthy Lifestyle Expo and then, backed out, reneging on his promise to attend. The organisers have been actively seeking someone from the medical fraternity to come and present the other side for over 6 months, but nobody was willing to defend the anti-choice stance.  Since SAVN and the medical community appear to be incapable of holding their own on this issue before a live audience, they want to stop anyone else from hearing what I and the AVN stand for.

Censorship sometimes backfires and as a journalist, you should be aware of that. Perhaps you’d like to read some of the articles at this website:

Kind regards,
Meryl Dorey

For those who are interested in hearing about some of the potential issues with vaccination, please do come and hear me speak or just say hi to me at the AVN’s stand at the Healthy Lifestyle Expo in Caloundra. Here’s a discount ticket for you and your family. The organisers have literally been through hell and back over this issue. They have had their website hacked, threatening calls made to them and to the other stall holders and they have had to get the police involved. Yet, they are standing firm in support of freedom of speech and freedom of choice. If you believe in what they are doing, please take a moment to visit their website (click the discount ticket image below) and use the contact form there to drop them a line and say – WELL DONE!:

B1G1-VistaprintIn the meantime, below is a link to the article in today’s Courier Mail calling for the Expo to ban me from speaking. If the medical community and the media are fighting this hard to shut the AVN up, it means that we are on the right track. Those who have evidence to back up their beliefs do not try to censor opposition. They are happy to debate and discuss these issues in an open and respectful manner.

It is only those who have no data to defend their assertions who will, in desperation, take the immoral step of trying to censor those they disagree with.

Health experts call for ban on anti-vaccination campaigner Meryl Dorey at Healthy Lifestyle Expo | The Courier-Mail.

Please note: Blog posts are opinion pieces which represent the views of the authors. They do not necessarily represent the viewpoints of the AVN National Committee. The AVN is a forum, support and information organisation and outlet for discussion about the relative benefits and risks of vaccinations in particular – and medical procedures in general. We do not provide medical advice but believe that everyone has the opportunity and the obligation to do their own research before making decisions for their families. The information we provide (including your personal review of the references we cite) should be taken in conjunction with a range of other data, including that obtained from government, your health care provider and/or other medical source material to assist you in developing the knowledge required to make informed health choices.

Posted in AVN, Censorship, Seminars / Webinars, Vaccination | Tagged , , , , , , , , | 3 Comments

Why isn’t the Health Care Complaints Committee’s inquiry transparent?

by Meryl Dorey

11074700_sIf you have been following this blog for any length of time at all, you would remember that we have been covering an issue of vital importance to everyone living in NSW specifically and Australia as a whole. That is the issue of an attempt by the NSW Health Care Complaints committee to grant yet more unprecedented powers to the NSW Health Care Complaints Commission (HCCC).

Many of our members and supporters have sent written submissions to this committee explaining their objections to these proposals.You can see the page on the NSW Parliament website which will provide you with information on this inquiry – The Promotion of False or Misleading Health-Related Information or Practices.

Originally, the time period for submissions was supposed to end in December, 2013. It was then extended until the 7th of February 2014.

I personally know of more than 50 submissions to this inquiry made by AVN members. There would be many more.

In my experience, whenever a parliamentary inquiry has called for submissions, those submissions are published on the website as they are received or within a matter of days of receipt. In this instance, however, no submissions have been made publicly available and in fact, most people who submitted to this inquiry have not even received a confirmation that their submission was received.

At the end of February, 2014, I contacted Mr Jason Arditi, the Committee Manager, to ask why none of the submissions had been uploaded to the committee website even though submissions had been closed by, at that point in time, a couple of weeks.

I was told that the committee had not yet considered any of the submissions but that they would be meeting in mid-March and would consider them at that time and they would be published by the end of March.

The end of March came and went and again, no submissions were uploaded.

I contacted Mr Arditi in early April and at that time, I was told that the Committee had indeed met in March but had not considered any of the submissions. They were due to be considered at the meeting being held in mid-April and the submissions would be uploaded by the end of that month.

I asked if it was normal procedure to not publish submissions until they had been considered and Mr Arditi informed me that it was neither normal nor abnormal to proceed in this way. Whilst most committees do publish on receipt, this particular committee had chosen to do things differently.

The end of April came and went with no submissions on the committee website.

I contacted Mr Arditi on May 1st to ask why, once again, no submissions had been uploaded to the website. He told me that the committee had, in fact, considered the submissions during their April meeting and that they would be uploaded. It’s just that some of them were defamatory in nature so they would need to have sections blacked out before they were made public. He assured me that this would be done and they would be there by Friday, May 9th. Today, in fact.

I  asked for a firm publication date during my last conversation with Mr Arditi and he gave me his assurance that these submissions would be online by today but disappointingly, they are not there. Won’t they make the slightest attempt to appear transparent by abiding by their promise to publish these submissions?

A less trusting person than myself would be starting to wonder if the committee was trying to hide something? Why this ongoing failure to inform the public of the reasons why those in the community oppose their intended power grab?

Maybe one of you will have better luck getting an answer than I have? If you’d like to contact Mr Arditi, his details are below. Please let me know if you do get a result. We have a right to see this information and to consider what the committee has considered.

Please note: Blog posts are opinion pieces which represent the views of the authors. They do not necessarily represent the viewpoints of the AVN National Committee. The AVN is a forum, support and information organisation and outlet for discussion about the relative benefits and risks of vaccinations in particular – and medical procedures in general. We do not provide medical advice but believe that everyone has the opportunity and the obligation to do their own research before making decisions for their families. The information we provide (including your personal review of the references we cite) should be taken in conjunction with a range of other data, including that obtained from government, your health care provider and/or other medical source material to assist you in developing the knowledge required to make informed health choices.

Posted in Accountability, HCCC, Health rights | Tagged , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Peter Bowditch-Running Scared

johann_wolfgang_von_goethe_courage_3368The Bowditch non-debate saga continues.
by Meryl Dorey

For those who haven’t yet read about this issue, you can do so on the following blog posts: The Great Vaccination Non-Debate and Are You Brave Enough to Follow Through, Peter Bowditch?

Apparently, Mr Bowditch is well aware of his lack of knowledge on the issue of vaccination because he is using every tactic at his disposal to try and worm out of fulfilling his promise to debate me. One can only assume that his two letters of acceptance – one made to the organisers of the You Can Heal Yourself Expo and the other to me personally via this blog – were made under the incorrect assumption that I would not accept his offer.

Unfortunately for him, however, I threw a spanner in the works by stating that I would accept his challenge and debate him at the Expo at the end of May. The deadline for him to confirm with the organisers is just 2 days away – on Friday, the 9th of May.

So far, he has used every possible excuse for why he would be unable to follow through on his promise to attend and debate me.

  • He suddenly realised that he needs to be back in Sydney by 11 am on Sunday and for some reason, airplanes aren’t working on Saturday night to allow him to do that.
  • Debating me would legitimise my arguments and this is something he was unaware of when he made his challenge in early April and repeated it again at the end of the month.
  • The You Can Heal Yourself Expo is a “Festival of Batshittery” (eg one where both sides of this debate are welcome and wanted) – something he didn’t realise until just now.

Bowditch Debate

And now, he is twisting his offer to debate by trying to turn it into something completely different – an essay competition where he will have the assistance of his friends at Stop the AVN to do his research and write his ‘homework’, showing the internet world how brave and knowledgeable he is about vaccination.

Yesterday, I received the following letter from Mr Bowditch and wrote back to him (below) immediately. I haven’t yet heard back from him. Neither have the Expo organisers.

One has to wonder how far he is prepared to take this charade of having been genuinely willing to expose his knowledge of vaccination (or lack of thereof) to public scrutiny. It is telling, however, that he is so brave in front of the SAVN hordes yet turns tail and runs when faced with the prospect of having to support his vitriolic opposition to informed choice in a public venue. As have ALL of the other SAVNers, not one of whom had the courage of their convictions to honestly present the pro-vaccine-safety and effectiveness point of view at this expo.

My response to Peter Bowditch’s ‘challenge’:

Dear Mr Bowditch,

You accepted the public debate at the You Can Heal Yourself Expo. Neither I nor anyone else forced you to accept this. And you accepted it twice – once via the organiser’s website – once via the AVN’s website.

To quote you directly:

“Please notify the organisers of the Healthy Lifestyles Expo that I was serious when I offered to debate you. Now that you are aware of this you can no longer claim that nobody from the sanity side of the non-debate is prepared to step up to the plate.”

So, are you “prepared to step up to the plate” and debate me at this forum or not? An answer would be appreciated.

If you are not going to attend this debate after stating quite clearly that you would do so, could you please have the courtesy to inform both myself and the organisers of that fact?

I will not enter into any other discussion with you.

Kind regards,
Meryl Dorey

Peter Bowditch’s letter to me:

Dear Ms Dorey,

The following challenge has been posted on various Facebook pages and my
personal blog. I would appreciate an acceptance by Thursday.

Thank you.


Challenge to Meryl Dorey.

Here are the three questions to be “debated” at the Expo in Caloundra on
May 24:

1) Does herd Immunity apply to the use of vaccinations

2) The ingredients in Vaccines are Toxic and Small Babies cannot tolerate
even small amounts

3) Can it really be proven that it is vaccination that is controlling
disease rates or do diseases die out naturally and recur in cycles.

And here are the rules:

1) No discussion of the AVN or Meryl Dorey at all, as this is about
Vaccination not personalities

2) All information and debate to be kept on topic

3) All discussion and debate is to be kept informative, educational and
scientifically grounded

4) At all times a civil and respectful attitude is to be kept in tone,
word and deed

These questions and rules have been set by the event organisers. With one
change (that Rule 1 also prohibit discussion of Australian Skeptics, SAVN,
or me) I propose a written debate.

At or before 9pm on Sunday, May 11, I will produce three essays, each
approximately 1000 words, addressing the three questions. Ms Dorey is
invited to do the same. To avoid either of us gaining an advantage neither
will get to see the other’s submissions before they are published. Both of
us will email our submissions to nominated administrators of both the SAVN
and AVsN Facebook pages, and all six will be published simultaneously (as
closely as possible) on both sites.

Ms Dorey says that I am afraid to debate her. I am giving her the
opportunity to make her arguments in front of audiences which are divided
on their opinions on vaccines and I am prepared to do the same.

Bring it on.

The saga continues…the clock is counting down. Peter Bowditch has 48 hours to prove that he is brave enough and honest enough to follow through on his offer to debate me. Only time will tell.

Please note: Blog posts are opinion pieces which represent the views of the authors. They do not necessarily represent the viewpoints of the AVN National Committee. The AVN is a forum, support and information organisation and outlet for discussion about the relative benefits and risks of vaccinations in particular – and medical procedures in general. We do not provide medical advice but believe that everyone has the opportunity and the obligation to do their own research before making decisions for their families. The information we provide (including your personal review of the references we cite) should be taken in conjunction with a range of other data, including that obtained from government, your health care provider and/or other medical source material to assist you in developing the knowledge required to make informed health choices.

Posted in Accountability, Medical Bully-Boys, Vaccination | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 5 Comments

Are you brave enough to follow through, Peter Bowditch?

BowditchAs you have read on this page, the deadline for someone to come forward and debate me is coming up. It is this Friday, the 9th of May.

After writing my blog article, The Great Vaccination Non-Debate, Peter Bowditch of the NSW Skeptics and a very active ‘contributor’ to their splinter group, Stop the AVN, posted the following comment to the AVN’s blog:

“Please notify the organisers of the Healthy Lifestyles Expo that I was serious when I offered to debate you. Now that you are aware of this you can no longer claim that nobody from the sanity side of the non-debate is prepared to step up to the plate.

“In case this comment doesn’t manage to get through moderation, a screen shot will be published on Twitter and Facebook.”

I instantly wrote back to Mr Bowditch, informing him that, as it said in the blog post, anyone who wanted to be involved in the debate should contact the organisers and let them know.

I did inform the organisers about Mr Bowditch’s offer to debate me and they sent him 2 invitations without getting any response. Let me repeat – as of this weekend, despite 2 written invitations in response to his offer to debate me at the You Can Heal Yourself Expo at the end of this month, Peter Bowditch, who made the offer of his own free will, has not responded.

What’s worse, he now appears to be trying to blame me for his failure to follow through on his promise to debate me. Yesterday, he sent the following tweet out to his followers:

Bowditch Debate

Apparently, he wants to make it appear that he was unaware of the venue of this debate and, now knowing it, he will no longer debate me.

But the truth is that the venue and all debate details were freely advertised and Mr Bowditch is the one who contacted me to say he wanted to debate.

Come on, Peter! I’m calling on you to either accept the invitation (which was sent at your request) or admit that you are too scared to debate me on this issue. You can’t have it both ways.

You are the one who accepted the challenge – and you are the one who has to follow through or admit that you are afraid to debate.

Posted in Accountability, AVN, Medical Bully-Boys | Tagged , , , , , , , , | 25 Comments

The Hate Debate –

Hate DebateThis is one of the best overviews of the vaccination issue and why the fear and hatred being spread by so many is completely illogical. Please read this in full and if you like it too – share it with others.

