Immunisation Policy

Immunisation Policy

Australian Government Immunisation Policy

Australia’s National Immunisation Policy is not designed by the Australian government in response to Australian public health needs. Australia’s immunisation policy is based on recommendations provided by public-private partnerships within the Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunisation (GAVI). This is an alliance that includes pharmaceutical companies, biotechnology companies, the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, the Rockefeller Foundation and  the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation etc. All partners have equal input into the recommendations for national vaccination programs. GAVI provides advice to the World Health Organisation (WHO) and the recommended vaccines are then presented to the 193 WHO member countries. Here is information about Australia’s National Immunisation Program (NIP) and the lack of evidence for its implementation. Over the last two decades parents have become increasingly concerned about the science supporting government immunisation policies as the chronic illness in Australian children has increased 5-fold. Over this time the recommended schedule of vaccines for children has expanded from 7 diseases in the late 1980’s to 16 plus diseases in 2014. This has led many parents and professionals to investigate the science of vaccines and to set up websites presenting information about the risks of this medical intervention to the public. Links to these websites can be accessed on the Pro-Choice In Vaccination page of this website.

Whilst correlation is not causation, the studies have not been done to prove that vaccines are not causing this chronic illness and disability in the population. The science on this website is supported by many doctors and all the science must be included in any public health policy, not selective science, to protect the health of the population. A policy that is not open for debate by the public is indoctrination and not a policy that is based on evidence-based medicine that has been properly scrutinised. A description of how the medical literature is being selected for vaccination policies in Australia is given in this presentation that I gave at the University of Technology Sydney (UTS), 15 October 2015. This was a vaccination forum organised to discuss the public’s concerns about the government’s new mandatory vaccination legislation that was implemented on 1 January 2016 in social welfare policies. The forum was titled Questions and Answers: No Jab No Pay/Play Policy. and no public health professionals or government representatives would attend this forum to explain the necessity for implementing coercive vaccination legislation at a time when infectious diseases were not a risk to the majority of Australians.

  1. The Development of Immunisation Policy in Australia since 1950

    The threat from infectious diseases in Australia declined before most vaccines were used in mass vaccination programs (Professor Fiona Stanley, 2001). Today the Australian government recommends vaccines against 12 diseases before children are 1 year of age yet the majority of these vaccines were not required for children in the 50’s-60’s when infectious diseases were no longer considered a threat to the majority of children in Australia (Commonwealth Yearbook of Australia 1953). Here are the documented comments by public health authorities. during the 20th century that support this statement.

    In July 2012 three new vaccines were added to the Australian government schedule and at the same time the government increased the parental welfare payment that is linked to fully vaccinating a child to $2,100. This increased use of vaccines and emphasis on increasing participation rates has led many parents, practitioners and academics to conclude that the risks of vaccines outweigh any benefit from vaccines. Evidence for this statement has been documented here .

    Here is a link to the ingredients in the combined schedule of vaccines. This list can be used to discuss the recommended schedule of vaccines with your doctor to ensure they believe this combination of active ingredients is safe in your developing infant. This doctor’s warranty will also help you to ask the right questions when investigation this medical procedure Doctors Warranty of Vaccine Safety 

    I have also published here the poster titled Coercive and Mandatory Immunisation: how ethical is this policy?’ that I presented at the National Health Promotion Conference in Perth, May 2009, to illustrate the increase in chronic illness in children that has occurred at the same time as the increased use of vaccines in the Australian population. Whilst a correlation does not equal causation, the government has a duty of care to the public to investigate all possible causes of the increase in chronic illness because vaccination policy should be designed in the public interest. The information presented below demonstrates that governments have not investigated the link between the combined schedule of vaccines and chronic illness in the population. 

  2. Facts Regarding the Government’s Schedule of Vaccines for Children:

    Vaccines did not reduce the deaths and illnesses from infectious diseases.

    Infectious diseases in Australia were controlled by 1950 1. Only diptheria vaccine was in use at this time and this was in voluntary vaccination campaigns. It also resulted in the Bundaberg tragedy that killed 12 children in 1928. Measles, whooping cough and influenza were removed from the national notifiable disease list in 1950 because the deaths and serious illness to these diseases had been significantly reduced for the majority of children. No vaccines were used for these diseases in 1950 and the measles vaccine wasn’t introduced into voluntary vaccination campaigns in Australia until 1968 – 70 1.

    The deaths and illnesses from infectious diseases were reduced for the majority of children by the 1950’s and outbreaks were less virulent because of the changes to environmental and lifestyle conditions. Each disease needs to be assessed separately in the context of the environmental conditions at the time to determine the risk from these infectious agents. This is also the case for the polio outbreaks in the 1950’s. The risks and benefits of using a vaccine for each disease must be considered separately because of the specific nature of the infectious agents, the environment and the host characteristics.

    In 2013 there are too many vaccines on the vaccination schedule and the combined schedule of vaccines has not been tested for safety in infants/children by comparing vaccinated to truly unvaccinated children. The placebo used in the unvaccinated group in clinical trials is either the vaccine adjuvant (aluminium phosphate) or another a competitor vaccine. These are ‘active’ ingredients and not true (inert) placebos and they are known to cause adverse events in the participants. Inert placebos have never been used to test the safety of vaccines. Therefore an accurate estimate of the harm caused by vaccines is unknown. Here is a link to my poster illustrating the science that has not been done to prove the safety of the government’s vaccination schedule. This poster was presented to health professionals at the National Health Promotion Conference in Perth in 2009 and it is titled ‘Coercive and Mandatory Immunisation: how ethical is this policy?’

    In 1966 public health officials stated that “until social and economic changes are made no amount of medical and scientific knowledge can be of much help” (Dubos R, Health and Disease,1966 p.14). In other words the most significant factor in the control of infectious diseases is sanitation, hygiene, nutrition and other environmental and lifestyle changes.

    In 2001 Professor Fiona Stanley, Director of the Telethon Institute for Children’s Health Research until 2012, stated:

    “Infectious deaths fell before widespread vaccination was implemented” (ABS 2001, Child Health Since Federation, p.11). This comment and many others by prominent public health officials about the decline of infectious diseases in Australia are listed here Comments by prominent public health authorities.

    Comments by Australia’s Commonwealth director of Health, JHL Cumpston (1914 – 1945), and Australia’s Nobel Laureate for Immunology (1960), MacFarlane Burnett, clearly stated that public health reforms such as sanitation, hygiene, nutrition and smaller family sizes from 1850 -1950 were the most important factors in reducing the deaths and illness due to infectious diseases. Therefore the government is incorrect to suggest that high participation rates in all vaccination programs are necessary to prevent deaths and illnesses from returning as a public health problem.

    Natural herd immunity is achieved by communities through natural exposure to the infectious agents over time and in many cases through sub-clinical (infections without symptoms) or mild infections. This is why infectious diseases are less virulent in developed countries once environmental and nutritional factors have been improved. There are many reasons why herd immunity created by vaccination may not be possible and is unproven.

    Proof that herd immunity has been created by a vaccine could be provided by governments by publishing the vaccination status of each case of disease that is hospitalised. Yet this information is never clearly presented to the public as evidence for the efficacy of vaccines. Whooping cough vaccine was not introduced into mass vaccination programs in Australia until after 1953 and these programs were voluntary. Yet the disease was not considered a significant risk to children after 1950 and here are the comments from prominent public health officials that support this statement:

    ‘As causes of infant mortality in Australia all the infective disease have been overcome’ (Lancaster 1956a p.104). Lancaster also noted from 1946 -1954: ‘Whooping cough (pertussis) was an uncommon cause of death for children and there is a significant decline in mortality if the age of infection increases’ (1956a p.104) and ‘Mortality rates due to whooping cough (pertussis) are used as an index of hygiene or social well-being’ (Lancaster 1956b p.893). The same decline was observed in the UK and the USA [2, 3]. The graphs demonstrating the decline of disease can be found here.

    For further reading on this and to see the graphs showing the decline of infectious diseases in Australia please visit the website ‘A Parent’s Dilemma’ You can download the book ‘Fooling Ourselves on the Fundamental Value of Vaccines’ by Greg Beattie.

