Vaccine Bigots

Reject BigotryPolitical correctness will be the death of us all. We’re so afraid to say what we think for fear of being judged, that we stay silent rather than starting a storm. But I say, if our words are going to create a storm, let’s make it the best and biggest storm we possibly can. Let the winds blow and the rains wash away this shameful era of world history.

Those who support No Jab / No Pay / No Play are bigots – pure and simple.

Whether they are members of parliament, media representatives or your next door neighbours – if they believe it is OK to discriminate against you and your family or to treat you with anything less than the respect all citizens of a democratic nation should expect, they are bigots.

Definition: Bigot: a person who has strong, unreasonable ideas, esp. about race or religion, and who thinks anyone who does not have the same beliefs is wrong.

Our government – elected and funded by US – is comprised of bigots.

Many within mainstream medicine are bigots.

And members of the hate groups, Friends of Science in Medicine, Stop the AVN and the Australian Skeptics are all bigots.

Watch this powerful short video about a woman who has decided that she is not going to put up with vaccine bigotry any longer. Like Rosa Parks did over 60 years ago when she was arrested for not moving to the back of a bus due to the colour of her skin, Sheila Ealey has decided to ‘get off the bus’. She will hopefully be joined by a lot more of us, standing in solidarity against discrimination of any kind – racial, sexual, religious or medical.

“Get off the bus!” Sheila Lewis Ealey unites Compton! from Francesca Alesse on Vimeo.

Bigotry must be stamped out. It is the sort of thing that you would have seen in many countries 50 or more years ago; the sort of thing we were taught about in school history classes as an object lesson in wrong-headedness and injustice; the sort of thing that we look back on now and think – that would never happen today!

Except that it has. And it has been government-approved.

When we see the leader of the Australian Greens party standing up in Parliament to thank people who have abused and threatened parents whose only ‘crime’ was wanting to care for their children as they feel is best – we know that vaccine bigotry has institutional support.

When we see someone who has made a name for themselves by publicly shaming or abusing those who think differently about vaccination, receiving government awards instead of jail sentences, we know that vaccine bigotry is systemic in our society.

And when we read media articles written by journalists who are functional illiterates yet feel that they have the right to tell the government how they should punish anyone who disagrees with them on scientific or medical health issues, we know that vaccine bigotry has pervaded the very fabric of Australian life today.

Let’s fight against this by first and foremost, calling these people what their words and their actions have defined them as – bigots. The language is powerful, so let’s use this weapon to defeat bigotry.

If we can be called anti-vaxxers for asking valid, scientific questions about medical procedures that are capable of killing or injuring us or our children (let’s not even think about the fact that vaccines don’t work as promised – or at all), then we can use a more appropriate name for those who are responsible for this sociopathic and discriminatory behaviour – BIGOTS.

Let’s wipe out bigotry in Australia today. By naming it. By shaming it. By not standing for it any longer.

 

Does Malcolm Turnbull support censorship?

OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA
Patrick Stokes – vaccine-risk denialist

A very active and lively discussion has been taking place on the Prime Minister’s Facebook page regarding the No Jab, No Pay law.  I made several posts in response to Dr Patrick Stokes – a Senior Lecturer in Philosophy who supports censorship when it comes to vaccination as evidenced by his article on The Conversation entitled: No, You’re Not Entitled to Your Opinion.

Dr Stokes is an Australian academic who readily admits that he is not an authority on the this issue.  Furthermore, he openly states that he does not WANT to know about the science of vaccination, instead claiming that everyone should defer to doctors and health authorities because they are the only ones capable of understanding the subject. Please read his statement below:

Stokes Defers to Experts

Is the PM Censoring Debate?

Getting back to the Prime Minister’s Facebook page, as I said, I was having a lively debate with Mr Stokes about the issue of vaccination. I prepared a comment in response to his repetition of the fact that he does not know anything about vaccination and does not believe the issue should be publicly debated. When I tried to post my response, however, I got a warning that there was a problem and I should try later. This was yesterday afternoon and I have tried 4 times now and each time, I get the same warning.

Lucy TurnbullSince there are plenty of new comments on this page, including many casting aspersions on my honesty, integrity and intelligence, I can only assume that I have been blocked. Fair go, Malcolm or whoever you have delegated to moderate your page! Are you afraid that your wife’s profits at Prima BioMed (profits that jumped to AUD $5.5 million mere weeks after No Jab No Pay legislation was announced) might be affected if enough people start to question vaccination? Valid fear, that – but is that a reason to silence opponents of government policies? Do we live in a democracy or not, Mr Turnbull? Or are the Australian people no more than cash cows (cash vaccas, the origin of the word ‘vaccination’, appropriately enough?) to you and your government?

Think about it for a minute. NSW Premiere, Barry O’Farrell resigned over the gift of a bottle of wine; then Prime Minister, Paul Keating, scandalised the nation when it was discovered that he had profited from the sale of a piggery to Indonesia whilst undertaking trade negotiations with that country; and former Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd’s wife, Therese Rein, was forced to sell the Australian division of her international employment agency when her husband was elected due to contracts the company had with the Australian Government.

Australia has a long history of holding its elected representatives accountable when there is even a hint of corruption or profiteering – yet the current PM’s wife is Chairman of the Board of a company involved in vaccination and other pharmaceutical pursuits whose value has increased dramatically due – at least on the surface in my own opinion – to policies which her husband has helped push through Parliament. Did Mr Turnbull excuse himself during the debate on No Jab No Pay? Did he tell Parliament that he had a conflict of interest and excuse himself from the vote on this legislation? These are genuine questions – I don’t know the answer and my investigations so far have not been fruitful. Despite the apparent conflict of interest, not a word has been raised about this in the media or by the opposition.

I guess when it comes to vaccination, carte blanche is always given to those who support the procedure and a blind eye will be turned if there is any question of propriety or what is right for the nation.

But I digress.

Before I was unceremoniously booted from the PM’s Facebook page, I had issued a challenge to debate the benefits and risks of vaccination at a public venue. My challenge stands – if anyone from the medical industry, pharma or government believes that they can publicly support vaccine safety and effectiveness, I will gladly meet you in a fair debate with a neutral compere.

For those who would like to see my response to Patrick Stokes, here it is.

@Patrick Stokes – if I have no expertise on this subject (and by your own admission, you are neither qualified nor interested enough to learn about what you discuss when it comes to vaccination), then it should be simple to prove it. Not debating me or anyone else from the pro-information side of the issue is simply a ruse.

And here are just a few recent studies that HAVE been published on the ineffectiveness and risks of vaccination. Maybe you need to get someone more qualified to read them for you and tell you what they say?

BMJ. 2014 Jun 24;348:g3668. doi: 10.1136/bmj.g3668.

Whooping cough in school age children presenting with persistent cough in UK primary care after introduction of the preschool pertussis booster vaccination: prospective cohort study.

Objective To estimate the prevalence and clinical severity of whooping cough (pertussis) in school age children presenting with persistent cough in primary care since the introduction and implementation of the preschool pertussis booster vaccination.

Design Prospective cohort study (November 2010 to December 2012).

Setting General practices in Thames Valley, UK.

Participants 279 children aged 5 to 15 years who presented in primary care with a persistent cough of two to eight weeks’ duration. Exclusion criteria were cough likely to be caused by a serious underlying medical condition, known immunodeficiency or immunocompromise, participation in another clinical research study, and preschool pertussis booster vaccination received less than one year previously.

Main outcome measures Evidence of recent pertussis infection based on an oral fluid anti-pertussis toxin IgG titre of at least 70 arbitrary units. Cough frequency was measured in six children with laboratory confirmed pertussis.

Results 56 (20%, 95% confidence interval 16% to 25%) children had evidence of recent pertussis infection, including 39 (18%, 13% to 24%) of 215 children who had been fully vaccinated. The risk of pertussis was more than three times higher (21/53; 40%, 26% to 54%) in children who had received the preschool pertussis booster vaccination seven years or more previously than in those who had received it less than seven years previously (20/171; 12%, 7% to 17%). The risk of pertussis was similar between children who received five and three component preschool pertussis booster vaccines (risk ratio for five component vaccine 1.14, 0.64 to 2.03). Four of six children in whom cough frequency was measured coughed more than 400 times in 24 hours.

Conclusions Pertussis can still be found in a fifth of school age children who present in primary care with persistent cough and can cause clinically significant cough in fully vaccinated children. These findings will help to inform consideration of the need for an adolescent pertussis booster vaccination in the United Kingdom.

Divider 1

Clin Infect Dis. (2012) doi: 10.1093/cid/cis287

Unexpectedly Limited Durability of Immunity Following Acellular Pertussis Vaccination in Pre-Adolescents in a North American Outbreak

Results We identified 171 cases of clinical pertussis; 132 in pediatric patients. There was a notable increase in cases in patients aged 8-12. The rate of testing peaked in infants, but remained relatively constant until age 12. The rate of positive tests was low for ages zero to six, and increased in preadolescents, peaking at age 12. Vaccination rates of PCR positive preadolescents were approximately equal to that of controls. Vaccine Effectiveness was 41%, 24%, 79%, for ages 2-7, 8-12, 13-18, respectively.

Conclusions Our data suggests that the current schedule of acellular pertussis vaccine doses is insufficient to prevent outbreaks of pertussis. We noted a markedly increased rate of disease from age 8 through 12, proportionate to the interval since the last scheduled vaccine. Stable rates of testing ruled out selection bias. The possibility of earlier or more numerous booster doses of acellular pertussis vaccine either as part of routine immunization or for outbreak control should be entertained.

Divider 1

This is not a peer-reviewed study, but it speaks to the fact that drug companies control the information governments rely upon to make policy decisions. It is written in plain English.

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/lawrence-solomon/merck-whistleblowers_b_5881914.html

Merck Has Some Explaining To Do Over Its MMR Vaccine Claims

Merck, the pharmaceutical giant, is facing a slew of controversies over its Measles-Mumps-Rubella (MMR) vaccine following numerous allegations of wrongdoing from different parties in the medical field, including two former Merck scientists-turned-whistleblowers. A third whistleblower, this one a scientist at the Centers for Disease Control, also promises to bring Merck grief following his confession of misconduct involving the same MMR vaccine.

The controversies will find Merck defending itself and its vaccine in at least two federal court cases after a U.S. District judge earlier this month threw out Merck’s attempts at dismissal. Merck now faces federal charges of fraud from the whistleblowers, a vaccine competitor and doctors in New Jersey and New York. Merck could also need to defend itself in Congress: The staff of representative Bill Posey (R-Fla) — a longstanding critic of the CDC interested in an alleged link between vaccines and autism — is now reviewing some 1,000 documents that the CDC whistleblower turned over to them.

The first court case, United States v. Merck & Co., stems from claims by two former Merck scientists that Merck “fraudulently misled the government and omitted, concealed, and adulterated material information regarding the efficacy of its mumps vaccine in violation of the FCA [False Claims Act].”

According to the whistleblowers’ court documents, Merck’s misconduct was far-ranging: It “failed to disclose that its mumps vaccine was not as effective as Merck represented, (ii) used improper testing techniques, (iii) manipulated testing methodology, (iv) abandoned undesirable test results, (v) falsified test data, (vi) failed to adequately investigate and report the diminished efficacy of its mumps vaccine, (vii) falsely verified that each manufacturing lot of mumps vaccine would be as effective as identified in the labeling, (viii) falsely certified the accuracy of applications filed with the FDA, (ix) falsely certified compliance with the terms of the CDC purchase contract, (x) engaged in the fraud and concealment describe herein for the purpose of illegally monopolizing the U.S. market for mumps vaccine, (xi) mislabeled, misbranded, and falsely certified its mumps vaccine, and (xii) engaged in the other acts described herein to conceal the diminished efficacy of the vaccine the government was purchasing.” (Click the above link to read the rest of this article).

Divider 1

And here, a release from that rabidly anti-vaccine body, the American College of Pediatrics:

http://www.acpeds.org/the-college-speaks/position-statements/health-issues/new-concerns-about-the-human-papillomavirus-vaccine

New Concerns about the Human Papillomavirus Vaccine

American College of Pediatricians – January 2016

The American College of Pediatricians (The College) is committed to the health and well-being of children, including prevention of disease by vaccines. It has recently come to the attention of the College that one of the recommended vaccines could possibly be associated with the very rare but serious condition of premature ovarian failure (POF), also known as premature menopause. There have been two case report series (3 cases each) published since 2013 in which post-menarcheal adolescent girls developed laboratory documented POF within weeks to several years of receiving Gardasil, a four-strain human papillomavirus vaccine (HPV4).1,2 Adverse events that occur after vaccines are frequently not caused by the vaccine and there has not been a noticeable rise in POF cases in the last 9 years since HPV4 vaccine has been widely used.

Nevertheless there are legitimate concerns that should be addressed: (1) long-term ovarian function was not assessed in either the original rat safety studies3,4 or in the human vaccine trials, (2) most primary care physicians are probably unaware of a possible association between HPV4 and POF and may not consider reporting POF cases or prolonged amenorrhea (missing menstrual periods) to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), (3) potential mechanisms of action have been postulated based on autoimmune associations with the aluminum adjuvant used1 and previously documented ovarian toxicity in rats from another component, polysorbate 80,2 and (4) since licensure of Gardasil® in 2006, there have been about 213 VAERS reports (per the publicly available CDC WONDER VAERS database) involving amenorrhea, POF or premature menopause, 88% of which have been associated with Gardasil®.5 The two-strain HPV2, CervarixTM, was licensed late in 2009 and accounts for 4.7 % of VAERS amenorrhea reports since 2006, and 8.5% of those reports from February 2010 through May 2015. This compares to the pre-HPV vaccine period from 1990 to 2006 during which no cases of POF or premature menopause and 32 cases of amenorrhea were reported to VAERS.

Many adolescent females are vaccinated with influenza, meningococcal, and tetanus vaccines without getting Gardasil®, and yet only 5.6% of reports related to ovarian dysfunction since 2006 are associated with such vaccines in the absence of simultaneous Gardasil® administration. The overwhelming majority (76%) of VAERS reports since 2006 with ovarian failure, premature menopause, and/or amenorrhea are associated solely with Gardasil®. When VAERS reports since 2006 are restricted to cases in which amenorrhea occurred for at least 4 months and is not associated with other known causes like polycystic ovary syndrome or pregnancy, 86/89 cases are associated with Gardasil®, 3/89 with CervarixTM, and 0/89 with other vaccines administered independently of an HPV vaccine.5 Using the same criteria, there are only 7 reports of amenorrhea from 1990 through 2005 and no more than 2 of those associated with any one vaccine type.

Few other vaccines besides Gardasil® that are administered in adolescence contain polysorbate 80.6 Pre-licensure safety trials for Gardasil® used placebo that contained polysorbate 80 as well as aluminum adjuvant.2,7 Therefore, if such ingredients could cause ovarian dysfunction, an increase in amenorrhea probably would not have been detected in the placebo controlled trials. Furthermore, a large number of girls in the original trials were taking hormonal contraceptives which can mask ovarian dysfunction including amenorrhea and ovarian failure.2 Thus a causal relationship between human papillomavirus vaccines (if not Gardasil® specifically) and ovarian dysfunction cannot be ruled out at this time.

Numerous Gardasil safety studies, including one released recently,8 have looked at demyelinating and autoimmune diseases and have not found any significant problems. Unfortunately, none of them except clinical safety pre-licensure studies totaling 11,778 vaccinees9 specifically addressed post-vaccination ovarian dysfunction. While data from those studies do not indicate an increased rate of amenorrhea after vaccination, the essential lack of saline placebos and the majority of participants taking hormonal contraceptives in those studies preclude meaningful data to rule out an effect on ovarian function.

A Vaccine Safety Datalink POF study is planned to address an association between these vaccines and POF, but it may be years before results will be determined. Plus, POF within a few years of vaccination could be the tip of the iceberg since ovarian dysfunction manifested by months of amenorrhea may later progress to POF. Meanwhile, the author of this statement has contacted the maker of Gardasil, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP), and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to make known the above concerns and request that (1) more rat studies be done to look at long-term ovarian function after HPV4 injections, (2) the 89 VAERS reports identified with at least 4 months amenorrhea be reviewed by the CDC for further clarification since the publicly available WONDER VAERS database only contains initial reports, and (3) primary care providers be notified of a possible association between HPV and amenorrhea. A U.S. Government Representative responded that they “will continue to conduct studies and monitor the safety of HPV vaccines. Should the weight of the evidence from VAERS or VSD and other sources indicate a likely causal association between POF and HPV vaccines, appropriate action will be taken in terms of communication and public health response.”

The College is posting this statement so that individuals considering the use of human papillomavirus vaccines could be made aware of these concerns pending further action by the regulatory agencies and manufacturers. While there is no strong evidence of a causal relationship between HPV4 and ovarian dysfunction, this information should be public knowledge for physicians and patients considering these vaccines.

Primary author: Scott S. Field, MD

January 2016

The American College of Pediatricians is a national medical association of licensed physicians and healthcare professionals who specialize in the care of infants, children, and adolescents. The mission of the College is to enable all children to reach their optimal, physical and emotional health and well-being.

Divider 1

This handful of studies represents but the tip of the vaccine iceberg, but hopefully you get the idea, Patrick. You say that nothing has been published on the risks and ineffectiveness of vaccines. I say you are wrong and I’ve proved it. Will the fact that I’ve provided you with evidence to back up my claims make you look again at this issue? I doubt it. You are a true believer and your ‘religion’ leaves no room for questioning. You function on faith – not knowledge, evidence or information. I feel sorry for you, but those I feel the sorriest for are your students.

by Meryl Dorey

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.

Is the Australian government illegally using data collected and held by the Australian Immunisation Register to deny entitlement to means-tested family benefits?

The following post is reblogged with permission kind permission of a brand new blog – tyrannical times which will definitely be a page to follow – make sure you subscribe! There are so many ways in which the Australia government, bless their little souls, have breached the constitution and federal legislation through recent No Jab No Pay legislation. This blog has raised just one more in a long line of issues – how can the government use information held by the ACIR for a purpose that was never intended and how that breaches our right to privacy. Were the drafters of this legislation really so arrogant they did not even consider this angle?

The question of the legality of the so-called No Jab No Pay law has never been far from my mind since the prospect of abolishing belief exemptions for childcare and family tax benefits first emerged in February last year, following the release of a Productivity Commission report containing such a recommendation.

However, notwithstanding the utter moral repugnancy of linking means-tested welfare payments to vaccination without provision for belief exemptions, it was always going to be a bridge-too-far to prevent this law from being passed using logical or moral reasoning, for reasons which I will not document here (readers familiar with the topic will already be aware of those reasons).

Consequently, the burden was always going to fall on pro-choice advocates to find a legal antidote to this poisonous, tyrannical law.

An obvious and critical aspect of the No Jab No Pay law is that it is dependent for its operation on the use of vaccination status data collected and held by the Australian Childhood Immunisation Register during the past 20 years.

I have always objected to the government collecting information about my children’s vaccination habits – or rather non-vaccination habits – however, like most, I was never inclined to investigate further the legality of it doing so, for the fact that belief exemptions have been permitted since a vaccination requirement was first used to regulate eligibility to child care payments.  There was simply no need – at least that’s what I thought before last year.  No Jab No Pay is a potent lesson in why we should only permit the government to collect information about us on a need-to-know basis, otherwise, some day, in some way, it will eventually be used against us, as is being done now.

Contrary to what nanny-state proponents would have us believe, information privacy is something everyone should be concerned about!

“If you’ve done nothing wrong then you shouldn’t care about what information the government is collecting about you” they proclaim.

Well, up until 31 December 2015, conscientious objectors to vaccination weren’t doing anything wrong, yet from January 01 2016 we are now being denied entitlement to child-care and family tax benefits.

Privacy

The passage of No Jab No Pay necessitates a closer examination of the validity of the register itself, as well as the validity of the purposes for which the government is collecting and using information held by the register against a percentage of its citizens.

Just because the government has been collecting individual vaccination status information about our children for 20 years, doesn’t mean it has been doing so lawfully!

The register, the extent of personal information collected, and how information held by the register may be legally used should be a key focus for any lawyer charged with examining ways to restore our rights.  The register law may present an easier avenue by which to achieve this end than the actual No Jab No Pay legislation itself.

History and use of the Register

The Australian Childhood Immunisation Register was constituted by regulation in 1995, and subsequently incorporated into legislation in 1996, by amendment to the Health Insurance Act 1973.  The parliamentary digest for this amendment provides an overview of the proposed, narrow uses of information collected by the register.  Importantly, from its inception up until commencement of the Child Care Payments Act 1997, vaccination status data collected by the register did not include non-vaccination, nor could it be used for the purpose of regulating eligibility to child care or family payments.

Secondly, between late 1997 and 2015 – whilst vaccination status data collected by the register was used to regulate eligibility to certain child care and family payments following enactment of the Child Care Payments Act, and subsequently A New Tax System (Family Assistance) Act – the data was collected and used on the basis that belief exemptions were in force during this period.  No Jab No Pay proposes to use vaccination status data collected for this earlier purpose (inclusive of the right to belief exemptions), for a broader purpose, namely, enforcement of a vaccination requirement without belief exemptions.

Get all the information

In other words, the government has been deceptively collecting vaccination status data about our children for the last 18 years on the basis that collection and use of that data for regulating eligibility to child care and family payments included an entitlement to register a belief exemption, but now intends to use the information collected to date for a broader purpose not inclusive of a right to register a belief exemption.  A classic bait and switch.

Evil bastards.

Constitutional bases purporting to authorise the immunisation register

The Australian Immunisation Register Act 2015 passed late last year, purports to provide authority for the government to continue to keep an immunisation register, and in fact extends the children’s register to include those “children” up to 20 years of age.  Yes, adult “children”, and later in 2016, the register will become a whole-of-life immunisation register.  Are you feeling the warmth of that nanny state blanket yet?

Section 13 of the new Immunisation Register Act provides a list of constitutional bases (as found in section 51) on which the immunisation register may be authorised and as much as I would like for the immunisation register to be dead and buried altogether, have little doubt that one or more of those bases would support the constitutional validity of the immunisation register itself.  After all, a sufficient connection between the register law and one of those powers is all that’s required for the Commonwealth to have the necessary power to legislate in that area.

(a)  the provision of pharmaceutical benefits; or

(b)  the provision of medical services (without any form of civil conscription); or

(c)  census or statistics; or

(d)  external affairs, including:

(i)  giving effect to an international agreement to which Australia is a party; or

(ii)  addressing matters of international concern; or

(e)  a Territory or a Commonwealth place (within the meaning of the Commonwealth Places (Application of Laws) Act 1970 ); or

(f)  the implied power of the Parliament to make laws with respect to nationhood; or

(g)  the executive power of the Commonwealth; or

(h)  matters incidental to the execution of any of the legislative powers of the Parliament or the executive power of the Commonwealth.

However, it’s one thing for the Commonwealth to have the necessary legislative power to create and keep an immunisation register, but quite another to collect and use personal medical information for expedient purposes in excess of its authorised powers.

For example, under the census and statistics power, it would be entirely possible to argue that the collection and use of vaccination status data about individuals – identifiable by name, date of birth, address, and Medicare number – is well beyond the scope of that power.

It remains to be seen whether or not the Commonwealth has the necessary power to collect vaccination status data about individuals with a level of identifying information sufficient to regulate entitlement to means-tested welfare payments.  If it doesn’t, then it will lose the only effective carrot it has ever had by which to lift immunisation rates, and it will only have itself to blame for enacting such a draconian law.

Only time will tell.

Administering Vaccines Against a Person’s Wishes is Illegal

The following information was posted to the Fans of the AVN Facebook Page and is reprinted here with the permission of the original author. I am also trying to obtain a copy of the StatuCoerciontory Declaration this mother gave to the two doctors who refused to vaccinate her child and will post that here when/if I am able to get the text.
For those who oppose coercive vaccination policies and want to convince the government that their discriminatory legislation will backfire, this may just be a quick, inexpensive option.

If you do go ahead and do this, please let me know by sending an email to me here.

I have posted my letter today back to Centrelink I had an appointment with a lawyer about it last week… here it is if anyone wants to do the same….

Dear Service Centre Manager
Locked bag
7834 Canberra BC ACT 2610
19/12/2015

To whom it may concern,

I recently received a letter from Centrelink dated 2 December, 2015, informing me that in order to qualify for the continuation of the Family Tax benefit and childcare fee assistance, i need to ensure that my child is fully vaccinated. I am unable to complete the vaccination requirements for my child because I cannot find a doctor who will vaccinate my child, knowing that I am being financially coerced.

To do so would breach informed consent and leave them liable for medical trespass.

Under section 2..1..3
http://www.health.gov.au/…/Handbook10-home…
consent must be valid. For consent to be legally valid, the following elements must be present:6,8

  • It must be given by a person with legal capacity, and of sufficient intellectual capacity to understand the implications of being vaccinated.
  • It must be given voluntarily in the absence of undue pressure, coercion or manipulation.
  • It must cover the specific procedure that is to be performed.
  • 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

I am a conscientious objector to vaccination and so do not agree with my child being administered vaccines, due to much evidence regarding the toxicity of vaccines. Please watch and listen to this video if you can as there is much new evidence presented here by an immunologist who used to make vaccines.
https://vimeo.com/146831570

Because of my precarious financial position as a single mother /teacher able to work only between school hours and/or the possibility of my child being disadvantaged by the denial of an early education, I am being put into the untenable and the coercive position of giving my child a medical intervention that I know is not in his best interests, against my will.

On Thursday, 17th December, 2015 my doctor refused to vaccinate my child against my will and has signed a statutory declaration acknowledging that my consent is not voluntary which I have attached. On Tuesday, the 22nd December, another Dr also refused to vaccinate my child against my will and Statuatory declaration is also included.

So I have fulfilled the vaccination requirements for my son to the best of my ability and it is from no fault of my own that the doctor refuses to vaccinate my child against my will.

If you cannot provide a doctor who is willing to sign a legal document stating that they are willing to administer vaccinations to my son without my consent by the 15th January 2016, then I will consider your contract as null and void and as such, the immunisation requirements for my son XXXXXX will be considered to be met.
Yours Sincerely…

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 sarc@parliament.vic.gov.au

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”:
http://www.parliament.vic.gov.au/static/www.legislation.vic.gov.au-bills.html

 

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.”

https://education.gov.au/national-partnership-agreements

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.

Introduction

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

and

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

REFERENCE

[G1] http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22legislation%2Fbills%2Fr5526_first-reps%2F0000%22;rec=0.

[G2] http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/pubs/rp/BudgetReview201516/Vaccination.

“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”, <https://law.anu.edu.au/sites/all/files/users/u9705219/236-lawrep-017-jlm-jl-0196.pdf>.

========================================

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”.)

REFERENCE

[DC1] Disability Discrimination Act 1992, <http://www5.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/dda1992264>.  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, <http://www.nvic.org/NVIC-Vaccine-News/May-2014/NVIC-Calls-for-Vaccine-Policy—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”, http://www.nvic.org/NVIC-Vaccine-News/February-2009/Monday,-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, <http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1568997204002010>.

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].

REFERENCES

[HR1] <http://www.smh.com.au/national/health/rich-suburbs-have-low-immunisation-rates-research-shows-20140326-35iy3.html>.

[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] <https://www.humanrights.gov.au/about/what-are-human-rights>.

[HR4] <http://www.health.gov.au/internet/immunise/publishing.nsf/content/Handbook10-home~handbook10part2~handbook10-2-1>.

[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”, <https://law.anu.edu.au/sites/all/files/users/u9705219/236-lawrep-017-jlm-jl-0196.pdf>).

“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), <http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Senate/Powers_practice_n_procedures/Constitution.aspx>, <http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/coaca430>, or https://www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/C2013Q00005>.

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, <http://www.ohchr.org/EN/ProfessionalInterest/Pages/ReligionOrBelief.aspx>.  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, <http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr>.  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, <http://www.unesco.org/new/en/social-and-human-sciences/themes/bioethics/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, <http://www.ohchr.org/EN/ProfessionalInterest/Pages/CCPR.aspx>.  Relevant Articles are:

PART I

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.

PART II

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.

PART III

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, <http://www.ohchr.org/EN/ProfessionalInterest/Pages/CESCR.aspx>.  Relevant Articles are:

PART I

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.

PART II

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.

PART III

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, <http://www.un.org/disabilities/convention/conventionfull.shtml>.  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;

b.Non-discrimination;

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;

f.Accessibility;

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, <http://www.ohchr.org/EN/ProfessionalInterest/Pages/CAT.aspx>.  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, <http://www.ohchr.org/EN/ProfessionalInterest/Pages/CRC.aspx>.  Relevant Articles are:

PART I

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, <http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0021/002194/219494E.pdf>.  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”.

[HR23]

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. <https://www.tga.gov.au/committee/advisory-committee-safety-vaccines-acsov>.

========================================

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

community.affairs.sen@aph.gov.au

Date

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

http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/legislation/bills/r5540_first-reps/toc_pdf/15160b01.pdf;fileType=application%2Fpdf#search=%22legislation/bills/r5540_first-reps/0000%22

2) The Explanatory Memorandum, which includes the Statement of Compatibility With Human Rights

http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/legislation/ems/r5540_ems_78b7b14d-fa5d-469e-a038-2840207a8f3e/upload_pdf/503827.pdf;fileType=application%2Fpdf

3) Minister’s Second Reading Speech

http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/genpdf/chamber/hansardr/842ee7d9-89d4-4e4f-bc93-045b018bbeb2/0023/hansard_frag.pdf;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:
http://www.lawcouncil.asn.au/lawcouncil/index.php/australia-s-international-human-rights-obligations

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
http://www.ohchr.org/en/professionalinterest/pages/ccpr.aspx

International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights
http://www.ohchr.org/EN/ProfessionalInterest/Pages/CESCR.aspx

Convention on the Rights of the Child
http://www.ohchr.org/en/professionalinterest/pages/crc.aspx

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!

IMPORTANT UPDATE:

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,

Meryl

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.

images

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

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17429085

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.

polio-chart

******************************

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:

http://www.cdc.gov/maso/facm/pdfs/BSCOID/2013121112_BSCOID_Minutes.pdf

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

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24277828

“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.

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.

 

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.