I am sick of it – this vaccination debate. My convictions not to vaccinate have been firm for six years now and I was comfortable living a low-profile life and letting other more notable vaccine advocates carry the torch; and then I started seeing misleading t.v. interviews, news stories, and backlash against parents and unvaccinated children. I saw reputable medical professionals get crucified and reputations destroyed for questioning the mainstream norm. I saw laws passed in other states removing freedoms that rightfully belong to parents and individuals as a whole. I saw fear, blame, finger-pointing, lies, and flat out hate being propagated and encouraged by people, physicians, and popular media avenues towards parents who don’t vaccinate, and their children.

This isn’t a vaccination debate, it’s a hate debate, so let’s call it what it is. And when it got personal, I got involved.

To read more, please click the link below


The Hate Debate –

Posted in Vaccination | Tagged , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

AVN Supporters speak in support of their rights

19359622_letterbox1Below are the letters which AVN members and supporters have sent to the various State and Federal Health Ministers and Shadow Ministers in support of the right to conscientiously object to vaccination without being penalised or discriminated against in any way.

As always, these letters are articulate, intelligent and passionate. There are many letters here and at least twice as many people have informed us that they wrote but did not send copies of their letters to us. There are most likely many more who wrote without informing us as well. The upshot is – when your rights are threatened – you don’t sit back and take it, you take action. We will be contacting the Federal Health Minister’s office next week to find out what the final recommendation was after the meeting and will be sure to let you all know. But be assured – if the Ministers have decided not to press ahead with this dreadful plan to penalise Australian families, it will be because of your efforts.

One last note – this page was put together very quickly so if the formatting is a bit wonky or any letters were missed out, we apologise profusely for any problems.

Dear Honourable Health Minister,

I am disgusted yet not surprised by the latest attacks on those of us who are Conscientious Objectors to vaccination. The attacks by both State and Federal Governments on our right to choose regarding vaccination have been constant for the last 2 years.

The media implies that parents opting out of vaccination are somehow following a trend, or are stupid or (insert this weeks insult here). The Medical establishment does not like the sacred cow of medicine, vaccination, being questioned, so it is fighting back in the most bullying and hostile of ways; do what we say or face consequences. This time it will be loss of Governement payments, my feeling is that next in line will be our right to opt out of vaccination.

I could write ad nauseum on the reasons I have chosen not to vaccinate my children. After my eldest child suffered a terrible reaction to her Hepatitis B vaccine at birth I started to research the issue. I was staggered that no Doctor had ever mentioned any of the information I discovered.

In brief vaccines are toxic (ethyl mercury, aluminium, formaldehyde etc), contaminated ( monkey DNA and viruses, aborted human foetal tissue, chicken viruses, pig viruses…it’s a long list) and ineffective (all of the so called Vaccine Preventable Diseases had decreased over 90% by the time the vaccines for those diseases arrived). Not to mention that vaccinated individuals can shed the viruses they have been vaccinated with!

The list of those killed or disabled by vaccines is growing by the day. As demonstrated by VAERS ( Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System) in the USA the consequences of vaccination can be deadly or life ruining, and these types of consequences are not rare. Despite the howling protests of Governments everywhere; vaccines can cause autism. Cases like those of Hannah Poling (US courts) and Valentino Bocca (Italian Courts) prove this. There are tens of thousands of other children out there with the same story as these children.

The tragic case of Saba Button in Western Australia in 2010 shows that citizens are correct to have doubts over Government authorised vaccination campaigns. Saba was permanently disabled after receiving the untested Fluvax vaccine. Hundreds of children in WA were hospitalised as a result of this vaccination. Parents WERE NOT told about the status of this vaccine or the risks involved ( A WA health spokesperson said 1/1000 children were “expected” to have febrile seizures but the rate was 10 times higher than they expected i.e. 1/100 children suffered febrile seizures). It is criminal that parents were not told of this risk prior to vaccination. What about the right to informed consent? What happened to “first do no harm”?

Saba Button’s parents have set up a foundation in her name to raise money to help with the costs of her fulltime care needs. So for the Health Minister to take a few hundred dollars out of vaccine refusers pockets is not even a drop in the ocean of the cost of caring for a vaccine injured child. Personally there is no sum of money that could ever induce me to vaccinate my children and that is true of all the other vaccine refusing parents that I know.

The financial ramifications of the Health Minister’s plan do not bother me, but the ethics behind his decision do. If my child is vaccine injured it is not the Health Minister, Government or Doctor who pay the price. It is my burden to carry, so the choice should be mine , unencumbered by draconian and coercive Government policies.

I could provide you with a lot more information regarding vaccines, but lets face it, you already know them. Concerned and intelligent parents have been writing to all forms of Government for years now saying the same thing, fighting to maintain our right to choose.

The problem for the Government, Medical Establishment and Drug Companies is that there is now a tsunami of educated parents who are refusing to vaccinate their children. I have no doubt that the fight for our rights will be a hard one and it is already getting very ugly. Unfortunately for the Government it is too late. There are now vaccine-damaged children living on every street in Australia and their parents are very vocal. We will stay vocal. We will speak our truth and spread information about vaccine dangers wherever we go and we will not be shut up. So you may try to impose draconian legislation to “punish”us for being so caring, intelligent and righteous, but it is too late. In the words of Andrew Wakefield “There is no place for indulging futile displacement activity, sanctimonious posturing and self-protectionism. In the battle for the hearts and minds of the public you have already lost. Why? Because the parents are right; their stories are true; their children’s brains are damaged; there is a major, major problem.”

Yes the public is fast becoming aware of vaccine dangers. I ask that the Minister also looks into the issue and not be fobbed off by his advisors.

Some interesting points to research

1) The safety studies of the current vaccine schedule (no wait, there aren’t any).
2) The safety studies proving that is safe to inject infants with ethyl mercury (these studies don’t exist either)
3) A study comparing long term health outcomes of fully vaccinated verus fully unvaccinated children. (This doesn’t exist either. Would the Minister please make this type of study his number one priority. We have been asking for this study to be done.)

I trust that the Minister will allow parents the right to choose whether or not to vaccinate their children. Anything less would be an infringement on human rights.

In Support of Conscientious Objection to Vaccination,

Divider 1

Dear Minister Dutton,

I have just spoken with your office of my concern that family tax payments may be withdrawn from parents who have chosen not to immunise their children.

The person who took my call suggested that I send an email to support the phone call.

I treat many children with autism spectrum disorders, severe allergies and worrying gastrointestinal disturbances whose parents firmly believe their problem began with vaccination. I believe them for two reasons – first, their stories have convincing yet uncanny similarities – and there are so many of them, and second, because what happened to their children mimics what happened to mine when they too were vaccinated.

At the time I knew little about the vaccine debate but expressed my concern to the vaccinating doctors that the high fevers and problems that followed were somehow linked to the vaccine they had not long given. My concerns were dismissed out of hand, and still are today whenever I retell what happened. Though much improved my children continue to be affected by those early problems, even into adulthood.

If I had my time over again I would certainly be one of those seeking an exemption for my children as they and I (and others like us) have had to bear the burden – not the doctors who gave the vaccine or the government that advised them to do so.

Did you know that most people who now have a conscientious or medical exemption to vaccines started out as vaccine proponents and trustingly had their child vaccinated as recommended? Do you know that they only stopped giving subsequent vaccines because that child became one of the unlucky ones? These are the people you wish to remove family tax payments from – payments that initially were never intended to be linked to vaccination.

If you remove these payments you will not be punishing parents who just can’t be bothered to go and get the vaccine, you will be punishing those who have already tried to do the right thing and now bear the consequences of following medical and governmental advice. It seems to me that they should be compensated rather than punished like naughty school children for not continuing to do something they are convinced harmed their children.

Please don’t compound their heartache and loss by removing this much needed payment. To do so would be grossly unfair.

Yours sincerely,

Divider 1

To: Mrs Jo-Ann Miller Shadow Minister for Health, Queensland

Dear Mrs Miller,

I am writing to you about this matter, since you are the Shadow Minister of Health in my State of Queensland.

I find it very hard to comprehend that there should be vaccinations, and taken beyond that mandatory vaccinations. I have taken close interest in reading all the articles I can on this matter from sources that are not censored. It seems that all information in the Australian Media is censored.

As a child in South Australia in the war years I was given a tetanus vaccination, and I came out in a total severe body rash. In India in 1946, as a child aged 11, I had another fall from a horse, with a cut requiring stitches. Although the Doctor was told by my Mother about the first reaction, he insisted on giving me another tetanus vaccination. This time I was paralysed over my body for two days, and could not get out of bed or turn over, and was kept in a darkened room in the family house with someone with me all the time.

It is a fact that the Pharmaceutical companies have taken control of the whole world, paying for medical training for doctors, and totally influencing their decisions, so they don’t think of questioning their training. They are rewarded by holidays and gifts, provided they write out a sufficient number of prescriptions. The Minister of Health said on a broadcast that any doctor who would not vaccinate would no longer be able to practice as a doctor. Most doctors have families and mortgages, and how would they find another career. So the GPs continue to vaccinate, but those who know with families, do not vaccinate their own children.

All vaccinations damage. Most of them create the very disease they are meant to protect against. They all have mercury and formaldehyde, and unfortunately viruses have also got into the mix.

The flue epidemic after the War 1914-1918 was created by vaccinations and killed more people than died in the War. Those who were not vaccinated did not get the flue.

Please investigate this yourself. You will not be able to change the world situation, due to bribery and corruption, but at least you will be able to influence decisions about mandatory vaccinations, giving the choice to parents who know the dangers, or who are just wary about damaging their children.

You are welcome to forward this email on to others.


Divider 1

Dear Ministers,

On the eve of ANZAC Day it seems the Australian Government seeks to dishonor what our countrymen fought for 100 years ago. Freedom, choice and democracy.

I oppose any moves by the Government to remove the right of a person to be a conscientious objector with regard to vaccinations.

People should have the same rights to vaccinate or to not vaccinate.

I oppose any moves to take away our right to entitlements based on our vaccination decision and status.

I am sure that in legal circles this could be called ‘Blackmailing’. (Blackmail refers to a situation that arises when a person threatens another person with some form of punishment if they do not offer some form of concessions.

Nobody should be FORCED to have their child be vaccinated.

We live in Australia, a democratic society which means (taken from

The Australian democracy has at its heart, the following core defining values:

freedom of election and being elected; freedom of assembly and political participation; freedom of speech, expression and religious belief; rule of law; and other basic human rights.

As far as I am concerned it is my basic human right to choose how I medicate myself and my children. If you take away government entitlements you are penalising those that make an educated and informed choice that is different to the current political and medical dogma, and are saying that I don’t have a right to choice.



Divider 1

Dear Minister Dutton,

I ask you to please not participate in the discrimination against loving parents who have legitimate concerns about vaccinating their children, please do not persecute parents by taking away government entitlements that are meant for every eligible low income family struggling with the costs of raising their children, it is ethically and morally wrong.

The current environment of blaming unvaccinated children for every disease outbreak under the sun is unjustified and very worrying especially for me as I am both a conscientious objector and a recipient of the government payments that they are thinking of taking away from parents like myself.

My name is Tasha David and I am a widowed Mum of 8 and also a committee member of the AVN, but today I am writing to you as a Mum. I have vaccinated 6 of my children to varying degrees and they all have neurological, allergic and autoimmune disorders as well as having poor general health. My two unvaccinated children have excellent health and no neurological disorders yet I had them when I was in my late 30’s when they should have been more susceptible to the disorders that are affecting their elder siblings. We also did genetic testing and there was no genetic reason found for their afflictions. In my position would you have continued vaccinating your children, and do you believe that I should be punished financially for doing what I believe was in the best interests of my children?

What this proposed legislation is in essence saying, is that parents like myself are bad parents and do not deserve the same rights as other parents but on what basis is the judgement made? I love and adore my children, I make sure that my children are safe from physical harm, that they are educated, they are fed nourishing whole meals that I cook from scratch, I support their immune systems through nutrient rich supplements, foods and probiotics and we avoid all additives, preservatives etc and toxic chemicals in the home, and they get plenty of fresh air, exercise. If my children are sick which is very rarely then I keep them home so that they are not exposing any other children to any illnesses that they may have and this has worked really well for my children especially my unvaccinated children, they have never had or needed an antibiotic in their lives unlike their elder siblings which have all had antibiotics. Almost all of my vaccinated children have been admitted to hospital for either asthma attacks, rotavirus and grommets for chronic ear infections etc, my unvaccinated children have not. I have researched countless vaccine studies that show pros and cons and have seen firsthand what vaccines can do to my children, so by deciding that vaccination is not for my children anymore does this make me a bad mother?

If we are going to start penalising parents for making their decisions that they know in their hearts is best for their children and call them irresponsible parents, where does it end? Is it fair that parents that smoke, drink and do drugs around their children are eligible for these payments, are they better parents than us? What about parents that feed their children chips and coke and sweets all day and let them run around the streets all hours of the day and night, are they better parents? Going on the proposed legislation by Minister Springborg they are, as they will still be eligible for these payments yet we will not. How can this be considered anything other than discrimination?

