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.

29 Comments

  1. Well written Rixta. The situation in America is just what the doctor ordered. A few measles cases from Disneyland and the situation is blamed on “vaccine refusers”, with no evidence whatsoever. This doesn’t matter at all. Pseudo-science at its worst. The media blows the medical trumpet and most people believe vaccine refusers are almost beneath contempt. The situation is not unlike Salem, where any cry of “witch” was met with villification, condemnation and persecution by the religious zealots. Vaccinations have defintely become the new religion, hospitals are the new churches and doctors are the new priests, just as Dr Robert Mendelsohn predicted in 1979 in his book Confessions of a Medical heretic. The situation trumped up by the doctors and media is alarming in its potential to escalate into frightening situations. I honestly fear for our future, but I know one thing. When it comes to health, I do not believe in the modern religion, nor do I believe in the modern church nor their priests. They are the blind leading the blind!

  2. Rixta, I would just like to point out that there are in fact double blind placebo trials done on some vaccines but the problem is that most studies dont tell us what placebo they use. Many studies use the adjutants without the attenuated virus as a placebo but its the adjutants that seem to cause many of the injuries hence there is no difference between vaccinated groups vs unvaccinated groups with regards to injury. Therefore they say the vaccine is safe. If they did indeed us just saline solution then its possible to expect less injuries in the placebo group. Until they declare what their placebo is in their studies then we will never know, but its wrong to say there are no placebo studies, there are, its just that they dont declare what the placebo is. https://scholar.google.com.au/scholar?start=10&q=vaccine+placebo+trials&hl=en&as_sdt=0,5&as_vis=1

  3. Rixta, I would just like to point out that there are in fact double blind placebo trials done on some vaccines but the problem is that most studies dont tell us what placebo they use. Many studies use the adjutants without the attenuated virus as a placebo but its the adjutants that seem to cause many of the injuries hence there is no difference between vaccinated groups vs unvaccinated groups with regards to injury. Therefore they say the vaccine is safe. If they did indeed us just saline solution then its possible to expect less injuries in the placebo group. Until they declare what their placebo is then we will never know but its technically wrong to say there are no placebo studies, there are, its just that they dont declare what the placebo is. https://scholar.google.com.au/scholar?start=10&q=vaccine+placebo+trials&hl=en&as_sdt=0,5&as_vis=1

      1. Yes I would agree with your definition but unfortunately the nutbag John Cunninghams of this world would not agree. And still the studies refer to placebo’s yet they are not truly placebo’s.

  4. I’m sorry but i’m a little confused. You wrote, “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.”

    “Those studies simply are not done.”

    So what are these?

    https://lup.lub.lu.se/search/publication/240028
    “Prophylactic quadrivalent human papillomavirus (types 6, 11, 16, and 18) L1 virus-like particle vaccine in young women: a randomised double-blind placebo-controlled multicentre phase II efficacy trial”

    http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=383571
    “The Efficacy of Influenza Vaccination in Elderly Individuals. A Randomized Double-blind Placebo-Controlled Trial”

    http://jid.oxfordjournals.org/content/194/12/1661.full
    “Randomized, Double‐Blind, Placebo‐Controlled Efficacy Trial of a Bivalent Recombinant Glycoprotein 120 HIV‐1 Vaccine among Injection Drug Users in Bangkok, Thailand”

    http://www.med.upenn.edu/timm/documents/Lancet_2005p1139.pdf
    “Efficacy of nine-valent pneumococcal conjugate vaccine against pneumonia and invasive pneumococcal disease in The Gambia: randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial”

    1. John Cunningham, it appears that you are not confused but are simply trying to stick to your old smoke-screen. We have had this discussion several times in the past and this basic data has been pointed out to you before. The fact that you continue to point to studies that were not placebo controlled and claim that they were indicates that either you are complete unable to understand science or you have a pathological desire to obfuscate in order to make it appear that vaccines have been tested. Either way, you are wrong.

      In the first study cited (for example), under the study methods, it states that:

      “The placebo consisted of the same adjuvant and was visually indistinguishable from vaccine.”

