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

Overview:

Government health policy should support the basic human right of informed consent to medical treatment. The coercive No Jab, No Pay policy denies us this right.

There is significant historical, scientific and medical evidence that does not support government . Furthermore, vaccination policy is often informed by powerful vested interests and fraudulent studies, rather than independent, unbiased scientific evidence.

Much of this evidence has been suppressed by pro- lobby groups, particularly pharmaceutical companies and others with vested interests, and by the mainstream media. So well has it been hidden that many (if not most) medical practitioners are not aware of this evidence. Scientists, medical practitioners and whistleblowers who are aware and speak out risk vilification, being ostracized, and even their careers - which is certainly a deterrent to others speaking out.

These issues will be discussed in more detail below, with supporting evidence.

1. Informed Consent to Medical Treatment:

The Medical Board of Australia's Code of Conduct for Doctors states in part:

Informed consent is a person’s voluntary decision about medical care that is made with knowledge and understanding of the benefits and risks involved.

See: http://www.medicalboard.gov.au/Codes-Guidelines-Policies/Code-of-conduct.aspx

The "Australian Immunisation Handbook, 10th Edition" states in part:

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

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.

See:http://www.immunise.health.gov.au/internet/immunise/publishing.nsf/Content/Handbook10- home~handbook10part2~handbook10-2-1

Furthermore, the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Dignity of the Human Being with regard to the Application of Biology and Medicine states in part:

An intervention in the health field may only be carried out after the person concerned has given free and informed consent to it. This person shall beforehand be given appropriate information as to the purpose and nature of the intervention as well as on its consequences and risks. The person concerned may freely withdraw consent at any time.

See: http://conventions.coe.int/Treaty/en/Treaties/Html/164.htm

Not only does the No Jab, No Pay policy negate the right to informed consent, but based on my family's experience, and as most parents can attest, it is very rare that doctors provide information regarding the potential risks of vaccination. And considering doctors are paid bonuses for vaccinating their young patients, it wouldn't serve their financial interests to provide such information.

2. Withholding information on safety concerns from parents and health practitioners:

Excerpt from: "The Health Hazards of Disease Prevention" by Dr Damien Downing: http://orthomolecular.org/resources/omns/v07n02.shtml Vera Hassner Sharav writes: "Public health officials on both sides of the Atlantic have lost the public trust because they have been in league with vaccine manufacturers in denying that safety problems exist. If posed no safety problems why has the US Vaccine Court awarded more than $2 billion dollars to settle 2,500 cases involving vaccine-related debilitating injuries in children?"

When US FDA officials analyzed the data on autism and thimerosal-containing vaccines they found a clear link. Their response, detailed in transcripts of a meeting at Simpsonwood, VA in July 2000 was to "massage" the data to make the link go away.

In the UK, JCVI (Joint Committee on Vaccines and Immunization) has known since 1986 that there were serious safety concerns around vaccinations, for in particular. JCVI has repeatedly responded to negative data by ignoring it or covering it up, and has downplayed vaccine safety concerns while overplaying benefits.

Deliberate concealing of information from parents for the purpose of getting them to comply with an “official” vaccination schedule is shown in: 30 years of secret official transcripts show UK government experts cover up vaccine hazards (on the Child Health Safety website).

The excerpt below from the paper, "The vaccination policy and the Code of Practice of the Joint Committee on Vaccination (JCVI): are they at odds?" by scientist, Lucija Tomljenovic PhD, is notable:

Here I present the documentation which appears to show that the JCVI made continuous efforts to withhold critical data on severe adverse reactions and contraindications to vaccinations to both parents and health practitioners in order to reach overall vaccination rates which they deemed were necessary for “”, a concept which with regards to vaccination, and contrary to prevalent beliefs, does not rest on solid scientific evidence as will be explained. As a result of such vaccination policy promoted by the JCVI and the DH, many children have been vaccinated without their parents being disclosed the critical information about demonstrated risks of serious adverse reactions, one that the JCVI appeared to have been fully aware of. It would also appear that, by withholding this information, the JCVI/DH neglected the right of individuals to make an informed consent concerning vaccination. By doing so, the JCVI/DH may have violated not only International Guidelines for Medical Ethics (i.e., Helsinki Declaration and the International Code of Medical Ethics) but also, their own Code of Practice. See: http://nsnbc.me/wpcontent/uploads/2013/05/BSEM-2011.pdf

Though the information above refers to the UK, the situation is the same in Australia, and in the USA. E.g. Nephrologist, Dr Suzanne Humphries, in part VI of her YouTube video series, "Vaccines-Honesty vs Policy," states:

Doctors like me were never taught that decades of testing which showed that the flu vaccine was rubbish never saw the light of day. Today, the Cochrane writings on the ineffectiveness of the flu vaccine, and Dr Tom Jefferson's view that the flu vaccine is given as policy, not for scientific reasons, is little known. The information in Sir Graham Wilson's book (The Hazards of Immunization by Sir Graham S Wilson MD, LL D, FRGP, DPH) never made it to medical libraries or to medical doctors' consciousness. And: Even if vaccines can protect for some diseases for a period of time in a lifespan, which is the best they really can claim, the assurances given to both sick and well people regarding safety and effectiveness is not backed by science, history, or even a significant portion of the scientific and immunologic literature. See: Vaccines-Honesty vs Policy - Part VI. The Business of Vaccination.