I always wonder how a parent who believes in vaccination would feel if they were punished for vaccinating their child because of the shedding from the live vaccines? If they were vilified and condemned by their government,the media and other parents and were told that there children should not be allowed near other children in school, in public etc how would they feel? How did we get to this point where the Government and media are stirring up hatred against parents like me, are there great epidemics of disease in unvaccinated children? No, there isn’t so why the hatred, the demonising of parents, the encouraging of the us and them mentality, why are we so eager to hate others for being different?

If the Government is so worried about conscientious objectors why don’t they talk to us, why can’t we have an open discussion where both sides can be heard, how can you think that financial penalties are the only way to reach an understanding with parents?

The other part that does not make sense to me about all of this is why the Government thinks taking away Centrelink payments is going to change the minds of the rich affluent suburbs which are the ones with the lowest vaccination rates, this type of discrimination only targets the poor?

We have just experienced the largest Whooping cough epidemic and the vast majority of cases were in the vaccinated, so how many others are not protected by their vaccinations and are walking around thinking that they are? Or are asymptomatic transmitters of the disease?

“This research suggests that although individuals immunized with an acellular pertussis vaccine may be protected from disease, they may still become infected with the bacteria without always getting sick and are able to spread infection to others, including young infants who are susceptible to pertussis disease.”

Why is that the Government has only got a passive surveillance system in place for vaccine reactions/injuries? How can we really know how many vaccine injuries and deaths there are if they is no mandatory reporting system in place?

“Professor Bryant Stokes, the eminent neurosurgeon and former head of WA Health who reviewed the events for the state’s health minister, concluded in a report tabled in the WA Parliament last August that the “slow response” by federal and state authorities had “not served the public well”. It was “disturbing”, he noted, that Australia had not put in place the surveillance and reporting systems recommended by the World Health Organisation, which had advised all countries in August 2009 to “conduct intensive monitoring for safety and efficacy” of the pandemic vaccine, Panvax.”

How is it that we can vilify parents for not vaccinating their children by saying that the science is clear when there has been no long term health outcomes comparing the fully vaccinated vs fully unvaccinated? Shouldn’t this be done before we even start to think about discriminating against conscientious objectors?

How can we have herd immunity when adults have not been vaccinated appropriately for decades, and the theory was based on natural immunity to start with not vaccine induced immunity?

Why is there such a push to force vaccination on parents when they are much more serious priorities that deserve the governments full attention ie 1 in 6 having developmental delays, sky rocketing numbers of Asthma, Allergies, Autoimmune disorders, Autism, ADHD, Alzheimer’s, Cancer etc? What about the estimated 18,00 to 30,000 dying from medical errors in our hospitals?

Why have we forgotten the hundred children rushed to hospital in WA with febrile seizures because of the Fluvax vaccine, and the death of Ashley Epapara, the severe brain damage of Saba Button and even more recently Lachlan Neyland? Do these children not deserve to be protected also, why is it that a child that is injured or killed by a disease is given priority over children that have been injured or killed by vaccination? Who decides which life is more worthy of protection?

Conscientious objectors are just trying to raise healthy children like everybody else we just believe that there has to be a better way than injecting substances in to our children with an unknown long term health outcome. Parents should be allowed to make the choices that they believe are right for their children whether it be to vaccinate or not, especially when there is no way of knowing whether your child will be the one having a serious adverse reaction. I couldn’t save my first six children from life long chronic illness please do not punish me for trying to save my last two from this.

This is my family’s story…

Thank you for your time and I hope that this helps in some way Kind regards Tasha David

To all the Honourable Members of Parliament State and Federal to whom this has been sent.

I believe you are meeting to decide wether or not to continue to allow Government payments to be made to those who object to vaccination. No mention as to the legitimate reasons for objections, of which there are many.

My wife and I raised our children from 1974 till the last born in 1990. We were aware of the discussion and claims regarding the efficacy of vaccines, but chose to vaccinate untill our last baby reacted badly to the vaccine and we saw what others had warned us of. There are real dangers with vaccines and to deny that is to deny the truth. Who is responsible for the wellbeing of our children? Did you give them to us? Why are the vaccine manufacturers indemnified against prosecution for the death or disablement of those injured by vaccines?

Should you even consider such a proposal then we do not live in a democratic country.

Yours Sincerely

Divider 1

Minister Dutton,

I have spoken with Alex in your office and left a message for you. He suggested I could also write.

With respect, I want to pass on my views as they relate to your discussion with state health Ministers on the potential removal of (or tightening of) conscientious objection (CO) clauses with Vaccination policy.

First, CO is NOT used ‘willy nilly’ – people who do appropriate research and then make an informed choice take advantage of this right. The difficulty experienced in actually finding a GP who will sign such a form is testament enough to the fact that the clause is not being ‘taken advantage of’.

Second, our constitution provides us with the right to refuse medical treatments against our will. As such governments of both persuasion have often argued that vaccination is not compulsory – but you then tie access to certain family payments to vaccination status which effectively ‘force’ compliance with vaccination policy. This is under-handed and dishonest.

If you do believe vaccination is such an important public health initiative, then make it compulsory, institute protection-schemes for those that are vaccine-damaged (or better yet, allow once again the common law right to sue vaccine manufacturers!), fund and instruct the TGA to do proper analysis including post-market safety studies, don’t ‘farm out’ investigation of reactions to the companies that produce the product, and instruct all health practitioners to keep accurate reaction statistics rather than just voluntary adverse reactions registers. Also, fund the studies that have been called for ad nauseum (with such calls being ignored so far) for long-term health outcomes of the fully vaccinated versus the fully non-vaccinated.

The FTB is an important payment most used by needy families in our society. It should not be in any way linked to whether or not you have a medical procedure. The fact that it currently is, means you MUST allow conscientious objection.

The argument you and others have put forward regarding the importance of high vaccination uptake is always predicated on the ‘greater good’ which is turn is based on a theoretical mathematical model of herd immunity…the levels required to achieve herd immunity continue to change and rise, because we reach the level suggested and then we find eradication has not occurred, and fully or mostly vaccinated populations are still contracting these diseases! You can’t blame unvaccinated children for fully vaccinated outbreaks! True, there are populations that for whatever reason are not able to be vaccinated (partly because of the toxic ingredients in vaccines!)…but if you look into the history of flu vaccine policy for example, you find profound conflicts of interest and policies derived from ‘expert’ panels without any evidence or research – particularly the justification to vaccinate the over-65 age-group originally was non-existent!

Ministers are often guilty of spouting inaccurate information regarding vaccination – first confusing vaccination with immunisation (they’re NOT the same thing!), second, claiming extremely high levels of safety based on voluntary reporting data, third claiming efficacy based on the fact that people don’t contract the disease after innoculation (with no evidence they were EXPOSED to the organism and no analysis of differences in immunocompetency or the factors which might raise immunocompetency in some population groups/individuals while not in others!) Leaps of faith are made with inadequate basis, and this informs your public policy.

Please…if you (and by this I mean the pro-vaccine lobby) are not willing to sit down and have a real, inclusive debate and address areas of perceived or actual lack in the evidence to back up your policy, don’t force people who HAVE researched the issue into something they firmly believe could cause greater harm than good.

If you cannot achieve herd immunity through education then surely there is some reasonable doubt you have not adequately addressed…and the way most pro-vaccination experts contribute to the public debate further inflames this issue. By just simply trying to deny that there is a valid debate, or for that matter ridiculing alternative points of view, you don’t actually do your cause any favours! Removing the only real option for people to still receive their rightful government funds

As Minister for HEALTH (not minister for sick-care) it would be amazing if you began to heavily promote research and public policy based not on the minimum standards needed to avoid illness, but on what is required to achieve sufficiency to maximise full function and the expression of ultimate health. The philosophy underpinning allopathy – whereby society is effectively taught to only respond to their health status when they experience a symptom is the real issue here!

Clearly I’m passionate about this issue and I would welcome any indication from you that you have considered this email – a ‘pro-forma’ email will just further reinforce my opinions as presented in this letter!

— Regards,

Dr. P

Divider 1

Peter Dutton,

I oppose any moves to take away our right to government entitlements based on our vaccination decision.

Nobody should be FORCED to have their child be vaccinated.

The Australian Constitution No 51 ‘The provisions of maternity allowances, widow’ pensions, child endowment, unemployment, pharmaceutical, sickness and hospital benefits, medical and dental services (but not so as to authorize any form of civil conscription), benefits to students and family allowances’

By removing the family tax will not get me to vaccinate my children but will place more financial stress on my family and will cause us to tighten our belts even further. Are you sure this decision will really profit out children? Are you not satisfied with the 90% you already have claimed?

Jesus therefore says to him, If thou doest, do quickly.

God bless


Divider 1

Letter of Objection for Peter Dutton.

I write in regards to the proposed removal of the conscientious objection clause in relation to vaccination and remove entitlements. This is in Violation of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution. The Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act was signed & Sealed in 1900, by Queen Victoria using the Royal Seal, which then became the law-making seal of the Federal Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia at Proclamation in 1901. No other symbols or system can be used to create an authority of any kind, OVER the civil & political rights of the legal or private Persons of the Commonwealth of Australia. The Queen holds the title Defender of the Faith, upholding our Commercial and Civil rights to Common and Canon Law . That title is a direct covenant with God Almighty. A contract. In her, and her alone, through that contract, lies the authority to Judicially adjudicate over the men & women of the Contract.

Commonwealth Of Australia Constitution Act

Part V – Powers of the Parliament

51.The Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to make laws for the peace, order, and good government of the Commonwealth with respect to: –

(xxiiiA.) The provision of maternity allowances, widows’ pensions, child endowment, unemployment, pharmaceutical, sickness and hospital benefits, medical and dental services but not so as to authorise any form of civil conscription, benefits to students and family allowances.

Correct me if I have read this wrongly but it states not as to authorise any form of civil conscription to medical services. So there we have it, this is why vaccination is a voluntary procedure.

Be aware that we the people are watching you and are growing in numbers and will hold you accountable for the decisions you make.

I have informed you of the illegality of enforcing vaccinations and hereby this communication is a letter of objection.

Vaccination has no scientific background to support it. Wherever we have so many vaccine failures it becomes a scam.

Science means 100% efficacy, nothing less can be deemed to be back by science. No failures not now not ever, I have witnessed to many vaccine failure particularly the Flu Vaccine for it to be considered scientific.

We the people are now looking at this hoax in growing numbers as you can never fool all the people all the time.

You are elected by the people to stand up for the people. Its high time you backed the people who elected you to office as opposed to the corporate entities who only have profit as there agenda and care not for anyone or the planet.

Yours Sincerely


Divider 1

To the Hon. David Davis, Hon. Peter Dutton, Hon. Catherine King and Mr Gavin Jennings

I am a Victorian resident, Company Director, mother of young children and supportive wife to a very hard working tax payer, and I write sharing my concern regarding current discussions about vaccination and the removal of rights of Conscientious Objectors (CO).

As a fellow Australian citizen, I respectfully ask that our Health Ministers and Government Officials please respect our rights as parents (and human beings) to make decisions on behalf of our children. Many parents choose to vaccinate, but some believe it is not in the best interests of their children to follow the current Australian Vaccination Schedule or to vaccinate at all. With so many vaccines required to stay “up to date”, my husband and I do not feel comfortable injecting our children so often and with so many vaccines as is currently suggested. My mother was instructed by her GP back in the 1980s not to even think about vaccinating me until I was at least 6 months old, and with far less vaccines required when I was a child, it is no wonder some parents are not “fulfilling” the current schedule.

As it stands, we are one of the CO families which have been vehemently despised, blamed and shamed throughout the media and some medical circles in recent times. We submitted the CO paperwork (which, ironically, was misplaced at Medicare for one of my children although we sent the letters together) so that Centrelink/Family Assistance/Childhood Vaccine Registry would cease sending us so much correspondence in reminder letters, tax benefit reduction threats and the like. We thought it was the right thing to do considering our options, and we trust you will take on board that right to choose. Considering my vaccinated daughter contracted the chicken pox last year from who knows where and gave the illness to her siblings, one of which is unvaccinated, I really cannot see us changing our position in the near future and I do not believe it is fair, constitutional or downright “Australian” for my children to be forcibly medicated against our wishes.

It is very unfortunate when an industry (which does not have any scientific research supporting the safety of injecting multiple vaccines at a time as suggested by the current schedule) has more clout than the parents of the precious children being injected. The right to choose to vaccinate or not is one right we desire to stand up for; for our children and for their wellbeing.

Please take note of my conscientious objection to any discussions penalising CO families for making a decision for their individual family.

Yours sincerely

Divider 1

The Hon. Peter Dutton, MP Minister for Health

Dear Minister,

I am writing to offer an ordinary, informed citizen’s view of a proposal by your Queensland state counterpart, Lawrence Springborg, for using undue and unrelated financial penalties to coerce conscientious parents, in contravention of Australia’s human-rights obligations, to undertake a course of action that in their view may endanger, threaten, or compromise their own children’s health: Mr Srpingborg’s proposal to remove from such parents the admittedly burdensome option of lodging conscientious objection, for the purpose of receiving an unrelated tax rebate, to the questionable* practice of universal vaccination using all the vaccines not yet banned that the industry that stands to profit by their sale “recommends”.

