Jane Hansen: Can We talk? My Shout!

Dear Jane Hansen,

As you know, I have long been critical of your reporting on the issues surrounding the subject of vaccination. I believed and still do believe that your attacks on those who hold a different opinion to your own are beyond the pale, unfair and in some cases, cruel and abusive.

Of course, I do understand where that attitude comes from. Most of those in mainstream media would see nothing wrong with your position and how you promote it. They would say that for the greater good, those like myself who question both the safety and effectiveness of vaccinations need to be silenced and if that means bullying them or calling them and their children names, so be it!

But I don’t believe this sort of behaviour is necessary. I think it is fear-based, ignorant and beneath the dignity of someone who calls herself a journalist.

So, I would like to ask you to meet with me here in the Northern Rivers for a meal and a chat – my shout. I know you are up here often but if you are no longer in this area, I will be happy to pay for your airfare.

What precipitated this offer?

Earlier this week, I received an email from a long-time AVN supporter. She had approached you regarding your attacks and was quite polite, I felt, in her language (please note: I have not changed or corrected any of the text in either her message or your responses). The original post from the AVN supporter is in blue and the responses from Jane Hansen are in red – just for ease of identification. My comments are in black.:

I read your article with disappointment about anti vaccers. There are many facts and studies about why people choose not to vaccinate their children. And yes there are cases on both sides where children have died. I believe good journalism provide both sides of the argument and allows people to think, questions and decide from an informed position…not the fear mongering we have ended up with in so many articles. Please take a look for yourself with I hope an open mind to discover why there are so many people who do not vaccinate their children. http://vaxxedthemovie.com/stream/

Your response to her was indicative of the problem with your reporting on this issue. You have conflated so many facts and shown a horrendous amount of ignorance for someone who has been writing about this subject for so many years!

Are you serious? You think this fraud of a film is correct? If it was true it would be on the front pages of papers around the world.

There are many truths that never make it to the front pages – or any pages – of newspapers. If that is your gauge of veracity, I’m afraid you are being naïve in the extreme!

The study got retracted because the African American children already had autism and were behind in their MMR vaccine..

Jane Hansen, I am unsure of which study you are referring to. I believe you may have confused the original 1990 Wakefield study, Ileal-lymphoid-nodular hyperplasia, non-specific colitis, and pervasive developmental disorder in children; THE LANCET • Vol 351 • February 28, 1998, with the 2004 Dr William Thompson study but f that’s the case, I have to tell you that neither of these studies says what you have claimed.

I would have thought since you have been calling Wakefield a fraud for nearly a decade, you would have at least read the study to know what you’re writing about. Apparently not.

Please read the study and view the documentary before commenting on them

There were no African-American children in Wakefield’s study since all of the subjects (12 of them) were British.

None of the children were “behind in their MMR vaccines”. They had consulted with Dr Wakefield and his 12 co-authors including Dr John Walker-Smith, the preeminent paediatric gastroenterologist practising at that time. Dr Walker-Smith had also been struck off by the GMC and he was able to take his case to the High Court in the UK to oppose that decision regarding the so-called Wakefield study. In case you were wondering, Dr Walker-Smith was cleared and the GMC were criticised by the court for the way they handled this case. No fraud was found.

I believe your statement was probably referring to the African-American children who were left out of the study co-authored by Dr William Thompson, the CDC Whistleblower. As you would know, if you had actually watched the documentary, VaxXed, (a video dealing with the cover-up of vital information linking vaccination with the current epidemic of autism, not, as you appear to believe, with Dr Wakefield’s 1998 Lancet study) Dr Thompson was ordered by his superiors in the CDC to destroy evidence demonstrating that African American boys were 380% more likely to develop autism following vaccination depending upon the age at which they were vaccinated. The CDC found backhanded ways to exclude this cohort from the trial and used other fraudulent methods to massage the data to make it look like this risk didn’t exist – but the actual data shows that the correlation was real and strong.

It was a requirement to access autism services to catch up their vaccines .. So of course all the kids in that group with autism has the MMR vaccine .. That’s why they were left out of the study.. Doh!!

Where do I start? Jane Hansen, I have no idea what you are referring to here? There is no study that I am aware of (certainly none that are discussed either as part of Dr Wakefield’s original case series or in the documentary, VaxXed) where children had to have vaccines to access autism services. Your use of the pejorative – Doh!! – to someone who approached you honestly and kindly, is uncalled for, don’t you agree? Especially when you are the one making an incorrect statement.

I don’t want to be rude but you insult all journalists believing this shit.

Handy hint, Jane Hansen. If you start out saying you don’t want to be rude, it’s not a good idea to finish by being rude.

Sorry you’ve been conned but you have. William Thompson never spoke to the vaxxed team who are not journalists .. He sought whistle blower status to avoid getting sacked for being a bad scientists..

I’m beginning to think you are making this up as you go along. Dr William Thompson spoke with Dr Brian Hooker for many years and Dr Brian Hooker is, most assuredly, one of the VaxXed team. Again, had you watched the documentary prior to commenting on it, you would have known that.

Dr Thompson sought whistleblower protection because the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), his employer and the organisation that had ordered him to commit fraud in a study he co-authored on vaccination and autism, was afraid that he would be arrested for speaking with Dr Hooker about this subject. You are the first (and only) person I have ever heard claim that Dr Thompson would be granted whistleblower protection because he was a bad scientist. Think about it. Bad science is not a reason for someone to become a whistleblower. It is, however, a reason to try and cover up results which the CDC has done and is still doing regarding this case.

The other scientist tried to put the confounding factor tram back in and his paper got thrown out too.. Not because it’s a conspiracy but because it was bad science. Now you do your research !

What scientist are you talking about Jane Hansen? And what confounding factor are you referring to? Honestly, my head is spinning here. You are moving seamlessly from 1998 when Wakefield publishing his original Lancet paper (with 12 other scientists, remember) to 2004 when Dr Thompson published his CDC Study to 2016 when VaxXed premiered. You are very unclear about what you’re referring to so a bit of clarity would be very helpful. What data, study and scientist are you referring to here?

Oh, and the producer got struck off the medical register for chafing dates on vax, performing lumber punctures on children without permission, accepted millions from the lawyers to ‘find a causal factor’ and was developing his own vaccine !!!

