- During the last decade governments in Australia have
dramatically stepped up their push towards increasing vaccination levels
and to that end they have initiated campaigns which threaten one of the
the very essences of this country's appeal: freedom of choice.
- Back in 1987 state governments announced through the
media that vaccination would be a condition of entry into state schools,
which in effect would mean compulsory vaccination through the backdoor.
Although they were unsuccessful in their initial attempt, some States
enacted legislation which in effect achieved the same desired outcome.
Incorrect statements by health officials and the media about the new legislation
misled many parents. For example, the Sydney Morning Herald reported:
"When parents enrol their children in NSW public schools next year
they will be asked for documentary proof that they have been fully immunised,
under new legislation approved by the State Government." (1) Many
parents interpreted this as meaning mandatory vaccinations upon school
entry and worried about their children's education rushed them for their
shots. However, the new legislation only required schools to ask parents
to provide their children's immunisation status certificate upon school
enrolment. It didn't even make the production of a certificate obligatory.
In the absence of a certificate "the child is taken not to have been
immunised against any of the vaccine preventable diseases." (2)
- GOVERNMENT GETS TOUGH
- Beginning this year the Liberal/National Federal Government
decided to get very tough on vaccine non-compliance by initiating schemes
which would be in direct contradiction to the Liberal philosophies of
freedom of choice and individual responsibility. The most dramatic is
a bold move by the Minister for Education Dr David Kemp who announced
in late January that he will be calling on the State and Territory governments
to make vaccinations compulsory upon school entry - the real thing this
time! Dr Kemp said the matter was so serious that he would put the plan
to State and Territory education ministers at a meeting in the next month.
He expected "effective action" to increase the child vaccination
rate. "A school would be quite entitled to say to parents: 'Go away
and have your child immunised and bring the papers back tomorrow,'"
he said. He did not explain how the policy would be enforced but said parents
who had no acceptable reason for refusing to have their child immunised
would have to "consider their legal obligation to have their child
educated". Fortunately, Dr Kemps proposal was rejected by many as
too heavy-handed. The Australian Education Union, the Federation of Parents
and Citizens' Associations, the NSW Teachers Federation, and the NSW State
Government, to name a few. (3) Just a week later the Federal Health Minister
Michael Wooldridge assured the Australian public that vaccinations would
not be made compulsory. (4) Citizens should be aware that the Australian
Federal Constitution is a more reliable assurance than a politician's
word. Section 51, Part 23A of the Constitution makes it unlawful for a
government to impose any form of compulsory medication. However, in recent
times in this country, governments have shown an increasing propensity
to override, circumvent, or simply ignore the Constitution. More on this
- CASH FOR A JAB PLAN
- In the same month Dr Wooldridge announced that his ministry
is considering a "cash for a jab" plan. Under the proposed scheme
parents would receive a cash bonus every time their child received an
injection. The Health Minister is also considering payments to doctors
and local regions. Doctors could be given a cash incentive if they increased
the vaccination rate of children in their practice, and local governments,
which run vaccination systems in some States, could have their funding
increased if they increased the proportion of children vaccinated. (5)
The payments to doctors and local councils would make the scheme open to
abuse. It would encourage opportunistic doctors to vaccinate children
without parental consent, a problem that already exists thanks to an earlier
scheme by the Government. (6) And already a council has banned 2 unvaccinated
children from attending a council-run childcare center in Queensland. (7)
The cash incentives would encourage such human rights abuses. The foolishness
of the Government's intentions is highlighted by its later suggestion
that children may also be entitled to McDonald's fast-food vouchers upon
- CASH PENALITIES PLAN
- Soon after the Government announced its cash incentive
scheme it decided to take a harder line by threatening to financially
penalise parents who fail to vaccinate their children. A spokeswoman for
the Health Minister said a financial penalty, perhaps through child allowances,
could be part of a national plan to increase vaccinations. "The cash
incentive idea has been blown out of all proportion," the spokeswoman
said. "Why reward parents who aren't doing the right thing?"
(8) The Government has for some time considered a similar proposal. "Radford
suggested one way to encourage age appropriate immunisation is to link
compulsory immunisation to the receipt of family allowances as occurs
in some European countries." (9) In the USA, many of its states have
already linked vaccination compliance to receipt of government welfare
and, in some cases, a parent's right to care for their own children. One
example of the consequence of this policy is the case of a Bellefontaine
woman whose baby died 17 hours after receiving a DPT shot. The mother
was threatened with losing her WIC benefits (food assistance for low-income
families with children) for refusing to vaccinate her subsequent child.