That such a successful industry as the pharmaceutical industry is must increasingly rely upon punitive measures, upon physical force, upon court orders, and, at least in the United States, upon physical violence in order to force its most disreputable products upon resistant consumers is a strong indicator that something has gone awry in the most expensive marketing campaign that any industry has yet financed.

What industry with a product that works and offers great benefits to its potential customers has ever had to force that product down their throats? If the most expensive marketing in history has failed to persuade a minority of parents of the value of all vaccines to their children, what has gone wrong that the product must be delivered punitively (and, in the U.S., even at gunpoint)? If the product cannot be sold at any price, then perhaps it is the product, not the consumer, that has something wrong with it.

What has undermined the success of vaccine marketing, minister, may be a mix of fundamental changes in perception.

First, formerly pro-vaccination parents have seen their children being harmed by vaccines and have chosen to educate themselves and to realise that vaccination is not the be-all and end-all of child health.

Second, formerly zealous paediatric proponents of vaccination have seen their patients damaged and have undertaken their own research.

Third, international studies of the long-term health of the vaccinated and the unvaccinated have come up with results that unarguably speak against indiscriminate childhood vaccination as a long-term health strategy.

Fourth, several studies that supported vaccine efficacy and safety have emerged as having been tampered with, ghostwritten, and forged altogether.

Fifth, alternatives to vaccination have been studied and have been found to be effective preventatives of infectious illnesses.

And, sixth and most tellingly, the Internet, as did the Gutenburg press in its day, has enabled parents and concerned citizens to conduct their own research, communicate their findings, and question formerly unquestionable dogmas.

Possibly the greatest subversion of the success of vaccination marketing, however, has been the refusal by the most vehement proponents of the unquestionable dogmas to answer such questions — except by attempting to subvert the right of all parents to make the health choices most appropriate for their children with the assistance of the most accurate information available on the subject and without undue pressure by industry or government.

Could you yourself possibly give a straightforward, informative, and accurately referenced answer to a question concerning a particular vaccination’s value to a particular child whose parents have noted that child’s familial or personal history of sensitivity to that vaccine or to a related one? If not, then on what possible basis could you justify overcoming that child’s parents’ better judgement and parental intuition using the force of financial penalties?

Undermining the set dogmas more broadly than do questions of safety in relation to a particular individual are some of the larger statistical studies that have demonstrated some vaccines’ surprising roles. Two of the better-known reasons for concerned citizens to question the universal truths of the dogma of vaccinations’ universal benefit to their recipients are (a) the evident role of pertussis vaccine (whole-cell in particular as opposed to acellular) in perpetuating cycles of pertussis and parapertussis epidemics, and (b) the evident role of the now highly discredited “swine flu” vaccines in increasing susceptibility to annual influenza. Could you yourself possibly offer the least evidence to contradict the studies that have elicited these relationships? If not, then on what possible basis could you justify using pressure of any kind to sway a parent’s better-informed decision?

Minister, these questions and many more like them deserve answers based on respect for truth and for the rights of the individual, not answers that come from the barrel of the handiest financial cannon.

The more readily the pharmaceutical industry and the Government turn to force in order to sell the unsellable to the unwilling, the stronger the Government makes the message that it has no recourse in terms of rational argument and evidence but must use irrelevant penalties — withholding of irrelevant tax payments — in order to enforce its opinions. Such irrational measures do less than nothing to inspire confidence in the ability of our ministers for health to understand evidence and argument and communicate it. Rather, they demonstrate the inadequacy of such ministers to their portfolio.

That parents manage to stand up to the already significant financial pressure of losing access to a relevant payment — the Maternity Immunisation Allowance (M.I.A.), through payment of which the Government tacitly admits a certain degree of risk to the child it pays on behalf of — says that some parents retain both a sense of higher vaccine risk than the Government acknowledges and stronger principles than the Government counts on in using the M.I.A. as blood money. Seeking deliberately to add to such conscientious parents’ burdens is the work not of good citizens and servants but of those who believe in their own power above all else. That your office, when I phoned, was punctilious in insisting that such deliberate privations neither force parents to vaccinate nor constitute, technically, penalties — is a clear indicator that you yourself are conscious both of the burden and of the force of that burden upon parents. I urge you to become equally aware of the existence of an entire library of careful research demonstrating that the dogmas underlying your Queensland colleague’s proposal have had their day in the court of scientific investigation and been found wanting in factual accuracy.

I look forward to your prompt, public assurance that you have forsworn committing the grave errors of judgement and disrespect for your electorate that your Queensland colleague would willingly lead you to commit. And I look forward to learning that you have led a movement toward a factual basis for government policy via research uncontaminated by unarguably vested interests.

Yours sincerely,


* I use the word “questionable” here advisedly. A medical procedure whose value has become beyond question becomes impossible to subject to intelligent investigation. In the minds of those who think of science as a canon of established, unquestionable knowledge rather than a process of careful discernment, vaccination has already reached such a canonised state. It is truly remarkable, in the poisonous atmosphere that habitually attends the questioning of vaccination’s value, that any independent research in the field continues to be done. It nonetheless does occur. For a start in reading independent research on vaccination, you could do worse than to consult the writings of Dr Tom Jefferson, of the Cochrane Collaborative. I’d be happy to refer you to peer-reviewed work by him and other notables in such places as the British Medical Journal.

cc Shadow Minister for Health, the Hon. Catherine King <>

cc A.C.T. Minister for Health, Katy Gallagher <>

cc A.C.T. Shadow Minister for Health, Jeremy Hanson <>

Divider 1

Dear Minister Dutton

It has come to my attention that tomorrow a meeting will be held and one of the topics for discussion is the Family Tax Benefit A and the possible removal of the conscientious Objection as a qualifier for this payment. I truly hope you can see that doing so will be indirectly forcing parents to ignore their childs health needs in favour of receiving a cash reward. If you are going to pay families for vaccinating, you need to make the payment available to those who do not wish to vaccinate for what ever reason they may have. You may argue that only medical exemptions will be acceptable, but I put it to you that… there is no medical testing of children and infants prior to their vaccines to test for possible allergies or reactions. At present parents must subject their children and babies to vaccines on blind faith that everything will be ok. Often times it isn’t ok. Therefore the medical exemption is not good enough in my opinion, it is not going to prevent children from becoming vaccine damaged. Personally I believe this payment should be removed all together from both vaccinating and non vaccinating parents and redistribute it fairly back to families in another way or perhaps remove the link to vaccinations for this payment all together and just leave it as a family assistance payment. Health decisions must be made based on an individuals needs and should never be influenced by monetary gain or reward. If parents choose to vaccinate it should be based purely on their belief that it will benefit their child. As it is, most parents who choose not to vaccinate do so based on what they believe is most beneficial to their childs health.

Trusting you will remain unbiased and fair to all in your decisions.



Divider 1

Dear Shadow Minister King,

I am writing to inform you of my personal opposition to remove parental rights to government entitlements based on my family’s vaccination decision. For the past fourteen years I have worked as a Special Education Teacher, both in government and non-government positions. During this time, I have observed the very rapid increase in children being diagnosed as developmentally delayed, more specifically autistic. When I first commenced in my career, it was apparent that a more widespread array of disabilities was evident in the classroom demographic. Nowadays, a proportionately high number of the classroom demographic consists of autistic children, many classed as severely autistic on the spectrum.

Parents have personally attested to the fact, they believe their child’s autism was a direct result of vaccination. One parent asked me whether I had my own children. At the time I hadn’t, and the mother said to me, do your research. She was well versed on the topic and I still remember her very vividly today. I have also counselled many parents in person or over the phone who have just stepped out of the Paediatrician’s office to be told their child is autistic. I cannot describe to you the devastation and emotional state of these poor, helpless parents. It broke my heart.

I started to observe consistencies in parents stories; about how their child was developing atypically, then suddenly they stopped speaking, giving eye contact, ceased interacting with peers and siblings etc. etc. All children mentioned here where fully vaccinated according to the schedule.

In 2006 I had my own adverse reaction to the DPT vaccine. I had to undergo a minor procedure at a medical centre after I sustained a small fragment of glass in my fifth finger. Having being asked by the medical staff when my last tetanus shot was, I couldn’t recall, so was then vaccinated with what I thought was a ‘tetanus’ vaccine. I later learned that the tetanus vaccine is a three in one shot and includes Diphtheria and Pertussis. Tetanus cannot be given in isolation. A resulting adverse reaction became immediate following the vaccination and lasted 3-4 days.

Due to my personal experiences, I began a course of research and read material from both sides of the vaccination debate . Countless hours where spent conducting this research and consequently an INFOMED decision not to vaccinate my own children resulted. For me, vaccination is a medial procedure I simply did not want for my children. The potential risks simply outweighed the apparent benefits.

Nobody should be FORCED to have their child vaccinated.

We live in Australia, a democratic society, which for me, means freedom of choice. By denying a parent access to this government payment is discriminatory.

I strongly urge the government to act justly and fairly on this matter.

Yours Sincerely,


Divider 1

Dear Peter Dutton & co-workers,

I understand that as politicians, you are under increasing pressure from pharmaceutical lobbyists and the higher powers that be at the Australian Medical Association to pass legislation that will take away the rights of hard-working and educated parents of non-vaccinated children to receive government assistance payments.

Before you consider enacting upon such a drastic and oppressive endeavour, I beg of you (and your colleagues) to please take the time to view the award winning and informative documentary, ‘The Greater Good’;!prettyPhoto I also encourage you and colleagues to educate yourselves about the specific ingredients in vaccines, rather than assume blindly that because a person with a white coat or esteemed medical title has assured you, that every word they utter is to be considered an unequivocal and eternal truth.

Please keep in mind also, that most parents who have chosen not to vaccinate, have not made this decision on a whim, but rather painstakingly – many after witnessing serious adverse reactions to vaccinations in their child or other loved ones. In fact, most parents (like myself) were previously PRO vaccination, blindly trusting in the authorities, and have only bothered to educate ourselves about the ingredients, manufacture and funding of vaccines after experiencing an adverse reaction in our families.

Pharmaceutical and other medical authorities whom benefit financially from these vaccines are disturbed and dare I say frightened, by this growing number of educated adults who are taking the time to do their own research. But enforcing draconian laws upon people, borne out of pride and anger is never a good recipe for a democratic society that wishes to look back in time without regret.

Australia is and should remain a free, democratic country, where the rights of all to access government assistance and the right to accept or decline medical drugs for our children should be respected. Our children are OUR responsibility… not the governments.

All scaremongering and drug-pushing aside, I can assure you that the growing number of non-vaccinated children out there are far healthier and arguably happier than their vaccinated counterparts. Rather than be injected with heavy metals, formaldehyde and other neurotoxins, they are nourished with pure, unadulterated healthy food, clean water, a good dose of fresh air and daily sunshine and are thriving! Sadly, this is not a reality which the pharmaceutical vaccine industry can benefit from. Please open your heart and mind and consider our plea…..

In freedom and truth,


Divider 1

Dear Minister Gallagher/Shadow Minister Hanson,

We are forwarding this email to share our concerns about family tax payments that may be withdrawn from parents who have chosen not to immunise their children. Don’t punish those of us who thought we were doing the right thing but simply weren’t aware of the dangers that immunisations pose until we learnt the hard way.

Here in Australia we live in a democracy and that gives us the right to make choices and the right not to be discriminated against. We feel that what you’re doing is impinging on our right to make decisions. In this case, one that is researched and in the best interest of our children.

We can only speak for ourselves in this matter however we are very well educated and intelligent people. We did not make the decision not to immunise lightly; rather we made the decision to immunise too lightly!! We did not research how immunisation works & what the chemicals can do to the body, especially in one that is still developing, we just blindly trusted our doctor and the information disseminated to the general public. Our children are only partially immunised because after an immunisation at 2.5 years old, our eldest had a major gut/bowel reaction over a period of weeks. Our doctor & nurse did not believe it was a reaction & of course we were not encouraged to report it.

Both our sons now suffer multiple food/chemical/environmental intolerances & allergies; our eldest suffers from ADHD & asthma. Although we fully understand that our children have different dispositions etc., our youngest (who is only immunised to 6 months) does not suffer to the same extent or with the same issues as his older sibling. He suffers from far less infections etc. and also recovers from illness significantly quicker & more effectively than his older brother.

These are children that were both breastfed, eat wholefood organic diets and live in safe non-chemical environments. We insist on healthy practices with our children to ensure their health is the best it can be, however we can’t take back the immunisations they were given early in their lives.

As a result of our sons reaction, we have read books & information written by highly respected medical professionals and people who have carried out great deals of investigative research on the matter. They do not use scare tactics they simply present information & facts. We do not support fear mongering, discrimination or hatred by either side of this debate and hope that you might take note of this letter.

Yours sincerely,
M & A 10 April 2014 (out of fear of retribution, we not supply our full names)

Divider 1

Dear Mr Springborg,

As a parent of a child who has been vaccine damaged and diagnosed with Aspergers I have had to reassess my previous personal views on vaccines and their effects, function and success.