Jane Hansen, I studied journalism for a time at University and one thing I clearly remember learning, though it was so many years ago, was to research before writing. That was drummed into my head – research, research, research! It is obvious that you’ve forgotten this lesson. You see, the producer of the documentary, VaxXed, is Del Bigtree. Del, though he was a producer on the television show, The Doctors, for many years, has never been a doctor himself. Therefore, he never was, nor could he ever be, struck off of any medical register. I believe you are referring to Dr Andrew Wakefield who directed VaxXed but was not the producer (details do matter). And Dr Wakefield was a gastroenterologist. He referred children for endoscopies – not lumbar punctures. Ethical permission for both publication and testing was properly obtained and as far as I know, this was never in question. 

Please note – I have received a correction to the above statement (the one that has been struck out) and until it has been confirmed by Dr Wakefield, I will insert the correction below. I will update this when and if I have more information:

Could someone who knows Meryl please tell her she has got this bit below wrong? He did not refer children for endoscopies, he suggested parents get referrals from their doctors to go to the hospital, (so was found guilty by GMC of interferring with referrals), he was found guilty of organising tests including both endoscopies and lumbar punctures when it was not his job at the hospital (his defense was he had only an administrative role in planning the tests), and most importantly, not having ethical permission for the testing (according to them) was the main thrust of the charges against him, so was certainly in question.

“And Dr Wakefield was a gastroenterologist. He referred children for endoscopies – not lumbar punctures. Ethical permission for both publication and testing was properly obtained and as far as I know, this was never in question.”

A better response to Hanson’s lumbar punctures claim would be W didn’t treat children, the hospital’s doctor did, and he didn’t need permission.

Dr Wakefield was never paid ‘millions from lawyers’ to find a causal factor. He was retained by a legal team preparing a compensation case in the UK and both his involvement in this case and his fees (which totalled in the thousands – not the millions) were public knowledge at the time the Lancet article was published. The Lancet editors were perfectly well-aware of this as were the other doctors at the Royal Free Hospital in London.

You also claim that he (again, I’m assuming you mean Dr Wakefield though you are referring to the producer of VaxXed) was developing his own vaccine. Again, this is incorrect. Dr Wakefield was working on something called transfer factor to help prevent inflammatory bowel disease (this was never designed to be a vaccine) as well as a diagnostic test for determining the presence of measles virus in the body. It is time for you to stop getting all of your information from the so-called Skeptics and do some reading yourself, Jane.

Now there is corruption .. That is the story ! Now goodbye.

I will rephrase that to make it more accurate. Now THERE is ignorance. Now THERE are rumours. Now THERE is a made-up story.

Please don’t say good-bye. Take me up on my offer. We can have a good meal, a good chat, and I can hopefully encourage you to become a bit better informed and (I have to say it) a bit kinder to those whose knowledge about the subject of vaccines differs from your own.

What do you say, Jane? I’ll even buy you a glass of chardonnay – though I don’t drink it myself.

Experts in Ignorance

ignorance of expertsWe are told all the time that we are not qualified to make medical or healthcare decisions for ourselves or our children. Instead, we need to leave it up to the ‘experts’ – namely the doctors and medical specialists – whose training has supposedly made them better-qualified than any of our own research and knowledge possibly could.

This is despite the FACT that medical doctors learn very little (nothing, really) about vaccination, nutrition or most other aspects of staying healthy when they receive their medical school training. Once they leave school, much of their continuing education comes directly from the drug companies so really, I think they are not qualified to advise anyone about these topics. The only exception would be if they themselves have done research outside of their normal areas and, if they have done so and offer advice that goes against the status quo, they are threatened with deregistration or worse!

Most doctors are only qualified to advise patients about drugs, and even that qualification is not independent since, as I said earlier, their training, in large part, comes from the multinational pharmaceutical companies who test and market their own products.

Do doctors understand health?

If you feel that health does not come from a pill or a needle, I think there is very little that a doctor can offer you in the way of staying healthy.

Time and time again, doctors have demonstrated clearly that their knowledge of the basics of health and the immune system/infectious diseases is seriously lacking.

A recent example of this was the incident with Dr Richard Kidd, head of the Australian Medical Association in QLD. During a hearing into legislative changes in the QLD Parliament, Dr Kidd advised a sitting Member to ask her doctor to give her an MMR (measles, mumps and rubella) vaccine during her next pregnancy. This despite the fact that MMR is absolutely contraindicated during pregnancy because the rubella portion of the shot could possibly cause congenital rubella syndrome in an unborn child.

I filed an official complaint with the QLD Health Care Complaints about Dr Kidd’s dangerous advice and was told that because Dr Kidd had said this during a hearing, it was not official advice and therefore, was not covered by their legislation! Yet, if you’d said this to your neighbour over the back fence, you could be in trouble! Double standards once again.

In the last few days, another AMA official – this one, none other than the National President – has demonstrated an incredible ignorance of something so basic, most parents would be ashamed to have made this kind of error.

AMA and PolioLuckily, Dr Julie Leask (a social scientist – not a medical doctor) picked him up on his mistake, but the fact remains that not only is the President of the AMA displaying a shocking lack of knowledge about one of the main diseases we vaccinate against, but he is comparing those of us who are better informed and better qualified than himself on this subject (e.g., most educated parents and natural therapists/holistic GPs) to Islamic terrorists!

Now, I can’t follow the link to the BBC article the @amapresident was referring to because he removed his original tweet (what is it with health officials constantly trying to rewrite history in order to cover up their numerous errors?) but the implication is obvious: If you are sharing information about vaccination that the AMA does not agree with, you are the equivalent of a terrorist.

Responsible health choices

I believe that making decisions by ONLY seeking the advice of self-proclaimed experts who make such basic errors is irresponsible. I also believe that parents should be taking responsibility for the health of their children, and this means that in addition to speaking with their doctors, they should be seeking out information from a wide range of sources, including their own reading and research and sourcing data from organisations that are critical of government vaccination policies such as the Australian Vaccination Network and the National Vaccine Information Centre (for just two examples).