There is a culture of stifling debate on vaccination, pushed with a vengeance by the pro-vaccination lobby, such as the Australian Skeptics organisation, and aided and abetted by a biased media. This stifling of debate is certainly not scientific, nor in the interests of informed consent.

One example was the forced cancellation of a seminar tour of a few Australian cities by vaccine expert Dr Sherri Tenpenny, that was to have taken place in March this year - due to threats of violence against venues hosting the seminars.

A typical example of the media's misinformation is evident in the May 1, 2015 article, "Vaccine brings down cervical cancer cases," published online in the Weekly Times Now: http://www.weeklytimesnow.com.au/news/national/vaccine-brings-down-cervical-cancer-cases/story-fnjbnvyg- 1227329703643.

The claim in the headline and first paragraph of this article, that there has been a sharp fall in the number of young Australian women being detected with signs of early cervical cancer since the introduction of the Gardasil vaccine, is a blatant lie. The current AIHW Cervical Screening in Australia Report, to which the article refers, actually states that "Both incidence and mortality halved between the introduction of the NCSP (The National Cervical Screening Program) in 1991 and the year 2002, and have since remained at around 9 new cases and 2 deaths per 100,000 women". Gardasil was only introduced in 2007, so has had NO impact on this low cervical cancer rate.

Also, according to many sources, Gardasil is one of the most dangerous vaccines on the market, as it has caused an unprecedented number of serious adverse reactions, including a worrying number of deaths. US courts have paid out significantly more compensation to victims of Gardasil than any other vaccine. See: http://sanevax.org/vaccine-injury-compensation-program-gardasil-settlements/

In view of the risks, Japan has recently removed Gardasil from its recommended vaccine schedule; and court cases for people harmed by HPV vaccines have been started in France, India and Spain. E.g: http://healthimpactnews.com/2014/supreme-court-in-india-to-rule-on-merck-fraud-regarding-hpv-vaccine- deaths/

Yet the mainstream media remains incredibly quiet about this, while also pushing for more uptake of this vaccine.

3. Evidence vaccines are not the life savers they are claimed to be:

Two excerpts from "The Doctor's Dilemma" by Dr Jayne LM Donegan show that death rates of diseases supposedly lowered by vaccination, were in fact in steep decline well before vaccination was introduced: http://www.jayne-donegan.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/2009-The-Doctors-Dilemma- website.pdf:

I was astonished and not a little perturbed ti (sic) find that when you draw a graph of the death rate from whooping cough that starts in the mid nineteenth century you can clearly see that at least 99% of the people who used to die of whooping cough in the nineteenth century and early twentieth century has (sic) stopped dying before the vaccine against whooping cough was introduced, initially in the 1950s and universally in the 1960s. I also realised that the reason the Department of Health's graphs made the vaccine appear so effective was because they didn't start until the 1940s when most of the improvements in health had already occurred, and this was before even antibiotics were generally available. If you selected only deaths in under 15 year-olds, the drop is even more dramatic - by the time whooping cough vaccine was part of the universal immunisation schedule in the early 1960s all the hard work had been done.

Regarding measles:

The Department of Health Green Book features a graph that does not start until the 1940s. There appears to be (a) great drop in the number of cases after the measle (sic) vaccine was introduced in 1968, but looking at a graph which goes back to the 1900s you can see that the death rate ... had dropped by 99% by the time the vaccine was put on the schedule. Looking specifically at under 15- year-olds, it is possible to see that there was an virtual one hundred percent decline in deaths from measles between 1905 and 1965 - three years before the measles vaccine was introduced in the UK.

Backing up Dr Donegan's findings, two centuries of UK, USA and Australian official death statistics show modern medicine played little part in substantially improved life expectancy and survival from disease in western economies. It likely had more to do with improved nutrition and sanitation. See Vaccines Did Not Save Us - 2 Centuries of Official Statistics (on the Child Health Safety website).

4. Evidence vaccines are not effective:

Despite high rates of vaccination, whooping cough is an ongoing problem in Australia. There is evidence the majority of cases occur in the fully vaccinated.

The whooping cough vaccine is suspected of having caused the development of a new strain of whooping cough. See: Acellular pertussis vaccination enhances B. parapertussis colonization (on the Centre for Infectious Disease Dynamics website).

Three interesting articles shed further light on this: • Whooping cough in Australian children - how many were vaccinated? (on Vaccination - A Parent's Dilemma website) • Whooping cough in Australia (on Beyond Conformity website) • Whooping cough immunity (on Beyond Conformity website)

The fully referenced article, "Public Health Officials Know: Recently Vaccinated Individuals Spread Disease," on the Weston A Price website points out:

Scientific evidence demonstrates that individuals vaccinated with live virus vaccines such as MMR (measles, mumps and rubella), rotavirus, chicken pox, shingles and influenza can shed the virus for many weeks or months afterwards and infect the vaccinated and unvaccinated alike.