      So the placebo was not a placebo – a nocebo let us say. Find us a large scale, true placebo-controlled study or else please stop wasting our time.

      1. You need to decide what your definition of a placebo is “a placebo being a neutral, ineffective substance; in the case of vaccinations, a saline solution”, or placebo as used by everyone else.

        Of course they are all placebos. That’s why they use the term “placebo”. Just because you have the wrong idea of what a placebo is, that’s your problem, not theirs.

        John

        1. I don’t need to decide anything. I am using the medical definition of placebo. What are you doing, John Cunningham? Making up the definitions as you go along to suit your own purposes?

          An inactive substance with no pharmacological action that is administered to some patients in clinical trials to determine the relative effectiveness of another drug administered to a second group of patients. – Gale Encyclopedia of Medicine

          an inactive substance, such as saline solution, distilled water, or sugar, or a less than effective dose of a harmless substance, such as a water-soluble vitamin, prescribed as if it were an effective dose of a needed medication. Placebos are used in experimental drug studies to compare the effects of the inactive substance with those of the experimental drug. Mosby’s Medical Dictionary

          So the ‘placebos’ used in the studies you have cited are not placebos at all. Ergo, these studies are not placebo controlled studies.

      2. Even if they said their placebo was “an inactive substance with no pharmacological action” there’d be no way to know for sure, no way to verify that’s actually what they used

  5. Studies can have any number of faults. Science, done right, has none. Here is some good science on vaccinations, mostly ignored by the press and medical establishment:

    As I understand the immune system, in simple terms, there are just so many immune system cells in the body at any given time. When we are young we have many more devoted to general protection (the innate system as the first line of defense) and few to the adaptive system (immunity). As we get sick or receive vaccinations the number of adaptive cells increases and the number of innate cells decreases.

    As the number of vaccinations increases we have fewer innate cells available to fight off infections not recognized by the adaptive system and fewer innate system cells available to convert to adaptive system cells. That’s why older people have trouble responding to vaccinations and to infections they have not experienced before. That’s also why many people can’t fight off a flu strain that their vaccinations don’t match. So, more vaccinations means we are increasing the infection risk of our aging population while “protecting” our younger population from illnesses that are, for the most part, not usually serious and rarely lethal.

    How did the country survive measles, mumps and chicken pox before vaccinations? But we did, without panic and without serious impact to most people’s lives.

    The CDC and medical establishment seem to be controlled by the motto: “If we are able to do it then we SHOULD do it!” I have described only one risk factor of vaccinations. There are many others. In my judgement the medical and drug establishments don’t seem to perform legitimate risk/reward analysis concerning vaccinations. We, the public, take all the risk often with little meaningful reward.

  6. It seems John Cunningham needs a debate with you Meryl in public. But you know what? He would not dare. Just like all the other skeptics he is courageous behind a blog. When the invitation to publicly debate is raised, the old chestnut ” debates are for politicians not scientists” is retorted. All the provaccers know they would lose credibility when their arguments were shown for what they are.
    The tragedy is that doctors know oh so little about true “natural” health because their training is geared almost entierly around suppression of symptoms with drugs. That is one reason why modern medicine is the 3rd leading cause of death in the world according to Dr Ray Strand who wrote Death by Prescription. Their drugs are killing far more than they save.
    99.9% of medical doctors are honestly clueless about the human body’s capacity to heal itself. So when the big bad wolf comes to their door called measles or influenza, they don’t have any answers save to use anti-pyretics, and anti-virals, which only exacerbate the problem and increase chances of morbidity and mortality.
    Our children all had measles naturally having never been vaccinated. It was unpleasant for a short time, but recovery was quick and complete because we understood that the symptoms were not our enermy but actually allies in disguise.A short fast was all it took.for the body to heal itself. No fear. No panic. No food.
    The sad fact is that medical training is no better than it was years ago because they are taught wrong fundamentals. They view disease as an enemy. They view symptoms as a deficiency of drugs. They view germs as THE cause of disease. They mistake theory for fact re germ theory and herd immunity theory.
    Their ignorance would be laughable if it wasn’t so tragic. It is certainly the blind leading the blind as Dawn above says.
    No vaccines for me thank you or my children, not because they are toxic but because they are based on a fallacy. Germs do not cause disease, they are merley associated with them. Association does not mean causation.