To show you that this sort of institutional ignorance is nothing new, here is an interview I did on Channel 7’s Sunrise Program in 2002 with Dr Trevor Mudge, then Vice President of the AMA. While I was able to cite data from peer-reviewed medical journal sources, Dr Mudge’s only comeback was to accuse me of being Anti-Vaccine and therefore, claim that everything I said was wrong whilst not being able to back up anything he said with source material.

He admitted that we did not test vaccines here in Australia; he admitted that he had no information on the known side effects and deaths from the vaccine in question (the then unlicensed meningococcal vaccine) and he admitted that the strain covered by the shot did not match the circulating strain of the majority of cases in Australia.

Despite these admissions and despite his lack of knowledge, he still urged people to get this shot because – SCIENCE!

There’s science – and then, there are vaccines…

Science means never having to say you haven’t studied anything thoroughly. Science means always questioning, always testing and never making any absolute statements because today’s science is tomorrow’s junk.

The ignorance being displayed by those who the government claims are the experts we should be listening to without question is disturbing. It is frightening and it should not be allowed to continue.

Doctors have done nothing to earn our trust or our respect, nor have their peak bodies. Indeed, the arrogance, the ignorance and the insistence on being trusted simply because they are doctors has only led to a great deal of suspicion from the majority of the thinking public.

Some doctors have even gone so far as to say that those who disagree with them should be punished, fined or jailed for their beliefs – even if those beliefs are backed by real science! The question that needs to be asked here is – is there more than one way to stay healthy? And if the answer to that question is yes, should any one segment of society – especially one responsible for a holocaust’s worth of pain, death and suffering worldwide each year – be allowed to dictate to others?

YOU as the parent and a thinking adult are and will always be the expert on your body and on the bodies of your children. YOU should ask your doctor for advice, but YOU should only consider taking that advice after seeking out a second (and perhaps a third) opinion, doing your own research and considering your options carefully.

Any doctor who does not respect that innate right; any industry body (like the AMA) who insists on your not being allowed to make these choices, deserves to be shut down; and any government that tries to force free citizens to make medical choices which they do not feel is in their family’s best interest deserves to be charged with crimes against humanity and replaced by a truly representative body.

The last days of natural health in Australia?

Green PillsI’m writing this blog whilst sitting at my chiropractor’s office waiting for my appointment. The air is filled with the scent of lavender and soft music is playing in the background. It’s a lovely, relaxing environment. But thinking about the threats to chiropractic care – and all forms of natural therapies – is keeping me from feeling relaxed.

Those pseudo-skeptics who are reading this are thinking (and working towards the day) that chiropractic will no longer be allowed to exist in Australia. Only drug-based, toxic treatments are OK as far as they are concerned. There are two ways of doing things in their minds – their way or the wrong way. And anyone who doesn’t agree with them on health issues (or most anything else, come to think of it), should be forced to go along with their view of the world.

Bunch of schoolyard bullies, they are!

Normally, I would laugh at people like this. They are so pathetic; so immature; so wrong minded. But when they are backed by a multi-trillion dollar pharmaceutical industry that not only owns the government and the media, but backs them and gives them a platform to spew their hate speech, it’s no longer a laughing matter.

So, I sit in the chiropractor’s office, knowing that it may only be a matter of a few years before chiropractic is no longer able to be practiced openly in Australia. Chiropractic, naturopathic medicine, homeopathy, Bowen therapies, Chinese Herbal medicine…the list goes on. All of these treatments, some of which have been safely and effectively used for thousands of years, could be in their last days here in Australia.

All because people are choosing in their hundreds of thousands to turn their backs on Western medical doctors and opt for treatments that work and are, as close as any treatment can be, harmless. A claim which cannot be made for medical any ‘treatment’. Medical drugs, procedures and errors kill between 18,000 and 54,000 Australians EVERY YEAR! Doctors have not earned the right to be trusted or listened to without question – a right which the government and the medical organisations are demanding.

It’s all about money, power and control

Government control has gone completely bonkers. Not content with trying to ban natural therapies, our diets are also under threat.

Let’s not talk about the fact that labelling of foods containing genetically modified organisms is still not mandatory – despite survey after survey showing that 90% and more of Australians say they want this (who is the government working for again?)

Or the issue of additives, colourings and preservatives that have never been shown to be safe being used in the manufacture and packaging of the foods we eat. Thousands of these additives were approved by our government without any testing or proof of safety either singly or in combination (very much like vaccines, come to think of it). Guess they really DO take their responsibility to keep us safe seriously, eh?

And let’s not forget the herbicides, pesticides, pre-emergents and fungicides used in the growth, packaging and shipment of our foods. These products are not only unsafe for human and animal consumption, but they have destroyed our already depleted soils to the point where foods grown conventionally in Australia are virtually devoid of nutrition.

So our government, sworn to protect us and our rights, has worked full time to destroy our health and take away our rights. All the while, trying its hardest to remove the forms of healthcare that WE choose to use and even the way that WE choose to eat!

I am eating a modified Paleo/ketogenic diet and have been on this for about 2 1/2 months. It’s been amazing! Apart from losing weight (bonus!), I have felt really good and have been feeling increases of energy nearly every day.

This is a diet I chose after doing a lot of research and reading – especially because of its ability to help prevent cancer. I don’t have cancer, luckily, but at nearly 60 years old, I felt it was time to get serious about my health so I read a lot and have chosen to use my diet to help me get healthier. So far, so good.

But in this ‘democracy’ of Australia, doing things differently to corporate interest’s recommendations is a sure fire path to conflict.

quote-the-chinese-do-not-draw-any-distinction-between-food-and-medicine-lin-yutang-307803

Chef Pete Evans is one of the top Paleo experts in Australia. Now, he does not go out and grab people off the street and say, “Ve haf vays ov making you eat Paleo!” He simply offers information, recipes and stories about people who have changed their diet and the positive effects they’ve discovered.

But this is not allowed! If too many people eat Paleo, the food pyramid will be turned upside down! Companies like Kelloggs, Sanitarium and other grain and cereal manufacturers will show a decline to their bottom lines. We can’t have that!

So, their tame front group nutrition organisations (the same ones that still push margarine, genetically-modified oils and a crazy amount of grains with too little greens) have viciously attacked Chef Evans and people like myself who eat a Paleo diet.

