Saba Button suffered from a hypoxic brain injury, kidney, liver and bone marrow failure after receiving the flu shot in Australia. The Federal Court of Australia approved a settlement said to be in excess of $10 million. Photo by Justin Benson-Cooper. Source.
by Jefferey Jaxen
Health Impact News
With the passage of The Public Health and Wellbeing Amendment of 2015, Australia has retrogressed to a state of gross human rights violations. The amendment, nicknamed No Jab, No Pay, is now active and targeting low income families exclusively.
Parents who are conscientious objectors to vaccination, for whatever reason, will now be unable to claim any childcare rebates and will lose their end-of-year family tax benefits. The No Jab, No Pay amendment, which went live on January 1, 2016, also restricts the ability of parents exercising medical choice to access childcare services.
Showing political ignorance to medical reality, the bill offers a 63-day grace period for children to enroll in a “catch-up” program before benefits are cancelled. Stacking numerous vaccines in a short period of time has shown to dangerously challenge a child’s still-developing neurological system.
The vaccination requirements encompassed by Australia’s new amendment now include all vaccines on the National Immunisation Program. Medical exemptions are available for medical contradictions and natural immunity, yet individual health practitioners who consider signing off on waivers are heavily pressured to adhere to the new vaccine push at risk of their license. For those healthcare professionals that wish to write medical exemptions, a form is provided by Australia’s Department of Health.
Australia Ignores Human Rights, Medical Reality
The No Jab, No Pay amendment, as well as any other mandatory vaccination law, violates numerous international human rights agreements and long-held rules by medical oversight bodies.
In addition, the amendment violates Australia’s own Department of Health which states for consent to be legally valid, a medical procedure (vaccination)
“must be given voluntarily in the absence of undue pressure, coercion or manipulation.”
On a social level, the No Jab, No Pay is already paving the way for a massive flow of legal challenges. The same groundswell of legal challenges is also being expected in California to combat the states Senate Bill 277 which makes all vaccines mandatory for school admission.
Australia’s 2015 amendment all but guarantees families will experience financial hardship, either from being forced out of the workforce due to the prohibitive cost of full-fee childcare, due to the majority of your wages being absorbed by full childcare fees and/or due to being denied childcare benefits and rebates.
The No Jab, No Pay amendment is estimated to cost low-income families with two children up to $30,000 a year.
During consideration of the proposed No Jab, No Pay amendment, the Australian Vaccine-Skeptics Network (AVN) filed a State of Evidence document with the Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee. AVN’s thorough 85-page report exhaustively detailed sound medical and legal challenges to the proposed amendment.
Comparing the No Jab, No Pay official reasoning to the AVN’s State of Evidence report instantly revealed what many considered flimsy political rationale and baseless assumptions at the heart of Australia’s newly enforceable amendment. Digging into the amendment’s wording, a simple sentence was apparently all it took to rationalize the proposed actions on an entire population:
“The weight of scientific evidence demonstrates that vaccines are safe and effective, with the benefits greatly outweighing the risks.”
In contrast, AVN’s State of Evidence report was divided into five sections titled needless, pointless, baseless, excessive and illegitimate. Under each section were pages of sound medical, legal and epidemiological evidence to strongly support each claim against the implementation of the amendment.
Doctors, You Are the Tipping Point
At the patient level, healthcare practitioners are ordered to follow the Australian Immunisation Handbook 10th Edition created by the Australian Government’s Department of Health. Yet like many government vaccine programs and mainstream medical professionals, vaccine injury and contradictions appear to be overlooked and superseded by political agendas.
For example, in the immunisation handbook under the heading “false contradictions to vaccination,” previous potential vaccine injury is taught to be overlooked such as history of convulsions and neurological conditions. Further vaccinating children with established vaccine injuries can cause life-long debilitation.
Under the same false contradictions heading, “prematurity” is also listed as “not a contraindication to any of the vaccines in the National Immunisation Program schedule.”
What happens when doctors are pressured to follow government vaccine schedules instead of their medical judgement concerning premature infants?
Recently Michelle Rowton — neonatal nurse practitioner and member of Nurses Against Mandatory Vaccination — became a whistle blower regarding the routine injuries she witnessed during her time working in a neonatal intensive care unit (NICU). The injuries were due solely from doctors routinely giving the government mandated vaccines to premature infants resulting in immediate breathing difficulties, feeding and digestion difficulties, apnea and bradycardia.
Australia to Implement Adult Vaccination Tracking System
Australia has fully implemented an adult vaccination register to
“record all adult vaccines provided under the National Immunisation Programme (NIP) from 1 September 2016.”
The stated purpose of the adult vaccine tracking system by the NIP is to
“monitor delivery of vaccinations to adult populations.”
In the United States, the Immunization Information System has been tracking children’s vaccine adherence without parent’s consent for years. It wasn’t until a recent HPV vaccine push by the Indiana Health Department that American parents understood how the tracking system was used to find and pressure their children to vaccinate outside of law. These systems will be used to find and penalize unvaccinated children and adults according to the full extent of any new law implemented moving forward.
Families are already organizing to legally and socially resist Australia’s new rules. AVN is continually publishing individual letters from parents who are describing how they are being affected by the new bill.
In addition, the organization, working with a legal team, is gathering testimony from families and parents who are being disproportionally targeted and put into hardship from Australia’s newly implemented mandate.
What Will the Future Hold for Australia now that this Amendment is Active and Being Enforced?
Since vaccines are not safe and carry inherent risks, any country that enacts mandates sees an increase in vaccine injury. Without proper acknowledgement and care for those affected by such injury, Australia is now poised to begin the long slide towards widespread severe adverse vaccine reactions.
In the United States, the estimated individual life-long cost of vaccine injury is $1.4 to $2.4 million per child. Australia appears to be risking its future economy and healthcare with the baseless vaccine “science” found in the No Jab, No Pay mandate. For parents seeking legal actions, lawsuits estimated in the millions against the Minister of Health and vaccine manufacturers have been previously rewarded in Australia.
Comment on this article at VaccineImpact.com
Medical Doctors Opposed to Forced Vaccinations – Should Their Views be Silenced?
One of the biggest myths being propagated in the compliant mainstream media today is that doctors are either pro-vaccine or anti-vaccine, and that the anti-vaccine doctors are all “quacks.”
However, nothing could be further from the truth in the vaccine debate. Doctors are not unified at all on their positions regarding “the science” of vaccines, nor are they unified in the position of removing informed consent to a medical procedure like vaccines.
The two most extreme positions are those doctors who are 100% against vaccines and do not administer them at all, and those doctors that believe that ALL vaccines are safe and effective for ALL people, ALL the time, by force if necessary.
Very few doctors fall into either of these two extremist positions, and yet it is the extreme pro-vaccine position that is presented by the U.S. Government and mainstream media as being the dominant position of the medical field.
In between these two extreme views, however, is where the vast majority of doctors practicing today would probably categorize their position. Many doctors who consider themselves “pro-vaccine,” for example, do not believe that every single vaccine is appropriate for every single individual.
Many doctors recommend a “delayed” vaccine schedule for some patients, and not always the recommended one-size-fits-all CDC childhood schedule. Other doctors choose to recommend vaccines based on the actual science and merit of each vaccine, recommending some, while determining that others are not worth the risk for children, such as the suspect seasonal flu shot.
These doctors who do not hold extreme positions would be opposed to government-mandated vaccinations and the removal of all parental exemptions.
In this article, I am going to summarize the many doctors today who do not take the most extremist pro-vaccine position, which is probably not held by very many doctors at all, in spite of what the pharmaceutical industry, the federal government, and the mainstream media would like the public to believe.