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.

Dr Sherri Tenpenny: Bound for Botany Bay, until…

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

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

Interview on 2CC Canberra: Ken McLeod and Meryl Dorey

Sherri Tenpennyby Meryl Dorey

As mentioned in the last blog post, Canberra Radio 2CC interviewed both Ken McLeod from Stop the Australian Vaccination-skeptics Network (SAVN) and myself regarding the up-coming vaccination seminars with Dr Sherri Tenpenny.

SAVN admins appear to be a little bit embarrassed by Mr McLeod’s ‘performance’ on the program and the usually resourceful admins were unable to find the audio file for this interview. When a member of the Facebook group asked if Ken McLeod had been interviewed on 2CC, SAVN admin, Katie Brockie Kate Squires (correction by admin) replied:

It did indeed happen. Our own Ken McLeod was on as well, but was hoodwinked by Ms. Dorey’s appearance. Not sure if there’s a copy of audio. 

Well Katie, never fear! We have a copy of that audio and have transcribed it for your reading pleasure! And perhaps, while we’re at it, you can explain how I hoodwinked Mr McLeod when he was interviewed before me and was able to say whatever he wanted to say without interruption?

Freedom of speech? Not in their Australia!

SAVN has been trying their hardest to get Dr Tenpenny’s visa to enter Australia revoked and to bully the venues where she will be speaking to break their contracts to host these talks.

It is obvious, listening to Mr McLeod, that SAVN has no respect for personal rights or freedom of speech. He is also not above bending the truth in order to besmirch the reputation of the good doctor.

Below is a transcript of the interview which took place on January 7, 2015. I have provided a copy of the text to the presenter, Mr Rod Henshaw, and if he provides me with any corrections, I will be sure to update this blog. I do not believe there are any errors in this text however.

Interviewer: Rod Henshaw (R)

Interviewees: Ken McLeod (K), Meryl Dorey (M)

R:              A number of Australian doctors and expats … experts I should say, not expats. Well, maybe they’re expert expats, but a number of Australian doctors and experts are calling on the federal government to stop a prominent anti-vaccine campaigner from entering the country. Sherri Tenpenny is the author of the Saying No to Vaccine and is due to begin an Australian speaking tour in March, but Immigration Minister Peter Dutton is currently receiving advice on the issue, but Ken McLeod is from the Stop the AVN organisation. Ken, thanks for joining us.

K:              Oh, good afternoon Rod.

R:              Why shouldn’t we let Sherri Tenpenny into the country?iStock_000011256677XSmall

K:              She’s a very effective campaigner against vaccines and that’s not a good thing. She claims that vaccines are responsible for mass murders, including the Sandy Hook School massacre, that vaccines cause SIDS, autism, they disconnect the brain from the universe, etc, etc. We’re afraid that the end result of her tour is that some well-meaning parents will be conned. Sherri Tenpenny is not your average ratbag, she’s in a class of her own. We’re frightened that if enough parents are deceived the end result is misery, extra stress on the health department budgets, occasionally death and so on.

R:              But aren’t you underestimating the average intelligence of the average Australian in this case? I mean, aren’t you … there’s two questions I’ve got here, but that’s a first one. Are you … aren’t you assuming that the parents can’t pick and choose for themselves and work out what’s right and what’s wrong?

K:              You’re quite right. Most people, and I’m saying right up there in the 90% of the population can follow good advice, but there is that small number who can be dissuaded and that’s been proven in the statistics and that percentage of it is the number of people that we are worried about.

R:              But we do hear people from other walks of life coming out with totally outrageous things and we’ve heard it with Muslims in this current climate and all that sort of thing. Now, this doesn’t really differ too much from there because we can actually say well you’re an idiot, we don’t believe you, go back home if you want to and all this sort of thing, but at least we give them the right of free speech which you don’t seem to be willing to give … to extend to this person.

K:              That’s right. Yeah, it is a very difficult issue and I would say that your right of free speech ends where it has any effect on … an effect on the health of my children.

R:              Yeah, is that really the answer? You haven’t really answered the question. You’re saying she can’t come because we don’t agree with what she’s saying and you put a few very vibrant examples there, sure, I give you that, but still she’s surely entitled to express those opinions if she so desires and we’re so entitled that we can say bugger off, go home, we don’t want you and we don’t believe you, but let’s hear you first.

K:              Oh well, the problem is of course that in … what you might call an opinion is actually a disproven fact. She shares things that are clearly untrue, disproven by the science, and it wouldn’t matter if no one was hurt. So Australia has a proven track record of barring entry to people who can cause disharmony or endanger public health and I’m referring to Julien Blanc, the chap who ran seminars on how to seduce women and just use them for sex, David Irving, the Holocaust denier. We would say that Miss Tenpenny is up there in that league, but we do recognise that this is an incredibly difficult decision for the minister. We should … we are saying that the minister should, at the very least, deny Tenpenny a working visa, which mean that there would be no speaking fees, no payments, no entry fees, etc, etc.

R:              Okay, I am playing devil’s advocate with this, as you can probably tell (both laughing), but I am serious about the democracy thing, I mean, it reminds me of an old line out of one of those BBC television series, I forget which one, where they say democracy is fine, but why give it to the people? And it comes back to …

K:              (Laughing)

R:              … my original thing is couldn’t … shouldn’t we be …

K:              Yeah.

R:              … trusted enough to make our own minds up on this?

government-lies-truthK:              Yeah and that is the problem. I mean, if we’re discussing the existence of aliens and flying saucers and so on no harm is done, but where someone is using misinformation to persuade parents not to vaccinate their children and being very, very convincing about it, we think, you know, there’s a barrier there. There’s a bar that has to be brought down.

R:              Okay, well we’ll have to leave it there. We do have somebody from the Australian Vaccination-skeptics Network, but I’ll put you on hold just in case you want to have a listen and we’ll go to her and then … but in the meantime I do thank you very much for your time this afternoon.

K:              Yeah, thanks Rod.

R:              Thanks Ken. Ken McLeod is the … from the Stop the AVN organisation and, as I mentioned, we do have somebody from basically the other side of the coin, if you like. Meryl Dorey is founder of the Australian Vaccination-skeptics Network. Meryl, good afternoon.

M:            Good afternoon. Thank you.

R:              I don’t know how much you heard of that. Do you have a comment, a response?

M:            Oh, well I heard much of it. I don’t know how long Mr McLeod was on, but I heard some of the things that he claimed that Doctor Sherri Tenpenny was saying and it reminds me of a statement made by, I think his name is Goebbels, tell a lie long enough and often enough and it becomes the truth because what Mr McLeod was saying was not what Doctor Tenpenny has ever said. She has never claimed that vaccines cause mass murder, she’s never linked them with Sandy Hook, this is all just an attempt to smear her and personally …

R:              But can …

M:            … I think that if …

R:              Just before you go any further, I got to play …

M:            Sure.

R:              … devil’s advocate with this one too. How can you say she hasn’t said them? Can you prove that she hasn’t said those sort of things, those statements … made those statements?

M:            Well I’ve been following Doctor Tenpenny for over 20 years. She is above all an extremely moderate and intelligent person. All of her information comes from peer-reviewed journals. She has done over 20,000 hours of research in mainstream medical journals to gain the information that she shares with people who come to listen to her, so I would be very strongly … I would say very strongly that she’s never said any of those things. You know, if Mr McLeod has any proof of that let him prove it, let him show it.

R:              He seemed pretty …

M:            Until he does that …

R:              … straightforward and pretty strong with his views on that …

M:            He …

R:              … so I don’t think … I think … in fact, I would just suspect that in the court of law the defamation laws might come in if he’s wrong.

M:            Well, I hope they would too. I really do hope they would, because I don’t think that people have a right to tell lies about other people …

R:              That’s what I’m …

M:            … simply because ….

R:              That’s why I’m questioning whether he would actually go so … be so silly as to make those sort of statements if he couldn’t back them up.slander

M:            Oh, he’s done it before, so … I mean I have no doubt that he does not have the information to back that up. Like I said, let him prove it. If he proves it I will apologise and say sorry Ken, I was wrong, but I’m pretty confident that I won’t have to do that and what I want to say about this whole situation is that Australia is a democracy and in a democracy we have the right to disagree with each other, but we should also be defending others’ rights to say things that we disagree with. Australian parents are intelligent, they are very concerned about their children, they have every right and every ability to make these decisions for themselves after looking at both sides and asking appropriate questions from both sides. This …

R:              Meryl, it does come back … it’s incumbent on me to come back to say how can you prove that not vaccinating your children is going to be a good thing when we know so well that there is so many research papers and there has been so much documented evidence that kids do die unless they’re not vacc … unless they’re vaccinated?

M:            Okay, now first of all we have documented evidence as well. There is science on both sides and both sides … we don’t tell anyone that they shouldn’t vaccinate. Nobody tells anyone that. Doctor Tenpenny does not tell anyone that. All the AVN says is that there are risks and benefits to vaccination and it behoves all parents as responsible adults to get both sides of this information before making a choice for their children. The woman who is organising this series of seminars actually lost a child because of vaccination. My eldest child was vaccine-injured. Many parents who have chosen to look into this issue only did so after seeing one of their loved ones either die or suffer a serious reaction to a vaccination. We were not told that these things could happen. All the AVN is saying is that you need to get this information so that if your child has a reaction you know how to respond, you know what to do. You have a choice; vaccination is not compulsory. Everyone has the right to make this decision and it is wrong for any government, any medical community, to suppress, actively suppress, information that is sourced from peer-reviewed, mainstream medical literature that discusses the known risks and side effects …

R:              Well Immigration Minister …

M:            … of vaccination.

R:              Immigration Minister Peter Dutton is currently receiving advice on this issue, as I mentioned. How do you reckon he’ll go? Do you reckon …

M:            I have no idea.

R:              Do you think that there is a weight of evidence on the side perhaps of the people like Ken McLeod? And I will add that he is only one of a number of Australian doctors and experts who are calling on the government to stop her coming over here in the first place; it’s not just him.

M:            Okay. Ken McLeod is neither an expert nor a doctor. Ken McLeod is a member of a hate group called the Australian … Stop the Australian Vaccination-skeptics Network. Their founder had an AVO order against them for making threats against myself for having phone calls coming from their home making threats against myself. This is the sort of organisation that they are dealing with. If the Minister for Immigration is making a judgement based on the law he will allow Sherri Tenpenny … Doctor Sherri Tenpenny to come to Australia. If he is making an emotional decision based on peer-pressure brought about by these people then he probably won’t and if he doesn’t it’s going to be a shameful situation for Australia. We should all have the right to speak our truth and people can listen to it. If they don’t want to … not listen to it if they don’t want to and they can also argue it and discuss it. I have been trying for many years to set up a public debate on this issue with everyone from the health minister on down and they continually refuse to present their information to the general public to let them make a decision. The parents of Australia are capable of doing this, they should be allowed to.

R:              Okay, you make a fairly strong argument. Then again, so does Ken, but as you say Ken has got to back that up and …

M:            Yes.

R:              … it’ll be interesting to see where it goes. So if he’s wrong and you’re right why don’t you serve him with a legal notice?

M:            Well, it’s not my name he’s smeared here, but I certainly think that Doctor Tenpenny would be interested in hearing what he has said, especially since she can prove that it’s not true and he has to prove that it’s true. He can’t just go about saying things like that without the proof to back it up.

R:              Yeah. It’s only one flaw there in Australian law … defamation law, truth is not necessarily a defence, that’s the trouble, but I think …

M:            Yeah.

R:              … you’re on the path there, you could be … it could be a very interesting result in court when both side … where both sides are presented accordingly.

M:            Thank you for the opportunity to speak here.

R:              Thank you Meryl.

M:            I appreciate it. Bye bye.

R:              Bye bye. Meryl Dorey, founder of the Australian Vaccination-skeptics Network. On 2cc. It’s 3:42.

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

Apparently “…there’s nothing to debate”

by Greg Beattie

Queensland’s Chief Health Officer, Dr Jeanette Young, has refused to participate in a panel discussion on vaccination at this weekend’s Healthy Lifestyles expo on the Sunshine Coast, saying “there’s nothing to debate”. In the wake of this, disturbing details have now emerged of a cover up by her office regarding the death of a child following vaccination.

sopa-censorship-billBrisbane two-year-old, Ashley Jade Epapara, died shortly after a flu vaccination on April 9, 2010, just two weeks before the vaccine was withdrawn nationally in a blaze of publicity due to severe reactions. Police attending the scene of the death told reporters there were no suspicious circumstances apart from the vaccine. But Queensland Health staff acted quickly to quash that suggestion, instructing police to “ensure no further statements of the nature were made”, and securing agreement from media outlets to not pursue the story.

With the story suppressed, the vaccine continued on a path of destruction, particularly in Western Australia where an aggressive campaign was underway to vaccinate every child in the state.

It was not until April 22 that the vaccine was withdrawn from use in children. During and immediately following this period, many children endured severe reactions including Saba Button, who remains profoundly disabled. One wonders whether Saba’s parents, or those of the many other children affected, would have taken their child for the shot had they known about the tragedy in Brisbane. Unfortunately few knew about the vaccine connection in the Brisbane tragedy because of the cover up.

The following email excerpts were recently forwarded to us by a concerned third party. They are part of a Right to Information (RTI) release. They demonstrate clearly that health department staff deliberately and successfully prevented Australian parents from being warned about the potential for danger with this vaccine. (You can read the entire RTI by clicking this link for part 1 and this link for part 2.)Government Censorship

APRIL 9
“…someone involved (think it was a police officer) told the journalist the death may have been linked with a flu vaccination given to the child 24-hours before its death, and an autopsy will be performed Monday to rule it out.

“I have spoken to police media, who followed up with the area to make sure no further statements of the nature were made and spoke to the CH 10 News Editor about the unlikeliness of a link, and the possible panic such a story could cause.”
– Samantha Keegan, A/Manager, Corporate, Queensland Health.

————————————-

“I’m keen to hear if this blows up. Certainly has the potential to seriously undermine the confidence in the program and I’d like to jump on it before it does blow up (if possible).

“…and thanks Samantha for setting the coppers straight.
Neil, Media Unit, Department of Health and Ageing, Canberra.

————————————

APRIL 13
“Channel 9 is asking about a link between the Sudden Unexpected Death of a 2-yr-old girl on Friday and the child’s vaccination against swine flu 24 hours before her death.

“Channel 10’s editor gave me his word he would not run anything on Fri – then ran a short 3 par ‘live read’ (no vision or interviews).

“ABC and Courier Mail agreed not to run anything after I discussed the public health ramifications of children not being vaccinated with them.”
– Samantha Keegan, A/Manager, Corporate, Queensland Health.

There were many more emails exchanged, as can be seen in the RTI release, and Dr Young was kept informed the whole way. Within two weeks, a disaster had evolved forcing an urgent national withdrawal of the vaccine. When Dr Young was again approached by the media she issued a press release, feigning ignorance:

APRIL 25
“Until now, neither Queensland Health, nor the relevant national body had been advised of, or were aware of, any death allegedly related to a 2010 seasonal  flu vaccine in Queensland”.
Jeanette Young, Chief Health Officer, Queensland Health – April 25, 2010

The problem with the current approach
In the following days, we will be publishing a detailed series of articles regarding a more in-depth account of these events. One thing is clear: the current approach of our health authorities sometimes involves withholding, or suppressing vital information. In this case, the approach had clearly devastating consequences for some families.