These companies are silent about conventional farming practices, adding all sorts of dangerous crap to the foods we and our children eat and the use of antibiotics and hormones in our food animals. But try to eat a diet that is close to nature and that makes you feel good – oh no! We can’t have that!

Big Pharma, Big Ag, Big Food – they are all the same. They are all one.

They have their tentacles throughout government and the media. They control what you read, hear, see and do in ways that you – if you are like most Australians – are completely unaware of.

But step outside the box; choose to think independently about diet, healthcare or education and you will find out quickly enough how narrow those confines actually are!

Want to drink raw milk like our ancestors did for generations? No way! Much better to drink pus-filled white stuff that has had all of the nutrition boiled out of it (to kill germs that are only there because of the way in which cows live and are treated on commercial farms). Drink or sell raw milk and you face fines and/or imprisonment.

Want to feed your children a vegan diet? Well, even though a large number of people in countries like China, India and Southeast Asia live on a vegan diet with no problem, you will not be allowed and could even face removal of your children!

No tolerance, no acceptance of any differences allowed in our Australia. You follow the party line or you suffer the consequences. And the party wants to control you from the second you wake up in the morning until the moment you close your eyes at night.

So…I sit here trying to relax before I get called in for my appointment, and wondering how many more appointments I will have before my chiropractor, and your naturopath, and your neighbour’s homeopath become a distant, illegal memory. And asking myself what it will take to finally get natural therapists to work together against the common enemy trying to shut them down for good.

Be Afraid. Be Very Afraid

46496240 - businessman balancing hourglass on edge of wooden plank, with sun sky cityscape background.
What is there to be afraid of? Quite a bit, unfortunately.

The whole thing about vaccination is – it’s supposed to keep you safe.

If you’re vaccinated against measles, you shouldn’t get measles. If you are vaccinated against whooping cough, you should be protected from whooping cough.

That’s the ‘promise’ of vaccines. It’s why doctors and government officials refer to them as immunisations. Because the people who are vaccinated are the last ones who should be getting those diseases.

But the fact is, the vaccinated ARE getting sick with the very things they’ve been vaccinated against.

That used to be called vaccine failure; or breakthrough disease.

Now, it’s called exposure to the unvaccinated.

Pharma may be evil – but you can never say it’s stupid.

Turn a weakness into a strength and you have the beginning of a great marketing campaign. And that’s what we’re seeing right now.

Vaccines not working? No problem! We just need more of them and we need more people to take them. That’ll do it. And, if it doesn’t work, well, the fact that we were able to convince you lot that if 1 wasn’t good, 2, 3, 4 or 8 are better, means you will believe anything we say – no matter how unscientific or idiotic it is.

Because government vaccination policies aren’t based on science – far from it! They are based on emotion; on a religious, some might even say fundamentalist belief that vaccines are the only answer to infectious diseases. Even if the diseases we are trying to prevent rarely, if ever kill and may even be beneficial (measles, mumps, rubella and chicken pox come to mind); even if the diseases are easily prevented with clean water and breastfeeding (rotavirus and polio), vaccines will always be the best answer. Even when the vaccines don’t work.

And when they don’t work, the pat answer is – it wasn’t the fault of the vaccine. Oh no! It was the fault of some unknown, unnamed faceless child whose parents were so irresponsible as to not vaccinate them.

Think about that for a minute. We vaccinate to protect our children, but when the vaccines haven’t protected them, we’re told it’s because some outside force has broken through their protection.

Does that make sense to you? If it does, I have some desert land in central Australia that I’m developing into a theme park and I think you’re just the kind of investor we need!

All Theory-All the Time

The theory behind vaccination is – you inject a tiny bit of a chemically-altered (attenuated) virus or bacteria into a person’s body and the body creates antibodies that will stay there forever so that when you are naturally exposed to that virus or bacteria down the track, those antibodies are ready, willing and able to protect you without you developing symptoms.

Sounds good, right?

But we KNOW (don’t think, opine or conjecture – but KNOW) that those antibodies aren’t protective. In fact, they may be counter-productive.

All antibodies indicate is that you have been exposed to an antigen. It’s a sign that either naturally or by other means, your body has come into contact with virus A or bacteria C.

Natural exposure will not always cause the production of antibodies. And true immunity (not to be confused with the production of antibodies) can occur without developing any symptoms whatsoever (called a sub-clinical infection).

The whole basis for the theory of vaccination was disproved decades ago in the 1940s, when Dr Merrill Chase proved that antibodies do not, on their own, protect against disease.

Of course, by then, medicine was already on a course of no return when it comes to vaccination. They could see the dollar signs in their future. They could also see the risks to lucrative treatments if they came out and admitted that the cornerstone of Western medicine had just collapsed.

So, like all good profit-based businesses, medicine just ignored what Dr Chase said and kept on doing the same old, same old. It’s easy to claim that vaccines work if you set the bar so low. All vaccines have to do is induce the production of antibodies and, since vaccines expose you to viruses and bacteria and being exposed will usually cause antibodies, vaccines became a huge success story. Insert shot – antibodies! Nearly every time. And for those who don’t develop antibodies, well, we make up this theory called herd immunity. It’s great! You see, for those few unlucky souls whose bodies, for whatever reason, don’t ‘do the right thing’ and make antibodies, they will be protected by the those around them who have those wonderful things circulating in their bloodstreams.

Great system! Not based in science. Not backed by any proof or evidence whatsoever. But hey, we fooled you once, didn’t we?

So the people who are vaccinated and develop antibodies are protected from disease by their antibodies. And the ones who are vaccinated, but didn’t develop antibodies are protected from disease by the people with antibodies (are you still with me?). But neither the ones with antibodies or the ones who are vaccinated, but didn’t get the mojo from the shot will be protected if an unvaccinated person comes near them.

I see. Makes perfect sense.

But, you ask, what about those people who are vaccinated and develop antibodies, but whose antibodies wear off 6 months to 3 years down the track? What about them?

For them, we have boosters! Or, should I say BOO$TER$! (The worldwide vaccine market is predicted to total $77.5 billion by 2024 – more than double its current value due to mandatory vaccination and the introduction of potentially dozens of new vaccines.)

More money in pharma’s pocket. More expensive visits to GPs. Win/win!