  3. Coercive measures in Government Vaccination Policies

    The Australian infant mortality rate (death rate) was low before coercive measures were used in government policies.

    Prior to the Immunise Australia Program (IAP) in 1993 the infant (under 1 year) mortality rate was very low at 8.2 per 1,000 births [4]. This was achieved without the use of coercive measures in government policies and before many new vaccines were added to the schedule in the 1990’s.

    Coercive immunisation policies were Introduced in 1993

    Whilst four vaccines were used in long standing mass immunisation campaigns from the 1960′ – 70’s onwards there were no coercive measures in immunisation policies until the early nineties [5]. In 1993 the government introduced payments to GP’s to provide free vaccines to children and linked parental welfare payments to the national immunisation program (NIP).This significantly increased the vaccination rates of the population in the nineties and chronic illness in children also skyrocketed. The number of free vaccines on the childhood schedule increased during this time and many of the vaccines contained Thimerosal (a compound containing 49% mercury). Prior to 1993 the government recommended the use of vaccines against 9 diseases but by 2013 the government was recommending vaccines against 16 diseases. In other words, as the threat from infectious diseases declined in Australia the number of vaccines recommended to the public increased.

    The government’s explanation for adding new vaccines to the recommended schedule was to see if these disease could be eradicated – death and illness to these diseases had already been significantly reduced in developed countries.The government’s description of the national immunisation program (NIP) on the Immunise Australia Program (IAP) website misuses the terms ‘immunisation’ and ‘vaccination’ and this results in misinforming the public about the benefits of vaccines. The government explains its use of these terms by claiming “the term ‘immunisation is used on this website as it is commonly used in the community” but this misleads the public about the benefits of vaccines.

    ‘Immunisation’ is not ‘vaccination’ and the two terms cannot be used interchangeably. ‘Receiving a vaccine (vaccination) does does not always result in immunity (immunisation) and it is known that some vaccinated individuals still get the diseases they are vaccinated against. By framing the government policy around the term ‘immunisation’ the government has implied greater benefit from vaccines than the evidence suggests. Here is a description of the policy illustrating why the correct definitions of these words needs to be used to inform the public about the use of vaccines Terminology of the Australian government’s policy : ‘vaccination’, ‘immunisation’ and ‘vaccine-preventable diseases’. 

  4. Vaccines and Autism

    Long-term controlled clinical trials of the combined immunisation schedule have never been done in animals or children

    There are no controlled clinical trials that have investigated the long-term health effects (5 – 10 years) of combining 12 + vaccines in infants or adults [5]. These trials are needed to prove or disprove the link between the combined vaccination schedule and the increasing chronic illness and autism in children. Trials are needed that compare vaccinated animals with unvaccinated animals to determine the causal relationships (and frequency) of adverse health events that are linked to the combined schedule of 12 + vaccines in infants. It is unethical to recommend this schedule of vaccines in humans until these trials have been carried out. These studies are essential for proving or disproving a causal link between vaccines and autism.

    Currently government scientists are using selective studies to make the claim that vaccines do not cause autism. However, it is noted that the majority of these studies have been funded by industry and the parameters and design of these studies have been chosen by industry funded researchers. The outcomes of these epidemiological studies are dependent upon the design of the study. Here is a short referenced article that summarises the information governments are using to de-bunk the claim by the Institute of Medicine (2001) that vaccines are a plausible cause of autism.

    Vaccines are a Plausible Cause of Autism

    Small studies of the combined schedule of vaccines that have been done in animals have indicated a link between vaccines and neurological damage, chronic illness, autism and cancer [6, 7, 8]. The chronic illness that has increased in children with the increased use of vaccines includes autoimmune diseases (including arthritis and diabetes), life-threatening food allergies, autism, asthma, learning and behavioural difficulties and cancer [9].

    In 2011, a review into the cause of autism was carried out by Helen Ratajczak. This review is titled ‘Theoretical aspects of autism: Causes – A review’ and it was published in the Journal of Immunotoxicology. This paper examines many published, peer-reviewed articles demonstrating that vaccines are a plausible cause of autism. Ratajczak states that ‘Documented causes of autism include genetic mutations and/or deletions, viral infections, and encephalitis (brain damage) following vaccination. Therefore, autism is the result of genetic defects and/or inflammation of the brain’. This suggests that epigenetics (the influence of toxins in vaccines on the expression of genes) could play a role the development of autism after vaccination or the inflammation of the brain due to the vaccine ingredients.

