Vaccination is a medical procedure that injects weakened pathogens and chemical substances into the tissues of healthy individuals.
This is done to produce an antibody response in the body that contributes to protection from infectious diseases. But this response is only one part of a complex immune response that is required to protect individuals from infectious diseases.
While the government claims that artificial and natural immunisation work in the same way (1) this is not supported by scientific evidence. For example, artificial immunity produced by vaccination with inactivated agents is of shorter duration than that produced from natural infection (1) (2) (3) (4).
This demonstrates that immunity to disease is not obtained simply by raising the antibody titer in the blood – the surrogate measure used to assess the immunity induced from vaccines.
The procedure of vaccination
In the process of vaccination the attenuated, inactivated or genetically engineered pathogen is injected directly into the tissues of the body – as opposed to ingestion or respiration when an individual is naturally exposed to the pathogen. This also includes the many excipients in the vaccine carrier: preservatives, antibiotics, and adjuvant. Many of these excipients are not inert (inactive) substances and this means they will have an unpredictable reaction in genetically diverse individuals.
The government’s terminology ‘vaccine-preventable disease’ is a misnomer and was adopted in the 1990s to imply that vaccines can prevent infectious diseases. However, it has never been demonstrated that the immunity produced in the population is a direct response to using a vaccine (4). This is evidenced by the fact that some vaccinated individuals do not gain immunity after a vaccine and, vice versa, unvaccinated individuals gain immunity from exposure to the pathogen – even sub-clinical exposure provides immunity to disease.
Further, it is well documented that epidemics of infectious diseases are occurring in regions where vaccines have been used for many years (5 p 19). Governments could prove the effects of vaccines in preventing disease by providing the statistics of the vaccinated and unvaccinated cases of these diseases – but these transparent statistics are never provided (4).
Morbidity (Illness) in children
As the government’s vaccination schedule has expanded during the past two decades chronic illness in children has risen dramatically. Allergies have increased in the Australian population with 10 per cent of infants having a food allergy and 20 per cent of the Australian population. Hospitalisations for anaphylaxis have increased 5-fold in the past 20 years (6).
This correlation has never been investigated by the Australian government to demonstrate that the Australian vaccination schedule is safe and that vaccination is not the cause of this significant increase in life-threatening chronic illness. This is unethical and it is because the government does not use morbidity (illness) in children as a measure of the success of vaccination programs. Governments are using the following criteria to measure the success of these programs:
- Age standardised infant mortality rates up to 1995 (7 p.16) and
- Vaccination coverage (immunisation rates) in the population from 1995 onwards (8 p.11)
Hence the government can claim vaccination campaigns are successful based on the high vaccination rates in the population and ignore the escalating chronic illness in children as they make this claim.
In 1995 governments stopped using infant mortality rates to measure the success of vaccination programs because the increased use of vaccines does not correlate to the lowest infant mortality rates. From this time onwards, vaccination coverage rates were adopted to measure the success of vaccination programs. However, this criterion is only based on the assumption that high vaccination rates equates to healthier children because governments have never investigated the link between increased vaccine use and morbidity (illness) in children.
The claim that high vaccination rates in the community improve the health of the community is not evidence based. Many vaccinated children are still getting the diseases they are vaccinated against and chronic illness, including autism, is escalating. This unsupported assumption is being used to promote vaccines to the community because governments are not required to acknowledge the vaccine failures that occur, or the increased illness (morbidity) in children that correlates directly with the expansion of the vaccination schedule.
In reality, the health of the population is significantly declining as the vaccination rates are increasing, and governments are not acknowledging or investigating this correlation. This is contrary to scientific methodology that requires all correlations to be investigated before a drug is declared safe for public use. To implement this medical procedure without this evidence is unethical and amounts to an unmonitored experiment on the population.
In 2004, 41 per cent of 0 to 14-year-old Australian children had a chronic illness (10). Autism, asthma, learning and behavioral difficulties, and autoimmune diseases had all increased significantly from 1994 to 2005. This coincides with the government’s push to increase vaccination rates in Australia to 95 per cent with the implementation of the Immunise Australia Program in 1993 (11).
Toxic and unnatural ingredients
Thiomersal, a mercury compound and neurotoxin was present in most infant vaccines before 2000 (11) (12). It is still present in some vaccines, for example the infanrix-hexa vaccine given to infants (13), and specifically in multi-dose vials of some influenza vaccines (14). Scientists have known since 1966 that the adjuvant used in vaccines – aluminium hydroxide/phosphate – and antibiotics (in vaccines) cause hypersensitivity reactions in humans (15). Yet we are injecting antibiotics, adjuvant, thiomersal and other compounds into infants’ tissues at the most vulnerable time of their development.
Vaccines such as the HPV vaccine that is promoted to prevent cervical cancer have very high levels of aluminium adjuvant, which is a neurotoxin, and this can accumulate to a toxic threshold anywhere in the body – not just at the injection site (16).
The HPV vaccines have the highest risk of adverse events (AE’s) of any vaccine on the schedule. Most safety trials for these vaccines have never compared vaccinated and unvaccinated groups with a true inert (non-active) placebo (4). The vaccine clinical trials are performed by the pharmaceutical companies, and they use the aluminium adjuvant as the placebo in the unvaccinated group, which prevents the true number of AE’s from being determined before the vaccine is marketed (4) (16). This is contrary to proper scientific methodology, which requires a safety study to use a true inert placebo in the control group.
Genetics and environment
Many adverse reactions to vaccines occur which vary in severity among individuals because of genetic factors (17).
It is known that an individual can be pre-disposed to a disease by having the gene for that disease but expression of the gene can depend upon an environmental factor (18). Factors thought to be responsible for activating genes include heavy metals, chemicals, viruses, bacteria, nutrition and emotional states and stress (18). Many of these triggers are found in vaccines.
Veterinary scientists have correlated the increase in autoimmune diseases and cancers in dogs and cats to increased vaccine use (19).
Long-term health studies showing the effects of multiple vaccines in infants have not been done in humans or animals (1) (4). Greater emphasis is being placed on short-term epidemiological studies (statistical) with selective parameters investigating one vaccine at a time rather than the science that includes biological, clinical and ecological evidence that is showing a possible link with chronic illness in children (4) (17) (20). In addition, 20th Century public health officials did not claim vaccines controlled infectious diseases (21).
The ‘Precautionary Principle’
The underlying ethical principle of health practitioners is to promote the health of the patient. If it is biologically plausible that using multiple vaccines in infants and adults could cause significant harm to a proportion of the population, as a result of genetic predisposition and epigenetics, then doctors cannot promote the health of their patients when mandatory vaccination policies are implemented. The onus of proof of safety is on policy-makers before coercive and mandatory vaccination policies are implemented. This is why the precautionary principle was introduced to legislators in 1998 to protect human health and the environment (22). This principle states:
Precautionary Principle: The burden of proof of harmlessness of any new technology/chemical is on the proponent NOT the general public.
However, this principle is not applied in this format in the design of the Australian vaccination policy. This principle has been reversed to protect industry interests in the government’s policy. In this format it states:
The burden of proof of harmlessness of any new technology/chemical is on the general public NOT the proponent of the procedure. That is, industry and the medical profession.
When used in this format, the public’s health and the environment cannot be protected in government policies because the general public does not have the resources to prove harmlessness of a medical intervention (4).
Government vaccination policies
In 2006 the NSW government, without public consultation, implemented mandatory immunisation policies for Health Professionals (23). The government should be required to demonstrate a serious risk to the community without these vaccinations before we lose the right to decide what we inject into our own bodies. However, this is not a requirement in any country and in 2016 -17 the Australian government implemented mandatory and coercive vaccination policies for 16 diseases in Australian children of all ages (24); a policy that will result in serious adverse health events for many people.
This legislation was approved in the Department of Social Services even though the Department of Health continues to claim ‘Vaccination in Australia is not compulsory’. If vaccines are not compulsory under health legislation in Australia, how can it be mandated for some Australians in social services and employment legislation? These are discriminatory policies that are not compatible with health legislation.
The adoption of this legislation has been achieved without the Health Department or the Social Services Department providing any justification for the need for these policies and at a time when the risk of infectious diseases was very low (25).
Vaccination in Australia has never been compulsory and Sweden has stated it will not adopt mandatory or coercive vaccination policies because of the serious adverse health events associated with vaccines and because they violate constitutional rights (26) (27). So the Australian public must ask why our government is violating constitutional rights in Australia without any evidence for the necessity for these policies, and knowing that these policies will result in discrimination and significant harm to many Australians.