And all of this is because 2 generations have been trained in the most Pavlovian of ways, to be afraid of viruses, bacteria and ALL diseases-more afraid than the are of poisons. Think of the chemicals in those toxic hand sanitisers that are so pervasive today; or the poisons in household cleaners that are far more toxic than most germs you would come into contact with in your home; or the toxins in vaccines and pharmaceutical medications that are responsible for tens of thousands of deaths each year.

So fearful, they are no longer able to think logically or sensibly about these topics.

They say that there is nothing to fear but fear itself, but I disagree. There is a lot to fear.

Be afraid – and be active

I fear the medical/pharmaceutical cartel that wants to take away our right to say no to poison;

I fear the government and media who are doing the bidding of the medical/pharmaceutical cartel without any care whatsoever for the citizens who elected them or those who buy their newspapers or watch and listen to their programmes;

I fear a population that has become so controlled, it will attack and condemn law-abiding citizens who make medical choices they disagree with;

most of all, I fear that we are quickly approaching the point of no return where so many of our children will be so damaged by vaccines and pharmaceutical medicines (1 in 6 is now learning disabled, 1 in 50 is autistic and 1 in 2 is suffering from at least one chronic illness) and you will see that our current generation of adults may well be the last one that will be able to think, act or decide for themselves about anything at all.

God help the human race as it travels down this path. May it find the courage and fortitude to fight for its rights – indeed, for its very soul – before it is too late.

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.

 

measles in africa, vaccination africa, measles

Measles deaths in Africa

The following article is by Greg Beattie, author of Vaccination: A Parent’s Dilemma and the more recent Fooling Ourselves on the Fundamental Value of Vaccines. It was originally published on the REAL Australian Sceptics blog and bears repeating.

This information and the graphs included are excerpted from Mr Beattie’s latest book. It demonstrates very clearly that a true sceptic will not necessarily believe in headlines such as “Measles deaths in Africa plunge by 91%” without seeing the proof of those claims. Question everything – accept nothing at face value – that is the credo of the true sceptic.

Man is a credulous animal, and must believe something; in the absence of good grounds for belief, he will be satisfied with bad ones.
Bertrand Russell

Africa, measles africa, vaccination africa
0.450–0.499 0.400–0.449 0.350–0.399 0.300–0.349 under 0.300 n/a (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

If you are not one to follow the news, you may have missed it. Others will have undoubtedly seen a stream of good-newsstories over the past five years, such as:

Measles Deaths In Africa Plunge By 91%[1],[2]

There have been many versions on the theme; the percentage rates have changed over time. However, the bodies of the stories leave us in no doubt as to the reason for their headlines. Here are some direct quotes:

In a rare public health success story on the world’s most beleaguered continent, Africa has slashed deaths from measles by 91 per cent since 2000 thanks to an immunization drive.

An ambitious global immunization drive has cut measles deaths…

Measles deaths in Africa have fallen as child vaccination rates have risen.

These stories represent a modern-day version of the belief that vaccines vanquished the killer diseases of the past. There is something deeply disturbing about the stories, and it is not immediately apparent. The fact is: no-one knows how many people died of measles in Africa. No-one! Not last year and not ten years ago.

I will repeat that. No-one knows how many measles deaths have occurred in Africa. So, where did these figures come from? I will explain that in this blog. In a nutshell, they were calculated on a spreadsheet, using a formula. You may be surprised when you see how simple the method was.

We all believe these stories, because we have no reason to doubt them. The only people who would have questioned them were those who were aware that the deaths had not been counted. One of these was World Health Organisation (WHO) head of Health Evidence and Statistics, who reprimanded the authors of the original report (on which the stories were based) in an editorial published in the Bulletin of the WHO, as I will discuss shortly. Unfortunately, by then the train was already runaway. The stories had taken off virally through the worldwide media.

Overview

First, an overview of the formula. The authors looked at it this way: for every million vaccines given out, we hope to save ‘X’ lives. From that premise, we simply count how many million vaccines we gave out, and multiply that by ‘X’ to calculate how many lives (we think) we have saved. That is how the figures were arrived at.

The stories and the formula are both products of a deep belief in the power of vaccines. We think the stories report facts, but instead they report hopes.

The nuts and bolts

Hardly any of the willing participants in spreading the stories bothered to check where the figures came from, and what they meant. That was possibly understandable. Why would we need to check them? After all, they were produced by experts: respected researchers, and reputable organisations such as UNICEF, American Red Cross, United Nations Foundation, and the World Health Organisation.

However, I did check them. I checked because I knew the developing world wasn’t collecting cause of death data that could provide such figures[3]. In fact, it is currently estimated that only 25 million of the 60 million deaths that occur each year are even registered, let alone have reliable cause-of-death information[4]. Sub-Saharan Africa, where a large proportion of measles deaths are thought to occur, still had an estimated death registration of only around 10%[5] in 2006, and virtually no reliable cause-of-death data. Even sample demographic surveys, although considered accurate, were not collecting cause-of-death data that allowed for these figures to be reported. Simply put, this was not real data: the figures had to be estimates.

I was curious as to how the estimates were arrived at, so I traced back to the source—an article in The Lancet, written by a team from the Measles Initiative[6]. After reading the article, I realised the reports were not measles deaths at all. They were planning estimates, or predictions. In other words, they represented outcomes that the Measles Initiative had hoped to achieve, through conducting vaccination programs.

Don’t get me wrong. We all know that planning and predicting are very useful, even necessary activities, but it is obvious they are not the same as measuring outcomes.

The title of the original report from the Measles Initiative reads, “Has the 2005 measles mortality reduction goal been achieved? A natural history modelling study.[7] The authors took one and a half pages to explain how natural history modelling applied here. I will simplify it in about ten lines. I realise that in doing so, some may accuse me of editorial vandalism, however I assure you what follows captures the essence of the method. The rest is detail. If you are interested in confirming this, I urge you to read the original article for that detail. Here we go… the formula at the heart of the stories:

My interpretation of the Measles Natural History Modelling Study

  1. Open a blank spreadsheet
  2. Enter population data for each year from 2000 to 2006
  3. Enter measles vaccine coverage for each of the years also
  4. Assume all people develop measles if not vaccinated
  5. Assume vaccination prevents 85-95% of measles cases
  6. Calculate how many measles cases were ‘prevented’ each year (using the above figures)
  7. Calculate how many measles deaths were ‘prevented’ each year (using historical case-fatality ratios)

There, simple. As you can see, this is a typical approach if we are modelling,for predictive purposes. Using a spreadsheet to predict outcomes of various plans helps us set targets, and develop strategies. When it comes to evaluating the result of our plan however we need to go out into the field, and measure what happened. We must never simply return to the same spreadsheet. But this is precisely what the Measles Initiative team did. And the publishing world swallowed it—hook, line and sinker.