    1. You are very right, Edward. Only the saddest part is that for some people, it isn’t just ignorance (which can be forgiven) but WILLFUL ignorance which is far harder to explain away. When doctors, who swear to firstly do no harm, ignore evidence that the basis of their ‘practices’ causes great harm and even death, one has to wonder if medical schools train out ethics as well as the ability to think for oneself.

      1. They are institutionalized wage slaves, they go with the flow of money; the personal comforts and security money brings. They have been through the education/indoctrination, screening system. Those that memorize the state/pharmaceutical mandated curriculum and thesis become doctors. There is nothing hard to explain away. The world’s populace is totally controlled by money. Most people will do, or say, anything for money

        Those who control the banks, control the world.

  7. Great article, thanks. I went through the comments and the studies John referred to. Now, I may not know where to look but how do you know the placebos weren’t real placebos? One of the studies says: intramuscular placebo containing physiological saline solution (n=911).

    Thanks.

    1. You need to read the actual article and sometimes, even the article doesn’t list exactly what is in the ‘placebo’ so in that case, you need to contact the researcher. But luckily, the first article did list the actual placebo (in the text – not the abstract) and I have put that quote in my initial response to John Cunningham.

  8. Placebos are used to eliminate the variable you are testing. So in the case of vaccination, if you want to test the efficacy of the an antigen say, you remove that antigen alone and leave everything else. Very simple. Basic science.

    1. If you want to test the efficacy of an antigen, you give one group the antigen and another group nothing. You don’t give one group and antigen (plus toxins and immune modulators) whilst giving the other group immune modulators, toxins and – in many cases – different antigens. That is not science and the results of those so-called studies are not worth the printer they are printed on. In addition, you cannot test safety in this way and safety is, I’m sure you will agree, every bit as important as effectiveness. Let’s do some real science – compare the overall health of the fully vaccinated with the fully unvaccinated. I think that the anti-choice brigade would be in for a rude shock if this sort of testing were done.

  9. Well done!! I’ve been intending to write an article much like this for years. I’ve discovered over many years of engaging in vaccine discussions that most people have no awareness of the absence of scientific trials to prove safety or effectiveness and seem just fine in holding their fervent belief anyways. I’ve often said vaccines are more faith based than science based.

    Thank you for your efforts to bring sanity to this issue.

  10. “You can’t convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, its based upon a deep seated need to believe.” – Carl Sagan

  11. Exactly! “Scientism” is the new religion and its followers (with their big egos and initials after their names) are very offended by the non-believers. Thanks for writing!

  12. Thank you for this excellent article. Could you tell me where I can get more documentation about the fact that the number of antibodies do not necessarily mean an increased protection. Do you also have information about how “herd immunity” works (or does not work). These are major arguments used when it comes to justifying vaccination. Thanks a lot.

  13. You may want to watch and share “Haley vs Offit: A Virtual Debate About Vaccines, The Greatest Medical Controversy Of Our Time” at publicaffairsmediainc.blogspot.com

    US forced vaccine proponent, Paul Offit says vaccines are safe and effective. Biochemist, Boyd Haley says they are not. Also at our site is a listing of over 180 scientific studies showing the extreme dangers of mercury, especially when combined with aluminum as in vaccines. We were unable to find credible studies in support of Offit.

    Our site is: http://publicaffairsmediainc.blogspot.com/

    We also have the video with Spanish subtitles as below:

    Ya está disponible para su visualización con subtítulos en español en https://youtu.be/HC2oO1ArOJk.

    Very high rates of chronic disease, including autism are reported among Chinese and Portuguese speakers. Please consider a donation to help us reach them with versions subtitled in their language.

    Meanwhile, please post and share this as widely as you can!

    Richard

    Richard P. Milner
    Public Affairs Media, Inc.

Comments are closed.