I am 41. I had very few vaccines as a child. I caught the mumps, measles as a young boy around 4 and 5 and chickenpox at 15. All were mild. I enjoyed the time off school as a teenager. I grew up in Perth. I travelled with my parents throughout Australia and the US and the UK at various times. I attended a normal State Primary School and a Private Highschool and I went to University and got a degree. I got married and became an MCSE – Microsoft Certified Systems Engineer. I’m a very normal Australian.

I was, in the past a person that didn’t think much about vaccines and trusted in the information I had been given. I was what you would call very pro-vaccinations however the irony of that position was that I had very very little knowledge of them other than that I had gleaned from documentaries on small pox and polio. After the adverse reaction my son experienced and some of my own personal experiences I’ve spent some significant time researching for myself and have come up with a far different conclusion to that which we are told in the nightly news and pro-vaccine documentaries, and at a standard GP or Paediatrician’s office – namely that they are safe and effective.

Although my son was fully vaccinated as per the Australian schedule he at 7 years of age in his Grade 1 class contracted Pertussis along with 8 others in his class – all of whom had been fulled vaccinated. So either the vaccine hadn’t worked or it had worn off. In other words it was ineffective.

In the past I had myself received two flu vaccinations, the second of which made my extremely ill.

This only furthered my drive to gain more understanding and after reading 7 books plus numerous websites and videos on the subject (from doctors, immunologists and neurologists) I have some key basic tenants I know hold to be true. I now call myself a vaccine-sceptic.

1. Vaccine induced antibodies do not necessarily grant immunity – even if they can be observed in sufficient numbers with a blood test

2. Vaccine induced antibodies wear off – thus the need for boosters

3. Most adults who have not received boosters are thus themselves in the same camp as an “anti-vaccer” – ie. NOT IMMUNE and therefore adding to the theory of herd immunity.

4. Many vaccines “shed” for up to 21 days (read the package insert)

5. The adjuvants used in vaccines to promote and ensure an immune response are toxic even in small doses when injected into muscle and veins – especially in the young and those who are susceptible

6. Vaccine injuries and adverse reactions are seriously under reported

7. Most outbreaks in the Western World occur in vaccinated groups

8. Those who are vaccinated still do carry many of the viruses they espouse they are now immune to.

9. Vaccine companies have been distorting their success and their efficacy

10. Herd Immunity is an impossible lie

11. Some vaccines work very very poorly. So poorly as to be almost worthless.

I know you are busy men, however I would ask you to read the articles below: – Measles Report – Autism Report

Although my wife and I may not have another child, the numbers of children with neurological disorders, diagnosed on the ASD spectrum and allergies is growing constantly, I believe that Vaccines have had some part to play in this rise and I cannot stand to see that total lack of honesty or openness surrounding any discussion on vaccines from the medical community or vaccine makers. I believe there is an epidemic of autism and allergies.

I oppose any moves to take away any rights to personal exemption from vaccines for anyone via any means of coercion, be it physical or financial (such as removing government entitlements) based on a vaccination decision.

Nobody should be FORCED to have themselves or their child be vaccinated. That is part of the worst possible totalitarian nightmare scenario of a “1984” like society.

As far as I am concerned it is my basic human right to choose not to vaccinate my child or myself and to choose to be fully informed regarding vaccines.

I understand you will be discussing removing government entitlements from those who do not vaccinate. I think this is wrong for all the reasons given above.

Kind regards


Divider 1

To the Hon David Davis MLC

Regarding tomorrow’s deliberations on vaccinations and government benefits I have one simple request:

Do not use your voice at the table to support coercive implementation of the health department’s vaccine regimen.

Coercion has no place in this area when parents, like me, are solemnly issued with ultimate responsibility for our young children’s health decisions.

Do you know Grace White? She is my daughter, I know her well. I also know her four siblings better than you do because they are my children. Please use your position to support my right to parent my children in their best interest as I, their responsible guardian charged by God with their upbringing, see it.

I can’t imagine how a round-table bureaucratic discussion in sunny Queensland can determine once and for all that I have lost my parental rights on this issue.

Say yes to choice for parents on vaccination. Yes to a choice without punishment.

I will awake three or four times tonight to tend to my children. No matter how interventionist the nanny state becomes in this country, you won’t lullaby my kids to sleep when they are distressed, so please do not insinuate yourself into jabbing them without ever having met them.

Kindest regards

Divider 1

My name is XXXXXn. I am a NSW and Federally registered voter in this country. I am 37years old, a teacher, daughter, sister, friend and recently a new mother. I pay taxes, drive a car, have 2 dogs, a partner, go to the beach on the weekend and go camping at Easter…my point with this seemingly irrelevant, and trivial information, is that I am what society might consider “normal”. However, I CONSCIOUSLY chose not to vaccinate my 7month old son. It was what I believe to be a very well researched choice and I am astounded at the vitriolic reaction from some people when I mention that he is not having/had his needles. I was born in 1977 in the same hospital as my son and my mother chose not vaccinate me or my 2 younger brothers. She meticulously raised us in good health; so that we as adults would have a true understanding of what health and living a healthy lifestyle means and we do. I went to primary school and high school like every other normal kid in the 70s and whether I was vaccinated, or not, never came up in conversation; people did not “talk” about it. But now, oh now, everyone has got an opinion about vaccination! It’s astounding! No longer is this a decision talked about only amongst my direct family and my GP- this has become public debate and my decision has become somewhat controversial and people are more than happy to tell me so. I don’t discuss with people when they had their last pap smear, prostate examination, blood test or flu shot so why is it that I have to discuss/justify my health decisions/choices with people? I believe that this is now such a hot topic because it involves money; a financial payment of “candy” if you are up to date with your child’s shots. But here is the problem with financial candy. It is public, and scientific, opinion that widespread vaccination will keep disease under control in this country. It is also public, and scientific, opinion that smoking is disastrous to your health. It is also public, and scientific, opinion that eating too much deep-fried food is bad for your long-term health and it is also public, and scientific, opinion that drinking too much alcohol over a long period of time can cause a variety of health problems. There is a lot of medical and scientific information proving that smoking, drinking and eating fried food is very bad for you. There is also a lot of information indicating there are benefits to you by vaccinating your child. These 2 statements are backed up by information from the health department. But why offer the money for getting the immunisations and penalise the people not doing it? Why the financial candy for sticking to the immunisation schedule set out by the government?? I don’t get a financial benefit for not smoking, not drinking too much alcohol or not frequenting fast food chains so why should a benefit exist for me to get my child vaccinated? If vaccinating was truly in the best interest for children in this country then why do the government have offer parents money to do it?? The government is already paying FOR the actual vaccines and then they also have the extra financial commitment of having to entice parents into sticking to the schedule. I don’t understand. I didn’t realise the government had enough spare cash to offer a financial reward for people to take medications that they (the gvmt) have just paid for. I also think that since I am not costing the government any money, as I have not used the immunisation service, could I please have what figure it would have cost to keep my son up to date with the immunisation schedule put into my bank account. Instead, you are attending a meeting tomorrow in Brisbane to discuss various issues, including the potential removal of my right to conscientiously object to the immunisation schedule and the removal of my financial candy…oh sorry…’benefit’ because I have used a loop-hole and not played by the correct rules! By the way this is a direct link to the Merck website and a 2013 Letter to Shareholders. In 2012 Merck had $5.1billion in sales of vaccines, that’s billion written there, not million…billion and $5.7billion in the sale of diabetes medication. Call me a conspiracy theorist if you like but I can’t help wondering if there is a connection between the Australian government bullying families into joining the non-compulsory vaccination schedule and companies like Merck being able to boast about a 5% increase in sales. The GlaxoSmithKline website was not user friendly at all and that finding an actual figure on their profits was very confusing (I can’t help but think that it’s designed to be that way that the staggering figure can’t be as easily known). And BAYER made a handy £20 million profit after costs but at least they made their statement easy to read and find. At the meeting tomorrow I believe the clause of ‘Conscientious Objector’ is up for debate and there are moves to potentially cancel this as an option for parents to use to not vaccinate their child/ren. The removal of me having choice about the vaccination schedule for my child is not ok. It is undemocratic and very un-Australian. You were VOTED into your current office and it would do you well not to forget that. You are a Public Servant and I am member of the public so therefore you are my ‘servant’. I am asking you to ‘serve’ me and leave this clause right where it is. With respect, I don’t care whether you as a person agree with my decision, it is not your business as Health Ministers to decide what I do with my child. It is my business and I believe that I am the best person to be making decisions about his health and welfare and if I need advice I will seek it. I do not wish to have schedules imposed on me like I don’t know what I am doing or run the risk of financial penalty because I don’t fit into the mould. Should you wish to take the same amount of time that I have today and send me a reply then I would be happy to hear some of your thoughts as health ministers of my state (Jillian) and country (Peter and Catherine). I expect your reply to address my concerns and reassure me that you understand that I know best for my child and will continue to support me, as my public servants, in my journey of motherhood.

Yours sincerely

Divider 1

I am writing to all of you, representatives, and public servants regarding this discussion that I believe you intend to have tomorrow regarding Vaccinations and penalising conscientious objectors to this most barabaric practice.

No One has the right to impose upon others their opinions regarding ones own body, and also the bodies of those entrusted by GOD to their care, ie parents, grandparents, etc as the case may be.

Vaccinations are proven to be dangerous. Your continued promotion of this barbaric pratice is abhorrent. But even if injecting foreign bodies, toxins, pathogens, dangerous chemicals into the body of another was not dangerous, it is still abhorrent.

NO ONE has the right to do that. I am disgusted that in Australia, which is supposed to be a DEMOCRACY, you are continuing to foster genocide against the will of the people.

I AM A PEOPLE. I am against this practise period.

But as regards this discussion that you will be having tomorrow I am against you even contemplating penalising those brave souls amongst us who are standing up for their bodies, and the bodies of their children by consciously objecting to this barbarous practice.

I support them, I applaud them, and as my public servants I expect you to do the same.

Conscientiously objecting to anything is a right that should be sacrosanct in a FREE and DEMOCRATIC society. You have an obligation to uphold DEMOCRACY.

Uphold IT.

It Is MY WILL that you Do NOT Even raise this issue tomorrow, or any other day. It is MY WILL that vaccinations be stopped. If Vaccinations continue against my will, then it is MY WILL that they are NEVER made compulsory.

Sincerely TMC

Divider 1

Mr Dutton,

As our Federal Health Minister I would urge you not to support moves that would discriminate against parents who have chosen not to vaccinate their children.

You would be aware that there is a large body of peer reviewed medical literature that clearly indicates that vaccines are not nearly as effective or safe as generally portrayed by the medical establishment. Indeed, vaccines can maim and they can kill.

By removing the “conscientious objector” clause with regard to the Family Tax Benefits, you would be effectively coercing parents into submitting their children to controversial medical procedures that could cause great harm.

Please be reminded that we elect people like you to support our rights, not to take them away.



Divider 1

Dear Mrs Miller,

I rang your office earlier today and was advised by Tracy that it was her understanding that you will not be attending the State Health Minister’s meeting with Minister Peter Dutton scheduled for tomorrow, Friday 11th April. However, I felt it was prudent to email you, just in case circumstances change.

I would like you to know that I vote, am a resident of Queensland and that I am strongly opposed to any move to remove my government entitlements based on my vaccination choice. Australia is supposed to be a democracy. It is my right to make my own health choices and most definitely NOT the government’s to strip me of them.

It is my will that all Conscientious Objectors are treated with respect.


Divider 1

Dear Minister for Health (The Hon Peter Dutton MP) and the Shadow Minister for Health (The Hon Catherine King) and; the QLD Minister of Health (The Hon Lawrence Springborg) and the QLD Shadow Minister for Health (Mrs Jo-Ann Miller),

I am writing to you regarding the article in today’s Courier Mail regarding your joint opinion to stop the the $726 Family Tax Benefit A payments to parents of unvaccinated children.

I am a mother of 3 healthy children and also a health practitioner residing in QLD.

Before I chose to become a conscientious objector I thoroughly researched the existing literature on the benefits and detrimental effects of vaccinations.

To my understanding and knowledge vaccinations do not confer guaranteed protection to the diseases that they are ‘protecting’ babies and children from. There are still cases of children who have been immunised getting sick from whooping cough, measles etc.

If you would understand the basics of a healthy immune system and quoting the words of Louis Pasteur ‘it is not the germ, rather it is the soil’.. meaning that the difference between a person that gets sick and one that is well, is based on a healthy immune response, rather than the supposed germs out there, then you may realise that there is probably no point to vaccinating at all. Furthermore, until a child is 2 years old, their B lymphocytes are not fully matured so they do not retain the antigenic memory of viruses which is why vaccines go through the alternate T cell route (and many top ups and boosters) in order to make them ‘stick’. In addition, many of these viruses can be managed (medically) if they do become complicated.

Unfortunately, in my view, the problem stems in (parents) poor dietary habits/practice (and lack of public education and awareness of how to stay well) and possibly lack of sufficient funds to be able to buy ‘health foods/supplements to maintain a good healthy immune system. Sadly it is probably the same types of parents that will probably suffer from the removal of the FTBA if they conscientiously chose to keep their children free from being vaccinated.