As mentioned earlier, WHO Health Evidence and Statistics head, Dr Kenji Shibuya, saw the problem with this method. Writing editorially in the Bulletin of the WHO, under the title “Decide monitoring strategies before setting targets”, Shibuya had this to say[8]:

Unfortunately, the MDG[9] monitoring process relies heavily on predicted statistics.

…the assessment of a recent change in measles mortality from vaccination is mostly based on statistics predicted from a set of covariates… It is understandable that estimating causes of death over time is a difficult task. However, that is no reason for us to avoid measuring it when we can also measure the quantity of interest directly; otherwise the global health community would continue to monitor progress on a spreadsheet with limited empirical basis. This is simply not acceptable. [emphasis mine]

This mismatch was created partly by the demand for more timely statistics …and partly by a lack of data and effective measurement strategies among statistics producers. Users must be realistic, as annual data on representative cause-specific mortality are difficult to obtain without complete civil registration or sample registration systems

If such data are needed, the global health community must seek indicators that are valid, reliable and comparable, and must invest in data collection (e.g. adjusting facility-based data by using other representative data sources).

Regardless of new disease-specific initiatives or the broader WHO Strategic Objectives, the key is to focus on a small set of relevant indicators for which well defined strategies for monitoring progress are available. Only by doing so will the global health community be able to show what works and what fails.

In simple terms, Shibuya was saying:

  • We know it is difficult to estimate measles deaths, but
  • You should have tried, because you attracted a lot of interest
  • Instead, you simply went back to the same spreadsheet you used to make the plan—and that is unacceptable!
  • If you want to make a claim about your results, you need to measure the outcomes and collect valid data
  • Until you do, you cannot say whether your plan ‘worked’

Unfortunately, by the time Shibuya’s editorial was published, the media had already been trumpeting the stories for more than a year, because the Measles Initiative announced its news to a waiting media before subjecting it to peer-review. So, without scientific scrutiny, the stories were unleashed into a world hungry for good news, especially concerning the developing world. The result… the reports were welcomed, accepted, and regurgitated to a degree where official scrutiny now seems to have the effect of a drop in a bucket.

The question of who was responsible for this miscarriage of publishing justice plagued me for a while. Was it the architects of the original report? Or was it the robotic section of our media (that part that exists because of a lack of funds for employing real journalists) who spread the message virally to every corner of the globe, without checking it?

One quote which really stands out in the stories is from former director of the United States Centers for Disease Control (CDC).

“The clear message from this achievement is that the strategy works,” said CDC director Dr. Julie Gerberding

What strategy works? Is she talking about modelling on a spreadsheet? Or, using the predictions in place of real outcomes? More recent reports from the Measles Initiative indicate the team are continuing with this deceptive approach. In their latest report[10] it is estimated 12.7 million deaths were averted between 2000-2008. All were calculated on their spreadsheet, and all were attributed to vaccination, for the simple reason that it was the only variable on the spreadsheet that was under their control. And still there is no scrutiny of the claims. Furthermore, the authors make no effort to clarify in the public mind that the figures are nothing but planning estimates.

No proof

Supporters of vaccination might argue that this does not prove vaccines are of no use. I agree. In fact,let me say it first: none of this provides any evidence whatsoever of the value of vaccination. That is the crux of the matter. The media stories have trumpeted the success of the plan, and given us all a pat on the back for making it happen. But the stories are fabrications. The only aspect of them which is factual is that which tells us vaccination rates have increased.

Some ‘real’ good-news?

General mortality rates in Africa are going down. That means deaths from all causesare reducing. How do we know this? Because an inter-agency group, led by UNICEF and WHO, has been evaluating demographic survey data in countries that do not have adequate death registration data. These surveys have been going on for more than 50 years. One of the reasons they do this is to monitor trends in mortality; particularly infant, and under-five mortality.

Although the health burden in developing countries is inequitably high, there is reason to be positive when we view these trends. Deaths are declining and, according to the best available estimates, have been steadily doing so for a considerable time; well over 50 years.

One of the most useful indicators of a country’s health transition is its under-5 mortality rate: that is, the death rate for children below five years old. The best estimates available for Africa show a steady decline in under-5 mortality rate, of around 1.8% per year, since 1950[11]. Figure 1 shows this decline from 1960 onward[12]. It also shows the infant mortality rate[13]. Both are plotted as averages of all countries in the WHO region of Africa.

Figure 1. Child mortality, Africa

This graph may appear complex, but it is not difficult to read. The two thick lines running horizontally through the graph are the infant (the lower blue line) and under-5 (the upper black line) mortality rates per 1000 from 1960 to 2009. The handful of finer lines which commence in 1980, at a low point, and shoot upward over the following decade, represent the introduction of the various vaccines. The vertical scale on the right side of the graph shows the rate at which children were vaccinated with each of these shots.

The primary purpose of this graph (as well as that in Figure 2) is to deliver the real good-news. We see a slowly, but steadily improving situation. Death rates for infants and young children are declining. I decided to add the extra lines (for vaccines) to illustrate that they appear to have had no impact on the declining childhood mortality rates; at least, not a positive impact. If they were as useful as we have been led to believe, these vaccines (covering seven illnesses) would surely have resulted in a sharp downward deviation from the established trend. As we can see, this did not occur.

In Africa, the vaccines were introduced at the start of the 1980s and, within a decade, reached more than half the children. The only effect observable in the mortality rates, is a slowing of the downward trend. In other words, if anything were to be drawn from this, it would be that the introduction of the vaccines was counter-productive. One could argue that the later increase in vaccine coverage (after the year 2000) was followed by a return to the same decline observed prior to the vaccines. However, that does not line up. The return to the prior decline predates it, by around five years.

With both interpretations we are splitting hairs. Since we are discussing an intervention that has been marketed as a modern miracle, we should see a marked effect on the trend. We don’t.