Furthermore, vaccine recipients can carry diseases in the back of their throat and infect others while displaying no symptoms of a disease.

Both unvaccinated and vaccinated individuals are at risk from exposure to those recently vaccinated. Vaccine failure is widespread; vaccine-induced immunity is not permanent and recent outbreaks of diseases such as whooping cough, mumps and measles have occurred in fully vaccinated populations. Flu vaccine recipients become more susceptible to future infection after repeated vaccination.

Adults have contracted polio from recently vaccinated infants. A father from Staten Island ended up in a wheel chair after contracting polio while changing his daughter’s diaper. He received a 22.5 million dollar award in 2009. westonaprice.orghttp://www.westonaprice.org/press/public-health-officials-know-recently-vaccinated- individuals-spread-disease/

5. Evidence autism IS linked to vaccination:

There has long been speculation that the rapidly growing autism epidemic is aligned with the increasing numbers of vaccines on the vaccine schedule. Though the link to autism is continually denied by vaccine promoters, experts in the field keep coming up with contrary evidence.

For example, retired Neurosurgeon, Dr Russell Blaylock, M.D. in : Vaccines, Neurodevelopment and Disorders "The Danger of Excessive Vaccination During Brain Development: The Case for a Link to Autism Spectrum Disorders."

A recent study by S. Seneff, R.M. Davidson and J. Liu, "Empirical Data Confirm Autism Symptoms Related to Aluminum and Acetaminophen Exposure," provides strong evidence of a link between autism and the aluminium in vaccines: http://www.mdpi.com/1099-4300/14/11/2227

Scientist, Lucija Tomljenovic PhD, who works in neurosciences at the Department of Medicine, University of British Columbia, in a recent interview with Dr Joseph Mercola titled, "The Effects of Vaccines Adjuvants on Your Brain" stated:

We found that countries that have the heaviest vaccine schedule (the children vaccinated with a great number of vaccines), these countries have higher autism rates compared to countries that do not vaccinate children with as many vaccines. If you look at the temporal trend in the US, you see a significant correlation over the last three decades between the number of rates. http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2015/03/29/vaccine-adjuvants-brain-effects.aspx

"Autism and Dr. Bernie Rimland: Harmful Exposures and Susceptible Children," quotes the late Dr Rimland, at the time Director, Autism Research Institute; Editor, Autism Research Review International; and Founder, Autism Society of America:

As a full-time professional research scientist for 50 years, and as a researcher in the field of autism for 45 years, I have been shocked and chagrined by the medical establishment's ongoing efforts to trivialize the solid and compelling evidence that faulty vaccination policies are the root cause of the epidemic. There are many consistent lines of evidence implicating vaccines, and no even marginally plausible alternative hypotheses.

As the number of childhood vaccines has increased 700%, from 3 in the `70s to 22 in 2000, the prevalence of autism has also showed a parallel increase of 700%. Late onset autism, (starting in the 2nd year), was almost unheard of in the `50s, `60s, and `70s; today such cases outnumber early onset cases 5 to 1, the increase paralleling the increase in required vaccines. http://www.ageofautism.com/2013/07/autism-and-dr-bernie-rimland-harmful-exposures-and- susceptible-children.html

6. Other evidence of harm:

Lynn Borne in the article, "Vaccinations: Parents' Informed Choice" on the Weston A Price website: http://www.westonaprice.org/health-topics/vaccinations-parents-informed-choice/ points out that:

One well known example of a long term negative vaccine reaction occurred with the polio vaccine used in the late 1950s into the early 1960s. This vaccine was later found to be contaminated with a monkey virus, SV40, which had tainted the vaccine during production. And even though the virus was discovered in 1960, the contaminated vaccine continued to be given to American children for three more years with the full knowledge of government health authorities, until it was withdrawn in 1963. Thirty years later, SV40 has been isolated in bone, brain and lung cancers of disabled and deceased adults. The SV40 vaccine debacle proves a direct connection between a vaccine and a slow-growing cancer which developed decades after the vaccine. And: A very clear example of the poor adverse event documentation occurred during President Bush’s recent Smallpox Vaccination Program of 2003. Before the program, the public was repeatedly told to expect death rates from the vaccine of one to two per million. In fact, there were three deaths (that we know of) among the approximately 36,000 civilians and few hundred embedded reporters who were vaccinated. This makes the actual death rate 80 times higher than that which the CDC told the public to expect. Serious adverse reactions such as brain swelling, heart inflammation, heart attacks, uncontrolled ulceration of the skin, among others, were one in 583, seven times higher than the CDC’s original guesstimate of one in four thousand. And yet medical authorities and mainstream news continue to use the old, inaccurate numbers rather than update the risk estimate as they should. And: Since the introduction of this (Hepatitis B) vaccine there have been hundreds of reports in the medical literature (mostly published in international medical journals outside of the United States) citing central nervous system diseases, multiple sclerosis, Guillain-Barre syndrome, arthritis, severe rashes, fever, chronic fatigue, and Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS) as a direct result of the vaccine. Parents have filed tens of thousands of adverse event reports with the Reporting System, including emergency room visits, hospitalization and deaths. A study in New Zealand reported a 60 percent increase in juvenile diabetes after a massive campaign to vaccinate babies from 1988 to 1991 with the hepatitis B vaccine. Even Merck itself admits to systemic complaints such as fever, joint pain, fatigue and weakness in up to 17 percent of all hepatitis B injections. And perhaps most telling of all, over 50 percent of the doctors surveyed in the UK refused to take the hepatitis B vaccine themselves, citing the known dangers from the vaccine, even though as medical professionals working in hospitals, they belong to a high risk group exposed to blood products and needles in the daily course of their work.