There are many medical arguments for both sides of the vaccination debate and I lean towards the side that promotes healthy living and informed choice.

I personally have seen in my practice what the effects of vaccination can do and prefer to keep innocent young babies and children who should be given a chance to live ‘normally’ in this world before they are injected with viruses and the like to let their own bodies adapt (and become resilient) to the world around them. Hence maybe the rise of so many allergies, atopic diseases (eczema, asthma), autism etc…

We do live in a democratic country, therefore I am enacting my right to be able to voice my opinion and concern for parents who may be affected by your potential decision to remove their welfare entitlement based on whether or not their child is vaccinated. How and why are the two linked anyway?

Thank you for your time and consideration of my letter.


Divider 1

Dear Minister Springborg,

As per my conversation with Aaron of your office earlier today, I would like to reiterate that I do vote, am a resident of Queensland and that I am strongly opposed to any move to remove my government entitlements based on my vaccination choice. Australia is supposed to be a democracy. It is my right to make my own health choices and most definitely NOT the government’s to strip me of them.

It is my will that all Conscientious Objectors are treated with respect.


Divider 1

Hi there jo-ann.

a little ignorance goes a long way apparently, especially when it is backed by billions and billions in lobbying. and that’s a ‘B’.

from memory, and I might be out the odd billion, in 2001, US pharmaceutical companies alone spent in the order $9bill on free drug samples, and $16bill on marketing.

this link has later figures that are much higher and show that US drug companies spend approx double on marketing as they do on R&D.

so plenty of money sloshing around for lobbying, misinformation campaigns, corruption, and worse.

the world-wide Big Pharma vaccination industry is a massive possibly trillion dollar industry (paid for by us by our Govts) – and a lobbying and disinformation effort and budget to fit that amount of money.

yet the real vaccination science going back decades does not support its effectiveness, and also shows the long term damage to individuals’ health (and deaths)

there are none so blind as those who will not see. or is it simply corruption bought and paid for by the pharmaceutical companies?

vaccination is not about your health or the health of your children (if only!): it is solely about MONEY. And how much more they can gouge out of our Govts and our taxes.

if vaccines actually worked as we are told (otherwise why get them?), why would anyone who had vaccine get the relevant disease?

only those unvaccinated would, and you could say ‘serve them right’.

so isn’t it funny that the people who get flu most are those that have been vaccinated?

and isn’t it funny (not) that those who have been vaccinated against whooping cough now get a more dangerous and deadly form of it?

billions and billions given to greedy and corrupt global corporations for something that not only doesn’t work, but makes things worse

the links below substantiate various facts, such as that vaccines don’t work, actually cause more disease, and massive health side effects.

btw, have you noticed how much sicker and sicker and sicker our population is becoming? it seems these days the population spends half their time in a doctor’s surgery, not being made healthy, just being subscribed more and more drugs, incl vaccinations?

so why are people and children getting sicker, getting diseases, so much more often, so constantly and frequently, than in the past? (when, btw, in fact the vaccination rates for so many diseases and sicknesses have never been higher.)

there is an answer.

kind regards

Divider 1

Dear Mr Dutton

I am concerned in regards to the meeting that you will have with the State Health Ministers tomorrow, discussing Conscientious Objection and plans to remove it.

As a loving mother of three children, I do everything that I can to do right by my children. I am well aware at how emotional the vaccination issue is in Australia. The decision whether to vaccinate or not should always be the decision of the parent as should all care of our children. It doesn’t matter if I agree with someone who wants to vaccinate or doesn’t, basic human right means that each parent should have the right to decide. Any parent who goes down the Conscientious Objection path must speak with a doctor and be counselled by them before the doctor will even sign the form, so they are fully informed and have made their decision having the information. I don’t believe that they should be penalised by having parenting payments removed or reduced. In a democratic society, freedom to choose should exist and parliamentarians, our representatives should uphold those rights.

Yours sincerely

Divider 1

I am a voter in our Australian democracy. I am writing to have my opinion heard over conscientious objection.

I became a conscientious objector after changes in my son’s general health after vaccinations. I did my research in order to make this decision, and I continue to do extensive research on the contraindications of vaccinations.

I am aware that a meeting is taking place to discuss the removal of the conscientious objector clause to force all children/people to be vaccinated according to a schedule set by the government. Aside from the fact that it is impossible to legally enforce such a position, it is also contrary to the basic rights parents have to raise their own children by their own set of ethics and beliefs.

I 100% believe I have done the right thing by my son to protect him from further damage, including the Gardasil vaccination which is now being given to boys in Year 7. This vaccine has not been proven to prevent cervical cancer and it has killed or permanently injured 1000s of girls across the U.S. Many countries have now banned this vaccine or refused to put it on their schedule in the first place.

There is plenty of peer-reviewed research outlining the dark side of vaccination however it is actively suppressed. I seek out this information and circulate it. I have 15 years of research training behind me and I am very capable of identifying bogus research when I see it. Unfortunately most of the bogus research I read is paid for by the manufacturers of damaging vaccines and other chemicals to make their products falsely appear safe.

I strongly object to the mindset that any substance should be forcibly administered to any person against their will or that of their parent/guardian. It clearly cannot be enforced at law.

Yours sincerely,

GH, B.A. (Psych), PG Dip (Psych)

Divider 1

Dear Mr Dutton,

I am writing to you to express my concern at your intention to implement legislation to discriminate against parents and children who are not vaccinated.

I am a contentious objector to vaccines. However I did start out vaccinating my children, until a dangerous range of side effects (known to the vaccines AND listed on the vaccine insert) began to affect my children’s health. After much research and consideration, it was decided that it was best to no longer expose our children to the toxic load injected into them through vaccines in hope that their health will improve or at least not longer deteriorate.

It is a basic human right to make decisions about our own health. It cannot be denied that vaccines carry a huge amount of risk and a dangerous list of side effects. Should you implement mandatory vaccination, will you step up and take responsibility when these risk become a reality in the lives of your voters? Will you and government offer compensation to those unlucky ones who lives are adversely affected by following your legislation to inject foreign substances in the body of a young child? I would hope so.

Each Australian has a right to make decisions about their own life for what is best for them, without being discriminated or penalised against because those view or decisions differ from a politician’s.

I wonder why the sudden push to take people’s freedom? Is there money in it for you? Or are you trying to grab votes by appealing to one side? Whatever your motives, my vote counts too. And I will not be voting for you should you discriminate against people for making decisions about their own health.


Divider 1

In a modern democratic society, surely this right should be upheld.

As parents and grandparents of vaccinated children, we strongly feel that the right to free choice should remain with parents in this country.

In the matter of vaccination decisions, it has been noted that there is a high percentage of doctor’s unvaccinated children in affluent areas like Mosman in Sydney giving some credence to those questioning the safety of vaccination in it’s present form. In any case those listed as conscientious objectors, should clearly retain that right regardless of their socio-economic position in the Australian community.

Thank you for giving consideration to this simple, basic concept of what it means to live in a free society.


Divider 1

To Gavin Jennings

I am a voter and a resident of your state Victoria. I have just called your office whom have advised me to send you an email to register my opposition to being penalised by not receiving family tax benefits for exercising my democratic right to choose whether or not to vaccinate my children. The removal of the Conscientious Objection Form Clause in this matter is a removal of my democratic right to choose what I believe is best for my children. I like most parents who have chosen not to vaccinate have actually taken the time to do the research to decide what was best for my children and find it appalling that we would be penalised for doing so. Living in a democratic nation as we apparently are means that we are not meant to be forced by any governing body to make decisions we believe are not in our and our family’s best interests, I hope this democratic right to Conscientious Objection is upheld and not taken away as that would really democratically speak for itself, wouldn’t it?

Kind Regards

Divider 1

Dear Mr Dutton,

It has come to my attention that all State Health Ministers will be meeting with you tomorrow with regard to removing the Conscientious objection clause to vaccination. The removal of this clause will enable the Government to take away payments from parents who choose not to vaccinate.

I am urging you to please consider the many families whose children have been damaged by vaccines and give them the respect that they deserve. There is much more to this issue than just family payments. People have a right to protect their families, and the decision not to vaccinate does not come easily, a lot of research goes into this decision.

There are many books and scientific research articles showing that vaccines are not completely safe and for a Government to force them upon the Australian people (which is where this decision is heading) would be a sin and a grave moral injustice.

Please take the time to look much further into the issue of vaccinations, their production and their history, please look much further than what the Government Health sites have to offer. See what the rest of the world have decided on the issue of vaccinations and once again, please give the families of vaccine damaged children the respect that they deserve. They have no voice and have been completely disregarded and treated with contempt by both the medical profession and the media.

Many thanks for taking the time to read this email, I and many others appreciate it.

Sincerely yours,

Divider 1

Dear Minister,

As a taxpayer resident of NSW, I wish to express grave concerns over todays Courier Mail newspaper article that mentions ministers are meeting tomorrow in Brisbane with Mr Dutton to discuss removing FTB A payments to conscientious objectors of vaccination.

I oppose any moves to take away rights to government entitlements based on a vaccination decision. To do so is discriminatory in my view.

Would this mean government will then take full responsibility for any adverse reactions of vaccination? Would it provide, as a standard, testing to see if natural immunity to a disease exists before vaccinating for it? Would it compensate for any adverse effects of vaccine adjuvants such as the newly recognized ASIA syndrome? (Autoimmune Syndrome induced by Adjuvants as presented by Professor Yehuda Schoenfeld)

I hope the proposed changes are rejected in full.



Divider 1

Dear Peter,

Do you have any concept / idea of the ramifications of your decision re vaccination ? Do you actually know what is contained within a jab? Vaccination will be recognised as the biggest con/scam ‘ever’ with devastating and lasting effects throughout the generations to come ,all of which are horrific! Please ,if you are a man of integrity, caring and have a real desire to do your best for humanity do your diligent research on this important topic. The overwhelming influence/ power and clever propaganda consistently pumped through the media has the majority blindly ‘following the heard’ and sadly believing that the injection of pure toxic poison into a defenceless baby can actually improve health and prevent disease when it is just the opposite! Simply take a look at the ingredience and you will not need to go any further ,other than to check out the ‘real’ stats which will tell you that sickness disease and death by disease and Western medicine policies is almost in plague proportion.

This process of blackmail must not be allowed to happen as it will only result in more illness disease and death. Big Pharma has got ‘most’ of the human race completely fooled and following in a heard like fashion like ‘lambs to the slaughter’ .


Divider 1

Dear Federal Minister Dutton, State Health Ministers and Shadow Health Ministers,

I write with regard to tomorrows Ministers meeting in Brisbane, pertaining to a proposal by Minister Springborg to consider the abolishment of the Family Tax Benefit Part A, to parents that have a Conscientious Objection to vaccinating their children.

I note with concern: “Mr Dutton said he didn’t want to penalise forgetful parents but said a “sterner conversation” was needed with parents who were actively choosing not to vaccinate.”

Minister Dutton; realistically, that is quite threatening, intimidating and surely not in line with our Australian Democratic Westminster system; to which I might inconsequently add; am of 7th generation and my children 8th; with my parental Grandfather being a highly decorated and well literary published Senior Naval Officer.

So, Minister Dutton, the proposed idea is, to remove legitimate child directed payments from tax paying parents, whom by all accounts under recent media touting, are of an “upper class, highly educated and from wealthy suburbs”. If this were seen to be true, do you think the withdrawal of $726.00 is really going to impact upon their educated choice? I think not. I believe the likely outcome will be a rush from those driven by the dollar not education to line their children up for vaccination, so that the purchase of a new television is not impeded. But realistically, these individuals have already vaccinated their children and purchased their new TV! Parents that have duly educated themselves on the very real and possible dangers of vaccination are not swayed by this threat, but they will stand firm on their right to have a choice about their parenting without threat of punishment.

I have several major concerns with the proposed policy:

Firstly; vaccination in this country is not mandated by law;

Secondly; we have no established legal portal to manage vaccine injury and death in this country; currently the onus is on the (uninformed) parent;

Thirdly; this is in direct conflict of basic human rights and choice in this country;

Lastly; DISCRIMINATION. I need say no more; although, I am quite sure, as an educated, tax paying minority group that is being singled out for making choices for their children; I’m pretty sure that can be called DISCRIMINATION.

Minister Dutton, if your desire is to have a fully vaccinated child population; then my suggestion to you all is, to make vaccines unequivocally safe, provide proof of efficacy through double-blind placebo testing, provide a legal and financial safety-net for vaccine injuries, and perhaps, just perhaps, start telling everyone the truth!

Realistically, a traditionally unvaccinated child is going to be a potentially lesser burden on our health system; a majority of whom are free from diabetes, heart disease, eczema, neurological disorders, anaphylactic allergies – the list goes on. Does this entitle said taxpaying parents to a reduction in their Medicare levy?

Minister, have you considered the aspect of children that are unable to be vaccinated for health reasons? How would this be classified? Will every unvaccinated child be entitled to a free complete health examination by the child’s own Medical Practitioner; blood, stool and saliva testing, DNA and genetic testing to ensure that they are not at an increased risk of becoming vaccine damaged? I think the important part of this is classification, followed by clarification.