The WHO region of Africa (also referred to as sub-Saharan Africa) is where a substantial portion of the world’s poor-health burden is thought to exist. The country that is believed to share the majority of worldwide child mortality burden with sub-Saharan Africa is India, in the WHO south-east Asia region. Together, the African and South-east Asian regions were thought in 1999 to bear 85% of the world’s measles deaths[14]. Figure 2 shows India’s declining infant and under-5 mortality rates, over the past 50 years. Again, the introduction of various vaccines is also shown.

Figure 2. Child mortality, India

And again, vaccines do not appear to have contributed. Mortality rates simply continued their steady decline. We commenced mass vaccination (for seven illnesses) from the late 1980s but there was no visible impact on the child mortality trends.

In a nutshell, what happened in the developed world is still happening in the yet-to-finish-developing world, only it started later, and is taking longer. The processes of providing clean water, good nourishment, adequate housing, education and employment, freedom from poverty, as well as proper care of the sick, have been on-going in poor countries.

I would have loved to go back further in time with these graphs but unfortunately I was not able to locate the data. I did uncover one graph in an issue of the Bulletin of the WHO, showing the under-5 mortality rate in sub-Saharan Africa to be an estimated 350 in 1950[15]. It subsequently dropped to around 175 by 1980, before vaccines figured. It continued dropping, though slower, to 129 by 2008[16].

The decline represents a substantial health transition, and a lot of lives saved. When cause-of-death data improves, or at least some genuine effort is made to establish credible estimates of measles deaths, it will undoubtedly be found they are dropping as well. Why wouldn’t they? This is good news, and all praise needs to be directed at the architects and supporters of the international activities that are helping to achieve improvements in the real determinants of health. In the midst of all the hype, I trust we will not swallow attempts to give the credit to vaccines… again.

I am not confident, however. I feel this is simply history repeating itself. Deaths from infectious disease will reach an acceptable “low” in developing countries, at some point in time. And although this will probably be due to a range of improvements in poverty, sanitation, nutrition and education, I feel vaccines will be given the credit. To support the claim, numerous pieces of evidence will be paraded, such as:

Measles Deaths In Africa Plunge By 91%

We need to purge these pieces of “evidence” if we are to have rational discussion. The public have a right to know that these reports are based on fabricated figures.  Otherwise, the relative importance of vaccines in future health policy will be further exaggerated.


[1]    Medical News Today 30Nov 2007; http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/90237.php

[2]    UNICEF Joint press release; http://www.unicef.org/media/media_41969.html

[3]    Jaffar et al. Effects of misclassification of causes of death on the power of a trial to assess the efficacy of a pneumococcal conjugate vaccine in The Gambia; International Journal of Epidemiology 2003;32:430-436 http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/32/3/430

[4]    Save lives by counting the dead; An interview with Prof Prabhat Jha, Bulletin of the World Health Organisation 2010;88:171–172

[5]    Counting the dead is essential for health: Bull WHO Volume 84, Number 3, March 2006, 161-256 http://www.who.int/bulletin/volumes/84/3/interview0306/en/index.html

[6]    Launched in 2001, the Measles Initiative is an international partnership committed to reducing measles deaths worldwide, and led by the American Red Cross, CDC, UNICEF, United Nations Foundation, and WHO. Additional information available at http://www.measlesinitiative.org

[7]    Wolfson et al. Has the 2005 measles mortality reduction goal been achieved? A natural history modelling study; Lancet 2007; 369: 191–200 Available from http://www.measlesinitiative.org/mi-files/Reports/Measles%20Mortality%20Reduction/Global/Wolfson%20Lancet2007_Measles_Mortality_Reduction.pdf

[8]    Kenji Shibuya. Decide monitoring strategies before setting targets; Bulletin of the World Health Organization June 2007, 85 (6) http://www.who.int/bulletin/volumes/85/6/07-042887/en/index.html

[9]    MDG – Millennium Development Goals, to be discussed shortly in this chapter.

[10]  Dabbagh et al. Global Measles Mortality, 2000–2008; Morbidity & Mortality Weekly Report. 2009;58(47):1321-1326 http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/714345

[11]  Garenne & Gakusi. Health transitions in sub-Saharan Africa: overview of mortality trends in children under five years old (1950-2000);  Bull WHO June 2006, 84(6) p472 http://www.who.int/bulletin/volumes/84/6/470.pdf

[12]  If you perform a ‘google’ search for ‘infant mortality rate’ or ‘under-5 mortality rate’ you will locate a google service that provides most of this data. It is downloadable in spreadsheet form by clicking on the ‘More info’ link.  http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SH.DYN.MORT/countries/1W-US?display=graph :Vaccine coverage data is available from the WHO website http://www.childinfo.org/files/Immunization_Summary_2008_r6.pdf

[13]  Infant mortality rate is “under-1 year of age” mortality rate.

[15]  Garenne & Gakusi. Health transitions in sub-Saharan Africa: overview of mortality trends in children under five years old (1950-2000);  Bull WHO June 2006, 84(6) p472 http://www.who.int/bulletin/volumes/84/6/470.pdf

Vaccine Bigots

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

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

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

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

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

Many within mainstream medicine are bigots.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

junk food, healthy eating, health choice

Court OK’s denial of benefits to worker who objected to eating junk food

Junk FoodTOPEKA, Kan. – The Kansas Court of Appeals says a food manufacturer can deny unemployment benefits to a former employee who objected to eating the company’s junk food products.

The appeals panel affirmed a lower court ruling dismissing the case of Jane Doe who had been a front-office staffer at the XYZ Food Services Corporation for the last 3 years.

In 2013, Jane objected to eating the junk foods manufactured by XYZ, claiming that they made her ill.

She was later fired and applied for unemployment benefits, which XYZ fought, saying she wasn’t eligible.

The Topeka Capital-Journal reports the appeals panel said Doe had a duty to her company to either eat their foods or stop working there. The ruling said Doe’s failure to comply amounted to job-related misconduct “and thus disqualified her for unemployment benefits.”

Sounds pretty ridiculous, doesn’t it?

