Welcome

This site has been set up to assist the public to make informed decisions about vaccination. Governments globally are recommending the use of multiple vaccines in infants to prevent infectious diseases yet the long-term health effects of the combined schedule of vaccines has never been tested for safety.

Further, evidence has surfaced that shows the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the body that is responsible for protecting public health, was involved in covering up data that showed a causal link between vaccines and autism. This cover-up by CDC researchers has been revealed in the movie “VaxXed: from Cover-up to Catastrophe” that is now showing in Australia. For information about public viewings of VaxXed please click here and for a review of the documentary by Real News Australia click here – VaxXed Screenings Unchallenged Around Australia. I have also provided a review of the film by a general practitioner, VaxXed Stories: Patricia Ryan in Nebraska.

Many doctors and professionals are also presenting evidence showing that the vaccination schedule (and some specific vaccines e.g. HPV vaccines) have not been proven to be safe or effective. Chronic illness in children has significantly increased as the number of vaccines on the National Immunisation Program (NIP) has increased. It is now more important than ever to ask what is in a vaccine and what evidence do we have that using multiple vaccines in children is good for population health.

These questions have been answered in my PhD thesis published on the University of Wollongong website which concludes that the Australian government has not proved that the National Immunisation Program is causing more good than harm in the Australian population. My thesis is titled “A critical analysis of the Australian government’s rationale for its vaccination policy‘.

In Chapter 8 of my thesis I have described the “undone science” in this policy which means that the hard evidence has not been collected for the government to claim that the vaccination schedule is “safe and effective”. I have also included a chapter on the Industry Influence in Research and Policy, that shows the types of scientific studies, that are being funded by industry, to claim that vaccines are ‘safe and effective’. These epidemiological studies are inadequate for proving safety and efficacy because of flaws in their design. For example, inert placebos have not been used in most cases to determine the safety of vaccines. Here is a radio interview that explains the lack of scientific evidence underpinning the Australian government’s vaccination policies – Vaccines: A Critical Analysis by Dr. Judy Wilyman.

The Australian government is using a lack of evidence and industry funded surveillance of vaccine adverse events to claim that vaccines are ‘safe and effective’. This ‘science’ is now the basis for mandatory vaccination in Australian Social Welfare policies. Yet there is no public health legislation in any health act in Australia to support this measure. Conscientious and religious objection to vaccines has also been removed for families who depend upon social welfare benefits.

The concerns of doctors and other professionals about the safety and efficacy of vaccines are being presented by the International Medical Council on Vaccination  and the World Association for Vaccine Education (WAVE). This website, Vaccination Decisions, is also presenting the scientific information about the lack of safety and efficacy of vaccines (and combination of vaccines used in infants) that is not being presented by governments and mainstream media globally. The Australian government makes policy decisions on behalf of the community and it is important that all the available evidence is used in decisions regarding preventative health. Vaccination is a medical procedure for healthy individuals, not sick individuals yet vaccines are classified as “biological products” not medicines, and this allows them to be approved without the rigorous safety testing that applies to other drugs. A public health policy that uses a medical product to prevent disease should be demonstrated to result in more good than harm before it is implemented in the population. Yet this has not been done with government vaccination policiesAs a major stakeholder in immunisation policy, the public has the right to be fully informed about vaccines and to participate in the decision-making process. The government must also obtain the consent of the community before implementing policies that affect their wellbeing.

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 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 implemnted on 1 January 2016. The video names the 45 government representatives and public health officials that declined to attend this forum to present the case for mandating vaccines in social welfare legislation. The forum was titled Questions and Answers: No Jab No Pay/Play Policy. This presentation explains how this policy is a danger to human health and how it breaches fundamental human rights. It also shows how government’s have reversed the precautionary principle to protect industry interests, and not the public interest, in government vaccination policies.

Here is a summary document of the information that government’s are not providing to the public about vaccines in their promotional campaigns to the public ‘Vaccines and “Vaccine Preventable” Disease research. Infectious diseases are an environmental health problem and as such there are many environmental, genetic and lifestyle factors which need to be considered in the reduction of risk from these diseases. The information provided here should not be taken as advice but used to assist in discussions with qualified health professionals. Disclaimer