If it is the Government’s suggestion that a persons educated and informed health choices are now in the hands of elected officials; then perhaps non-vaccinating parents can share with you the expenses of raising said children, given that everyone’s choices about parenting are being rapidly removed. I am sure many would welcome your full contribution to their schooling, sports and general living expenses!

Whilst having this opportunity to communicate with you; I would request, that part of your meeting tomorrow address the need for a democratic ruling and implemented law, to ensure that all Practitioners that are licensed to vaccinate both children and adults, are mandated by law to provide full disclosure to the parent or patient to whom is being vaccinated. Yes, this would include a complete copy of the package inserts found in vaccines, a comprehensive discussion with patient or parent about the very real potential dangers, a complete listing of ingredients and Adjuvants and manufacturing processes, as well as advising the parties, that on accepting said information; they are in fact taking full responsibility for any adverse reactions. They should also be informed that there is no re-course for compensation or assistance for vaccine injury in this country, and any desire to do so, would be a costly and lengthy legal battle on their behalf.

In finality Ministers; this is very shaky ground indeed. If you insist on pursuing this discriminatory and undemocratic law; then, in all fairness to democracy, an implementation of the above proposal regarding disclosure and indemnity be implemented as well. I’m quite sure that, with this information provided directly from Practitioner to patient, that they surely would not sway away from vaccination – or would they?


Divider 1

Dear Minister


This is discrimination; it is disgusting what this Government is trying to do. Vaccination should be free choice. Is the Government planning on a Vaccine Injury scheme? Parents can then sue the government for ordering their child’s injury or death.

So parents that drink, smoke, and/or do drugs, abuse, feed them junk food, these people deserve these payments? You are saying these people are better parents than those who choose not to put toxins in their children’s delicate bodies. Just want to clarify that. But parents who have taken the time to check out all avenues of their child’s health, and have come to the decision that vaccination is not one of the avenues they will take because of it’s lack of testing and a history of worldwide adverse reactions; they are to be punished; these children (and some of them are actually siblings of vaccine injured children), these beautiful innocent children must suffer at the hands of bureaucratic power driven Government officials.

The financial ramifications of the Health Minister’s plan do not concern me personally, but the ethics behind his decision do. It is not the Health Minister, Government or Doctor who pay the price if a child is vaccine injured. It is the parents burden to carry, so the choice should be theirs, without coercion from draconian and discriminatory Government policies.

If I sound angry or like a crazy person, I feel I have a right too. I’m old, I’ve seen the diseases and I can tell you all this hype in the media is rubbish and obviously money driven.

This vaccination push has been going on for years and it is to the point where even the “big wig” researchers are afraid to say anything against vaccines for fear of being discredited. They have seen what happens when a scientist or researcher comes out against vaccines, it’s not pretty.

Have you even looked at the information available? And I don’t mean what you are fed by your advisors, get off your behind and Google reactions to Gardisal; at least four countries have now stopped it because of the injuries from the vaccine, in the thousands I might add. Reactions to MMR, DPT, Flu and all the rest.

Look up the package inserts for the vaccines, they will tell you about the reactions that have happened. It’s an interesting read.

Then there is the historical data. These childhood diseases were almost gone through natural fruition before vaccines were even on the market. Once the vaccines were introduced, the usual occurrence was a rise in the disease. What does that tell you? I could give you a history lesson but it took me 20 years of research and reading (no Google back then) so I doubt one letter is going to be enough.

Basically, vaccines are toxic (thimerosal (mercury), aluminium, formaldehyde etc), contaminated (monkey DNA and viruses, aborted human foetal tissue, chicken viruses, pig viruses…it’s a long list) and ineffective. Check out the attached excipient table just as a sample. We still have outbreaks and it is the vaccinated that get the disease, very few un-vaccinated; what does that tell you? Not to mention that vaccinated individuals can shed the viruses they have been vaccinated with!

Think long and hard.

Divider 1

Dear Ministers,

Re: Today’s health ministers’ meeting in Brisbane and agenda issue of VACCINATION

The purpose of this letter is primarily to give legal constructive notice with regard to the meeting in Brisbane today of federal and state health ministers, and the subject of vaccination that has been proposed by Mr Springborg and Mr Dutton to be to be included on the agenda.

Australian Immunisation Handbook

My friends, colleagues and I find it extraordinary that it appears that we need to refer some health ministers to directions that are, with substantial legal foundation, contained in the Commonwealth Government’s own Australian Immunisation Handbook (the latest (10th) edition, published 2013)(”Handbook”), in relation to vaccination, as of course is applicable equally to all medical procedures (other than in emergency situations):

“2.1.3 Valid Consent
… For consent to be legally valid, the following elements must be present:6,8
1. It must be given by a person with legal capacity, and of sufficient intellectual capacity to understand the implications of being vaccinated.
2. It must be given voluntarily in the absence of undue pressure, coercion or manipulation.
3. It must cover the specific procedure that is to be performed.
4. It can only be given after the potential risks and benefits of the relevant vaccine, risks of not having it and any alternative options have been explained to the individual.”

Why does the Handbook contain these directions? It is because any form of meddling with a person’s body constitutes common law assault, unless there is fully informed (with the information fully understood), totally voluntary consent of the patient or their parent/carer.

Common Law

In Secretary, Department of Health and Community Services v JWB and SMB [1992] HCA 15, the Commentaries of Blackstone (9) 17th ed. (1830), vol 3, p 120 were accordingly quoted as follows:
“ ‘(T)he law cannot draw the line between different degrees of violence, and therefore totally prohibits the first and lowest stage of it; every man’s person being sacred, and no other having a right to meddle with it, in any the slightest manner’ “.

Hence, such meddling without fully informed consent would constitute assault regardless of whether or not any damage is occasioned, but:
a) the assault is especially serious when the meddling is invasive, and
b) the assault is more serious still when it is of a nature that to any degree is experimental in nature (which applies when there is any need for post-marketing surveillance), and
c) the assault is still more serious when it is fully acknowledged (by the Commonwealth Government itself), that it can occasion serious harm, even death itself.

All of these three circumstances, a), b) and c) obviously apply in the case of vaccination.

This is notwithstanding the seriously and obviously flawed “science” behind vaccination, which is the likely reason for the greater refusal rate amongst the more educated in the community (and amongst medical doctors themselves).

Existing Law is already in breach of common law and must be reversed

Even Commonwealth and state laws as they exist already today are in breach of the aforesaid criteria for valid consent, because in certain circumstances, parents who choose to exercise their God-given right not to vaccinate are required to have a conscientious objection form signed by a medical doctor. The doctor then becomes a potential obstacle to the parents’ exercise of their right to choose “in the absence of undue pressure, coercion or manipulation”.

Hence the legislation changes that have imposed this existing requirement ought, in fact, be reversed.

Instead we have a proposal for more serious breaches?

Instead, the Federal Health Minister, Mr Peter Dutton, and the Queensland Health Minister, Mr Lawrence Springborg, appear to be desirous of applying even further, and significant “undue pressure, coercion or manipulation”.

It is time that all ministers:
–          wake up and smell the law – the common law, and
–          remember that pursuant to the Preamble of our Federal Constitution and its stated reliance upon “the blessing of Almighty God”, “the supreme absolute and uncontrollable authority remains with the people”[1], so there is no provision therein for any “nanny” state nor worse, a “bully” state, and
–          remember that the ministers have accordingly been elected to serve electors, not to cause electors to be subjected to a “stern conversation” (these offensive words were purportedly spoken recently by Mr Dutton) on the basis of, despite being already placed under undue pressure, their courage to remain strong and exercise their God-given inalienable right to make the health choice they believe is best for their own children, and
–          be mindful that helping to preserve, instead of to destroy, the precious freedoms for which our forefathers died, may indeed also benefit their own descendants.

Yours sincerely


Divider 1

Dear Mister Dutton,

Your move to withdraw family tax benefit to parents who have an ethical objection to vaccinations is in keeping with the usual modus operandi of right wing governments.

Firstly, let me remind you, you are an employee of the people, you are not an appointed authority to lord it over the people. Not only are you violating the fundamental precepts of democracy with such draconian discrimination, but you are acting with complete irrationality.

I am sure that pharmaceutical giants contribute hugely to your party’s funds and that you therefore feel you must act on their behalf to improve their profits, however, you seem to be under the impression that as an elected official you have the right to tell families that their young children must be injected with dangerous pharmaceuticals or they will fail to receive benefits that other families receive, when such benefits are garnered from all tax payer’s money.

Answer these questions: Why can’t a parent whose previously healthy child exhibits seizures, brain retardation and other severe maladies, or death, immediately after a vaccination event sue the pharmaceutical company that gave them the vaccination? Furthermore, if that family was forced to give their child such a vaccination against their will, as you would have it, why can’t that family sue your government for forcing them into such action? Putting the burden of proof on the family when such a catastrophe has an obvious source is the same defence as  tobacco giants making lung cancer sufferers prove the connection to cigarettes – fundamentally dishonest and reprehensible.

If you believe so firmly in vaccination, and claim that 90% of children are vaccinated, then why are you afraid of the other 10%? If children are vaccinated, then what threat is there to them from unvaccinated children? According to you vaccination makes those with it invulnerable. If this is not true, then why are you bullying families to use medicines that are faulty?

I have no children, but if I did I would not raise them in this country under a government like yours.

One can only wonder why anyone anywhere votes for right wing political parties. They discriminate against the elderly, the unemployed, rape health and education, and favor mega industries over the very people they have been hired to protect. It is a fact that under right wing governments everywhere the suicide rate within the general population increases.


Divider 1

Dear Honourable Health Minister,
I am writing to express my opposition to the withdrawal of family tax payments to parents with an ethical objection to vaccinations. I consider myself to be an intelligent, logical and devoted parent. I have two university degrees in the fields of anatomy and the medical sciences. I researched this issue considerably and it came down to a risk/benefit analysis for me.
One of my jobs as a mum is to ensure my child is as healthy as possible. To this end, I do a number of things to achieve this. I’ve been lucky enough to fully breastfeed my child. He eats mostly organic produce. He has a probiotic daily to promote gastrointestinal health (important for appropriate immune responses). He has regular chiropractic adjustments to assist his motor and cognitive development. He attends his scheduled child health nurse/medical doctor visits. He plays outside in the dirt, with our pets and other kids to stimulate his immune system (among other things). I keep a clean but unsterile home..…. I could go on….
All of these things move him further toward health and further away from sickness on the health/sickness continuum. As a result and possibly with a little luck, he is, by far, the healthiest child I know. In his first 18 months, other than an initial reflux problem, he has had one runny nose lasting a couple of days. Period. That’s it. I’ve seen other children (all vaccinated or partially vaccinated) suffer with illness regularly. We know that disease effects those susceptible to it, not just those in the presence of infectious agents. We can agree that it therefore makes sense to make one less susceptible to disease. It is my belief that to make one less susceptible, one must be as healthy as possible, i.e. closer to health on the health/sickness continuum. Does it make sense to administer substances with known toxins inherent in their make up? This, it would seem, would bring one further from health, lowering one’s resistance to illness and making one more vulnerable (susceptible) to disease in the first place. Have you ever wondered why some vaccinated children still fall prey to the illnesses they have been vaccinated against? Yes, I understand some of these substances are required, to invoke the response considered desirable in a vaccine. But is this the best way?? There has been so much debate on this topic for a very long time. Much toing and froing. Many statistics quoted. Some credible, some downright fraudulent, on both sides of the debate. This is a complicated issue. There are many questions regarding risk. Many questions yet to be asked (some that won’t be asked) by those producing the supporting evidence, and many conflicts of interest. Researching the safety of vaccines must include the testing of all of the ingredients present in a vaccine, not just the active ingredients, to be deemed safe. It seems odd to me. From what I’ve seen, people on both sides of the debate decide on their stance, and then look for supporting evidence with a coloured view of the issue, instead of the other way round.
On the issue of benefit, for me, questions have also arisen. We constantly hear vaccination being hailed as the reason many of these diseases are not seen (much) anymore. Looking historically, can we really credit vaccination with this? Looking at the rate of decline before the introduction of vaccination, I would question this. Yes, there has been evidence to suggest vaccines are effective at promoting an immune response (which is very different from achieving immunity) and reducing the rates of these diseases. But evidence would also suggest that vaccines might only be a contributing factor in disease decline. Why does vaccination not always work? Is the vaccination status of children succumbing to these so-called vaccine preventable diseases acknowledged? The immune system is so very complicated. To assume we know exactly how it works is, at best, a tad arrogant. Are we causing damage in ways yet to be researched? How will future generations be effected? Is there a link or at least partial link between increased vaccination rates and the decreasing health in kids today? Not just the much debated behavioural problems, but asthma, allergy, obesity, auto immune conditions such as diabetes etc. And importantly, why has research into decreasing child health included a multitude of factors but excluded one of the most obvious factors? So many questions to ponder.
I would hope any parent would ask questions, source information and advice and come to a conclusion that works best for their family. In the end, we chose not to vaccinate. That does not mean we do nothing, or are neglectful. We simply chose another way. I am not opposed to those that do choose to vaccinate their children or themselves.
On a personal note, I have witnessed my husband experience serious adverse reactions to a number of vaccinations, particularly hepatitis B and more recently, the typhoid, polio and meningitis vaccines. Some of these adverse reactions are ongoing and debilitating. Why on earth would I take the risk and expose my child to these vaccines, knowing the effect they have on his father? Would you?
So, the idea of jumping the gun and making vaccination compulsory or withdrawing government entitlements to parents who object to vaccination, simply scares the hell out of me. Not just because of the immediate health implications for my family, and for that matter, the community at large, but for the dangerous precedent this move would set. Who decides what’s best for us? Who promoted them to such a task? Who makes sure these people remain accountable and free from bias? Who decided that we, as parents, are incapable of sourcing credible information and making intelligent decisions? Since when is this a country that tramples on our fundamental right to our own bodies? Will this lead to other rights being taken away in the future? What happened to self-determination and informed consent?
It is not only my right, but also my obligation to ask these questions. In the end, it is not so much the issue of vaccination, but of the coercive and unjust measures to ensure vaccination and the suppression of freedom of information, that has me so concerned. So in conclusion, I simply state that withdrawing government entitlements to parents who object to vaccination is a deal breaker for me. I cannot give my vote to any individual or party that supports such legislation.