- VACCINATION STATUS TRACKING SYSTEM
- Beginning last year the Government implemented the Australian
Childhood Immunisation Register (ACIR), a computer database system that
would tag, track and monitor the vaccination status of every baby born
in this country. The ACIR database makes personal information available
for all and sundry to see. Immediately after the ACIR was implemented
reports were coming in that opportunistic doctors, having access to the
ACIR database, were without parental consent or knowledge injecting children
brought into hospital emergency rooms for unrelated conditions. (6) The
Government justifies the ACIR database based on their misconceived view
that the failing vaccination program is largely due to busy but consenting
parents who simply forget to take their children for their shots. Through
the ACIR, parents with children falling behind in their vaccine schedule
would receive reminders by post, and further non-compliance would lead
to community nurses knocking at their doors offering on-the-spot vaccinations.
This caused many fears among health professionals and parents. Adverse
reactions to vaccinations do occur - sometimes life-threatening - so how
would the vaccinator respond in such situations?
- SHOPPING MALL VACCINATIONS
- Shortly after, the Government announced the introduction
of vaccination stalls at shopping malls. Again this was justified on their
belief that the falling vaccination levels were largely due to forgetful
and busy parents not having the time to arrange their children's inoculations.
The vaccination stalls were intended to overcome this situation - parents
could simply have their children inoculated while doing the shopping.
Would the shopping mall vaccinator be equipped to respond to a life-threatening
- FEDERAL GOVERNMENT HAS GOT IT WRONG
- All the above schemes share a common thread - that the
Government attributes their failing vaccination program to complacent
but consenting parents. The Government wants us to believe that 90% of
parents support vaccinations but don't keep up with the vaccine schedule
because of complacency. Using this logic the Government is ignoring a
fundamental truth: many parents cease to support vaccinations sometime
during the course of their child's schedule because of either witnessing
their child's reactions, learning about someone else's reactions, or being
exposed to information. The fact is that vaccines DO cause adverse reactions
and, as demonstrated by the disease outbreaks that still occur in the highly
vaccinated United States (a country which has 95% coverage in most states),
they aren't all that effective.
- VACCINATIONS DO CAUSE HEALTH PROBLEMS
- Health hazards from vaccinations can include cancer,
multiple sclerosis, autism, leukemia, lupus, mental retardation, blindness,
asthma, epilepsy, cerebral palsy, encephalitis, paralysis, cot deaths,
damage to and/or failure of kidneys, liver, heart and other body organs,
arthritis, meningitis, allergies, hyperactivity, chronic ear infections,
learning disabilities, and death. (11) The reason for such problems is
simple: no vaccine intended for humans has ever undergone a PROPERLY conducted
controlled clinical trial. No one has ever taken a large group of people,
vaccinated one half, left the other half alone and compared their health
over a substantial period of time. Because there is no scientific basis
in the Government's assurances of vaccine safety, their vaccination programs
can best be described as a large-scale experiment on the Australian public.
- WHO'S BEHIND IT ALL?
- Despite this the Health Department is working frantically
to reverse the current trend of vaccine non-compliance. Appearing on the
television program "A Current Affair," Health Minister Wooldridge
has stated that "We must get the immunisation rate up to an acceptable
international level." (4) Acceptable to whom?, or should I say, WHO?
His aim for an "acceptable international level" is 90-95% by
the year 2000 - a goal which is expected of his Government by the World
Health Organisation because of an international treaty. Back in 1983 the
WHO launched its Expanded Program on Immunization in order to achieve
maximum vaccination coverage of the world's children. The WHO committed
all national political leaders - representing 158 nations - to achieve
and maintain a goal of 80% vaccination coverage in their respective countries
by 1990, and in that year the WHO set a further goal of 90% coverage by
the year 2000. (12,13) The WHO's latter target is unrealistic in the light
of the growing awareness and concern of the dangers of vaccinations, particularly
among citizens in the more developed and democratic countries where freedom
of speech still does exist to some limited extent.