Then read the original article at this link to see how crazy the situation really is:

Court OK’s denial of benefits to worker who objected to vaccine

Opposing The Compulsion To Vaccinate Everyone – Meryl Dorey

Meryl Dorey of nocompulsoryvaccination.com and the Australian Vaccination-skeptics Network, Inc. did 2 interviews on March 10th regarding the No Jab No Pay legislation. Below is the video from one of those. The other will be posted when it is live on the internet. Thank you so much to 108Morris108 for providing a venue to air these important issues. Please share this information widely.

How YOU can protect your family and tell the Government what you think about No Jab No Pay

Freedom of Choice ImageWell, I’ve had some trouble finding the original source of the letter and statutory declaration mentioned in the previous post, Administering Vaccines Against a Person’s Wishes is Illegal but I finally managed to track it down and lo and behold, It was on Tasha David’s website, Poly mum of Eight

I really should have known. Tasha is the President of the Australian Vaccination Network and is a widow raising 8 children – 6 of whom has various levels of disability due to vaccine reactions. Only her youngest 2 – who are completely unvaccinated – are completely healthy.

Despite this and despite the fact that her doctor has attested to the fact that vaccines were the cause of her children’s problems, Tasha will lose out on tens of thousands of dollars under the current legislative changes under the immoral, illegal and discriminatory No Jab No Pay legislation.

To add insult to injury, because she lives in Victoria, she will also not be able to get childcare for her younger, unvaccinated children due to the Victorian government’s No Jab No Play legislation which bars healthy unvaccinated children from mixing with their fully-vaccinated compatriots. Find the logic there (hint from me: there isn’t any!)

Being the amazing activist that she is, Tasha has sought legal advice and the following documents were produced with the assistance of a solicitor with expertise in these issues. They should be used as is – without any changes – for the best possible effect.

I hope that all of you who are going to be affected will go to your doctors or the doctor at your local council clinic to get them to attest to the fact that they will not vaccinate your children against your wishes. If enough of us do this, the government will be backed into a corner – well and truly!

Below is the form which has been designed for this purpose for parents in this situation:

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF INVOLUNTARY CONSENT TO VACCINATION

I, …………………………………………….…..
name and title of Immunisation Provider

confirm that ……………………………..………
name of parent/s

has/have presented their child ..…………………..………………..………….…..
name of child

on this date………….… for the following vaccinations: ………..…. ……..……

I acknowledge that the consent provided by …… ……………………………….. name of parent/s is not voluntary consent.

Given the absence of voluntary consent, I am/am not willing to proceed with the vaccination of …………………………………………..
name of child

Signed by: …………………………………………………
name and title of provider

In the presence of : …………………………………………………
signature of witness

…………………………………………………
name of witness

Date: ………………………………………….

 

The Immunisation Provider (IP), upon being presented with the form, will either:

(1) complete the form in such a way as to indicate that the IP is not willing to proceed with the vaccination, and will then sign the form, or

(2) decline to sign the form, in which case the parent may sign a Statutory Declaration stating that the parent asked the IP to sign the form and the IP refused. This will have the same effect as (1).

The wording of the Statutory Declaration should be as follows:

STATUTORY DECLARATION

I, ……………………………….. confirm that I has/have presented my child …..………………..
name of parent/s name of child

to ……………………………..…………………
name and title of Immunisation Provider

on this date………… for the following vaccinations: ……………….. ………………

I informed the Immunisation Provider that my consent is not voluntary consent.

I presented the attached form and requested the Immunisation Provider to complete and sign the form. The Immunisation Provider then refused to sign the form.

Signed by: …………………………………………………
name of parent/s

In the presence of : …………………………………………………
signature of witness

…………………………………………………
name of witness

………….…
date

The parent may then lodge a complaint through Centrelink on the grounds that they are being disadvantaged through no fault of their own.

If the government is going to tell us they will disadvantage us for making legal, informed health choices for our children, then they must be made to take responsibility for the outcomes of this coercion.

In the Australian Immunisation Handbook, under Informed Consent for Vaccination, it states:

2.1.3 Valid consent
Valid consent can be defined as the voluntary agreement by an individual to a proposed procedure, given after sufficient, appropriate and reliable information about the procedure, including the potential risks and benefits, has been conveyed to that individual.2-6 As part of the consent procedure, persons to be vaccinated and/or their parents/carers should be given sufficient information (preferably written) on the risks and benefits of each vaccine, including what adverse events are possible, how common they are and what they should do about them7 (the table inside the front cover of this Handbook, Side effects following immunisation for vaccines used in the National Immunisation Program (NIP) schedule, can be used for this purpose).

For consent to be legally valid, the following elements must be present:6,8

It must be given by a person with legal capacity, and of sufficient intellectual capacity to understand the implications of being vaccinated.

It must be given voluntarily in the absence of undue pressure, coercion or manipulation. (emphasis added)

It must cover the specific procedure that is to be performed.
It can only be given after the potential risks and benefits of the relevant vaccine, risks of not having it and any alternative options have been explained to the individual.
The individual must have sufficient opportunity to seek further details or explanations about the vaccine(s) and/or its administration. The information must be provided in a language or by other means the individual can understand. Where appropriate, an interpreter and/or cultural support person should be involved.

Consent should be obtained before each vaccination, once it has been established that there are no medical condition(s) that contraindicate vaccination. Consent can be verbal or written. Immunisation providers should refer to their state or territory’s policies on obtaining written consent (refer to Appendix 1 Contact details for Australian, state and territory government health authorities and communicable disease control).

Consent on behalf of a child or adolescent
In general, a parent or legal guardian of a child has the authority to consent to vaccination of that child; however, it is important to check with your state or territory authority where any doubt exists.2,5 A child in this context is defined as being under the age of 18 years in Tasmania, Victoria and Western Australia; under the age of 14 years in New South Wales; and under the age of 16 years in the Australian Capital Territory, South Australia and the Northern Territory. Queensland follows common law principles.

For certain procedures, including vaccination, persons younger than the ages defined above may have sufficient maturity to understand the proposed procedure and the risks and benefits associated with it, and thus may have the capacity to consent under certain circumstances. Refer to the relevant state or territory immunisation service provider guidelines for more information.

Should a child or adolescent refuse a vaccination for which a parent/guardian has given consent, the child/adolescent’s wishes should be respected and the parent/guardian informed. 2