Yours sincerely,


Divider 1

To whom It may concerne;
I’m just writing to express my disappointment in the fact that you are trying to take away my right as a democratic voter by taking away my rights to receive government entitlements based upon my decision not to vaccinate my children.  I absolutely oppose this decision and as an  Australian paying taxes I should be entitled to make my own choice on how I bring my children up without being penalised.
Myself and my partner have not made this decision lightly, as we did our research and decided not to vaccinate my children, however our decision also included the fact that we be responsible for our children health by living a healthy lifestyle.  My children are rarely sick and if they are sick  they recover quicker than other children.  I spend a lot more money on keeping my children in a healthy lifestyle ie naturopathy, homeopathy, chiropractic , kinesiology rather than parents who do no research, feed their children rubbish, feed them Panadol and are constantly at the doctors putting a strain on our Medicare system.  However, you want to penalise me for living a healthier lifestyle which includes not vaccinating.
You want me to have faith in these vaccines, how can I when my daughter recently was admitted to hospital with a partially cut Achilles tendon, I allowed the doctors to give her the Tetnus injection (only because it was separate and not combined with other vaccines), however after they administered this injection they returned a short time later to inform me that the vaccine was 3 months out of date but don’t worry.  How can I not be!
At least we have done our research before making our difficult decision unlike those parents who have vaccinated their children because “they just do what they are told” or “just bury their heads in the sand”.  How is it that by living in a democratic society we cannot make a healthy decision without being penalised (or being bribed).  Absolutely shamefull!


Divider 1Dear Minister Dutton,

Thank you for taking time to read my letter. I appreciate the busy demands that are placed on Federal health ministry. In a recent Courier Mail article you are quoted that a “sterner conversation” was needed with parents who were actively choosing not to vaccinate. If I may, I would like to share with you some of my thoughts about Vaccine compliance to safe guard our children. I fully supported the concept of vaccination, having made sure my tetanus vaccination was up to date,  having the flu vaccination as I hate having the flu and having the hep B shot. Later I started to hear disturbing reports of one of a friends daughter who had a developed a high temperature and taken her first fit after her first MMR shots and continues to fit to this day. Later when I married my wife, she told the story of her Aunt who had been completely normal until the day she received her MMR vaccine. That night she started to have fits for the rest of her life until one of those fits ended her life early. When I had children I very spent many hours looking at this matter, wanting to do the right thing. I read many journal articles, the best was a compilation of over 500 studies, some showing there were no risks to vaccination, and some showing that there were. I also spoke to my physician about my concerns. Even United States FDA government documents from people who support or research vaccines have doubts as to the safety of Vaccines as the following document shows. (I have attached the document to this email.)

“..Does anybody know if vaccines have been checked for foamy virus contamination”  Answer Maxine Linial PH.D “As far as I know, no.” Page 74

Ron Desrosiers Ph.D “I don’t worry so much about the agents that one can test for. I worry about the agents that you can’t test for, that you don’t know about’ Page 99

Dr Engler, walter reed army medical centre
“I just wanted to make a comment and ask a broad question to challenge the panel, speaking from the perspective of a clinician and an educator, trying to translate the contents of meetings like this and the recent Thimerosal meeting for regular folks whether it’s providers or the patients. And the complexity alone, and when people say.”I worry about the unknown agents,” we have to worry about foamy virus transmission, lentivirus insertion into herpes, and that all translates into, for the common man, woman, and child, is there a bad disease with chronic consequences that can result  from immunization…………An awful lot of what you all have discussed is very hard to translate, but what’s left is, “gee, I’m not sure that this is safe.” from your mouths….” page 102,103.

Then we have the disturbing report of a fatal case of pertussis infection in a child care center where all children were fully vaccinated and when this was investigated the conclusion was that Vaccinated children may be asymptomatic reservoirs for infection. (Emerging Infectious Diseases Vol 6, No 5, September-October 2000).  As you will recall the same thing happened in Australian Hospitals when fully vaccinated staff had whooping cough.

I have to confess that the more I look into this subject the more expansive it becomes. The simple message in the Media is that vaccination is safe and effective.  While this mantra is both loud and long, it does not convey the complexity of this issue. Some would have us believe there is no debate about Vaccines and that the science complete and over. If this is true then it is not science but a religious dogma. In science the debate is never over.

Reading congressional US meeting transcripts, of both those who support vaccination and those who do not,  shows to me, that this issue is not settled and is becoming very expensive to maintain. The US Vaccine compensation fund is not looking very good and is not without its problems as noted by pulitzer prize winning author John Hanchette, professor of journalism at St. Bonaventure university in his article

There is much rhetoric usually from powerful industry groups/media that usually goes along the lines that science is overwhelmingly supportive of vaccinations. One only has to look at the H1N1 debacle and the harm caused to children with the CSL vaccine and the expensive Tamiflu antiviral which is now reported to be of little use according to.

When I look at the United States VAERS data base It is very evident that vaccination can carry significant risks including death, like a lot of medical interventions. Given this, it is clearly a matter of informed consent rather then the state forcing or quasi forcing a medical intervention that carries risks. If the state uses coercion then this also implies redress against the state in the case of harm. I believe the current practice of sending home children who are seen at risk in the even of and outbreak is the wisest and tested course. In addition, the history I have seen in several countries certainly does not support the notion that vaccinations saved the world or influenced the rapid decline of disease. The vaccine industry would like us to believe this, but they were mostly a Jonny-come-lately component. If someone does have overwhelming evidence (not opinion) I would be delighted if it could be forward it to me.

Where are the double-blind Placebo-controlled studies that prove the safety and effectiveness of vaccines?
Where are the scientific evidence that confirm the long-term safety and effectiveness of vaccines?
How can the safety and mechanism of vaccines in the human body are scientifically proven if their pharmacokinetics are never examined or analysed in a vaccine study?
Where are the studies showing the health benefits between those who have and have not been vaccinated?

The State needs to be very careful with powerful interest groups that want to force a particular paradigm or product in one direction which they directly or indirectly profit rather than letting people make informed decisions which is a long and established medical ethic.  It is also of concern if the state starts to either actively or passively discriminate against its citizens because they hold a different view after having studied the matter. History is littered with examples of minority groups who have different views contrary to the established science or religion of the day being persecuted. As a democratic society his was the whole point that the Australian Parliament was making in having people go to their local Doctor to have a Conscientious Objector form signed so they were aware of both the risks and benefits.

I would ask that you put this matter into perspective given that Iatrogenic injury is magnitudes larger in cost to the community and makes so called vaccine preventable injury infinitesimally small. Yet I don’t know anyone that wants to ban doctors. I would ask that you support people who make informed decisions about their children in line with the Australian Health Care Rights and the ethos of the medical community.

Thank you for your time and commitment in representing the people of Australia.


Divider 1Dear Sir(s)

It has been brought to my attention that you are planning to vote on removing parental rights to be a conscientious objector when it comes to childhood vaccinations. Thereby affecting their entitlement to Family Tax Benefits.

I understand that we would all like to live in a world without disease. Our natural immune systems are designed to develop natural antibodies when we come into contact with viruses and bacteria, pathogens and toxins. Unfortunately vaccinations introduce us to man made replica viruses and bacteria, pathogens, toxic heavy metals, deceased animal and human tissue, unnatural hormones all of which can have (in some instances) catastrophic affects in the recipient leading to death, serious and permanent disability, cellular damage amongst many vaccine side effects. There are court cases in progress and completed whereby vaccine could be and has been proven to be the cause of devastating and life changing effects within the recipient(s) and their families.

For these reasons and a great many others, this decision MUST and SHOULD remain the choice of the parents. They do not make the decision lightly in whichever direction they choose. Educated parents take away the information given to them, research their options and discuss their concerns with family, friends and health care professionals.

Please take this into consideration when making your decision.

Kind regards


Divider 1
I am a voter in New South Wales, previously having lived in Kallangur, QLD.

I object strongly to any moves to remove access to Government entitlements based on our vaccination decision.

This is total discrimination. When the authorities compare the health of the vaccinated and unvaccinated, and do it according to valid scientific procedures, then there is room for proper debate. Until this happens, there is no way government should be contemplating penalising people based on their decisions. If proper evidence is not being looked at, then you will continue to hear more and more prejudice in the community, and such a lot of unnecessary hate.
Conscientious objectors are people who have made carefully thought out decisions. When you know that something has caused unwanted side effects, you have the right to reject that something, especially when it comes to health. Health decisions should be made carefully with information on the subject freely available, not under threat of punishment.
Government continues to ignore that some of us have suffered greatly from the effects of vaccines, some much more than others, but fail to make the necessary impartial investigations. Those who have lost loved ones should never have it explained away as coincidence, and be made to look simple minded.  Taking away benefits based on vaccination status, in many cases simply means further punishing victims of  vaccination.
We need to investigate just how strong those links between vaccines and sides effects really are and be sure people know these before accepting vaccines. It would seem obvious since labelling is important everywhere else. We should know if statistically there is evidence showing our children are more susceptible than others, eg if  Archie Kalikoneros’ work with Aboriginal children is still just as relevant today.
Autism keeps rearing its head in the debate, – again rigorous investigative work needs to be carried out. How much government funding is being taken up with this disorder?

To sum up, our decisions especially in the case of our health should be freely made by ourselves, with quality research by independent parties freely available and promoted and people’s concerns should never be put down. Punishment  and discrimination for making valid choices is not acceptable.
Further, I strongly object to the notion that forgetfulness is ok, but those who have made choices in life should be subject to sterner conversations. Sounds like Nazi Germany.

Please make your time in Parliament a time for democracy to shine through.
Yours faithfully,

Divider 1Dear Ministers,

I write to voice in the strongest possible terms, my protest against the removal of Family Benefits for those families who choose not to vaccinate their children!
I have an Honours Degree in Pharmacy from Sydney University and a Postgraduate Diploma in Clinical Nutrition. I am a much-published author. In 2011 I received the Sydney University Pharmacy Alumni Award for Achievement for my work (over more than 30 years) to improve the health of both parents before they conceive a child. My goal in promoting preconception healthcare is to improve every aspect of reproductive health and the health of the unborn child, which includes strengthening the child’s immune system by natural means!

I know of many like myself, intelligent, informed and concerned individuals, involved in the delivery of true preventive healthcare, who feel as I do about the issue of vaccination.

What’s more, concerns about vaccination are now also voiced by those once convinced of its benefits. For example Tetyana Obukhanych, with a Ph.D. in IMMUNOLOGY recently stated …

“I know of many alternative health practitioners and even of a few pediatricians who have embraced the non-vaccination approach to health. However, I have yet to encounter one among my own kind: a scientist in the trenches of mainstream biomedical research who does not regard vaccines as the greatest invention of medicine.

I never imagined myself in this position, least so in the very beginning of my Ph.D. research training in immunology. In fact, at that time, I was very enthusiastic about the concept of vaccination, just like any typical immunologist. However, after years of doing research in immunology, observing scientific activities of my superiors, and analyzing vaccine issues, I realized that vaccination is one of the most deceptive inventions the science could ever convince the world to accept.”

Hardly an encouraging view on vaccination!

At a personal level, I am 66 years old and attribute my robust good health throughout my entire life, to the fact that my mother had the great wisdom not to vaccinate me. I have two sons – aged 24 and 28 – also totally unvaccinated. In their combined 52 years on this planet, they have together seen a doctor 6 times (the average number of visits for a newborn in the first YEAR of life). My 9 week old grandson will follow in the family footsteps.

I am therefore shocked that in this democracy, the payments that should flow to his parents, and to the many other couples who follow my recommendations, all of whom have spent much time, effort and money on true health-promoting measures, may stop!

I await your early response

Yours faithfully

Divider 1

Posted in Vaccination | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments