Mandatory Vaccination is a Human Rights Issue
Whilst the Australian Government states ‘vaccination in Australia is not compulsory’ the government is using financial incentives (coercion), social services and employment to remove the ‘free choice’ of Australians to use vaccines. There are requirements in place in some Australian workplaces that mandate recommended vaccines (12-16 vaccines) for individuals to be employed.
In addition, many health students are informed they cannot finish their degrees without the 10 or more vaccines because they will not be given work placements in clinical positions. The Government has also linked $10,000-$26,000 in welfare benefits for parents who ‘fully vaccinate’ their children. This requires 11 vaccines (24 doses) in the first year of an infant’s life when their body systems are still developing.
Children are also required (as of January 2016) to have 12-16 vaccines to be considered ‘fully vaccinated’ to attend pre-school centres for 0-5 year olds. These are vaccines that most parents have never had and the vaccines were not responsible for controlling these diseases. If parents choose not to vaccinate or to selectively vaccinate (use only some of the vaccines) then they will not receive the government welfare payments and childcare subsidies, and in most states they can no longer attend early childhood education or childcare centres.
In Australia the government removed our religious, philosophical and conscientious right to refuse this medical procedure when it implemented the policy in 2016. At this time medical exemptions were also reduced even though the genetics of the population are the same and this is the reason for most contraindications and medical exemptions. This removal of our right to choose a medical intervention (in healthy people) has happened even though the government stated in 2015:
‘…there is nothing in any of these (Health) Acts or in regulations or legislative instruments under them, which compels a person to accept administration of the vaccines provided’
In other words, there was no legitimate public ‘health’ purpose for mandating vaccines in social services policies in November 2015 because vaccines were not mandated in any health act or regulation in Australia. The mandates cannot be for the purpose of ‘health’ because the law is discriminatory and it only applies to some people in the population.
Here is the speech that I gave at the launch of our new political party in April 2019 – The Informed Medical Option’s (Vaccination/Fluoride) Party (IMOP). This speech describes the removal of human rights for many Australians in these new social service and employment policies – Speech by Judy Wilyman PhD at the IMOP Launch 28 April 2019.
So why are health professionals and students in health courses being informed they may lose their jobs or degrees in Australia if they do not vaccinate? And why is a welfare benefit of $10,100+ being linked to the need for a doctor’s signature (and “fully” vaccinating your child) if there are no regulations in the government Health Act to make this medical procedure compulsory? This is removing our rights in a discriminatory manner and this is occurring in Australia even though the government states that vaccination is not compulsory.
Our right to freely choose vaccines needs to be a protected attribute in an Human Rights and Anti-discrimination Bill. This is necessary because the public is accepting vaccines without being informed of the ingredients of vaccines or fully informed about the way vaccines are tested and monitored.
Mandatory Vaccination is based on Conflicts of Interest in Government Vaccine Advisory Boards
Australia’s vaccination policies have been designed by many individuals and organisations that have financial conflicts of interest with pharmaceutical companies. To date government ministers and corporate representatives have not been transparent or accountable for their actions in designing and adopting these policies. Human rights have been removed with these policies so it is imperative that these individuals/organisations are held accountable to the Australian community.
Here is an open letter from Elizabeth Hart that has been sent to Australia’s Prime Minister regarding the Murdoch media/ News Corps conflict of interest in these policies and Scott Morrison’s meeting with Murdoch when he was the Minister for Social Services in 2015.
The book – Vaccine Epidemic: How Corporate Greed Biased Science and Coercive Governments Threaten our Human Rights, Our Health and Our Children’ demonstrates the global concern that exists regarding governments removing our human right to bodily integrity without providing evidence for the necessity for doing so. It also discusses the protection that has been given to the pharmaceutical industry by removing all liability from pharmaceutical companies for any harm that is caused by a vaccine.
This is why the US set up a Vaccine Injury Compensation Scheme in 1986 that has now paid out billions of dollars to thousands of vaccine damaged children. However, most countries, including Australia, do not have a vaccine injury compensation scheme and there is no compensation for most vaccine damaged children. In the first three months of 2019 the US VICP paid out $110 million for many serious diseases and deaths.
The injection of substances into the human body is an individual’s choice and if people are being refused jobs, welfare benefits or places in schools then this discrimination is infringing on our human right to choose what we inject into our own bodies – our right to bodily integrity.
The current Health Act does not have ‘regulations or legislation’ to compel anyone to accept vaccines and the current discrimination in Australia on the basis of vaccination status is unlawful. A clause needs to be included in a Human Rights and Anti-discrimination bill to ensure that our right to choose a medical procedure in public health policies is protected. Here is a link to some of the letters I have written to the Australian Government and Human Rights Commission over the last decade regarding the unsupported claims made in mandatory vaccination policies.
Protests against the Australian Government’s new social welfare legislation have been occurring since 2015 when the legislation was first proposed. However, the Australian media did not report on these protests and on the rare occassion when they did our concerns were misrepresented and dismissed as simply ‘anti-vaccination’ and we were not permitted to provide our concerns about vaccines in these articles.
This is a human rights issue and not a pro- or anti-vaccination debate. All Australians wouldc support the individual’s right to medical choice in vaccination if this issue was properly framed in the media with accurate information. The government’s new social welfare policies that mandate ~16 vaccines violate the Nuremberg Code (1948) and the Declaration of Geneva (Physician’s oath) that are adopted in the Australian Medical Association (AMA) Code of Ethics. It also violates the International Covenant on Economic and Cultural and Social Rights (ICECSR) Please take a stand to protect our human rights by attending the protests in your capital city. Here is a link to the protest organised in 2015 – Event Flyer. [/pane]
The Australian Human Rights Commission
The Australian government’s new childcare package is removing the right of many Australians to free and informed consent to vaccination. For Australians who rely on government welfare payments they will be required to have all the recommended vaccines (12 for infants) in order to receive government childcare and family welfare benefits. This is a breach of free and informed consent to a medical intervention that is covered in the code of conduct for good medical practice and also in the International Covenant for Economic, Cultural and Social Rights (ICECSR). This covenant prohibits discriminatory welfare policies and the removal of autonomy over our own bodies. These rights are also covered in the Geneva Declaration and the Nuremberg Code. Here is the Nuremberg Code as outlined by the National Institutes of Health.
I presented this information to the Australian Human Rights Commissioner, Tim Wilson, in 2013 and he stated that “no-one is being forced to take a vaccine, therefore there is no human rights violation“. This is a false description of the impact of this legislation and the government is making this claim with the full knowledge that it is not the reality for many Australians. The government has linked essential social services and employment to using ~16 vaccines and Tim Wilson and his government have mislead the Australian public with this inaccurate claim. The consequences of purposely mis-framing the legislation in this manner are serious adverse health outcomes and death for many individuals.
The government is aware that many people do not have the luxury of choosing not to work or choosing not to receive the government welfare benefits that they depend upon to live. The policies also deprive children of an early childhood education if informed parents choose not to vaccinate in the interests of their child’s health and in the interests of community health; long-term herd immunity is produced by natural infections that are mostly harmless or even asymptromatic in developed countries.
The Australian Human Rights Commission cannot protect our medical rights and bodily autonomy even though Australia has signed and/or ratified many international HR covenants. This is because it does not have any power to protect our human rights. Australia has not adopted the international agreements into its domestic laws and the HRC cannot do this. Australia needs a Bill of Rights that has a mechanism for the public to challenge government legislation.
Vaccines are a medical intervention for healthy people that are recommended by the government in public health policies. In Australia the public is not informed of the ingredients (components) of vaccines yet the government is using financial incentives and work placements to encourage the uptake of multiple vaccines (coercive measures). Using a drug in healthy people is a different risk assessment to using a drug in sick people. All drugs have side-effects and US law describes vaccines as ‘unavoidably unsafe’. In addition, the public has a right to be fully informed about medical procedures (particularly for healthy people) before the drugs are administered. This right was implemented in the Nuremberg Code and later stated in the International Bill of Human Rights that applies to all countries. It states:
‘An intervention in the health field may only be carried out after the person concerned has given free and informed consent to it‘.
Yet this principle is currently not protected in government public health policies.
The right for healthy individuals to choose to use a medical procedure without financial pressure from governments is a fundamental human right that is enshrined in the right to bodily integrity. Yet the Australian Government is using coercion in the workplace and with financial incentives to insist on the uptake of vaccines. Vaccination is a medical procedure that requires the injection of substances into the human body and each year the government expands the number of vaccines that it recommends. It is important that parents are informed of the multiple ingredients of vaccines and to know that these ingredients are injected directly into the tissues of infants whose organ systems are still developing and by-passing all the body’s natural defense mechanisms.
Australian Government policies are now resulting in discrimination against healthy individuals in the workplace and schools, and court cases are ruling in favour of vaccinating on the basis of current beliefs about vaccination even though vaccination in Australia is NOT compulsory. Vaccination is not in the best interests of many children due to their individual genetics and this is verified by the billions of dollars in compensation that is paid out to families in America each year. This tragedy is compounded by the fact that Australia, like many other countries, does not have a compensation scheme to support Australian families harmed by vaccines.
In 2013 the Human Rights Commission was holding an inquiry to consolidate the human rights and anti-discrimination acts into one document. I made a submission to this Senate Inquiry that was accepted and published on the government website. Here is the link to the submission that I made to this inquiry: The Australian Government’s Vaccination Policies and the Discrimination against Healthy Individuals in Schools and the Workplace.
However, the public was informed that our human rights in vaccination policy and the discrimination that is occurring in Australia was not covered in the scope of this draft Human Rights and Anti-discrimination bill (HRAD). Yet the Health Act was included in this bill and my submission on vaccination (and the need to protect bodily integrity with an amendment to this bill) was accepted and published by the Committee for the Senate Inquiry. This bill did not get passed in 2013 and the government still has not answered the public’s concerns about coercive vaccination policies and the protection of bodily integrity.
The use of financial incentives of $2,100 and childcare places to encourage parents to vaccinate (with 11 vaccines before children are 1 year of age) is unethical. In Australia parents are required to visit a doctor and get a doctor’s signature if they wish to refuse vaccines and still receive the government parental welfare benefit. Doctors have been informed that they do not have to sign these refusal forms by the AMA even though they are linked to government welfare benefits. In addition, healthcare workers are being limited in their job prospects if they refuse to update with a vaccine.
If you are a health worker who would like to refuse vaccines without losing your job here is a link to information that discusses this issue.
Gillian Trigg, president of the Human Rights Commission states that ‘all comparable common law countries have human rights acts and Australia is at risk of being isolated from legal protections taken for granted in Britain, Canada, New Zealand (The Australian 25th February 2013). [/pane]
Framing the Debate on Vaccination
The Australian Government is providing selective information on its website to frame the benefits and risks of vaccines in a particular way. This information needs to be debated. Whilst ever there is a lack of consensus on the science in a public health policy it is unethical to use coercive or mandatory strategies to enforce a medical procedure. I have presented here a discussion of the terminology that the government is using to frame vaccination policies to the public. The government also promotes vaccines on the basis that they protect communities by creating herd immunity. There are many reasons why vaccines may not create herd immunity and communities are being protected by natural herd immunity created by sub-clinical and mild infections.
If there is no consensus on the effectiveness and safety of vaccines and their ability to create herd immunity then coercive vaccination can have serious harmful consequences for population health.