Lucija Tomljenovic PhD, in the interview, "The Effects of Vaccines Adjuvants on Your Brain" stated:

Again, there is a huge body of research that shows that if you overstimulate the immune system at the periphery, especially in the critical stage of early development, you are going to influence the brain in a negative way, influence the brain development, and you can create irreversible damage. Again, this is a research that's rarely discussed, because it really shows that there is a reason to truly question the safety of the burden of vaccine given to infants.

Tomljenovic was also involved in studies on the side effects of Gardasil, and found evidence of an increased risk of any immune-mediated nervous system disorders (such as multiple sclerosis) - exactly the types of adverse reactions that are most commonly reported following HPV vaccines worldwide. She stated:

And we are talking about perfectly healthy girls. All these problems started in temporal association with the vaccine. Just out of precautionary principle, you would think that they would have the common sense to at least halt the use until more research is done. But no, they just want to force it, force it, and they parrot that it's safe. They do not have any proof other than manipulated research.

Gardasil trials used Amorphous Aluminium Hydroxyphosphate Sulfate (AAHS) as a control, although this same ingredient is used in the vaccine as an adjuvant - so Merck's claims that it is a safe vaccine are highly questionable. See section 6.1 in the product information insert: https://www.merck.com/product/usa/pi_circulars/g/gardasil/gardasil_pi.pdf.

The article, "Orthomolecular Treatment for Adverse Effects of Human Papilloma Virus (HPV) Vaccine," recently published in i2P (e-magazine for pharmacists) gives a long list of adverse reactions to HPV vaccines, some very serious, and outlines the risk of using aluminium adjuvants:

Current research strongly implicates aluminum adjuvants in various inflammatory neurological and autoimmune disorders in both humans and animals. For example, a recent research paper explained that nanomaterials such as this aluminum adjuvant can be transported by immune system cells first into the blood, lymph nodes, and spleen, and in some cases may penetrate into the brain. [1] This type of access throughout the body is potentially life-threatening. The brain symptoms are often the most delayed because of the time the aluminum takes to travel from the blood through the blood-brain-barrier into the brain.

Aluminum accumulates in neurons in the brain, and it is toxic to neurons, causing a variety of pathological conditions. It inhibits uptake of dopamine and serotonin, which are important neurotransmitters in the brain. Aluminum toxicity is a known factor in Alzheimer’s disease, and may contribute symptoms of Parkinson’s disease. Dementia resulting from kidney dialysis is related to aluminum and results in memory loss, loss of coordination, confusion and disorientation. In animal experiments, rabbits given aluminum showed difficulty in memory retention and difficulty in learning. http://i2p.com.au/orthomolecular-treatment-for-adverse-effects-of-human-papilloma-virus-hpv-vaccine/

Many childhood vaccines use aluminium as an adjuvant. This would be a significant toxic burden to infants' under-developed immune systems. As discussed above, aluminium is known to be toxic to the brain, which strongly suggests that this, along with the mercury component of thimerosal which is still used in flu vaccines, is one of the culprits in the autism epidemic which has been developing since about the early 1990s, following expansions to the vaccination schedule.

See also: Alzheimer’s and Autism: The Common Link

The article "Systemic Toxicity of Aluminum Adjuvants" (http://vaccine-injury.info/aluminum.cfm) shows:

Amount of aluminum in vaccines routinely given to children:

• Hib (PedVaxHib brand only) – 225 mcg per shot • Hepatitis B – 250 mcg • DTaP – depending on the manufacturer, ranges from 170 to 625 mcg • Pneumococcus – 125 mcg • Hepatitis A – 250 mcg • Gardasil/Gardasil 9 – 225/500 mcg per shot (X 3 shots in series = 675/1,500 mcg) • Pentacel (DTaP, HIB and Polio combo vaccine) – 330 mcg • Pediarix (DTaP, Hep B and Polio combo vaccine) – 850 mcg

Maximum safe levels of aluminum (per the FDA):

• 8 pound, healthy baby: 18.16 mcg • 15 pound, healthy baby: 34.05 mcg • 30 pound, healthy toddler: 68.1 mcg • 50 pound, healthy child: 113 mcg • 150 pound adult: 340.5 mcg • 350 pound adult: 794.5 mcg

Adverse effects of a child receiving more than the safe dose of aluminum: (per the FDA and AAP):

• Aluminum builds up in the bones and brain and can be toxic to the body and its organs. • Aluminum “can” cause neurological harm. • Aluminum overdose can be fatal in patients with weak kidney’s (sic) or kidney disorders or in premature babies. Cit. Aluminum Toxicity in Infants and Children, Committee on Nutrition, American Academy of Pediatrics, Pediatrics Volume 97, Number 3 March, 1996, pp. 413-416 Some doctors will give 8 vaccinations at once, but that totals to more than 1,000 mcg of aluminum. According to the FDA, that amount isn’t safe for a 350 pound adult let alone a child who weighs less than 35 pounds.