Free SpeechWhat’s not immediately apparent is that this is actually the general ‘modus operandi’ of health authorities when dealing with vaccination. Whenever possible, they avoid discussing concerns raised by the media or consumer groups. Even worse, they openly state that these concerns are unjustified or dangerous in and of themselves. In short, “there’s nothing to debate”.

The refusal by Dr Young to provide a spokesperson for this weekend’s Healthy Lifestyles Expo is an example of this modus operandi. Her comments that the organisers should have exercised due diligence and not allowed anyone from the AVN to speak is another. Accusing the AVN of spreading ‘misinformation’ and ‘debunked theories’ is something Dr Young should be prepared to defend publicly. Her reluctance to do so is simply in keeping with this approach.

Parents are entitled to all information that may matter to them. If the police, or the media, or any other group feel the information is important, then it is. The AVN speaker at the expo, Ms Meryl Dorey, will be raising issues that are of concern to all potential consumers of vaccines. The public deserves to have these issues addressed at the forum and they rightly request the presence of a representative from their taxpayer-funded health department to explain why such concerns should not be considered important.

Suppression of vital information when parents are faced with making informed decisions about their children’s health is clearly not the answer. Responsible health officials tend to prefer education over coercion when it comes to health choices. It is essential that any information which matters to consumers is never actively withheld from them, and that any discussion this prompts is welcomed by our publicly funded health officials.

Please read the attached Right to Information documents (part 1 and part 2) to follow the trail of suppression by health officials in both the Queensland and the Commonwealth governments.

Further analysis will be available on this blog in coming days.

Timeline to a Tragedy: Part 1 – Did Incompetence, Lies and a Government Cover-up Lead to Deaths?

Timeline to a Tragedy: Part 2 – The Cover-Up Deepens

Timeline to a Tragedy: Part 3 – Lessons Go Unlearned

Why isn’t the Health Care Complaints Committee’s inquiry transparent?

by Meryl Dorey

11074700_sIf you have been following this blog for any length of time at all, you would remember that we have been covering an issue of vital importance to everyone living in NSW specifically and Australia as a whole. That is the issue of an attempt by the NSW Health Care Complaints committee to grant yet more unprecedented powers to the NSW Health Care Complaints Commission (HCCC).

Many of our members and supporters have sent written submissions to this committee explaining their objections to these proposals.You can see the page on the NSW Parliament website which will provide you with information on this inquiry – The Promotion of False or Misleading Health-Related Information or Practices.

Originally, the time period for submissions was supposed to end in December, 2013. It was then extended until the 7th of February 2014.

I personally know of more than 50 submissions to this inquiry made by AVN members. There would be many more.

In my experience, whenever a parliamentary inquiry has called for submissions, those submissions are published on the website as they are received or within a matter of days of receipt. In this instance, however, no submissions have been made publicly available and in fact, most people who submitted to this inquiry have not even received a confirmation that their submission was received.

At the end of February, 2014, I contacted Mr Jason Arditi, the Committee Manager, to ask why none of the submissions had been uploaded to the committee website even though submissions had been closed by, at that point in time, a couple of weeks.

I was told that the committee had not yet considered any of the submissions but that they would be meeting in mid-March and would consider them at that time and they would be published by the end of March.

The end of March came and went and again, no submissions were uploaded.

I contacted Mr Arditi in early April and at that time, I was told that the Committee had indeed met in March but had not considered any of the submissions. They were due to be considered at the meeting being held in mid-April and the submissions would be uploaded by the end of that month.

I asked if it was normal procedure to not publish submissions until they had been considered and Mr Arditi informed me that it was neither normal nor abnormal to proceed in this way. Whilst most committees do publish on receipt, this particular committee had chosen to do things differently.

The end of April came and went with no submissions on the committee website.

I contacted Mr Arditi on May 1st to ask why, once again, no submissions had been uploaded to the website. He told me that the committee had, in fact, considered the submissions during their April meeting and that they would be uploaded. It’s just that some of them were defamatory in nature so they would need to have sections blacked out before they were made public. He assured me that this would be done and they would be there by Friday, May 9th. Today, in fact.

I  asked for a firm publication date during my last conversation with Mr Arditi and he gave me his assurance that these submissions would be online by today but disappointingly, they are not there. Won’t they make the slightest attempt to appear transparent by abiding by their promise to publish these submissions?

A less trusting person than myself would be starting to wonder if the committee was trying to hide something? Why this ongoing failure to inform the public of the reasons why those in the community oppose their intended power grab?

Maybe one of you will have better luck getting an answer than I have? If you’d like to contact Mr Arditi, his details are below. Please let me know if you do get a result. We have a right to see this information and to consider what the committee has considered.

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

AVN Supporters speak in support of their rights

19359622_letterbox1Below are the letters which AVN members and supporters have sent to the various State and Federal Health Ministers and Shadow Ministers in support of the right to conscientiously object to vaccination without being penalised or discriminated against in any way.

As always, these letters are articulate, intelligent and passionate. There are many letters here and at least twice as many people have informed us that they wrote but did not send copies of their letters to us. There are most likely many more who wrote without informing us as well. The upshot is – when your rights are threatened – you don’t sit back and take it, you take action. We will be contacting the Federal Health Minister’s office next week to find out what the final recommendation was after the meeting and will be sure to let you all know. But be assured – if the Ministers have decided not to press ahead with this dreadful plan to penalise Australian families, it will be because of your efforts.

One last note – this page was put together very quickly so if the formatting is a bit wonky or any letters were missed out, we apologise profusely for any problems.

Dear Honourable Health Minister,

I am disgusted yet not surprised by the latest attacks on those of us who are Conscientious Objectors to vaccination. The attacks by both State and Federal Governments on our right to choose regarding vaccination have been constant for the last 2 years.

The media implies that parents opting out of vaccination are somehow following a trend, or are stupid or (insert this weeks insult here). The Medical establishment does not like the sacred cow of medicine, vaccination, being questioned, so it is fighting back in the most bullying and hostile of ways; do what we say or face consequences. This time it will be loss of Governement payments, my feeling is that next in line will be our right to opt out of vaccination.

I could write ad nauseum on the reasons I have chosen not to vaccinate my children. After my eldest child suffered a terrible reaction to her Hepatitis B vaccine at birth I started to research the issue. I was staggered that no Doctor had ever mentioned any of the information I discovered.

In brief vaccines are toxic (ethyl mercury, aluminium, formaldehyde etc), contaminated ( monkey DNA and viruses, aborted human foetal tissue, chicken viruses, pig viruses…it’s a long list) and ineffective (all of the so called Vaccine Preventable Diseases had decreased over 90% by the time the vaccines for those diseases arrived). Not to mention that vaccinated individuals can shed the viruses they have been vaccinated with!

The list of those killed or disabled by vaccines is growing by the day. As demonstrated by VAERS ( Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System) in the USA the consequences of vaccination can be deadly or life ruining, and these types of consequences are not rare. Despite the howling protests of Governments everywhere; vaccines can cause autism. Cases like those of Hannah Poling (US courts) and Valentino Bocca (Italian Courts) prove this. There are tens of thousands of other children out there with the same story as these children.

The tragic case of Saba Button in Western Australia in 2010 shows that citizens are correct to have doubts over Government authorised vaccination campaigns. Saba was permanently disabled after receiving the untested Fluvax vaccine. Hundreds of children in WA were hospitalised as a result of this vaccination. Parents WERE NOT told about the status of this vaccine or the risks involved ( A WA health spokesperson said 1/1000 children were “expected” to have febrile seizures but the rate was 10 times higher than they expected i.e. 1/100 children suffered febrile seizures). It is criminal that parents were not told of this risk prior to vaccination. What about the right to informed consent? What happened to “first do no harm”?

Saba Button’s parents have set up a foundation in her name to raise money to help with the costs of her fulltime care needs. So for the Health Minister to take a few hundred dollars out of vaccine refusers pockets is not even a drop in the ocean of the cost of caring for a vaccine injured child. Personally there is no sum of money that could ever induce me to vaccinate my children and that is true of all the other vaccine refusing parents that I know.

The financial ramifications of the Health Minister’s plan do not bother me, but the ethics behind his decision do. If my child is vaccine injured it is not the Health Minister, Government or Doctor who pay the price. It is my burden to carry, so the choice should be mine , unencumbered by draconian and coercive Government policies.

I could provide you with a lot more information regarding vaccines, but lets face it, you already know them. Concerned and intelligent parents have been writing to all forms of Government for years now saying the same thing, fighting to maintain our right to choose.

The problem for the Government, Medical Establishment and Drug Companies is that there is now a tsunami of educated parents who are refusing to vaccinate their children. I have no doubt that the fight for our rights will be a hard one and it is already getting very ugly. Unfortunately for the Government it is too late. There are now vaccine-damaged children living on every street in Australia and their parents are very vocal. We will stay vocal. We will speak our truth and spread information about vaccine dangers wherever we go and we will not be shut up. So you may try to impose draconian legislation to “punish”us for being so caring, intelligent and righteous, but it is too late. In the words of Andrew Wakefield “There is no place for indulging futile displacement activity, sanctimonious posturing and self-protectionism. In the battle for the hearts and minds of the public you have already lost. Why? Because the parents are right; their stories are true; their children’s brains are damaged; there is a major, major problem.”

Yes the public is fast becoming aware of vaccine dangers. I ask that the Minister also looks into the issue and not be fobbed off by his advisors.

Some interesting points to research

1) The safety studies of the current vaccine schedule (no wait, there aren’t any).
2) The safety studies proving that is safe to inject infants with ethyl mercury (these studies don’t exist either)
3) A study comparing long term health outcomes of fully vaccinated verus fully unvaccinated children. (This doesn’t exist either. Would the Minister please make this type of study his number one priority. We have been asking for this study to be done.)

I trust that the Minister will allow parents the right to choose whether or not to vaccinate their children. Anything less would be an infringement on human rights.

In Support of Conscientious Objection to Vaccination,
AH

Divider 1

Dear Minister Dutton,

I have just spoken with your office of my concern that family tax payments may be withdrawn from parents who have chosen not to immunise their children.

The person who took my call suggested that I send an email to support the phone call.

I treat many children with autism spectrum disorders, severe allergies and worrying gastrointestinal disturbances whose parents firmly believe their problem began with vaccination. I believe them for two reasons – first, their stories have convincing yet uncanny similarities – and there are so many of them, and second, because what happened to their children mimics what happened to mine when they too were vaccinated.

At the time I knew little about the vaccine debate but expressed my concern to the vaccinating doctors that the high fevers and problems that followed were somehow linked to the vaccine they had not long given. My concerns were dismissed out of hand, and still are today whenever I retell what happened. Though much improved my children continue to be affected by those early problems, even into adulthood.

If I had my time over again I would certainly be one of those seeking an exemption for my children as they and I (and others like us) have had to bear the burden – not the doctors who gave the vaccine or the government that advised them to do so.

Did you know that most people who now have a conscientious or medical exemption to vaccines started out as vaccine proponents and trustingly had their child vaccinated as recommended? Do you know that they only stopped giving subsequent vaccines because that child became one of the unlucky ones? These are the people you wish to remove family tax payments from – payments that initially were never intended to be linked to vaccination.

If you remove these payments you will not be punishing parents who just can’t be bothered to go and get the vaccine, you will be punishing those who have already tried to do the right thing and now bear the consequences of following medical and governmental advice. It seems to me that they should be compensated rather than punished like naughty school children for not continuing to do something they are convinced harmed their children.

Please don’t compound their heartache and loss by removing this much needed payment. To do so would be grossly unfair.

Yours sincerely,
FS

Divider 1

To: Mrs Jo-Ann Miller Shadow Minister for Health, Queensland

Dear Mrs Miller,

I am writing to you about this matter, since you are the Shadow Minister of Health in my State of Queensland.

I find it very hard to comprehend that there should be vaccinations, and taken beyond that mandatory vaccinations. I have taken close interest in reading all the articles I can on this matter from sources that are not censored. It seems that all information in the Australian Media is censored.

As a child in South Australia in the war years I was given a tetanus vaccination, and I came out in a total severe body rash. In India in 1946, as a child aged 11, I had another fall from a horse, with a cut requiring stitches. Although the Doctor was told by my Mother about the first reaction, he insisted on giving me another tetanus vaccination. This time I was paralysed over my body for two days, and could not get out of bed or turn over, and was kept in a darkened room in the family house with someone with me all the time.

It is a fact that the Pharmaceutical companies have taken control of the whole world, paying for medical training for doctors, and totally influencing their decisions, so they don’t think of questioning their training. They are rewarded by holidays and gifts, provided they write out a sufficient number of prescriptions. The Minister of Health said on a broadcast that any doctor who would not vaccinate would no longer be able to practice as a doctor. Most doctors have families and mortgages, and how would they find another career. So the GPs continue to vaccinate, but those who know with families, do not vaccinate their own children.

All vaccinations damage. Most of them create the very disease they are meant to protect against. They all have mercury and formaldehyde, and unfortunately viruses have also got into the mix.

The flue epidemic after the War 1914-1918 was created by vaccinations and killed more people than died in the War. Those who were not vaccinated did not get the flue.

Please investigate this yourself. You will not be able to change the world situation, due to bribery and corruption, but at least you will be able to influence decisions about mandatory vaccinations, giving the choice to parents who know the dangers, or who are just wary about damaging their children.

You are welcome to forward this email on to others.

Sincerely
SW

Divider 1

Dear Ministers,

On the eve of ANZAC Day it seems the Australian Government seeks to dishonor what our countrymen fought for 100 years ago. Freedom, choice and democracy.

I oppose any moves by the Government to remove the right of a person to be a conscientious objector with regard to vaccinations.

People should have the same rights to vaccinate or to not vaccinate.

I oppose any moves to take away our right to entitlements based on our vaccination decision and status.

I am sure that in legal circles this could be called ‘Blackmailing’. (Blackmail refers to a situation that arises when a person threatens another person with some form of punishment if they do not offer some form of concessions. http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=blackmail)

Nobody should be FORCED to have their child be vaccinated.

We live in Australia, a democratic society which means (taken from http://moadoph.gov.au/democracy/australian-democracy/):

The Australian democracy has at its heart, the following core defining values:

freedom of election and being elected; freedom of assembly and political participation; freedom of speech, expression and religious belief; rule of law; and other basic human rights.

As far as I am concerned it is my basic human right to choose how I medicate myself and my children. If you take away government entitlements you are penalising those that make an educated and informed choice that is different to the current political and medical dogma, and are saying that I don’t have a right to choice.

Regards,

DW

Divider 1

Dear Minister Dutton,

I ask you to please not participate in the discrimination against loving parents who have legitimate concerns about vaccinating their children, please do not persecute parents by taking away government entitlements that are meant for every eligible low income family struggling with the costs of raising their children, it is ethically and morally wrong.

The current environment of blaming unvaccinated children for every disease outbreak under the sun is unjustified and very worrying especially for me as I am both a conscientious objector and a recipient of the government payments that they are thinking of taking away from parents like myself.

My name is Tasha David and I am a widowed Mum of 8 and also a committee member of the AVN, but today I am writing to you as a Mum. I have vaccinated 6 of my children to varying degrees and they all have neurological, allergic and autoimmune disorders as well as having poor general health. My two unvaccinated children have excellent health and no neurological disorders yet I had them when I was in my late 30’s when they should have been more susceptible to the disorders that are affecting their elder siblings. We also did genetic testing and there was no genetic reason found for their afflictions. In my position would you have continued vaccinating your children, and do you believe that I should be punished financially for doing what I believe was in the best interests of my children?

