Open Response to UOW Academics and the Concerned Australian Community,

Some people are stating that “informed consent in Australia has not been removed.” Yet my Newsletter 165 did not state that informed consent had been removed. It clearly stated “informed consent without coercion” has been removed in Australia.  This is a violation of the Good Medical Practice Guidelines for medical practitioners and it has allowed a discriminatory social welfare policy that breaches International Human Rights Covenants.

Here is the evidence from the Australian Immunisation Handbook (Ed 10 NHMRC) (section 2.1.3)

  1. “informed consent to vaccination must be given voluntarily in the absence of undue, pressure coercion and manipulation” and
  2. “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”.

These criteria have been removed in Australian Social welfare policies such as the No Jab No Pay and the recently recommended No Jab No Play. These policies have also been extended to adults 20 years of age.

A financial incentive is “pressure” and currently the Australian government has violated both of these ethical guidelines that are also provided in the Good Medical Practice Guidelines for medical practitioners.

The Australian government has implemented a discriminatory social welfare policy that breaches good medical practice guidelines. Doctors are not being educated with the full range of risks associated with vaccines as described in the Product Information sheets / Package Inserts and the medical journals. This is largely a result of the influence of pharmaceutical funding on medical education and marketing practices. It is also the result of lobby groups, including the AMA, labelling the risks of vaccines (as stated in the medical literature) as “anti-vaccination”.

This is demonstrated by the media and industry-lobby groups portrayal of my evidence-based PhD thesis as “anti-vaccination”.  My PhD thesis is about the benefits and risks of using vaccines.

The scientific literature underpinning a medical procedure should not be labelled pro- or anti-vaccination.

This issue is about good health not pro- or anti- vaccination and until the complete body of scientific literature is able to be properly debated by all stakeholders in this debate – including doctors (not an AMA spokesperson speaking on behalf of its registered practitioners who risk de-registration if they speak against their regulatory board directives) and consumers – then the health of the population is seriously at risk from coercive and mandatory vaccination policies.

 It is time for the Australian Medical Association (AMA) to demonstrate that this issue is about “health” and not “vested interests” in government vaccination policies. The University of Wollongong is standing by my PhD thesis and until these arguments are debated by all stakeholders in the community there is no justification for introducing coercive and mandatory vaccination policies that carry a known risk of death and disability. Particularly as there is no public health legislation or regulation in Australia that legitimises these policies – and if it was necessary, vaccination would have been made mandatory when these diseases were causing epidemics – but it was not. Vaccination in Australia is not compulsory and never has been..

Dr. Judy Wilyman