This is alarming, considering the Government's "No Jab/No Pay" policy effectively bribes doctors with bonuses for catch up shots. How many children will be brain damaged as a result of this policy?

7. The ever increasing vaccine schedule:

Lynn Borne ("Vaccinations: Parents' Informed Choice") points out that:

Thirty years ago, children received a total of four vaccines, but today a fully vaccinated child receives a whopping 37-50 vaccines during the early, formative years of life, when his developing immune system is most vulnerable. Even an adult immune system would be challenged by so many vaccines given during such a short period of time. While unvaccinated children will never develop every disease for which children are given a vaccine, their bodies are forced by the Center for Disease Control’s (CDC) vaccination schedule to respond to them all. Furthermore, the DPT vaccine forces an immune response to diphtheria, tetanus and pertussis on the same day, an event that would never happen in real life. Plus, there are virtually no studies or scientific research on the effects of multiple viral and bacterial vaccines given in combination or in close succession, and how they affect the human body.

The current Australian vaccine schedule has slightly fewer shots than the USA schedule - but not by many.

Independent researcher, Elizabeth Hart, (http://over-vaccination.net/) states:

Children are the major target for the vaccine industry’s growth, as indicated by ever-increasing national vaccination schedules. New vaccines continue to be added to vaccination schedules with an alarming lack of transparency of the process, see for example the controversial human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine. Children who are already likely to be immune after the first dose of the Measles/Mumps/Rubella (MMR) vaccine are arbitrarily revaccinated with a second dose, often misleadingly termed a ‘booster’. In recent times adults are also being urged to have repeated vaccinations, for example annual flu vaccinations of dubious value, and recent calls for questionable ‘boosters’ with the failing whooping cough/pertussis vaccine.

Paediatrician, Dr Janet Levatin, Clinical Instructor in Pediatrics at Harvard Medical School, in her Foreword to "The Peanut Epidemic" by Heather Fraser, states:

Several key clues - the rapidity of the rise in the peanut allergic, the fact that peanut allergy disproportionately affects children, and the fact that the allergy occurs widely in only some countries - led Fraser to the inevitable conclusion that expansion of the vaccination schedule in the late 1980s caused the peanut allergy epidemic we are experiencing. Additionally she provides evidence that , as a mass phenomenon, were ushered in with the introduction of vaccination and the use of injectable medicines. ...

The Peanut Allergy Epidemic is a vital, groundbreaking book, covering material that resides at intersection of medicine, history, and public policy. I believe it should be required reading for everyone who administers injections ... and everyone who authorises injections for children. We have arrived at - indeed we have passed - the crossover point, that point at which we realize that the preventive measures we were prescribed cause more damage than the problems they were intended to prevent.

If the No Jab, No Pay policy is enacted, children could potentially be exposed to unlimited numbers of new vaccines added to the schedule - exposing them to alarming levels of toxic ingredients.

8. Scientists and Doctors speaking out:

Many well qualified scientists and doctors are voicing their concerns about vaccination, despite the risk to their reputations and careers. Dr Andrew Wakefield was one, and he paid the price with his career, despite the fact that his findings have been verified by other scientists.

Nephrologist, Dr Suzanne Humphries, exposes many issues in her YouTube series, "Vaccines-Honesty vs Policy." Here are some excerpts of a transcript from part VI of this series: "The Business of Vaccination" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3chlvoTdnvo&list=TLFPRhGypmfQ8

Today's climate is all about creating a culture of compliance. Anything outside that mandate isn't on the table for discussion. So what then happens to dissenters, public or medical? Doctors are humiliated, alienated, attacked and called dangerous, incompetent quacks simply for criticising mandatory vaccination, even when like me, they were highly respected in their careers in conventional medicine. Doctors who see things that make them lose sleep, rarely risk everything and speak.

Some, like recent CDC whistleblower, Dr William Thompson, after decades of compliance with CDC insider policy, do speak. When Paul Offit was asked what he thought of this highly published veteran CDC scientist coming forward, his response was that Dr Thompson must have psychological problems. Apparently anyone who states anything potentially damning about vaccines, whether well founded or not, is crazy, fraudulent, or a quack. Whether or not they are neurosurgeons, radiologists, Rockefeller trained immunologists, Harvard vaccinologists or paediatricians with decades of experience.

... It remains to be seen what, if anything, Dr Thompson will do next; and whether the CDC is trying to buy his silence. That's how it works. They also tried to stop Dr Bernice Eddy talking about SV40, by offering her a deal they thought she would not refuse. But that didn't work. Their actions against Dr Morris backfired, because his morals would not tolerate open fraud, and neither would he be silenced.

...We have a list of highly educated whistleblowers who were harassed and silenced by government agencies for trying to protect the public from drugs and vaccines they knew were unsafe. We have prominent pro-vaccine vaccinologists today stating that pertussis, flu and measles vaccines are failing, and that the problem is not just vaccine refusal, but those scientists' statements are ignored.