What this proposed legislation is in essence saying, is that parents like myself are bad parents and do not deserve the same rights as other parents but on what basis is the judgement made? I love and adore my children, I make sure that my children are safe from physical harm, that they are educated, they are fed nourishing whole meals that I cook from scratch, I support their immune systems through nutrient rich supplements, foods and probiotics and we avoid all additives, preservatives etc and toxic chemicals in the home, and they get plenty of fresh air, exercise. If my children are sick which is very rarely then I keep them home so that they are not exposing any other children to any illnesses that they may have and this has worked really well for my children especially my unvaccinated children, they have never had or needed an antibiotic in their lives unlike their elder siblings which have all had antibiotics. Almost all of my vaccinated children have been admitted to hospital for either asthma attacks, rotavirus and grommets for chronic ear infections etc, my unvaccinated children have not. I have researched countless vaccine studies that show pros and cons and have seen firsthand what vaccines can do to my children, so by deciding that vaccination is not for my children anymore does this make me a bad mother?

If we are going to start penalising parents for making their decisions that they know in their hearts is best for their children and call them irresponsible parents, where does it end? Is it fair that parents that smoke, drink and do drugs around their children are eligible for these payments, are they better parents than us? What about parents that feed their children chips and coke and sweets all day and let them run around the streets all hours of the day and night, are they better parents? Going on the proposed legislation by Minister Springborg they are, as they will still be eligible for these payments yet we will not. How can this be considered anything other than discrimination?

I always wonder how a parent who believes in vaccination would feel if they were punished for vaccinating their child because of the shedding from the live vaccines? If they were vilified and condemned by their government,the media and other parents and were told that there children should not be allowed near other children in school, in public etc how would they feel? How did we get to this point where the Government and media are stirring up hatred against parents like me, are there great epidemics of disease in unvaccinated children? No, there isn’t so why the hatred, the demonising of parents, the encouraging of the us and them mentality, why are we so eager to hate others for being different?

If the Government is so worried about conscientious objectors why don’t they talk to us, why can’t we have an open discussion where both sides can be heard, how can you think that financial penalties are the only way to reach an understanding with parents?

The other part that does not make sense to me about all of this is why the Government thinks taking away Centrelink payments is going to change the minds of the rich affluent suburbs which are the ones with the lowest vaccination rates, this type of discrimination only targets the poor?

We have just experienced the largest Whooping cough epidemic and the vast majority of cases were in the vaccinated, so how many others are not protected by their vaccinations and are walking around thinking that they are? Or are asymptomatic transmitters of the disease?

“This research suggests that although individuals immunized with an acellular pertussis vaccine may be protected from disease, they may still become infected with the bacteria without always getting sick and are able to spread infection to others, including young infants who are susceptible to pertussis disease.”

http://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/Newsroom/PressAnnouncements/ucm376937.htm

Why is that the Government has only got a passive surveillance system in place for vaccine reactions/injuries? How can we really know how many vaccine injuries and deaths there are if they is no mandatory reporting system in place?

“Professor Bryant Stokes, the eminent neurosurgeon and former head of WA Health who reviewed the events for the state’s health minister, concluded in a report tabled in the WA Parliament last August that the “slow response” by federal and state authorities had “not served the public well”. It was “disturbing”, he noted, that Australia had not put in place the surveillance and reporting systems recommended by the World Health Organisation, which had advised all countries in August 2009 to “conduct intensive monitoring for safety and efficacy” of the pandemic vaccine, Panvax.”

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/features/virus-in-the-system/story-e6frg8h6-1226063484330

How is it that we can vilify parents for not vaccinating their children by saying that the science is clear when there has been no long term health outcomes comparing the fully vaccinated vs fully unvaccinated? Shouldn’t this be done before we even start to think about discriminating against conscientious objectors?

How can we have herd immunity when adults have not been vaccinated appropriately for decades, and the theory was based on natural immunity to start with not vaccine induced immunity?

http://www.webmd.com/vaccines/news/20140206/many-us-adults-not-getting-key-vaccines-cdc

Why is there such a push to force vaccination on parents when they are much more serious priorities that deserve the governments full attention ie 1 in 6 having developmental delays, sky rocketing numbers of Asthma, Allergies, Autoimmune disorders, Autism, ADHD, Alzheimer’s, Cancer etc? What about the estimated 18,00 to 30,000 dying from medical errors in our hospitals?

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-04-06/australia-on-verge-of-allergy-epidemic/2628058 http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/Lookup/4428.0main+features42009 http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-02-04/cancer-now-biggest-killer-in-australia/5236148 http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-06-10/lack-of-data-creates-concern-over-true-extent-of-medical-errors/4744286 http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-02-04/cancer-now-biggest-killer-in-australia/5236148

Why have we forgotten the hundred children rushed to hospital in WA with febrile seizures because of the Fluvax vaccine, and the death of Ashley Epapara, the severe brain damage of Saba Button and even more recently Lachlan Neyland? Do these children not deserve to be protected also, why is it that a child that is injured or killed by a disease is given priority over children that have been injured or killed by vaccination? Who decides which life is more worthy of protection?

http://www.tga.gov.au/safety/alerts-medicine-seasonal-flu-100702.htm#.U0UEb6J7R2A http://www.perthnow.com.au/news/western-australia/saba-button-the-girl-who-is-never-alone/story-e6frg13u-1226035296706 http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/nsw/toddler-who-was-given-an-adult-flu-shot-is-left-severely-brain-damaged-and-unable-to-walk-or-talk/story-fni0cx12-1226756398505 http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/toddler-ashley-jade-epapara-2-dies-after-flu-vaccination/story-e6freon6-1225857803417

Conscientious objectors are just trying to raise healthy children like everybody else we just believe that there has to be a better way than injecting substances in to our children with an unknown long term health outcome. Parents should be allowed to make the choices that they believe are right for their children whether it be to vaccinate or not, especially when there is no way of knowing whether your child will be the one having a serious adverse reaction. I couldn’t save my first six children from life long chronic illness please do not punish me for trying to save my last two from this.

This is my family’s story…

Thank you for your time and I hope that this helps in some way Kind regards Tasha David

To all the Honourable Members of Parliament State and Federal to whom this has been sent.

I believe you are meeting to decide wether or not to continue to allow Government payments to be made to those who object to vaccination. No mention as to the legitimate reasons for objections, of which there are many.

My wife and I raised our children from 1974 till the last born in 1990. We were aware of the discussion and claims regarding the efficacy of vaccines, but chose to vaccinate untill our last baby reacted badly to the vaccine and we saw what others had warned us of. There are real dangers with vaccines and to deny that is to deny the truth. Who is responsible for the wellbeing of our children? Did you give them to us? Why are the vaccine manufacturers indemnified against prosecution for the death or disablement of those injured by vaccines?

Should you even consider such a proposal then we do not live in a democratic country.

Yours Sincerely
DGS

Divider 1

Minister Dutton,

I have spoken with Alex in your office and left a message for you. He suggested I could also write.

With respect, I want to pass on my views as they relate to your discussion with state health Ministers on the potential removal of (or tightening of) conscientious objection (CO) clauses with Vaccination policy.

First, CO is NOT used ‘willy nilly’ – people who do appropriate research and then make an informed choice take advantage of this right. The difficulty experienced in actually finding a GP who will sign such a form is testament enough to the fact that the clause is not being ‘taken advantage of’.

Second, our constitution provides us with the right to refuse medical treatments against our will. As such governments of both persuasion have often argued that vaccination is not compulsory – but you then tie access to certain family payments to vaccination status which effectively ‘force’ compliance with vaccination policy. This is under-handed and dishonest.

If you do believe vaccination is such an important public health initiative, then make it compulsory, institute protection-schemes for those that are vaccine-damaged (or better yet, allow once again the common law right to sue vaccine manufacturers!), fund and instruct the TGA to do proper analysis including post-market safety studies, don’t ‘farm out’ investigation of reactions to the companies that produce the product, and instruct all health practitioners to keep accurate reaction statistics rather than just voluntary adverse reactions registers. Also, fund the studies that have been called for ad nauseum (with such calls being ignored so far) for long-term health outcomes of the fully vaccinated versus the fully non-vaccinated.

The FTB is an important payment most used by needy families in our society. It should not be in any way linked to whether or not you have a medical procedure. The fact that it currently is, means you MUST allow conscientious objection.

The argument you and others have put forward regarding the importance of high vaccination uptake is always predicated on the ‘greater good’ which is turn is based on a theoretical mathematical model of herd immunity…the levels required to achieve herd immunity continue to change and rise, because we reach the level suggested and then we find eradication has not occurred, and fully or mostly vaccinated populations are still contracting these diseases! You can’t blame unvaccinated children for fully vaccinated outbreaks! True, there are populations that for whatever reason are not able to be vaccinated (partly because of the toxic ingredients in vaccines!)…but if you look into the history of flu vaccine policy for example, you find profound conflicts of interest and policies derived from ‘expert’ panels without any evidence or research – particularly the justification to vaccinate the over-65 age-group originally was non-existent!

Ministers are often guilty of spouting inaccurate information regarding vaccination – first confusing vaccination with immunisation (they’re NOT the same thing!), second, claiming extremely high levels of safety based on voluntary reporting data, third claiming efficacy based on the fact that people don’t contract the disease after innoculation (with no evidence they were EXPOSED to the organism and no analysis of differences in immunocompetency or the factors which might raise immunocompetency in some population groups/individuals while not in others!) Leaps of faith are made with inadequate basis, and this informs your public policy.

Please…if you (and by this I mean the pro-vaccine lobby) are not willing to sit down and have a real, inclusive debate and address areas of perceived or actual lack in the evidence to back up your policy, don’t force people who HAVE researched the issue into something they firmly believe could cause greater harm than good.

If you cannot achieve herd immunity through education then surely there is some reasonable doubt you have not adequately addressed…and the way most pro-vaccination experts contribute to the public debate further inflames this issue. By just simply trying to deny that there is a valid debate, or for that matter ridiculing alternative points of view, you don’t actually do your cause any favours! Removing the only real option for people to still receive their rightful government funds

As Minister for HEALTH (not minister for sick-care) it would be amazing if you began to heavily promote research and public policy based not on the minimum standards needed to avoid illness, but on what is required to achieve sufficiency to maximise full function and the expression of ultimate health. The philosophy underpinning allopathy – whereby society is effectively taught to only respond to their health status when they experience a symptom is the real issue here!

Clearly I’m passionate about this issue and I would welcome any indication from you that you have considered this email – a ‘pro-forma’ email will just further reinforce my opinions as presented in this letter!

— Regards,

Dr. P

Divider 1

Peter Dutton,

I oppose any moves to take away our right to government entitlements based on our vaccination decision.

Nobody should be FORCED to have their child be vaccinated.

The Australian Constitution No 51 ‘The provisions of maternity allowances, widow’ pensions, child endowment, unemployment, pharmaceutical, sickness and hospital benefits, medical and dental services (but not so as to authorize any form of civil conscription), benefits to students and family allowances’

By removing the family tax will not get me to vaccinate my children but will place more financial stress on my family and will cause us to tighten our belts even further. Are you sure this decision will really profit out children? Are you not satisfied with the 90% you already have claimed?

Jesus therefore says to him, If thou doest, do quickly.

God bless

PB

Divider 1

Letter of Objection for Peter Dutton.

I write in regards to the proposed removal of the conscientious objection clause in relation to vaccination and remove entitlements. This is in Violation of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution. The Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act was signed & Sealed in 1900, by Queen Victoria using the Royal Seal, which then became the law-making seal of the Federal Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia at Proclamation in 1901. No other symbols or system can be used to create an authority of any kind, OVER the civil & political rights of the legal or private Persons of the Commonwealth of Australia. The Queen holds the title Defender of the Faith, upholding our Commercial and Civil rights to Common and Canon Law . That title is a direct covenant with God Almighty. A contract. In her, and her alone, through that contract, lies the authority to Judicially adjudicate over the men & women of the Contract.

Commonwealth Of Australia Constitution Act

Part V – Powers of the Parliament

51.The Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to make laws for the peace, order, and good government of the Commonwealth with respect to: –

(xxiiiA.) The provision of maternity allowances, widows’ pensions, child endowment, unemployment, pharmaceutical, sickness and hospital benefits, medical and dental services but not so as to authorise any form of civil conscription, benefits to students and family allowances.

Correct me if I have read this wrongly but it states not as to authorise any form of civil conscription to medical services. So there we have it, this is why vaccination is a voluntary procedure.

Be aware that we the people are watching you and are growing in numbers and will hold you accountable for the decisions you make.

I have informed you of the illegality of enforcing vaccinations and hereby this communication is a letter of objection.

Vaccination has no scientific background to support it. Wherever we have so many vaccine failures it becomes a scam.

Science means 100% efficacy, nothing less can be deemed to be back by science. No failures not now not ever, I have witnessed to many vaccine failure particularly the Flu Vaccine for it to be considered scientific.

We the people are now looking at this hoax in growing numbers as you can never fool all the people all the time.

You are elected by the people to stand up for the people. Its high time you backed the people who elected you to office as opposed to the corporate entities who only have profit as there agenda and care not for anyone or the planet.

Yours Sincerely

RM

Divider 1

To the Hon. David Davis, Hon. Peter Dutton, Hon. Catherine King and Mr Gavin Jennings

I am a Victorian resident, Company Director, mother of young children and supportive wife to a very hard working tax payer, and I write sharing my concern regarding current discussions about vaccination and the removal of rights of Conscientious Objectors (CO).

As a fellow Australian citizen, I respectfully ask that our Health Ministers and Government Officials please respect our rights as parents (and human beings) to make decisions on behalf of our children. Many parents choose to vaccinate, but some believe it is not in the best interests of their children to follow the current Australian Vaccination Schedule or to vaccinate at all. With so many vaccines required to stay “up to date”, my husband and I do not feel comfortable injecting our children so often and with so many vaccines as is currently suggested. My mother was instructed by her GP back in the 1980s not to even think about vaccinating me until I was at least 6 months old, and with far less vaccines required when I was a child, it is no wonder some parents are not “fulfilling” the current schedule.

As it stands, we are one of the CO families which have been vehemently despised, blamed and shamed throughout the media and some medical circles in recent times. We submitted the CO paperwork (which, ironically, was misplaced at Medicare for one of my children although we sent the letters together) so that Centrelink/Family Assistance/Childhood Vaccine Registry would cease sending us so much correspondence in reminder letters, tax benefit reduction threats and the like. We thought it was the right thing to do considering our options, and we trust you will take on board that right to choose. Considering my vaccinated daughter contracted the chicken pox last year from who knows where and gave the illness to her siblings, one of which is unvaccinated, I really cannot see us changing our position in the near future and I do not believe it is fair, constitutional or downright “Australian” for my children to be forcibly medicated against our wishes.

It is very unfortunate when an industry (which does not have any scientific research supporting the safety of injecting multiple vaccines at a time as suggested by the current schedule) has more clout than the parents of the precious children being injected. The right to choose to vaccinate or not is one right we desire to stand up for; for our children and for their wellbeing.

Please take note of my conscientious objection to any discussions penalising CO families for making a decision for their individual family.

Yours sincerely
SE

Divider 1

The Hon. Peter Dutton, MP Minister for Health

Dear Minister,

I am writing to offer an ordinary, informed citizen’s view of a proposal by your Queensland state counterpart, Lawrence Springborg, for using undue and unrelated financial penalties to coerce conscientious parents, in contravention of Australia’s human-rights obligations, to undertake a course of action that in their view may endanger, threaten, or compromise their own children’s health: Mr Srpingborg’s proposal to remove from such parents the admittedly burdensome option of lodging conscientious objection, for the purpose of receiving an unrelated tax rebate, to the questionable* practice of universal vaccination using all the vaccines not yet banned that the industry that stands to profit by their sale “recommends”.

That such a successful industry as the pharmaceutical industry is must increasingly rely upon punitive measures, upon physical force, upon court orders, and, at least in the United States, upon physical violence in order to force its most disreputable products upon resistant consumers is a strong indicator that something has gone awry in the most expensive marketing campaign that any industry has yet financed.

What industry with a product that works and offers great benefits to its potential customers has ever had to force that product down their throats? If the most expensive marketing in history has failed to persuade a minority of parents of the value of all vaccines to their children, what has gone wrong that the product must be delivered punitively (and, in the U.S., even at gunpoint)? If the product cannot be sold at any price, then perhaps it is the product, not the consumer, that has something wrong with it.

What has undermined the success of vaccine marketing, minister, may be a mix of fundamental changes in perception.

First, formerly pro-vaccination parents have seen their children being harmed by vaccines and have chosen to educate themselves and to realise that vaccination is not the be-all and end-all of child health.

Second, formerly zealous paediatric proponents of vaccination have seen their patients damaged and have undertaken their own research.

Third, international studies of the long-term health of the vaccinated and the unvaccinated have come up with results that unarguably speak against indiscriminate childhood vaccination as a long-term health strategy.

Fourth, several studies that supported vaccine efficacy and safety have emerged as having been tampered with, ghostwritten, and forged altogether.

Fifth, alternatives to vaccination have been studied and have been found to be effective preventatives of infectious illnesses.

And, sixth and most tellingly, the Internet, as did the Gutenburg press in its day, has enabled parents and concerned citizens to conduct their own research, communicate their findings, and question formerly unquestionable dogmas.

Possibly the greatest subversion of the success of vaccination marketing, however, has been the refusal by the most vehement proponents of the unquestionable dogmas to answer such questions — except by attempting to subvert the right of all parents to make the health choices most appropriate for their children with the assistance of the most accurate information available on the subject and without undue pressure by industry or government.

Could you yourself possibly give a straightforward, informative, and accurately referenced answer to a question concerning a particular vaccination’s value to a particular child whose parents have noted that child’s familial or personal history of sensitivity to that vaccine or to a related one? If not, then on what possible basis could you justify overcoming that child’s parents’ better judgement and parental intuition using the force of financial penalties?

Undermining the set dogmas more broadly than do questions of safety in relation to a particular individual are some of the larger statistical studies that have demonstrated some vaccines’ surprising roles. Two of the better-known reasons for concerned citizens to question the universal truths of the dogma of vaccinations’ universal benefit to their recipients are (a) the evident role of pertussis vaccine (whole-cell in particular as opposed to acellular) in perpetuating cycles of pertussis and parapertussis epidemics, and (b) the evident role of the now highly discredited “swine flu” vaccines in increasing susceptibility to annual influenza. Could you yourself possibly offer the least evidence to contradict the studies that have elicited these relationships? If not, then on what possible basis could you justify using pressure of any kind to sway a parent’s better-informed decision?

Minister, these questions and many more like them deserve answers based on respect for truth and for the rights of the individual, not answers that come from the barrel of the handiest financial cannon.

The more readily the pharmaceutical industry and the Government turn to force in order to sell the unsellable to the unwilling, the stronger the Government makes the message that it has no recourse in terms of rational argument and evidence but must use irrelevant penalties — withholding of irrelevant tax payments — in order to enforce its opinions. Such irrational measures do less than nothing to inspire confidence in the ability of our ministers for health to understand evidence and argument and communicate it. Rather, they demonstrate the inadequacy of such ministers to their portfolio.

That parents manage to stand up to the already significant financial pressure of losing access to a relevant payment — the Maternity Immunisation Allowance (M.I.A.), through payment of which the Government tacitly admits a certain degree of risk to the child it pays on behalf of — says that some parents retain both a sense of higher vaccine risk than the Government acknowledges and stronger principles than the Government counts on in using the M.I.A. as blood money. Seeking deliberately to add to such conscientious parents’ burdens is the work not of good citizens and servants but of those who believe in their own power above all else. That your office, when I phoned, was punctilious in insisting that such deliberate privations neither force parents to vaccinate nor constitute, technically, penalties — is a clear indicator that you yourself are conscious both of the burden and of the force of that burden upon parents. I urge you to become equally aware of the existence of an entire library of careful research demonstrating that the dogmas underlying your Queensland colleague’s proposal have had their day in the court of scientific investigation and been found wanting in factual accuracy.

I look forward to your prompt, public assurance that you have forsworn committing the grave errors of judgement and disrespect for your electorate that your Queensland colleague would willingly lead you to commit. And I look forward to learning that you have led a movement toward a factual basis for government policy via research uncontaminated by unarguably vested interests.

Yours sincerely,

JH

* I use the word “questionable” here advisedly. A medical procedure whose value has become beyond question becomes impossible to subject to intelligent investigation. In the minds of those who think of science as a canon of established, unquestionable knowledge rather than a process of careful discernment, vaccination has already reached such a canonised state. It is truly remarkable, in the poisonous atmosphere that habitually attends the questioning of vaccination’s value, that any independent research in the field continues to be done. It nonetheless does occur. For a start in reading independent research on vaccination, you could do worse than to consult the writings of Dr Tom Jefferson, of the Cochrane Collaborative. I’d be happy to refer you to peer-reviewed work by him and other notables in such places as the British Medical Journal.

cc Shadow Minister for Health, the Hon. Catherine King <Catherine.King.MP@aph.gov.au>

cc A.C.T. Minister for Health, Katy Gallagher <gallagher@act.gov.au>

cc A.C.T. Shadow Minister for Health, Jeremy Hanson <hanson@parliament.act.gov.au>

Divider 1

Dear Minister Dutton

It has come to my attention that tomorrow a meeting will be held and one of the topics for discussion is the Family Tax Benefit A and the possible removal of the conscientious Objection as a qualifier for this payment. I truly hope you can see that doing so will be indirectly forcing parents to ignore their childs health needs in favour of receiving a cash reward. If you are going to pay families for vaccinating, you need to make the payment available to those who do not wish to vaccinate for what ever reason they may have. You may argue that only medical exemptions will be acceptable, but I put it to you that… there is no medical testing of children and infants prior to their vaccines to test for possible allergies or reactions. At present parents must subject their children and babies to vaccines on blind faith that everything will be ok. Often times it isn’t ok. Therefore the medical exemption is not good enough in my opinion, it is not going to prevent children from becoming vaccine damaged. Personally I believe this payment should be removed all together from both vaccinating and non vaccinating parents and redistribute it fairly back to families in another way or perhaps remove the link to vaccinations for this payment all together and just leave it as a family assistance payment. Health decisions must be made based on an individuals needs and should never be influenced by monetary gain or reward. If parents choose to vaccinate it should be based purely on their belief that it will benefit their child. As it is, most parents who choose not to vaccinate do so based on what they believe is most beneficial to their childs health.

Trusting you will remain unbiased and fair to all in your decisions.

Regards

MS

Divider 1

Dear Shadow Minister King,

I am writing to inform you of my personal opposition to remove parental rights to government entitlements based on my family’s vaccination decision. For the past fourteen years I have worked as a Special Education Teacher, both in government and non-government positions. During this time, I have observed the very rapid increase in children being diagnosed as developmentally delayed, more specifically autistic. When I first commenced in my career, it was apparent that a more widespread array of disabilities was evident in the classroom demographic. Nowadays, a proportionately high number of the classroom demographic consists of autistic children, many classed as severely autistic on the spectrum.

Parents have personally attested to the fact, they believe their child’s autism was a direct result of vaccination. One parent asked me whether I had my own children. At the time I hadn’t, and the mother said to me, do your research. She was well versed on the topic and I still remember her very vividly today. I have also counselled many parents in person or over the phone who have just stepped out of the Paediatrician’s office to be told their child is autistic. I cannot describe to you the devastation and emotional state of these poor, helpless parents. It broke my heart.

I started to observe consistencies in parents stories; about how their child was developing atypically, then suddenly they stopped speaking, giving eye contact, ceased interacting with peers and siblings etc. etc. All children mentioned here where fully vaccinated according to the schedule.

In 2006 I had my own adverse reaction to the DPT vaccine. I had to undergo a minor procedure at a medical centre after I sustained a small fragment of glass in my fifth finger. Having being asked by the medical staff when my last tetanus shot was, I couldn’t recall, so was then vaccinated with what I thought was a ‘tetanus’ vaccine. I later learned that the tetanus vaccine is a three in one shot and includes Diphtheria and Pertussis. Tetanus cannot be given in isolation. A resulting adverse reaction became immediate following the vaccination and lasted 3-4 days.

Due to my personal experiences, I began a course of research and read material from both sides of the vaccination debate . Countless hours where spent conducting this research and consequently an INFOMED decision not to vaccinate my own children resulted. For me, vaccination is a medial procedure I simply did not want for my children. The potential risks simply outweighed the apparent benefits.

Nobody should be FORCED to have their child vaccinated.

We live in Australia, a democratic society, which for me, means freedom of choice. By denying a parent access to this government payment is discriminatory.

I strongly urge the government to act justly and fairly on this matter.

Yours Sincerely,

MF

Divider 1

Dear Peter Dutton & co-workers,

I understand that as politicians, you are under increasing pressure from pharmaceutical lobbyists and the higher powers that be at the Australian Medical Association to pass legislation that will take away the rights of hard-working and educated parents of non-vaccinated children to receive government assistance payments.

Before you consider enacting upon such a drastic and oppressive endeavour, I beg of you (and your colleagues) to please take the time to view the award winning and informative documentary, ‘The Greater Good’; http://www.greatergoodmovie.org/#!prettyPhoto I also encourage you and colleagues to educate yourselves about the specific ingredients in vaccines, rather than assume blindly that because a person with a white coat or esteemed medical title has assured you, that every word they utter is to be considered an unequivocal and eternal truth.

Please keep in mind also, that most parents who have chosen not to vaccinate, have not made this decision on a whim, but rather painstakingly – many after witnessing serious adverse reactions to vaccinations in their child or other loved ones. In fact, most parents (like myself) were previously PRO vaccination, blindly trusting in the authorities, and have only bothered to educate ourselves about the ingredients, manufacture and funding of vaccines after experiencing an adverse reaction in our families.

Pharmaceutical and other medical authorities whom benefit financially from these vaccines are disturbed and dare I say frightened, by this growing number of educated adults who are taking the time to do their own research. But enforcing draconian laws upon people, borne out of pride and anger is never a good recipe for a democratic society that wishes to look back in time without regret.

Australia is and should remain a free, democratic country, where the rights of all to access government assistance and the right to accept or decline medical drugs for our children should be respected. Our children are OUR responsibility… not the governments.

All scaremongering and drug-pushing aside, I can assure you that the growing number of non-vaccinated children out there are far healthier and arguably happier than their vaccinated counterparts. Rather than be injected with heavy metals, formaldehyde and other neurotoxins, they are nourished with pure, unadulterated healthy food, clean water, a good dose of fresh air and daily sunshine and are thriving! Sadly, this is not a reality which the pharmaceutical vaccine industry can benefit from. Please open your heart and mind and consider our plea…..

In freedom and truth,

JL

Divider 1

Dear Minister Gallagher/Shadow Minister Hanson,

We are forwarding this email to share our concerns about family tax payments that may be withdrawn from parents who have chosen not to immunise their children. Don’t punish those of us who thought we were doing the right thing but simply weren’t aware of the dangers that immunisations pose until we learnt the hard way.

Here in Australia we live in a democracy and that gives us the right to make choices and the right not to be discriminated against. We feel that what you’re doing is impinging on our right to make decisions. In this case, one that is researched and in the best interest of our children.

We can only speak for ourselves in this matter however we are very well educated and intelligent people. We did not make the decision not to immunise lightly; rather we made the decision to immunise too lightly!! We did not research how immunisation works & what the chemicals can do to the body, especially in one that is still developing, we just blindly trusted our doctor and the information disseminated to the general public. Our children are only partially immunised because after an immunisation at 2.5 years old, our eldest had a major gut/bowel reaction over a period of weeks. Our doctor & nurse did not believe it was a reaction & of course we were not encouraged to report it.

Both our sons now suffer multiple food/chemical/environmental intolerances & allergies; our eldest suffers from ADHD & asthma. Although we fully understand that our children have different dispositions etc., our youngest (who is only immunised to 6 months) does not suffer to the same extent or with the same issues as his older sibling. He suffers from far less infections etc. and also recovers from illness significantly quicker & more effectively than his older brother.

These are children that were both breastfed, eat wholefood organic diets and live in safe non-chemical environments. We insist on healthy practices with our children to ensure their health is the best it can be, however we can’t take back the immunisations they were given early in their lives.

As a result of our sons reaction, we have read books & information written by highly respected medical professionals and people who have carried out great deals of investigative research on the matter. They do not use scare tactics they simply present information & facts. We do not support fear mongering, discrimination or hatred by either side of this debate and hope that you might take note of this letter.

Yours sincerely,
M & A 10 April 2014 (out of fear of retribution, we not supply our full names)

Divider 1

Dear Mr Springborg,

As a parent of a child who has been vaccine damaged and diagnosed with Aspergers I have had to reassess my previous personal views on vaccines and their effects, function and success.

I am 41. I had very few vaccines as a child. I caught the mumps, measles as a young boy around 4 and 5 and chickenpox at 15. All were mild. I enjoyed the time off school as a teenager. I grew up in Perth. I travelled with my parents throughout Australia and the US and the UK at various times. I attended a normal State Primary School and a Private Highschool and I went to University and got a degree. I got married and became an MCSE – Microsoft Certified Systems Engineer. I’m a very normal Australian.

I was, in the past a person that didn’t think much about vaccines and trusted in the information I had been given. I was what you would call very pro-vaccinations however the irony of that position was that I had very very little knowledge of them other than that I had gleaned from documentaries on small pox and polio. After the adverse reaction my son experienced and some of my own personal experiences I’ve spent some significant time researching for myself and have come up with a far different conclusion to that which we are told in the nightly news and pro-vaccine documentaries, and at a standard GP or Paediatrician’s office – namely that they are safe and effective.

Although my son was fully vaccinated as per the Australian schedule he at 7 years of age in his Grade 1 class contracted Pertussis along with 8 others in his class – all of whom had been fulled vaccinated. So either the vaccine hadn’t worked or it had worn off. In other words it was ineffective.

In the past I had myself received two flu vaccinations, the second of which made my extremely ill.

This only furthered my drive to gain more understanding and after reading 7 books plus numerous websites and videos on the subject (from doctors, immunologists and neurologists) I have some key basic tenants I know hold to be true. I now call myself a vaccine-sceptic.

1. Vaccine induced antibodies do not necessarily grant immunity – even if they can be observed in sufficient numbers with a blood test http://www.greenmedinfo.com/blog/study-disproves-cdcs-primary-justification-vaccination

2. Vaccine induced antibodies wear off – thus the need for boosters

3. Most adults who have not received boosters are thus themselves in the same camp as an “anti-vaccer” – ie. NOT IMMUNE and therefore adding to the theory of herd immunity.

4. Many vaccines “shed” for up to 21 days (read the package insert)

5. The adjuvants used in vaccines to promote and ensure an immune response are toxic even in small doses when injected into muscle and veins – especially in the young and those who are susceptible

http://www.ff.ul.pt/FCT/PTDC/SAU-FAR/110871/2009/Aguilar2007.pdf

6. Vaccine injuries and adverse reactions are seriously under reported

7. Most outbreaks in the Western World occur in vaccinated groups

8. Those who are vaccinated still do carry many of the viruses they espouse they are now immune to. http://www.fhfn.org/why-vaccines-spread-disease-an-in-depth-analysis-of-flawed-vaccine-science/

9. Vaccine companies have been distorting their success and their efficacy http://www.vaccinationinformationnetwork.com/merck-scientis-claim-merck-forced-them-to-falsify-vaccine-efficacy-test/

10. Herd Immunity is an impossible lie http://www.vaccinationcouncil.org/2012/02/18/the-deadly-impossibility-of-herd-immunity-through-vaccination-by-dr-russell-blaylock/

11. Some vaccines work very very poorly. So poorly as to be almost worthless. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/mutations-explain-poor-showing-of-2012-flu-vaccine/

I know you are busy men, however I would ask you to read the articles below:

http://gianelloni.wordpress.com/2014/04/07/dear-parents-you-are-being-lied-to/

http://vaccineresistancemovement.org/?p=13481 – Measles Report

http://vaccineresistancemovement.org/?p=10185 – Autism Report

Although my wife and I may not have another child, the numbers of children with neurological disorders, diagnosed on the ASD spectrum and allergies is growing constantly, I believe that Vaccines have had some part to play in this rise and I cannot stand to see that total lack of honesty or openness surrounding any discussion on vaccines from the medical community or vaccine makers. I believe there is an epidemic of autism and allergies.

I oppose any moves to take away any rights to personal exemption from vaccines for anyone via any means of coercion, be it physical or financial (such as removing government entitlements) based on a vaccination decision.

Nobody should be FORCED to have themselves or their child be vaccinated. That is part of the worst possible totalitarian nightmare scenario of a “1984” like society.

As far as I am concerned it is my basic human right to choose not to vaccinate my child or myself and to choose to be fully informed regarding vaccines.

I understand you will be discussing removing government entitlements from those who do not vaccinate. I think this is wrong for all the reasons given above.

Kind regards

LB

Divider 1

To the Hon David Davis MLC

Regarding tomorrow’s deliberations on vaccinations and government benefits I have one simple request:

Do not use your voice at the table to support coercive implementation of the health department’s vaccine regimen.

Coercion has no place in this area when parents, like me, are solemnly issued with ultimate responsibility for our young children’s health decisions.

Do you know Grace White? She is my daughter, I know her well. I also know her four siblings better than you do because they are my children. Please use your position to support my right to parent my children in their best interest as I, their responsible guardian charged by God with their upbringing, see it.

I can’t imagine how a round-table bureaucratic discussion in sunny Queensland can determine once and for all that I have lost my parental rights on this issue.

Say yes to choice for parents on vaccination. Yes to a choice without punishment.

I will awake three or four times tonight to tend to my children. No matter how interventionist the nanny state becomes in this country, you won’t lullaby my kids to sleep when they are distressed, so please do not insinuate yourself into jabbing them without ever having met them.

Kindest regards
MW

Divider 1

My name is XXXXXn. I am a NSW and Federally registered voter in this country. I am 37years old, a teacher, daughter, sister, friend and recently a new mother. I pay taxes, drive a car, have 2 dogs, a partner, go to the beach on the weekend and go camping at Easter…my point with this seemingly irrelevant, and trivial information, is that I am what society might consider “normal”. However, I CONSCIOUSLY chose not to vaccinate my 7month old son. It was what I believe to be a very well researched choice and I am astounded at the vitriolic reaction from some people when I mention that he is not having/had his needles. I was born in 1977 in the same hospital as my son and my mother chose not vaccinate me or my 2 younger brothers. She meticulously raised us in good health; so that we as adults would have a true understanding of what health and living a healthy lifestyle means and we do. I went to primary school and high school like every other normal kid in the 70s and whether I was vaccinated, or not, never came up in conversation; people did not “talk” about it. But now, oh now, everyone has got an opinion about vaccination! It’s astounding! No longer is this a decision talked about only amongst my direct family and my GP- this has become public debate and my decision has become somewhat controversial and people are more than happy to tell me so. I don’t discuss with people when they had their last pap smear, prostate examination, blood test or flu shot so why is it that I have to discuss/justify my health decisions/choices with people? I believe that this is now such a hot topic because it involves money; a financial payment of “candy” if you are up to date with your child’s shots. But here is the problem with financial candy. It is public, and scientific, opinion that widespread vaccination will keep disease under control in this country. It is also public, and scientific, opinion that smoking is disastrous to your health. It is also public, and scientific, opinion that eating too much deep-fried food is bad for your long-term health and it is also public, and scientific, opinion that drinking too much alcohol over a long period of time can cause a variety of health problems. There is a lot of medical and scientific information proving that smoking, drinking and eating fried food is very bad for you. There is also a lot of information indicating there are benefits to you by vaccinating your child. These 2 statements are backed up by information from the health department. But why offer the money for getting the immunisations and penalise the people not doing it? Why the financial candy for sticking to the immunisation schedule set out by the government?? I don’t get a financial benefit for not smoking, not drinking too much alcohol or not frequenting fast food chains so why should a benefit exist for me to get my child vaccinated? If vaccinating was truly in the best interest for children in this country then why do the government have offer parents money to do it?? The government is already paying FOR the actual vaccines and then they also have the extra financial commitment of having to entice parents into sticking to the schedule. I don’t understand. I didn’t realise the government had enough spare cash to offer a financial reward for people to take medications that they (the gvmt) have just paid for. I also think that since I am not costing the government any money, as I have not used the immunisation service, could I please have what figure it would have cost to keep my son up to date with the immunisation schedule put into my bank account. Instead, you are attending a meeting tomorrow in Brisbane to discuss various issues, including the potential removal of my right to conscientiously object to the immunisation schedule and the removal of my financial candy…oh sorry…’benefit’ because I have used a loop-hole and not played by the correct rules! By the way this is a direct link to the Merck website and a 2013 Letter to Shareholders. http://www.merck.com/finance/proxy/letter-from-chairman.pdf In 2012 Merck had $5.1billion in sales of vaccines, that’s billion written there, not million…billion and $5.7billion in the sale of diabetes medication. Call me a conspiracy theorist if you like but I can’t help wondering if there is a connection between the Australian government bullying families into joining the non-compulsory vaccination schedule and companies like Merck being able to boast about a 5% increase in sales. The GlaxoSmithKline website was not user friendly at all and that finding an actual figure on their profits was very confusing (I can’t help but think that it’s designed to be that way that the staggering figure can’t be as easily known). http://www.gsk.com/content/dam/gsk/globals/documents/pdf/Investors/GSK%20publishes%20historical%20quarterly%20restated%20financial%20information.pdf And BAYER made a handy £20 million profit after costs but at least they made their statement easy to read and find. http://www.annualreport2013.bayer.com/en/income-statements.aspx At the meeting tomorrow I believe the clause of ‘Conscientious Objector’ is up for debate and there are moves to potentially cancel this as an option for parents to use to not vaccinate their child/ren. The removal of me having choice about the vaccination schedule for my child is not ok. It is undemocratic and very un-Australian. You were VOTED into your current office and it would do you well not to forget that. You are a Public Servant and I am member of the public so therefore you are my ‘servant’. I am asking you to ‘serve’ me and leave this clause right where it is. With respect, I don’t care whether you as a person agree with my decision, it is not your business as Health Ministers to decide what I do with my child. It is my business and I believe that I am the best person to be making decisions about his health and welfare and if I need advice I will seek it. I do not wish to have schedules imposed on me like I don’t know what I am doing or run the risk of financial penalty because I don’t fit into the mould. Should you wish to take the same amount of time that I have today and send me a reply then I would be happy to hear some of your thoughts as health ministers of my state (Jillian) and country (Peter and Catherine). I expect your reply to address my concerns and reassure me that you understand that I know best for my child and will continue to support me, as my public servants, in my journey of motherhood.

Yours sincerely
AN

Divider 1

I am writing to all of you, representatives, and public servants regarding this discussion that I believe you intend to have tomorrow regarding Vaccinations and penalising conscientious objectors to this most barabaric practice.

No One has the right to impose upon others their opinions regarding ones own body, and also the bodies of those entrusted by GOD to their care, ie parents, grandparents, etc as the case may be.

Vaccinations are proven to be dangerous. Your continued promotion of this barbaric pratice is abhorrent. But even if injecting foreign bodies, toxins, pathogens, dangerous chemicals into the body of another was not dangerous, it is still abhorrent.

NO ONE has the right to do that. I am disgusted that in Australia, which is supposed to be a DEMOCRACY, you are continuing to foster genocide against the will of the people.

I AM A PEOPLE. I am against this practise period.

But as regards this discussion that you will be having tomorrow I am against you even contemplating penalising those brave souls amongst us who are standing up for their bodies, and the bodies of their children by consciously objecting to this barbarous practice.

I support them, I applaud them, and as my public servants I expect you to do the same.

Conscientiously objecting to anything is a right that should be sacrosanct in a FREE and DEMOCRATIC society. You have an obligation to uphold DEMOCRACY.

Uphold IT.

It Is MY WILL that you Do NOT Even raise this issue tomorrow, or any other day. It is MY WILL that vaccinations be stopped. If Vaccinations continue against my will, then it is MY WILL that they are NEVER made compulsory.

Sincerely TMC

Divider 1

Mr Dutton,

As our Federal Health Minister I would urge you not to support moves that would discriminate against parents who have chosen not to vaccinate their children.

You would be aware that there is a large body of peer reviewed medical literature that clearly indicates that vaccines are not nearly as effective or safe as generally portrayed by the medical establishment. Indeed, vaccines can maim and they can kill.

By removing the “conscientious objector” clause with regard to the Family Tax Benefits, you would be effectively coercing parents into submitting their children to controversial medical procedures that could cause great harm.

Please be reminded that we elect people like you to support our rights, not to take them away.

Regards,

BB

Divider 1

Dear Mrs Miller,

I rang your office earlier today and was advised by Tracy that it was her understanding that you will not be attending the State Health Minister’s meeting with Minister Peter Dutton scheduled for tomorrow, Friday 11th April. However, I felt it was prudent to email you, just in case circumstances change.

I would like you to know that I vote, am a resident of Queensland and that I am strongly opposed to any move to remove my government entitlements based on my vaccination choice. Australia is supposed to be a democracy. It is my right to make my own health choices and most definitely NOT the government’s to strip me of them.

It is my will that all Conscientious Objectors are treated with respect.

Regards,
SK

Divider 1

Dear Minister for Health (The Hon Peter Dutton MP) and the Shadow Minister for Health (The Hon Catherine King) and; the QLD Minister of Health (The Hon Lawrence Springborg) and the QLD Shadow Minister for Health (Mrs Jo-Ann Miller),

I am writing to you regarding the article in today’s Courier Mail regarding your joint opinion to stop the the $726 Family Tax Benefit A payments to parents of unvaccinated children.

I am a mother of 3 healthy children and also a health practitioner residing in QLD.

Before I chose to become a conscientious objector I thoroughly researched the existing literature on the benefits and detrimental effects of vaccinations.

To my understanding and knowledge vaccinations do not confer guaranteed protection to the diseases that they are ‘protecting’ babies and children from. There are still cases of children who have been immunised getting sick from whooping cough, measles etc.

If you would understand the basics of a healthy immune system and quoting the words of Louis Pasteur ‘it is not the germ, rather it is the soil’.. meaning that the difference between a person that gets sick and one that is well, is based on a healthy immune response, rather than the supposed germs out there, then you may realise that there is probably no point to vaccinating at all. Furthermore, until a child is 2 years old, their B lymphocytes are not fully matured so they do not retain the antigenic memory of viruses which is why vaccines go through the alternate T cell route (and many top ups and boosters) in order to make them ‘stick’. In addition, many of these viruses can be managed (medically) if they do become complicated.

Unfortunately, in my view, the problem stems in (parents) poor dietary habits/practice (and lack of public education and awareness of how to stay well) and possibly lack of sufficient funds to be able to buy ‘health foods/supplements to maintain a good healthy immune system. Sadly it is probably the same types of parents that will probably suffer from the removal of the FTBA if they conscientiously chose to keep their children free from being vaccinated.

There are many medical arguments for both sides of the vaccination debate and I lean towards the side that promotes healthy living and informed choice.

I personally have seen in my practice what the effects of vaccination can do and prefer to keep innocent young babies and children who should be given a chance to live ‘normally’ in this world before they are injected with viruses and the like to let their own bodies adapt (and become resilient) to the world around them. Hence maybe the rise of so many allergies, atopic diseases (eczema, asthma), autism etc…

We do live in a democratic country, therefore I am enacting my right to be able to voice my opinion and concern for parents who may be affected by your potential decision to remove their welfare entitlement based on whether or not their child is vaccinated. How and why are the two linked anyway?

Thank you for your time and consideration of my letter.

Sincerely,
NS

Divider 1

Dear Minister Springborg,

As per my conversation with Aaron of your office earlier today, I would like to reiterate that I do vote, am a resident of Queensland and that I am strongly opposed to any move to remove my government entitlements based on my vaccination choice. Australia is supposed to be a democracy. It is my right to make my own health choices and most definitely NOT the government’s to strip me of them.

It is my will that all Conscientious Objectors are treated with respect.

SK

Divider 1

Hi there jo-ann.

a little ignorance goes a long way apparently, especially when it is backed by billions and billions in lobbying. and that’s a ‘B’.

from memory, and I might be out the odd billion, in 2001, US pharmaceutical companies alone spent in the order $9bill on free drug samples, and $16bill on marketing.

this link has later figures that are much higher and show that US drug companies spend approx double on marketing as they do on R&D.

http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pmed.0050001#s6

so plenty of money sloshing around for lobbying, misinformation campaigns, corruption, and worse.

the world-wide Big Pharma vaccination industry is a massive possibly trillion dollar industry (paid for by us by our Govts) – and a lobbying and disinformation effort and budget to fit that amount of money.

yet the real vaccination science going back decades does not support its effectiveness, and also shows the long term damage to individuals’ health (and deaths)

there are none so blind as those who will not see. or is it simply corruption bought and paid for by the pharmaceutical companies?

vaccination is not about your health or the health of your children (if only!): it is solely about MONEY. And how much more they can gouge out of our Govts and our taxes.

if vaccines actually worked as we are told (otherwise why get them?), why would anyone who had vaccine get the relevant disease?

only those unvaccinated would, and you could say ‘serve them right’.

so isn’t it funny that the people who get flu most are those that have been vaccinated?

and isn’t it funny (not) that those who have been vaccinated against whooping cough now get a more dangerous and deadly form of it?

billions and billions given to greedy and corrupt global corporations for something that not only doesn’t work, but makes things worse

the links below substantiate various facts, such as that vaccines don’t work, actually cause more disease, and massive health side effects.

http://www.vaclib.org/sites/debate/web2.html

http://www.vaclib.org/sites/debate/web1.html

http://www.soilandhealth.org/02/0201hyglibcat/020132sinclair/vaccinaion.htm

http://www.vaclib.org/sites/debate/web3.html

btw, have you noticed how much sicker and sicker and sicker our population is becoming? it seems these days the population spends half their time in a doctor’s surgery, not being made healthy, just being subscribed more and more drugs, incl vaccinations?

so why are people and children getting sicker, getting diseases, so much more often, so constantly and frequently, than in the past? (when, btw, in fact the vaccination rates for so many diseases and sicknesses have never been higher.)

there is an answer.

kind regards
DC

Divider 1

Dear Mr Dutton

I am concerned in regards to the meeting that you will have with the State Health Ministers tomorrow, discussing Conscientious Objection and plans to remove it.

As a loving mother of three children, I do everything that I can to do right by my children. I am well aware at how emotional the vaccination issue is in Australia. The decision whether to vaccinate or not should always be the decision of the parent as should all care of our children. It doesn’t matter if I agree with someone who wants to vaccinate or doesn’t, basic human right means that each parent should have the right to decide. Any parent who goes down the Conscientious Objection path must speak with a doctor and be counselled by them before the doctor will even sign the form, so they are fully informed and have made their decision having the information. I don’t believe that they should be penalised by having parenting payments removed or reduced. In a democratic society, freedom to choose should exist and parliamentarians, our representatives should uphold those rights.

Yours sincerely
MH

Divider 1

I am a voter in our Australian democracy. I am writing to have my opinion heard over conscientious objection.

I became a conscientious objector after changes in my son’s general health after vaccinations. I did my research in order to make this decision, and I continue to do extensive research on the contraindications of vaccinations.

I am aware that a meeting is taking place to discuss the removal of the conscientious objector clause to force all children/people to be vaccinated according to a schedule set by the government. Aside from the fact that it is impossible to legally enforce such a position, it is also contrary to the basic rights parents have to raise their own children by their own set of ethics and beliefs.

I 100% believe I have done the right thing by my son to protect him from further damage, including the Gardasil vaccination which is now being given to boys in Year 7. This vaccine has not been proven to prevent cervical cancer and it has killed or permanently injured 1000s of girls across the U.S. Many countries have now banned this vaccine or refused to put it on their schedule in the first place.

There is plenty of peer-reviewed research outlining the dark side of vaccination however it is actively suppressed. I seek out this information and circulate it. I have 15 years of research training behind me and I am very capable of identifying bogus research when I see it. Unfortunately most of the bogus research I read is paid for by the manufacturers of damaging vaccines and other chemicals to make their products falsely appear safe.

I strongly object to the mindset that any substance should be forcibly administered to any person against their will or that of their parent/guardian. It clearly cannot be enforced at law.

Yours sincerely,

GH, B.A. (Psych), PG Dip (Psych)

Divider 1

Dear Mr Dutton,

I am writing to you to express my concern at your intention to implement legislation to discriminate against parents and children who are not vaccinated.

I am a contentious objector to vaccines. However I did start out vaccinating my children, until a dangerous range of side effects (known to the vaccines AND listed on the vaccine insert) began to affect my children’s health. After much research and consideration, it was decided that it was best to no longer expose our children to the toxic load injected into them through vaccines in hope that their health will improve or at least not longer deteriorate.

It is a basic human right to make decisions about our own health. It cannot be denied that vaccines carry a huge amount of risk and a dangerous list of side effects. Should you implement mandatory vaccination, will you step up and take responsibility when these risk become a reality in the lives of your voters? Will you and government offer compensation to those unlucky ones who lives are adversely affected by following your legislation to inject foreign substances in the body of a young child? I would hope so.

Each Australian has a right to make decisions about their own life for what is best for them, without being discriminated or penalised against because those view or decisions differ from a politician’s.

I wonder why the sudden push to take people’s freedom? Is there money in it for you? Or are you trying to grab votes by appealing to one side? Whatever your motives, my vote counts too. And I will not be voting for you should you discriminate against people for making decisions about their own health.

Regards,
BT

Divider 1

In a modern democratic society, surely this right should be upheld.

As parents and grandparents of vaccinated children, we strongly feel that the right to free choice should remain with parents in this country.

In the matter of vaccination decisions, it has been noted that there is a high percentage of doctor’s unvaccinated children in affluent areas like Mosman in Sydney giving some credence to those questioning the safety of vaccination in it’s present form. In any case those listed as conscientious objectors, should clearly retain that right regardless of their socio-economic position in the Australian community.

Thank you for giving consideration to this simple, basic concept of what it means to live in a free society.

EF

Divider 1

To Gavin Jennings

I am a voter and a resident of your state Victoria. I have just called your office whom have advised me to send you an email to register my opposition to being penalised by not receiving family tax benefits for exercising my democratic right to choose whether or not to vaccinate my children. The removal of the Conscientious Objection Form Clause in this matter is a removal of my democratic right to choose what I believe is best for my children. I like most parents who have chosen not to vaccinate have actually taken the time to do the research to decide what was best for my children and find it appalling that we would be penalised for doing so. Living in a democratic nation as we apparently are means that we are not meant to be forced by any governing body to make decisions we believe are not in our and our family’s best interests, I hope this democratic right to Conscientious Objection is upheld and not taken away as that would really democratically speak for itself, wouldn’t it?

Kind Regards
RH

Divider 1

Dear Mr Dutton,

It has come to my attention that all State Health Ministers will be meeting with you tomorrow with regard to removing the Conscientious objection clause to vaccination. The removal of this clause will enable the Government to take away payments from parents who choose not to vaccinate.

I am urging you to please consider the many families whose children have been damaged by vaccines and give them the respect that they deserve. There is much more to this issue than just family payments. People have a right to protect their families, and the decision not to vaccinate does not come easily, a lot of research goes into this decision.

There are many books and scientific research articles showing that vaccines are not completely safe and for a Government to force them upon the Australian people (which is where this decision is heading) would be a sin and a grave moral injustice.

Please take the time to look much further into the issue of vaccinations, their production and their history, please look much further than what the Government Health sites have to offer. See what the rest of the world have decided on the issue of vaccinations and once again, please give the families of vaccine damaged children the respect that they deserve. They have no voice and have been completely disregarded and treated with contempt by both the medical profession and the media.

Many thanks for taking the time to read this email, I and many others appreciate it.

Sincerely yours,
HF

Divider 1

Dear Minister,

As a taxpayer resident of NSW, I wish to express grave concerns over todays Courier Mail newspaper article that mentions ministers are meeting tomorrow in Brisbane with Mr Dutton to discuss removing FTB A payments to conscientious objectors of vaccination.

I oppose any moves to take away rights to government entitlements based on a vaccination decision. To do so is discriminatory in my view.

Would this mean government will then take full responsibility for any adverse reactions of vaccination? Would it provide, as a standard, testing to see if natural immunity to a disease exists before vaccinating for it? Would it compensate for any adverse effects of vaccine adjuvants such as the newly recognized ASIA syndrome? (Autoimmune Syndrome induced by Adjuvants as presented by Professor Yehuda Schoenfeld)

I hope the proposed changes are rejected in full.

Regards,

FO

Divider 1

Dear Peter,

Do you have any concept / idea of the ramifications of your decision re vaccination ? Do you actually know what is contained within a jab? Vaccination will be recognised as the biggest con/scam ‘ever’ with devastating and lasting effects throughout the generations to come ,all of which are horrific! Please ,if you are a man of integrity, caring and have a real desire to do your best for humanity do your diligent research on this important topic. The overwhelming influence/ power and clever propaganda consistently pumped through the media has the majority blindly ‘following the heard’ and sadly believing that the injection of pure toxic poison into a defenceless baby can actually improve health and prevent disease when it is just the opposite! Simply take a look at the ingredience and you will not need to go any further ,other than to check out the ‘real’ stats which will tell you that sickness disease and death by disease and Western medicine policies is almost in plague proportion.

This process of blackmail must not be allowed to happen as it will only result in more illness disease and death. Big Pharma has got ‘most’ of the human race completely fooled and following in a heard like fashion like ‘lambs to the slaughter’ .

TS

Divider 1

Dear Federal Minister Dutton, State Health Ministers and Shadow Health Ministers,

I write with regard to tomorrows Ministers meeting in Brisbane, pertaining to a proposal by Minister Springborg to consider the abolishment of the Family Tax Benefit Part A, to parents that have a Conscientious Objection to vaccinating their children.

I note with concern: “Mr Dutton said he didn’t want to penalise forgetful parents but said a “sterner conversation” was needed with parents who were actively choosing not to vaccinate.”

Minister Dutton; realistically, that is quite threatening, intimidating and surely not in line with our Australian Democratic Westminster system; to which I might inconsequently add; am of 7th generation and my children 8th; with my parental Grandfather being a highly decorated and well literary published Senior Naval Officer.

So, Minister Dutton, the proposed idea is, to remove legitimate child directed payments from tax paying parents, whom by all accounts under recent media touting, are of an “upper class, highly educated and from wealthy suburbs”. If this were seen to be true, do you think the withdrawal of $726.00 is really going to impact upon their educated choice? I think not. I believe the likely outcome will be a rush from those driven by the dollar not education to line their children up for vaccination, so that the purchase of a new television is not impeded. But realistically, these individuals have already vaccinated their children and purchased their new TV! Parents that have duly educated themselves on the very real and possible dangers of vaccination are not swayed by this threat, but they will stand firm on their right to have a choice about their parenting without threat of punishment.

I have several major concerns with the proposed policy:

Firstly; vaccination in this country is not mandated by law;

Secondly; we have no established legal portal to manage vaccine injury and death in this country; currently the onus is on the (uninformed) parent;

Thirdly; this is in direct conflict of basic human rights and choice in this country;

Lastly; DISCRIMINATION. I need say no more; although, I am quite sure, as an educated, tax paying minority group that is being singled out for making choices for their children; I’m pretty sure that can be called DISCRIMINATION.

Minister Dutton, if your desire is to have a fully vaccinated child population; then my suggestion to you all is, to make vaccines unequivocally safe, provide proof of efficacy through double-blind placebo testing, provide a legal and financial safety-net for vaccine injuries, and perhaps, just perhaps, start telling everyone the truth!

Realistically, a traditionally unvaccinated child is going to be a potentially lesser burden on our health system; a majority of whom are free from diabetes, heart disease, eczema, neurological disorders, anaphylactic allergies – the list goes on. Does this entitle said taxpaying parents to a reduction in their Medicare levy?

Minister, have you considered the aspect of children that are unable to be vaccinated for health reasons? How would this be classified? Will every unvaccinated child be entitled to a free complete health examination by the child’s own Medical Practitioner; blood, stool and saliva testing, DNA and genetic testing to ensure that they are not at an increased risk of becoming vaccine damaged? I think the important part of this is classification, followed by clarification.

If it is the Government’s suggestion that a persons educated and informed health choices are now in the hands of elected officials; then perhaps non-vaccinating parents can share with you the expenses of raising said children, given that everyone’s choices about parenting are being rapidly removed. I am sure many would welcome your full contribution to their schooling, sports and general living expenses!

Whilst having this opportunity to communicate with you; I would request, that part of your meeting tomorrow address the need for a democratic ruling and implemented law, to ensure that all Practitioners that are licensed to vaccinate both children and adults, are mandated by law to provide full disclosure to the parent or patient to whom is being vaccinated. Yes, this would include a complete copy of the package inserts found in vaccines, a comprehensive discussion with patient or parent about the very real potential dangers, a complete listing of ingredients and Adjuvants and manufacturing processes, as well as advising the parties, that on accepting said information; they are in fact taking full responsibility for any adverse reactions. They should also be informed that there is no re-course for compensation or assistance for vaccine injury in this country, and any desire to do so, would be a costly and lengthy legal battle on their behalf.

In finality Ministers; this is very shaky ground indeed. If you insist on pursuing this discriminatory and undemocratic law; then, in all fairness to democracy, an implementation of the above proposal regarding disclosure and indemnity be implemented as well. I’m quite sure that, with this information provided directly from Practitioner to patient, that they surely would not sway away from vaccination – or would they?

AN

Divider 1

Dear Minister

REMOVING CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTION AND PAYMENTS

This is discrimination; it is disgusting what this Government is trying to do. Vaccination should be free choice. Is the Government planning on a Vaccine Injury scheme? Parents can then sue the government for ordering their child’s injury or death.

So parents that drink, smoke, and/or do drugs, abuse, feed them junk food, these people deserve these payments? You are saying these people are better parents than those who choose not to put toxins in their children’s delicate bodies. Just want to clarify that. But parents who have taken the time to check out all avenues of their child’s health, and have come to the decision that vaccination is not one of the avenues they will take because of it’s lack of testing and a history of worldwide adverse reactions; they are to be punished; these children (and some of them are actually siblings of vaccine injured children), these beautiful innocent children must suffer at the hands of bureaucratic power driven Government officials.

The financial ramifications of the Health Minister’s plan do not concern me personally, but the ethics behind his decision do. It is not the Health Minister, Government or Doctor who pay the price if a child is vaccine injured. It is the parents burden to carry, so the choice should be theirs, without coercion from draconian and discriminatory Government policies.

If I sound angry or like a crazy person, I feel I have a right too. I’m old, I’ve seen the diseases and I can tell you all this hype in the media is rubbish and obviously money driven.

This vaccination push has been going on for years and it is to the point where even the “big wig” researchers are afraid to say anything against vaccines for fear of being discredited. They have seen what happens when a scientist or researcher comes out against vaccines, it’s not pretty.

Have you even looked at the information available? And I don’t mean what you are fed by your advisors, get off your behind and Google reactions to Gardisal; at least four countries have now stopped it because of the injuries from the vaccine, in the thousands I might add. Reactions to MMR, DPT, Flu and all the rest.

Look up the package inserts for the vaccines, they will tell you about the reactions that have happened. It’s an interesting read. http://www.vaccinesafety.edu/package_inserts.htm

Then there is the historical data. These childhood diseases were almost gone through natural fruition before vaccines were even on the market. Once the vaccines were introduced, the usual occurrence was a rise in the disease. What does that tell you? I could give you a history lesson but it took me 20 years of research and reading (no Google back then) so I doubt one letter is going to be enough.

Basically, vaccines are toxic (thimerosal (mercury), aluminium, formaldehyde etc), contaminated (monkey DNA and viruses, aborted human foetal tissue, chicken viruses, pig viruses…it’s a long list) and ineffective. Check out the attached excipient table just as a sample. We still have outbreaks and it is the vaccinated that get the disease, very few un-vaccinated; what does that tell you? Not to mention that vaccinated individuals can shed the viruses they have been vaccinated with!

Think long and hard.
DM

Divider 1

Dear Ministers,

Re: Today’s health ministers’ meeting in Brisbane and agenda issue of VACCINATION

The purpose of this letter is primarily to give legal constructive notice with regard to the meeting in Brisbane today of federal and state health ministers, and the subject of vaccination that has been proposed by Mr Springborg and Mr Dutton to be to be included on the agenda.

Australian Immunisation Handbook

My friends, colleagues and I find it extraordinary that it appears that we need to refer some health ministers to directions that are, with substantial legal foundation, contained in the Commonwealth Government’s own Australian Immunisation Handbook (the latest (10th) edition, published 2013)(”Handbook”), in relation to vaccination, as of course is applicable equally to all medical procedures (other than in emergency situations):

“2.1.3 Valid Consent
… For consent to be legally valid, the following elements must be present:6,8
1. It must be given by a person with legal capacity, and of sufficient intellectual capacity to understand the implications of being vaccinated.
2. It must be given voluntarily in the absence of undue pressure, coercion or manipulation.
3. It must cover the specific procedure that is to be performed.
4. It can only be given after the potential risks and benefits of the relevant vaccine, risks of not having it and any alternative options have been explained to the individual.”

Why does the Handbook contain these directions? It is because any form of meddling with a person’s body constitutes common law assault, unless there is fully informed (with the information fully understood), totally voluntary consent of the patient or their parent/carer.

Common Law

In Secretary, Department of Health and Community Services v JWB and SMB [1992] HCA 15, the Commentaries of Blackstone (9) 17th ed. (1830), vol 3, p 120 were accordingly quoted as follows:
“ ‘(T)he law cannot draw the line between different degrees of violence, and therefore totally prohibits the first and lowest stage of it; every man’s person being sacred, and no other having a right to meddle with it, in any the slightest manner’ “.

Hence, such meddling without fully informed consent would constitute assault regardless of whether or not any damage is occasioned, but:
a) the assault is especially serious when the meddling is invasive, and
b) the assault is more serious still when it is of a nature that to any degree is experimental in nature (which applies when there is any need for post-marketing surveillance), and
c) the assault is still more serious when it is fully acknowledged (by the Commonwealth Government itself), that it can occasion serious harm, even death itself.

All of these three circumstances, a), b) and c) obviously apply in the case of vaccination.

This is notwithstanding the seriously and obviously flawed “science” behind vaccination, which is the likely reason for the greater refusal rate amongst the more educated in the community (and amongst medical doctors themselves).

Existing Law is already in breach of common law and must be reversed

Even Commonwealth and state laws as they exist already today are in breach of the aforesaid criteria for valid consent, because in certain circumstances, parents who choose to exercise their God-given right not to vaccinate are required to have a conscientious objection form signed by a medical doctor. The doctor then becomes a potential obstacle to the parents’ exercise of their right to choose “in the absence of undue pressure, coercion or manipulation”.

Hence the legislation changes that have imposed this existing requirement ought, in fact, be reversed.

Instead we have a proposal for more serious breaches?

Instead, the Federal Health Minister, Mr Peter Dutton, and the Queensland Health Minister, Mr Lawrence Springborg, appear to be desirous of applying even further, and significant “undue pressure, coercion or manipulation”.

It is time that all ministers:
–          wake up and smell the law – the common law, and
–          remember that pursuant to the Preamble of our Federal Constitution and its stated reliance upon “the blessing of Almighty God”, “the supreme absolute and uncontrollable authority remains with the people”[1], so there is no provision therein for any “nanny” state nor worse, a “bully” state, and
–          remember that the ministers have accordingly been elected to serve electors, not to cause electors to be subjected to a “stern conversation” (these offensive words were purportedly spoken recently by Mr Dutton) on the basis of, despite being already placed under undue pressure, their courage to remain strong and exercise their God-given inalienable right to make the health choice they believe is best for their own children, and
–          be mindful that helping to preserve, instead of to destroy, the precious freedoms for which our forefathers died, may indeed also benefit their own descendants.

Yours sincerely

BH

Divider 1

Dear Mister Dutton,

Your move to withdraw family tax benefit to parents who have an ethical objection to vaccinations is in keeping with the usual modus operandi of right wing governments.

Firstly, let me remind you, you are an employee of the people, you are not an appointed authority to lord it over the people. Not only are you violating the fundamental precepts of democracy with such draconian discrimination, but you are acting with complete irrationality.

I am sure that pharmaceutical giants contribute hugely to your party’s funds and that you therefore feel you must act on their behalf to improve their profits, however, you seem to be under the impression that as an elected official you have the right to tell families that their young children must be injected with dangerous pharmaceuticals or they will fail to receive benefits that other families receive, when such benefits are garnered from all tax payer’s money.

Answer these questions: Why can’t a parent whose previously healthy child exhibits seizures, brain retardation and other severe maladies, or death, immediately after a vaccination event sue the pharmaceutical company that gave them the vaccination? Furthermore, if that family was forced to give their child such a vaccination against their will, as you would have it, why can’t that family sue your government for forcing them into such action? Putting the burden of proof on the family when such a catastrophe has an obvious source is the same defence as  tobacco giants making lung cancer sufferers prove the connection to cigarettes – fundamentally dishonest and reprehensible.

If you believe so firmly in vaccination, and claim that 90% of children are vaccinated, then why are you afraid of the other 10%? If children are vaccinated, then what threat is there to them from unvaccinated children? According to you vaccination makes those with it invulnerable. If this is not true, then why are you bullying families to use medicines that are faulty?

I have no children, but if I did I would not raise them in this country under a government like yours.

One can only wonder why anyone anywhere votes for right wing political parties. They discriminate against the elderly, the unemployed, rape health and education, and favor mega industries over the very people they have been hired to protect. It is a fact that under right wing governments everywhere the suicide rate within the general population increases.

Sincerely,
CC

Divider 1

Dear Honourable Health Minister,
I am writing to express my opposition to the withdrawal of family tax payments to parents with an ethical objection to vaccinations. I consider myself to be an intelligent, logical and devoted parent. I have two university degrees in the fields of anatomy and the medical sciences. I researched this issue considerably and it came down to a risk/benefit analysis for me.
One of my jobs as a mum is to ensure my child is as healthy as possible. To this end, I do a number of things to achieve this. I’ve been lucky enough to fully breastfeed my child. He eats mostly organic produce. He has a probiotic daily to promote gastrointestinal health (important for appropriate immune responses). He has regular chiropractic adjustments to assist his motor and cognitive development. He attends his scheduled child health nurse/medical doctor visits. He plays outside in the dirt, with our pets and other kids to stimulate his immune system (among other things). I keep a clean but unsterile home..…. I could go on….
All of these things move him further toward health and further away from sickness on the health/sickness continuum. As a result and possibly with a little luck, he is, by far, the healthiest child I know. In his first 18 months, other than an initial reflux problem, he has had one runny nose lasting a couple of days. Period. That’s it. I’ve seen other children (all vaccinated or partially vaccinated) suffer with illness regularly. We know that disease effects those susceptible to it, not just those in the presence of infectious agents. We can agree that it therefore makes sense to make one less susceptible to disease. It is my belief that to make one less susceptible, one must be as healthy as possible, i.e. closer to health on the health/sickness continuum. Does it make sense to administer substances with known toxins inherent in their make up? This, it would seem, would bring one further from health, lowering one’s resistance to illness and making one more vulnerable (susceptible) to disease in the first place. Have you ever wondered why some vaccinated children still fall prey to the illnesses they have been vaccinated against? Yes, I understand some of these substances are required, to invoke the response considered desirable in a vaccine. But is this the best way?? There has been so much debate on this topic for a very long time. Much toing and froing. Many statistics quoted. Some credible, some downright fraudulent, on both sides of the debate. This is a complicated issue. There are many questions regarding risk. Many questions yet to be asked (some that won’t be asked) by those producing the supporting evidence, and many conflicts of interest. Researching the safety of vaccines must include the testing of all of the ingredients present in a vaccine, not just the active ingredients, to be deemed safe. It seems odd to me. From what I’ve seen, people on both sides of the debate decide on their stance, and then look for supporting evidence with a coloured view of the issue, instead of the other way round.
On the issue of benefit, for me, questions have also arisen. We constantly hear vaccination being hailed as the reason many of these diseases are not seen (much) anymore. Looking historically, can we really credit vaccination with this? Looking at the rate of decline before the introduction of vaccination, I would question this. Yes, there has been evidence to suggest vaccines are effective at promoting an immune response (which is very different from achieving immunity) and reducing the rates of these diseases. But evidence would also suggest that vaccines might only be a contributing factor in disease decline. Why does vaccination not always work? Is the vaccination status of children succumbing to these so-called vaccine preventable diseases acknowledged? The immune system is so very complicated. To assume we know exactly how it works is, at best, a tad arrogant. Are we causing damage in ways yet to be researched? How will future generations be effected? Is there a link or at least partial link between increased vaccination rates and the decreasing health in kids today? Not just the much debated behavioural problems, but asthma, allergy, obesity, auto immune conditions such as diabetes etc. And importantly, why has research into decreasing child health included a multitude of factors but excluded one of the most obvious factors? So many questions to ponder.
I would hope any parent would ask questions, source information and advice and come to a conclusion that works best for their family. In the end, we chose not to vaccinate. That does not mean we do nothing, or are neglectful. We simply chose another way. I am not opposed to those that do choose to vaccinate their children or themselves.
On a personal note, I have witnessed my husband experience serious adverse reactions to a number of vaccinations, particularly hepatitis B and more recently, the typhoid, polio and meningitis vaccines. Some of these adverse reactions are ongoing and debilitating. Why on earth would I take the risk and expose my child to these vaccines, knowing the effect they have on his father? Would you?
So, the idea of jumping the gun and making vaccination compulsory or withdrawing government entitlements to parents who object to vaccination, simply scares the hell out of me. Not just because of the immediate health implications for my family, and for that matter, the community at large, but for the dangerous precedent this move would set. Who decides what’s best for us? Who promoted them to such a task? Who makes sure these people remain accountable and free from bias? Who decided that we, as parents, are incapable of sourcing credible information and making intelligent decisions? Since when is this a country that tramples on our fundamental right to our own bodies? Will this lead to other rights being taken away in the future? What happened to self-determination and informed consent?
It is not only my right, but also my obligation to ask these questions. In the end, it is not so much the issue of vaccination, but of the coercive and unjust measures to ensure vaccination and the suppression of freedom of information, that has me so concerned. So in conclusion, I simply state that withdrawing government entitlements to parents who object to vaccination is a deal breaker for me. I cannot give my vote to any individual or party that supports such legislation.

Yours sincerely,
LB

 

Divider 1

To whom It may concerne;
I’m just writing to express my disappointment in the fact that you are trying to take away my right as a democratic voter by taking away my rights to receive government entitlements based upon my decision not to vaccinate my children.  I absolutely oppose this decision and as an  Australian paying taxes I should be entitled to make my own choice on how I bring my children up without being penalised.
Myself and my partner have not made this decision lightly, as we did our research and decided not to vaccinate my children, however our decision also included the fact that we be responsible for our children health by living a healthy lifestyle.  My children are rarely sick and if they are sick  they recover quicker than other children.  I spend a lot more money on keeping my children in a healthy lifestyle ie naturopathy, homeopathy, chiropractic , kinesiology rather than parents who do no research, feed their children rubbish, feed them Panadol and are constantly at the doctors putting a strain on our Medicare system.  However, you want to penalise me for living a healthier lifestyle which includes not vaccinating.
You want me to have faith in these vaccines, how can I when my daughter recently was admitted to hospital with a partially cut Achilles tendon, I allowed the doctors to give her the Tetnus injection (only because it was separate and not combined with other vaccines), however after they administered this injection they returned a short time later to inform me that the vaccine was 3 months out of date but don’t worry.  How can I not be!
At least we have done our research before making our difficult decision unlike those parents who have vaccinated their children because “they just do what they are told” or “just bury their heads in the sand”.  How is it that by living in a democratic society we cannot make a healthy decision without being penalised (or being bribed).  Absolutely shamefull!

Regards,
JS

Divider 1Dear Minister Dutton,

Thank you for taking time to read my letter. I appreciate the busy demands that are placed on Federal health ministry. In a recent Courier Mail article you are quoted that a “sterner conversation” was needed with parents who were actively choosing not to vaccinate. If I may, I would like to share with you some of my thoughts about Vaccine compliance to safe guard our children. I fully supported the concept of vaccination, having made sure my tetanus vaccination was up to date,  having the flu vaccination as I hate having the flu and having the hep B shot. Later I started to hear disturbing reports of one of a friends daughter who had a developed a high temperature and taken her first fit after her first MMR shots and continues to fit to this day. Later when I married my wife, she told the story of her Aunt who had been completely normal until the day she received her MMR vaccine. That night she started to have fits for the rest of her life until one of those fits ended her life early. When I had children I very spent many hours looking at this matter, wanting to do the right thing. I read many journal articles, the best was a compilation of over 500 studies, some showing there were no risks to vaccination, and some showing that there were. I also spoke to my physician about my concerns. Even United States FDA government documents from people who support or research vaccines have doubts as to the safety of Vaccines as the following document shows. (I have attached the document to this email.)

http://www.fda.gov/downloads/biologicsbloodvaccines/newsevents/workshopsmeetingsconferences/transcriptsminutes/ucm056219.pdf

“..Does anybody know if vaccines have been checked for foamy virus contamination”  Answer Maxine Linial PH.D “As far as I know, no.” Page 74

Ron Desrosiers Ph.D “I don’t worry so much about the agents that one can test for. I worry about the agents that you can’t test for, that you don’t know about’ Page 99

Dr Engler, walter reed army medical centre
“I just wanted to make a comment and ask a broad question to challenge the panel, speaking from the perspective of a clinician and an educator, trying to translate the contents of meetings like this and the recent Thimerosal meeting for regular folks whether it’s providers or the patients. And the complexity alone, and when people say.”I worry about the unknown agents,” we have to worry about foamy virus transmission, lentivirus insertion into herpes, and that all translates into, for the common man, woman, and child, is there a bad disease with chronic consequences that can result  from immunization…………An awful lot of what you all have discussed is very hard to translate, but what’s left is, “gee, I’m not sure that this is safe.” from your mouths….” page 102,103.

Then we have the disturbing report of a fatal case of pertussis infection in a child care center where all children were fully vaccinated and when this was investigated the conclusion was that Vaccinated children may be asymptomatic reservoirs for infection. (Emerging Infectious Diseases Vol 6, No 5, September-October 2000).  As you will recall the same thing happened in Australian Hospitals when fully vaccinated staff had whooping cough.

I have to confess that the more I look into this subject the more expansive it becomes. The simple message in the Media is that vaccination is safe and effective.  While this mantra is both loud and long, it does not convey the complexity of this issue. Some would have us believe there is no debate about Vaccines and that the science complete and over. If this is true then it is not science but a religious dogma. In science the debate is never over.

Reading congressional US meeting transcripts, of both those who support vaccination and those who do not,  shows to me, that this issue is not settled and is becoming very expensive to maintain. The US Vaccine compensation fund is not looking very good and is not without its problems as noted by pulitzer prize winning author John Hanchette, professor of journalism at St. Bonaventure university in his article http://www.niagarafallsreporter.com/hanchette53.html

There is much rhetoric usually from powerful industry groups/media that usually goes along the lines that science is overwhelmingly supportive of vaccinations. One only has to look at the H1N1 debacle and the harm caused to children with the CSL vaccine and the expensive Tamiflu antiviral which is now reported to be of little use according to.

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/antiviral-drug-stockpile-a-waste-of-money-says-study-20140410-zqt3i.html

When I look at the United States VAERS data base It is very evident that vaccination can carry significant risks including death, like a lot of medical interventions. Given this, it is clearly a matter of informed consent rather then the state forcing or quasi forcing a medical intervention that carries risks. If the state uses coercion then this also implies redress against the state in the case of harm. I believe the current practice of sending home children who are seen at risk in the even of and outbreak is the wisest and tested course. In addition, the history I have seen in several countries certainly does not support the notion that vaccinations saved the world or influenced the rapid decline of disease. The vaccine industry would like us to believe this, but they were mostly a Jonny-come-lately component. If someone does have overwhelming evidence (not opinion) I would be delighted if it could be forward it to me.

Where are the double-blind Placebo-controlled studies that prove the safety and effectiveness of vaccines?
Where are the scientific evidence that confirm the long-term safety and effectiveness of vaccines?
How can the safety and mechanism of vaccines in the human body are scientifically proven if their pharmacokinetics are never examined or analysed in a vaccine study?
Where are the studies showing the health benefits between those who have and have not been vaccinated?

The State needs to be very careful with powerful interest groups that want to force a particular paradigm or product in one direction which they directly or indirectly profit rather than letting people make informed decisions which is a long and established medical ethic.  It is also of concern if the state starts to either actively or passively discriminate against its citizens because they hold a different view after having studied the matter. History is littered with examples of minority groups who have different views contrary to the established science or religion of the day being persecuted. As a democratic society his was the whole point that the Australian Parliament was making in having people go to their local Doctor to have a Conscientious Objector form signed so they were aware of both the risks and benefits.

I would ask that you put this matter into perspective given that Iatrogenic injury is magnitudes larger in cost to the community and makes so called vaccine preventable injury infinitesimally small. Yet I don’t know anyone that wants to ban doctors. I would ask that you support people who make informed decisions about their children in line with the Australian Health Care Rights and the ethos of the medical community.

Thank you for your time and commitment in representing the people of Australia.

Respectfully
BH

Divider 1Dear Sir(s)

It has been brought to my attention that you are planning to vote on removing parental rights to be a conscientious objector when it comes to childhood vaccinations. Thereby affecting their entitlement to Family Tax Benefits.

I understand that we would all like to live in a world without disease. Our natural immune systems are designed to develop natural antibodies when we come into contact with viruses and bacteria, pathogens and toxins. Unfortunately vaccinations introduce us to man made replica viruses and bacteria, pathogens, toxic heavy metals, deceased animal and human tissue, unnatural hormones all of which can have (in some instances) catastrophic affects in the recipient leading to death, serious and permanent disability, cellular damage amongst many vaccine side effects. There are court cases in progress and completed whereby vaccine could be and has been proven to be the cause of devastating and life changing effects within the recipient(s) and their families.

For these reasons and a great many others, this decision MUST and SHOULD remain the choice of the parents. They do not make the decision lightly in whichever direction they choose. Educated parents take away the information given to them, research their options and discuss their concerns with family, friends and health care professionals.

Please take this into consideration when making your decision.

Kind regards

D

Divider 1
I am a voter in New South Wales, previously having lived in Kallangur, QLD.

I object strongly to any moves to remove access to Government entitlements based on our vaccination decision.

This is total discrimination. When the authorities compare the health of the vaccinated and unvaccinated, and do it according to valid scientific procedures, then there is room for proper debate. Until this happens, there is no way government should be contemplating penalising people based on their decisions. If proper evidence is not being looked at, then you will continue to hear more and more prejudice in the community, and such a lot of unnecessary hate.
Conscientious objectors are people who have made carefully thought out decisions. When you know that something has caused unwanted side effects, you have the right to reject that something, especially when it comes to health. Health decisions should be made carefully with information on the subject freely available, not under threat of punishment.
Government continues to ignore that some of us have suffered greatly from the effects of vaccines, some much more than others, but fail to make the necessary impartial investigations. Those who have lost loved ones should never have it explained away as coincidence, and be made to look simple minded.  Taking away benefits based on vaccination status, in many cases simply means further punishing victims of  vaccination.
We need to investigate just how strong those links between vaccines and sides effects really are and be sure people know these before accepting vaccines. It would seem obvious since labelling is important everywhere else. We should know if statistically there is evidence showing our children are more susceptible than others, eg if  Archie Kalikoneros’ work with Aboriginal children is still just as relevant today.
Autism keeps rearing its head in the debate, – again rigorous investigative work needs to be carried out. How much government funding is being taken up with this disorder?

To sum up, our decisions especially in the case of our health should be freely made by ourselves, with quality research by independent parties freely available and promoted and people’s concerns should never be put down. Punishment  and discrimination for making valid choices is not acceptable.
Further, I strongly object to the notion that forgetfulness is ok, but those who have made choices in life should be subject to sterner conversations. Sounds like Nazi Germany.

Please make your time in Parliament a time for democracy to shine through.
Yours faithfully,
SM

Divider 1Dear Ministers,

I write to voice in the strongest possible terms, my protest against the removal of Family Benefits for those families who choose not to vaccinate their children!
I have an Honours Degree in Pharmacy from Sydney University and a Postgraduate Diploma in Clinical Nutrition. I am a much-published author. In 2011 I received the Sydney University Pharmacy Alumni Award for Achievement for my work (over more than 30 years) to improve the health of both parents before they conceive a child. My goal in promoting preconception healthcare is to improve every aspect of reproductive health and the health of the unborn child, which includes strengthening the child’s immune system by natural means!

I know of many like myself, intelligent, informed and concerned individuals, involved in the delivery of true preventive healthcare, who feel as I do about the issue of vaccination.

What’s more, concerns about vaccination are now also voiced by those once convinced of its benefits. For example Tetyana Obukhanych, with a Ph.D. in IMMUNOLOGY recently stated …

“I know of many alternative health practitioners and even of a few pediatricians who have embraced the non-vaccination approach to health. However, I have yet to encounter one among my own kind: a scientist in the trenches of mainstream biomedical research who does not regard vaccines as the greatest invention of medicine.

I never imagined myself in this position, least so in the very beginning of my Ph.D. research training in immunology. In fact, at that time, I was very enthusiastic about the concept of vaccination, just like any typical immunologist. However, after years of doing research in immunology, observing scientific activities of my superiors, and analyzing vaccine issues, I realized that vaccination is one of the most deceptive inventions the science could ever convince the world to accept.”

Hardly an encouraging view on vaccination!

At a personal level, I am 66 years old and attribute my robust good health throughout my entire life, to the fact that my mother had the great wisdom not to vaccinate me. I have two sons – aged 24 and 28 – also totally unvaccinated. In their combined 52 years on this planet, they have together seen a doctor 6 times (the average number of visits for a newborn in the first YEAR of life). My 9 week old grandson will follow in the family footsteps.

I am therefore shocked that in this democracy, the payments that should flow to his parents, and to the many other couples who follow my recommendations, all of whom have spent much time, effort and money on true health-promoting measures, may stop!

I await your early response

Yours faithfully
JR

Divider 1

The Great Vaccination Non-Debate?

by Meryl Dorey

One sided debateThere is one side of the vaccination issue supported by those who believe parents should be able to access a broad range of information from many different sources. This side is not afraid of scrutiny and in fact, has been asking for better, more transparent research for decades. That side is represented by the Australian Vaccination-skeptics Network (AVN) and the other pro-information, pro-choice groups in Australia and overseas.

In opposition to this open and democratic viewpoint on scientific issues, there are organisations and individuals whose raison d’étre seems to be to prevent parents from accessing information freely and to threaten, harass and abuse anyone whose viewpoint on medical issues is not in accord with their own beliefs. That side is represented by the pro-vaccine lobby: the Australian Skeptics, Stop the AVN, certain members of both State and Federal Parliaments and some sections of the medical community.

Healthy Lifestyles Expo

In May of this year, I am going to be speaking at an event on the Sunshine Coast called the Healthy Lifestyles Expo.

The organisers originally contacted me in October last year to see if I would be interested in participating in a live debate on the subject of vaccination. Both sides would be presented and the moderator would ensure that equal time was given to each speaker with ample time allowed for questions from the audience.

Since this is something that both the AVN and I have been wanting to facilitate for some time, I was quick to agree.

The organisers were having a very hard time finding someone from the medical community to debate me, however.

They contacted Queensland Health, their Medical Local, a large number of doctors and even Stop the AVN and the Australian Skeptics. None of them would agree to defend vaccinations publicly.

The reasons given for the refusal to participate in a debate were:

a. There is no debate – there is only one side to this issue.
b. If people have questions, they should see their GP.
c. Fliers would be provided so a debate was unnecessary.

After a few weeks of trying, the debate was called off and instead, the AVN booked a stall at the Expo. As stall-holders, we were entitled to present a seminar which we were happy to do though we still would have preferred a debate.

At this point, the organisers posted an advertisement for my talk on their website at this page.

Almost immediately after this information was posted, the Expo’s website was attacked – twice. The organiser’s were signed up for many pornographic email lists (something that regularly happens to my own email address) and they found themselves targeted by a stream of hate messages on social media from people using the tag #stopavn.

They also received an angry post from Matthew Berryman, an SAVN member who works at the University of Wollongong.

Here is what one of the organisers of this event stated on their blog about Mr Berryman and the whole campaign to stop this debate from taking place:

“…the first comment by Matthew Berryman who has [a] PhD in complex systems modelling and analysis, yet tends to resort to name calling if he is rebutted, a very grown up response.

Mr Berryman sent the organisers of this event a letter accusing them of paying me to speak (in 20 years of public speaking on this issue, I have never taken payment for any of my talks though that is usually offered) and saying that the event was ‘unbalanced’ because they didn’t have a speaker from the anti-choice side!

The organisers offered Mr Berryman the opportunity to either debate me or, if he preferred, to get a stall and speak on the stage himself, just as the AVN was doing. He declined, stating that he was not qualified to speak on this issue.

Where we stand today

At this point in time, there is a possibility that Dr Rachael Dunlop from Stop the AVN and the NSW Skeptics may be debating me (please note – I have just heard from the organisers this morning. Dr Dunlop has said she will not debate me). For those who don’t know her, here is one of the Twitter posts she wrote about myself and others who have made an informed choice not to vaccinate:

Rachie Twitter

The organisers have stated that, regretfully, if someone from the other side does not come forward by the 9th of May, the debate will be cancelled and we will go back to just me speaking on the issue with no opposing viewpoint which would be a shame.

We need a conversation and a debate

The AVN wants parents everywhere to be able to hear both sides of this issue. We want them to be able to ask questions, discuss this subject openly without fear or favour and, in the end, to make the choices they think are best for their family. Without the participation of the pro-vaccine lobbyists – those same people who have been trying for years to make vaccination compulsory – it becomes almost impossible to provide parents with that balance.

We ask anyone who is reading this – whether they be a medical doctor, specialist, health official or from another area of the field of science – who would like to debate the subject in a respectful manner, to contact the Expo organisers via their website contact page.

We also ask that those who believe in free choice on health issues write a quick note to Wayne and Annie, the Expo organisers, to thank them for their strength and commitment to freedom of speech and scientific debate.

I’d love to see you at the Expo!

If you are going to be on the Sunshine Coast on the 24th to the 25th of May, 2014, I would love to see you at the Expo. Please do drop by the AVN’s stand and say hi.

ExhibitorBadge250

One last note:

QLD Health has been given a free table next to the AVN stand on which to display flyers and other information about vaccination. When asked if they would also be sending someone who would be able to answer questions or discuss this issue with the parents in attendance, they said they would not and that anyone who had questions should be contacting their GP.

It is this sort of unresponsive behaviour; this running away from those whom they are supposed to be serving, that has many QLD parents questioning the commitment of their health authorities to the protection of the children of that State.

The AVN will always be there to support our members and to answer their questions. We will always be there to help members who are being discriminated against or harassed in some way because of their vaccination decision. We believe strongly in everyone’s right to make informed choices and wish that our elected representatives would take their responsibility seriously in regards to this issue as well. Citizens and residents of a democratic nation should not be living in fear that their government will take away their inalienable rights to read, discuss and decide about health issues as they see best.

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

Apparently our acronym is now misleading?

by AVN President,
Greg Beattie

Oppression

If you have been following our saga during the past year you will know the prequel to this post. For those who missed it, we were directed last year to change our name – after 16 years – because our opponents complained that it was misleading. After exhausting our avenues of appeal, it turned out the Minister for Fair Trading had the power to enforce this. In fact, he introduced a new regulation just so that he could see this through!

So we changed our name. We are now “Australian Vaccination-skeptics Network Inc”. The new name was accepted by our members, as well as by NSW Fair Trading.

Now we have a new threat. Director of Investigations, Compliance and Enforcement Division, Mr David Byrne, phoned last Friday to say he requires us to change all instances of the abbreviation “AVN” to “AVSN”. And he has threatened to commence action without further notice to shut us down and remove our domain from the internet.

This was quite a surprise! Before the call there had been no mention of this intention, as you will see from the letters below

We believe this latest move suggests the aim, from the beginning, has been to force our organisation to close its doors. While the Minister successfully convinced the court that someone, somewhere might think the name Australian Vaccination Network is misleading, no similar argument has been made about the abbreviation, AVN

Greg

Below is the latest letter from Greg Beattie to Rod Stowe, Commissioner, NSW Fair Trading, 23 March, 2014. This afternoon, we received an interim response stating that the,  “issues raised are under consideration”.

Dear Mr Stowe,

We received correspondence on March 20, 2014, from David A. Byrne (Director, Investigations, Compliance and Enforcement Division, NSW Fair Trading). I responded on the same day. Both letters are enclosed for your reference. Mr Byrne then phoned me on the following day.

You will see from the correspondence that Mr Byrne requested we ensure all instances of our old name were changed to our new name, in all official documents and web publications. As indicated in my response, this has been done.

However, when Mr Byrne phoned me the following day he explained that he required us to also change all instances of the abbreviation “AVN” to “AVSN”, regardless of whether the documents in which they appear already bear our full name. I asked Mr Byrne to submit this request in writing, stating the reasons for it, and I would take it to the committee. He indicated he was not prepared to do so as it was something the ‘court’ had already ordered, and he felt his letter had already covered it. He further indicated he would commence action against us on the basis of non-compliance. He said the action, and the timeline for such, would be those outlined in his letter.

I write today to ask you to clarify whether Mr Byrne’s threat via phone represents the official position of your office. If it does, we ask for this request to be put unambiguously in writing, stating that it is now the abbreviation you take issue with. We also ask that you quote the legislation which empowers you to direct an organisation to change an informal abbreviation it uses within documents which already bear its full official name.

On the other hand, if Mr Byrne’s threat does not represent the official position of your office I ask
that you ensure he is made aware of that.

Given the nature of the threat I ask that you clarify this issue as a matter of urgency.

In the interim, I submit the following:

  • Our full legal name (the new one) is prominently displayed at the top of all stationary and other documents. It is clearly displayed on all banners, footers, and other relevant text for all our web pages.
  • “AVN” is not an official name. It is an informal abbreviation, and was not the subject of our ADT hearing last year. The ADT did not even consider its use.
  • “AVN” is not used to replace our full name. It is only used in documents which already bear our full official name. In such cases it is an informal abbreviation intended to avoid repetition. We have used this shorthand for more than 16 years.
  • It is acceptable for any entity to refer to itself in abbreviated format, informally, within documents that bear its full legal name. In fact, it is routine to do so. Most, if not all, organisations and businesses do this. The abbreviations they choose are a matter for their discretion.
  • Given that our full name “Australian Vaccination-skeptics Network Inc.” contains a hyphen, we consider “AVN” a reasonable abbreviation.
  • After searching the Act we are unable to find reference to any power permitting you to direct an organisation to change the way it informally refers to itself.

I look forward to your clarifying this for us.
Yours sincerely
Greg Beattie
President
Australian Vaccination-skeptics Network Inc.

Letter from David Byrne, 20 March, 2014

Letter from Greg Beattie to David Byrne, 20 March, 2014

 

Yet another HCCC complaint filed against the AVN

13820759_sNot content with having fought and lost a costly battle in the NSW Supreme Court, only to have been found to have acted illegally in investigating the AVN, the Health Care Complaints Commission (HCCC) is back at it again. Please click here to read about this incredible waste of time and taxpayer dollars once again being perpetrated by a government body meant to protect Australians from dangerous doctors, but who, instead, seem more interested in preventing people from discussing politically sensitive issues such as the risks and ineffectiveness of vaccination.

We would like to ask everyone reading this to help us publicise this issue in any way possible – by email, letters to the editor, via social media or on your own blogs and websites.