    The current medical opinion is that vaccines are scientifically linked to encephalopathy (brain damage) and this has been known since the 1980’s-90’s (IOM 2001 in FDA Thimerosal in Vaccines). When thimerosal was being phased out of vaccines in 2000, manufacturers were introducing human DNA into vaccines. Human feotal DNA was introduced into the second version of the MMR vaccine (MMR II) and into 22 other vaccines including the chicken pox vaccine introduced in 1995 (Ratajczak 2011).

    There is plenty of scientific evidence suggesting vaccines are a plausible causal of autism and this is confirmed by the United States Government and Dr. Geberding, Director of Vaccines at Merck & Co, Inc, who say that autistic conditions can result from encephalopathy following vaccination. Here is a list of many published peer-reviewed scientific articles that support the link between vaccines and autism.

    Here is a link to further scientific evidence from Dr. Brian Hooker PhD, linking vaccines as a plausible cause of autism. This includes the video titled ‘Vaccines cause more autism than the CDC will admit.’ (18 mins). The suggestion that the link between autism and vaccines is debunked is false not only because the correct studies have not been done but because the surveillance for adverse reactions is inadequate for determining cause and effect after vaccination.

    It is also known that some of the studies being used to make the claim that ‘vaccines do not cause autism’ are fraudulent. In 2003 the Hon. Dan Burton gave evidence in the US Congressional Hearing into the ‘Mercury in Medicine Report’ and it is recorded that “studies conducted or funded by the CDC that purportedly dispute any correlation between autism and vaccine injury have been of poor design, under-powered, and fatally flawed”.  Here is a link to the testimonials that have been given in the US Congressional Hearing on autism in November 2012.

    Here is an article by Dr. Mark Allan Sircus, Ac., OMD, DM, (P) that indicates all of the science is not being used in determining the causes of Autism. It describes the environmental and genetic links and the effects of vaccines on human development. Autism is now 1 in 88 in the USA and approximately 1 in 100 in Australia and the UK. As the number of vaccines in the schedule has increased so has the rate of autism.

    New research continues to identify additional concerns about mercury, aluminium adjuvant, antibiotics and other preservatives in vaccines and the combination of 7 + vaccines that are given to infants before the development of the blood brain barrier and the excretory systems. These systems are necessary to protect the brain and remove toxins from the body.

    Here is the story of Dr. Andrew Wakefield and the way the authorities acted when he suggested that further research was required to determine if the MMR vaccine was implicated in the cause of autism  Dr. Wakefield Film ‘Hear the Silence’ Resurfaces After 10 Years 

  5. Science that has not been funded

    The government and private research institutions have not funded any studies that have investigated the long-term health effects of the combined schedule of vaccines in infants. They have not designed studies to establish if this is the cause of the significant increase in chronic illness and autism that is being observed in this generation of children.

    The adverse health effects that are linked to the components of vaccines in the medical literature include neurological damage and immunological damage similar to many conditions that are being observed in children. A link to the ingredients of vaccines can be found on the ‘Home’ page of my website. Even though the use of 11 vaccines in infants contains many environmental toxins there are no studies that investigate vaccines as a possible cause of the increase in chronic illness in children. I have listed below the well funded studies that have not investigated vaccines as a cause of chronic illness in children:

    a). In 2009 The Telethon Institute for Child Health Research (TICHR) and researchers from the University of Western Australia and Curtain University were funded by the NHMRC to complete a 5-10 year study of children born in 1980. The aim of the study was to look at the impact of developmental disorders and mental health problems and relate them to possible environmental causes. The study involves looking at children from birth and their mothers pregnancies to see what environmental exposures affected their development. Vaccines which are a significant environmental exposure to all children were not included in this investigation.

    b) The Children’s Medical Research Institute (CMRI) in Australia claims to be ‘committed to unlocking the mysteries of childhood diseases’ yet this organisation has not completed any studies that examine the effects of vaccines on the long-term health of children. It is known that environmental toxins affect gene expression yet there has been no attempt to examine the components of vaccines and their influence on the genetic expression of chronic illness in children.