Paediatrician, Dr. Larry Palevsky, in the Dr Mercola article, "Expert Pediatrician Exposes Vaccine Myths," explains how he became aware about problems with vaccination: http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2009/11/14/Expert-Pediatrician-Exposes-Vaccine-Myths.aspx

When I went through medical school, I was taught that vaccines were completely safe and completely effective, and I had no reason to believe otherwise. All the information that I was taught was pretty standard in all the medical schools and the teachings and scientific literature throughout the country. I had no reason to disbelieve it. ...

But more and more, I kept seeing that my experience of the world, my experience in using and reading about vaccines, and hearing what parents were saying about vaccines were very different from what I was taught in medical school and my residency training.

… and it became clearer to me as I read the research, listened to more and more parents, and found other practitioners who also shared the same concern that vaccines had not been completely proven safe or even completely effective, based on the literature that we have today.

… It didn’t appear that the scientific studies that we were given were actually appropriately designed to prove and test the safety and efficacy.

It also came to my attention that there were ingredients in there that were not properly tested, that the comparison groups were not appropriately set up, and that conclusions made about vaccine safety and efficacy just did not fit the scientific standards that I was trained to uphold in my medical school training. And: It is heartbreaking, because I see many of these kids who were developmentally normal, who were doing well, who were speaking, then whose voices and eye contacts were lost, who went into seizures, who developed and allergies, and they had nowhere to go because their doctors told them that they don’t know what they’re talking about. These kids are real. The literature is showing that there are changes in the immune system of children who are vaccinated, especially if we vaccinate them before one year of age or even at one day of age. The literature is there. It’s good scientific literature, and it shows that more and more of these kids who are suffering from chronic illness are suffering from impairments of their immune system. Whether vaccines are causative or contributory, the literature is showing that there is a role that vaccines are playing in creating the groundwork for these children’s immune systems to start to show signs of impairment and destruction. … When I look at the studies that the American Academy of Pediatrics and the CDC put out, saying that there’s no correlation between vaccination and autism or vaccinations and asthma, I have to say that the studies just don’t hold up to the scientific standards.

You can’t have 25 children in a study and then report that this proves that no children who get autism have any correlation to being injured by vaccines. This is what the media does: they take these conclusions, put it right out in front of the newspapers and say, “Vaccines don’t cause autism.” When you really look at the studies – and there’s not a proper control group and there’s only 25 people – you can’t make a grand, generalized statement about a general population because you’ve studied 25 children.

Here are some websites with medical practitioners speaking out: • International Medical Council on Immunisation: http://www.vaccinationcouncil.org/ • Vaccine Choice : http://vran.org/about-vaccines/general-issues/doctors-speak/the-case- against-immunizatons/ • Vaccines Uncensored: http://www.vaccinesuncensored.org/doctors.php

9. Vested interests and Fraudulent Science:

In Vaccines-Honesty vs Policy - Part VI. The Business of Vaccination, Dr Suzanne Humphries states:

... World Health Organisation (WHO) is a business. Add to that the more recent published medical journal literature in Lancet and elsewhere (Oxman 2007 PMID 17894189) showing that the WHO does not often base its recommendations on evidence, and that there are huge conflicts of interest between their consultants and drug companies. ...

... Yet the WHO commit to twisting politicians' arms, parents' arms, coopting mothers to advertise, and creating a climate of maximum vaccine acceptance and use - which by default makes criminals of all those who don't want to vaccinate their children.

Humphries also pointed out that it has long been government policy to stamp out any doubt about vaccine programs, whether well founded or not:

From Federal Register / Vol 49, No. 107 / Friday, June 1, 1984 / Rules and Regulations: ... any possible doubts, whether or not well founded, about the safety of the vaccine cannot be allowed to exist in view of the need to assure that the vaccine will continue to be used to the maximum extent consistent with the nation's public health objectives ...

Lucija Tomljenovic PhD, in the interview, "The Effects of Vaccines Adjuvants on Your Brain" stated:

When one reviews most of the pharma-based trials on the safety of vaccines, you will see that they either use another vaccine as a placebo or the aluminum adjuvant, and neither of those constitutes a proper placebo. It's very easy to claim that the product is safe if you're using a comparator that inherently might be toxic.

There's a bigger reason behind why I started being sceptical about what's being reported in the peer- reviewed literature. It's because early in my career ... I got confronted face to face with corruption in science. I was asked by my former boss to actually falsify data on an experiment we were doing with statin drugs ...

When the result came, my boss told me to ignore the dead mice from the statistics, because it wouldn't look good on the drug. I thought to myself, "I didn't have to get a PhD degree to lie to earn money," so I quit my job. ... This is how researches are driven. Because my boss was receiving money from the drug companies, and obviously they would not have given more money to a lab that published unfavourable reports about their drugs.

