The infant mortality rates (death rate) in Australia were low before coercive measures were introduced into government vaccination policies in 1993. Prior to the implementation of the Immunise Australia Program (IAP) in 1993 the infant (under one year) mortality rate was low at 8.2 per 1,000 births . 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.
After 1995 the government stopped using infant mortality rates to measure the success of vaccination programs. This is because they were already very low. Instead governments are now using vaccination uptake rates in the population (immunisation rates) which implies that getting a vaccine gives you immunity and this is not always the case. It is also based on the assumption that high vaccination rates results in improved health outcomes.
But there is no evidence for this assumption. The statistics in all developed countries show that there is a significant decline in the health of children as the vaccination rates and number of vaccines have increased.
Whilst four vaccines were used in long standing mass vaccination campaigns from the 1970’s onwards there were no coercive measures in these policies until the early nineties . In 1993 the Australian government introduced payments to GP’s to provide free vaccines to children and linked parental welfare payments to the national immunisation program (NIP). This gave the impression to parents that vaccination was mandatory even though it wasn’t and many people did were encouraged to vaccinate without questioning.
Hence the vaccination rates in Australia in the nineties increased in a direct relationship to the significant chronic illness/disability/autism in children.
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) and increased amounts of aluminium adjuvant.
Prior to 1993 the government recommended the use of vaccines against nine diseases but by 2013 the government was recommending vaccines against 16 diseases. In other words, as the threat from infectious diseases declined after public health infrastructure was implemented in Australia the number of vaccines on the recommended schedule increased – even though there was no increased risk from any infectious disease in the 1990s.
The vaccines were recommended by the government to see if they could eliminate the diseases from the community and not to reduce the risk of deaths and illnesses as the government is now claiming. This had already been done.
Vaccines come with a risk of serious harm for many people. They are described as ‘unavaoidably unsafe’ by the US Congress and governments should be required to provide evidence of an increased risk from an infectious disease before a vaccine is mandated. But they are not.
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’. [/pane]