    c) Murdoch Children’s Research Institute (MCRI). This institute has not funded a study that examines the effects of multiple childhood vaccines on the development of children and their ability to reach their full potential in life.

    d) The AusImmune study at the Australian National University (ANU) was carried out from 2003 – 2008 and examined the link between multiple sclerosis (an autoimmune disease) and environmental toxins – including 4 vaccines that may be a possible cause of this disease. Multiple Sclerosis is one of the many chronic illnesses that is increasing in adults. The conclusions to this study depend upon the chosen criteria and parameters of the study.

    e) The US Department of Health and Human Services, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS), has not funded a study investigating the effects of vaccines on the development of children.

  6. Conflicts of Interest (COI) in Government Vaccine Advisory Boards
    The public trusts that government advisory boards for public health policy are acting in the public interest. In order to make decisions that protect the public interest in this policy it is necessary for policy-decision makers to base decisions on disinterested science or non-biased science. Government policy is also required to be transparent and this means that conflicts of interest on government advisory boards need to be declared.

    However, lobby groups are framing this issue to suggest that people who discuss conflicts of interest or question the use of so many vaccines are ‘conspiracy theorists’. This is ignoring the possible influence conflicts of interest have on policy development. 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.

    A prominent US public health official who is often presented in the media and in documentaries about the benefits of vaccines is Dr. Paul Offit. Paul Offit has declared many conflicts of interest in his advocacy of vaccines including being a consultant for Merck Pharmaceutical Company. Here are some of Paul Offit’s conflict’s of interest in promoting vaccines.

    The government has a duty to demonstrate that the science used in policy development is based on non-biased science and that is why representatives are required to declare COI. A declaration reveals what interests there are in an issue and the public is entitled to see these interests in order to determine if all the science is being assessed in policy development. If COI and the composition of stakeholders on vaccine advisory boards are not publicised then the public cannot assess the validity of the information. The public should not be required to trust that disinterested science is being used in policy development: it needs to be demonstrated.

    Australian Government Advisory Boards 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.

    The Significance of Conflicts of Interest in Government Policy

    This information is important because the public needs to know whether all the science is being included in policy development and that advisory boards are not selecting the information that suits a chosen outcome. Ms. Bennett, ex-CEO of the Consumers Health Forum (CHF) informed me on the 7th November 2011 that disclosure of COI was an issue that the CHF was addressing. There has been no progression on this issue since 2011. The issue is about committees being transparent in declaring COI to the public yet the declared COI of government ministers on vaccine advisory boards are never made easily accessible to the public (over-vaccination). The Australian government states that immunisation policy is for the good of the community therefore it has a duty of care to protect the public interest and not industry interests.

    Public concerns about the number of vaccines on the childhood schedule are not being acknowledged by journalists and the Australian Government. In 2013, Australia’s Health Minister, Tanya Plibersek, “rubbished fear campaigns about the risk of immunisation” instead of providing evidence for its safety by answering the questions that the public are asking. By ignoring these concerns the government is selecting the science that is being used in government policy. This doesn’t make the schedule of vaccines safe and effective. A consensus in science should not be obtained by removing one perspective from the risk analysis.

    Minister Plibersek also signed a ‘vaccination pledge’  to increase community vaccination rates on a website that is associated with the Australian Skeptics organisation: a lobby group that is peddling misinformation. The Mia Freedman website, Mamamia, regularly has subscribers of the Skeptics lobby groups present pro-vaccination information on this website and they do not provide their qualifications or affiliation with this lobby group with the information they provide on this blog. The Health Minister signed the pledge designed by this website.

    On 5th May 2013 Tanya Plibersek stated that “vaccines are 100 percent not linked to autism” but this has not been proven. It is not possible for the government to make this claim because the scientific evidence to prove this statement has not been collected. The vaccination schedule for children has not been trialled in animals or a study comparing vaccinated and unvaccinated children (Aust. Health Department). Until the correct scientific studies are completed that “prove” or “disprove” this link, it is not possible for any government to claim that vaccines are “100 percent not the cause of autism” or any other chronic illness that is escalating in children. An evidence-based policy should be based on evidence not “a lack of evidence” to make claims about safety.