Lynn Borne in "Vaccinations: Parents' Informed Choice" states:

In 1986, Merck & Co. began marketing the first genetically engineered hepatitis B vaccine. A flagrant example of the poor science behind vaccination development, the FDA approved the vaccine for use after only 1636 doses of Recombivax HB were administered to only 653 children who were subsequently monitored for only 5 days after each dose. Since the vaccine is recommended for the first day of life, Merck was asked for safety data on newborns. They replied, “We have none. Our studies were done on 5- and 10-year-olds.” Further, Merck admitted in 1996 that no data is “available for the simultaneous administration of Recombivax HB with other vaccines” even though children are routinely given other vaccines along with Recombivax HB vaccine.

From Health Impact News: http://healthimpactnews.com/2015/mercks-sales-soar-on-measles-vaccine-after- disney-outbreak/

Bloomberg announced this week that Merck’s MMR vaccine sales more than quadrupled after the California Disney measles outbreak. ...

Of course, there is no single measles vaccine currently on the market, and one has to purchase the MMR (measles, mumps, rubella) vaccine which is a 3 in 1 combo vaccine. Merck has been involved in a long federal lawsuit with allegations of fraud over the mumps portion of the MMR vaccine, in a case filed back in 2010 by two whistleblowers, virologists who worked for Merck. Merck has apparently tried hard to get this case thrown out of court, and keep this news out of the media, but late in 2014 a federal judge finally ruled that the case is to move forward. ...

As Merck’s first quarter sales show, measles outbreaks are good for business. How can it not be good, when they are able to give a unified message to the public via the compliant mainstream media that such outbreaks are due to children who are not vaccinated. This message is then used to propose new legislation across the U.S. to increase the vaccination rates and remove exemptions, making vaccines mandatory.

What the mainstream media is not reporting or highlighting, is that the majority of people who were infected with measles in the recent Disney outbreak were in fact already vaccinated. Reports show that between 50% and 86% of those who came down with measles in the Disney outbreak were vaccinated. But that does not stop health authorities from blaming the unvaccinated anyway.

So not only is the MMR vaccine broiled in a legal battle over fraud, it is not very effective either. None of that matters to Merck, obviously, as sales on the vaccine soar.

California Coalition for Vaccine Choice (http://www.sb277.org/ca-sb-792-mandated-vaccination-for- daycare-workers.html) points out:

Big Pharma has a fraudulent history: In the past 5 years, drug makers have paid the U.S. Government $19.2 billion in criminal and civil fraud penalties. EVERY SINGLE MAKER of vaccines has pled guilty to FRAUD. Yet, we are expected to believe them when they say their product in which they pocket billions of dollar - is safe. Skepticism of the pharmaceutical industry is well deserved, and it doesn’t imply skepticism of science. Furthermore, two former Merck virologists now whistleblowers allege that Merck falsified data with the MMR II vaccine in order to meet the required 95% efficacy rate. This, along with other evidence, suggests the possibility that vaccine failure is a contributing factor for annual outbreaks. -see Vaccine Fraud

There is little doubt that US and FDA vaccination policy influences Australian authorities and policy. Advisers to government in both countries have ties to the pharmaceutical industry. For example, this excerpt from: "In Vaccines We Trust? Paul Offit threatens religious and philosophical vaccine exemptions. A response by Suzanne Humphries, MD"

Paul Offit claims to be an unbiased scientist with no personal interest in vaccination. To me, this does not make sense. In 2008 while sitting on the ACIP as a voting member, Children’s Hospital Of Pennsylvania sold its royalty stake in Offit’s vaccine RotaTeq for $182 million, and Offit received an unspecified percentage: his share of the intellectual property, said to be “in the millions.” Why doesn’t he just call himself what he really is? A “multimillionaire vaccine patent owner who, by INFLUENCING IMMUNIZATION PRACTICES while sitting on the Advisory Committee For Immunization Practices, had a huge personal interest in policymaking, and wants to remove your personal rights as to what goes into your infant and your body by way of injection, and touts his own personal feelings on religion and wisdom to naïve doctors over the internet.” http://www.vaccinationcouncil.org/2012/08/26/paul-offit-threatens-religious-and-philosphical-vaccine- exemptions-a-respose-by-suzanne-humphries-md/

Regarding the situation in Australian - while people holding the positions mentioned below may have changed, vaccination policy has been developed on their advice. From: http://over-vaccination.net/the- experts/ and http://over-vaccination.net/2013/08/19/update-conflicts-of-interest-and-the-science-of- immunisation/ In the interests of transparency and accountability, it is important that potential conflicts of interest of academics working in the areas of vaccine development and vaccination policy are on the public record.

Academics involved with the Academy’s The Science of Immunisation publication are influential on the Australian government’s vaccination policy. For example, Professor Terry Nolan is Chair of the Australian Technical Advisory Group on Immunization (ATAGI). Professor Peter McIntyre is an ex- officio member of ATAGI. (It is notable that the identity of members of ATAGI was not accessible to the public in 2011. I raised this matter in an email to then Federal Health Minister Nicola Roxon on 26 November 2011, also requesting that details of any links with the pharmaceutical industry (e.g. research funding) should be publicly listed. While a list of members of ATAGI and their professional affiliations was subsequently published on the ATAGI website, there are still no disclosure statements listed. I also raised this matter with Federal Minister Health Minister Tanya Plibersek in an email dated 23 July 2012.)