- WHO/UN TREATIES OVERRIDE THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION
- Our Government's involvement with the WHO should be a
real concern among health freedom advocates. Although Section 51, Part
23A of the Australian Federal Constitution should protect us from any form
of compulsory medication, including vaccinations, our rights can still
be stolen from us. In recent times in this country, governments have shown
an increasing propensity to override, circumvent, or simply ignore the
Constitution. This is achieved by the High Court's willingness to allow
international treaties and agreements to override our Constitution. An
example of this is when in the 1970s the High Court ruled that the Federal
Government could override the Tasmanian State Parliament and ban the construction
of the Franklin Dam. Although the action was in breach of the Constitution,
the High Court based its decision upon the fact that Australia was a signatory
to a United Nations Treaty on World Heritage and therefore was more obliged
to the UN agreement than to its own Constitution. Australia is already
signatory to a number of UN agreements that could be misused by the High
Court to override Section 51, Part 23A of the Constitution. Among these
is the "Convention On The Rights Of The Child" which imposes
on signatories an obligation to "ensure the highest possible standards"
of health care for children. The High Court could easily interpret this
as an obligation to ensure mandatory vaccinations. (14) Writing in her
book The Medical Mafia, Dr Guylaine Lanctôt stated that the UN adopted
the Convention On The Rights Of The Child so as to beat the resistance
and opposition put up by obstinate adults against the WHO's vaccination
- LET'S GET OUT OF THE UNITED NATIONS
- Many informed critics argue that our government should
opt out of international treaties with the WHO and its parent organisation
the United Nations, because these treaties are eroding our national sovereignty
piece by piece, surrendering it to a world bureaucracy. The United Nations,
with its numerous affiliated organisations, has been described by many
critics as an "unelected World Government" which is funded and
controlled by an elite group of international financiers and corporations
for the express purpose of dictating the world's nations, and for this
reason critics are calling on their political leaders to break all ties
with the UN. Although global governance by the UN has not been completely
implemented yet, its imminence is becoming increasingly clear. In an article
entitled "World Government by the year 2000?", Henry Lamb of
the Environmental Conservation Organisation informs readers that "the
UN-funded Commission on Global Governance has completed its three-year
study and has now announced publicly its plans to implement global governance
by the year 2000." Lamb predicts that the United Nations will convene
a World Conference on Global Governance in 1998 "for the purpose
of submitting to the world the necessary treaties and agreements for ratification
and implementation [of world government] by the year 2000." Lamb
observes that "many of the recommendations published in this report
have been under way for several years." (15)
- COME CLEAN PLEASE
- Until the Government admits to the REAL reason why parents
are refusing inoculations, and until they come CLEAN on the REAL risks
and limitations of vaccines, instead of continuing its destructive course
of deceit, scare-mongering, and coercion, while abdicating our country's
sovereignty to a world bureaucracy intent on achieving an unrealistic
vaccination coverage throughout the world, the human rights abuses caused
by the Government's schemes will continue to drag this country down a
totalitarian path. Protect your health freedoms - don't allow national
and international bureaucrats to steal from you what's rightfully yours!
- Copyright 1997 by the Campaign Against Fraudulent Medical
Research, P.O. Box 234, Lawson NSW 2783, Australia. Phone/fax +61 (0)2-4758-6822.
Email: firstname.lastname@example.org. URL: www.pnc.com.au/~cafmr
- Reproduction and dissemination of this article is encouraged
but written permission is required.
- Donations needed - As CAFMR is dependent on donation
money we need your
- financial support to continue our work.
- 1. "Schools To Require Immunity", The Sydney
Morning Herald, NSW, April
- 18, 1991.
- 2. NSW Public Health Act 1991, No. 10, Part 3A.
- 3. "Federal push to enforce compulsory immunisation",
The Sydney Morning
- Herald, NSW, January 30, 1997.
- 4. Michael Wooldridge in "A Current Affair",
TCN Chan. 9, NSW, February 6,
- 5. "Cash for a tear", The Daily Telegraph,
NSW, January 15, 1997.
- 6. Meryl Dorey, VAN Newsletter, Vaccination & Awareness
- Bangalow, NSW, January 1996.
- 7. "Childcare ban if not immunised", The Cairns
Post, Qld, January 6, 1997.
- 8. "Immunise - or pay the price: Cash penalty plan
to increase vaccine
- rate", The Sunday Telegraph , NSW, January 26,
- 9. Childhood Immunisation: A Review of the Literature,
- Department of Human Services and Health, 1994.
- 10. Dayton Daily News, May 28, 1993.
- 11. For an extensive insight into the dangers of vaccinations
- Viera Scheibner's Vaccination: The Medical Assault on
the Immune System,
- Scheibner Publ., Blackheath, NSW, 1993.
- 12. Guylaine Lanctôt, The Medical Mafia, Here's
The Key Inc., Canada,
- 1995, p. 124-5.
- 13. James P. Grant, UNICEF, The State of the World's
- University Press, 1994.
- 14. Peter Sawyer, "Compulsory Immunization: Is It
Good? Is It Safe? Is It
- Legal?" Inside News, Maleny, Qld, May/June 1991;
Peter Sawyer, One Man
- Banned, Brian Wilshire (Ed.), Brian Wilshire Publ., Round
- 15. "World Government by the year 2000?", Behind
the Headlines, America's
- Future, Inc., St. Louis, MO, December 15, 1996.