    There is clear evidence that the vaccination schedule is not safe and the US government has paid out over $2 Billion  for vaccine damage claims with the most recent case being The Hannah Polling case in which $1.5 million was paid to the family after she received 9 vaccines in one day and developed autism.

    News limited papers and other media are informing the public that consumer concerns about the safety and efficacy of vaccines are based on “conspiracy theories and dangerous misinformation”. Janet Albrechtsen, a columnist for the The Australian Newspaper (News Ltd), made this statement in reply to requests that these arguments be published in the mainstream media. Another journalist, Sarrah Le Maurquand demonstrated in her reply that journalists are not being encouraged to investigate this issue and think for themselves. Australian journalists and government ministers are required to represent all stakeholders in public health policy and it must be demonstrated that non-biased science has been used. Instead the mainstream media is informing the public that “there is no other side to this debate” as Caroline Marcus from the Telegraph did in April 2013 and Jonathon Holmes from Media Watch in October 2012.

    The media is presenting Dr. Rachael Dunlop as a ‘pro-vaccine advocate’ without informing the public of her position as Vice-President of the Australian Skeptics. Rachael Dunlop has presented misinformation on her blog and many other subscribers of this group are using similar strategies. Therefore it is important that her position in this lobby group is openly revealed to the public when she presents information.

    A book exposing the influence of industry on government policy is  Vaccine Epidemic edited by the Center for Personal Rights. Globally there are many funded lobby groups who are putting out misinformation in the mainstream media and on social websites to influence public behaviour. The influence of these groups on the debate in Australia can be viewed on the Lobby group page of this website. Doctor’s responses to the information presented on this website can be viewed here. 

  7. Adverse reactions to vaccines are monitored by passive surveillance

    The government uses a voluntary system of reporting adverse reactions that does not systematically monitor the health outcomes of all vaccinated individuals [5]. This means the government cannot make causal relationships between adverse reactions and vaccines (CDC) (TGA). The Australian government claims many of the reactions are just a ‘coincidence’ and it concludes: There is no evidence that vaccines cause significant harm in the population. Yet this statement is being made on a lack of scientific evidence because governments have not funded the studies that would provide conclusive evidence for the causal link between vaccines and many diseases increasing in global populations. In other words, this policy is founded on ‘undone science’ or science that has not been funded to provide empirical evidence to support the policy.


    The majority of the decline in infectious diseases occurred before most vaccines were used in mass vaccination campaigns therefore herd immunity due to vaccines is not responsible for the decline of these diseases. The theory of herd immunity created by vaccines is not a reason for governments to link vaccination policies to welfare benefits, schools or employment opportunities. For further information on the influence of industry on the direction and outcomes of medical research and conflicts of interest in government policy please visit the website over-vaccination. 

  8. References

    1. Commonwealth Department of Health, 1945 – 1986, Official Yearbook of the Commonwealth of Australia, No. 37 – 7

    2. Stewart GT, 1977, Vaccination against Whooping Cough: Efficacy v Risks, The Lancet, January 29, p. 234-237

    3. Armstrong GL et al, 1999, Trends in Infectious disease Mortality in the United States during the 20th Century, JAMA, Vol 281 No. 1, Jan 6

    4. Australian Government Bureau of Statistics (ABS), Child Health Since Federation, Year Book Australia 1301.0, 2001

    5. Australian Government Department of Health and Ageing, Immunise Australia Program, 2004

    6. La Rosa, W.R., 2002, The Hayward Foundation Study on Vaccines; a possible etiology of autoimmune diseases.

    7. Shoenfeld Y and Agmon-Levin N, 2011, ASIA – Autoimmunity/inflammatory syndrome induced by adjuvant, Journal of Autoimmunity, 36 p. 4-8

    8. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Vaccines, Blood and Biologics. Thimerosal in Vaccines. US Department of Health and Human Services.

    9. Australian Government, Bureau of Statistics (ABS), 4829.0.55.001 Health of Children in Australia: A Snapshot 2004-5.