From other sources, I am aware that Professor Ian Frazer receives royalties from the sale of HPV vaccines in the developed world, and that Dr Julie Leask is a member of the advisory group for The Vaccine Confidence Project, a project which monitors negative commentary about vaccination.

From: http://vaccinationdecisions.net/immunisation-policy/

The public trusts that government advisory boards for public health policy are acting in the public interest. ...

In order to protect the public interest (and not industry interests) governments are required to use non-biased science in policy development. Therefore policy-advisors are required to declare any possible COI they have with industry. Policy decisions should be made on non-biased information yet the representatives on the US and Australian vaccine advisory boards have many possible Conflicts of Interest with industry. These conflicts have the potential to bias their decisions. Many drugs and vaccines are licensed in the USA by the US Food and Drug Administrator (FDA) and then automatically approved for other countries without further clinical trials. ...

Australia’s vaccination policies are recommended to our Minister for Health by the Australian Technical Advisory Group on Immunisation (ATAGI). This group is also responsible for providing advice about research funding to research organisations and recommending the areas where additional research is needed. In Australia, the chairman of the ATAGI committee, Professor Terry Nolan, is also the deputy chairman of the research committee for the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) – the body responsible for recommending the areas for research funding.

Here are the declared Conflicts of Interest of the ATAGI Chairman, Professor Terry Nolan, the co- director of the National Centre for Immunisation Research and Surveillance (NCIRS), Professor Robert Booy, WA Department of Health, Associate Professor Peter Richmond, Chairman of the Influenza Specialist Group (ISG), Dr. Alan Hampson, and Member of the ISG, Anne Kelso. It is possible that many other COI exist in these boards that have not been made transparent to the public.

ATAGI Chairman Terry Nolan was the principle researcher on the pediatric swine flu trials for CSL’s Fluvax vaccine in 2009 and this vaccine was withdrawn from the market in 2010 after many children had serious adverse events to this vaccine. Associate Professor Peter Richmond was also involved in the Fluvax vaccine clinical trials in western Australian children in 2008-2010. Both Professor Nolan and Richmond were on the ATAGI advisory boards that recommended the government implement the Fluvax vaccine into the national immunisation schedule in 2009-2010.

10. Evidence unvaccinated children are healthier:

There is growing anecdotal evidence that unvaccinated children are generally healthier than children who are fully vaccinated. In order to clear this up, it would be relatively easy and relatively inexpensive for the Australian government to do a study comparing Medicare records with vaccination status, and this has been suggested by various groups and individuals, myself included, but so far the government has refused to do the study. This is very unfortunate, because such a study (done by an independent researcher) could put the vaccine controversy to rest. Were such a study to be done, it could also investigate how many victims of whooping cough and measles were fully vaccinated at the time. According to Dr Mercola in his article, "Expert Pediatrician Exposes Vaccine Myths":

One study that looked at the health outcomes of vaccinated versus unvaccinated children does exist. Published in the Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology in April 2005, that looked at the health outcomes of children who are fully vaccinated, who are partially vaccinated, and who are not vaccinated at all.

All the investigators asked the parents to do was to report atopic illness. Atopic illness means allergies, asthma, eczema, hay fever. The investigators were blinded, meaning they didn’t know which category the participants belonged to.

When they assessed the data, they found that the largest number of reports by parents of children with atopic illness were in the kids who were fully vaccinated. The second highest reports were in the families who are partially vaccinated. And the lowest number of reports was in the children who were unvaccinated…

The investigators performed a statistical analysis to see if the data was based on chance or on real statistical differences, and found there were statistically significant differences between these groups. They couldn’t understand how this was possible, because the generally accepted consensus is that vaccines are completely safe, and completely effective.

11. Further information can be found here:

The Doctor Who Beat the British General Medical Council By Proving That Vaccines Aren't Necessary to Achieve Health: http://www.collective-evolution.com/2015/03/15/the-doctor-who-beat-the-british-general- medical-council-by-proving-that-vaccines-arent-necessary-to-achieve-health/

Book: Vaccine Epidemic: How Corporate Greed Biased Science and Coercive Governments Threaten our Human Rights, Our Health and our Children

The Vaccine Culture War in America: Are You Ready? http://www.nvic.org/NVIC-Vaccine-News/March- 2015/the-vaccine-culture-war-in-america-are-you-ready.aspx

NATURALHEALTH365 Vaccine Summit - Experts: http://vaccineworldsummit.com/summit-experts/

Conclusion:

In light of all the information above - the clear evidence of the risks of vaccination, the controversy regarding its effectiveness, the well documented corruption of the pharmaceutical industry, and the vested interests of many who advise governments on vaccination policy - this coercive "No Jab/No Pay" policy should be scrapped. It is unethical, and a violation of our right to informed consent to medical treatment, which goes against the international Convention on Human Rights.

Bullying people into having their children vaccinated by withholding financial benefits to which they are entitled, especially when there are scientifically verified risks, is nothing short of tyranny. The way I see it, our rights and our health are being eroded for pharmaceutical industry profits, and the government is paying dearly for this travesty.

Sonja Hardy BEdSt DipT

21st September, 2015