April 2015

My final conclusion after forty years or more in this business is that the unofficial policy of the World Health Organisation and the unofficial policy of ‘Save the Children’s Fund” and almost all those organisations is one of murder and genocide. They want to make it appear as if they are saving these kids, but in actual fact they don’t. I am talking of those at the very top. Beneath that level is another level of doctors and health workers, like myself, who don’t really understand what they are doing. But I cannot see any other possible explanation: It is murder and it is genocide. And I tell you what: when the black races really wake up to what we have done to them they are not going to thank us very much. And if you want to see what harm vaccines do, don’t come to Australia or New Zealand or any place, go to Africa and you will see it there.”
Dr. Archie Kalokerinos

Doctors bend vaccination schedule for shot-wary parents

Rebecca Plevin, December 3rd 2014
Sourced from Southern California Public Radio – 89.3 KPCC

People tend to think there are two camps in the fight over vaccinations: Those who are pro-vaccines, and those who are opposed to them.

But there’s a large group of parents in the middle: They want to vaccinate their children, but on a schedule different from the one recommended by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. In some cases their doctors are accommodating them, just to ensure that the children will eventually get all of the required immunisations.

Santa Monica pediatrician Dr. Marcy Hardart says about one out of every five families she sees asks to delay the vaccination schedule.

“‘It seems like it’s too much too soon,'” Hardart says parents tell her. “‘Can’t we start later?'” she says they ask. “‘Do we have to do all of them at once? Can we spread them out?'”
It’s a predicament for pediatricians like Hardart. They fully support the CDC’s recommended vaccination schedule (which is also backed by the American Academies of Pediatrics and Family Physicians). But because they want to see kids fully vaccinated, more and more doctors are complying with families’ requests, and bending the recommended vaccination schedule.

That’s worrisome to Dr. Debbie Lehman, a pediatric infectious disease expert at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center.
“The most concerning thing about alternative schedules are that they leave children unprotected during the time that they’re waiting to get the next vaccine,” she says.

The CDC schedule recommends babies receive six vaccinations when they’re two months old. (8 are recommended on the Australian National Immunisation Program)

But Brentwood pediatrician Dr. Samina Taha says the vast majority of the families she sees don’t want their children to get that many shots at one time.

So, she says, she offers a compromise: “Instead of giving those six all at the same time, at that two month visit, let’s give three around two months, and a few weeks later, come in and give three.”
That approach is acceptable to the CDC; its recommended schedule allows for about a month of wiggle room for those early shots.

But some – like the parents of 10-month old Shae Zwirn – want to space out the vaccines even more than that.
“I personally feel that waiting until his immune system is more fully matured, and developed, is the smarter route,” says Shae’s father, Paul Zwirn.

Shae’s mother, Felicia Mollinedo, adds: “I wanted to get to know him for who he was, because I wouldn’t want to have that doubt in my mind: Is he hyper because of vaccines? Is he listless because of vaccines? Is he slower?”
There’s no science to back up these concerns. Even so, Mollinedo and Zwirn say they plan on waiting until Shae is at least a year old before beginning his vaccinations. Mollinedo says they already have a laundry list of vaccines to catch up on.

She says their doctors are not happy about their decision. “They’re looking at me with these eyes, like, ‘when are you going to do this?'” Mollinedo says.

Some parents want to wait on specific shots. One of the most common ones to delay is the MMR vaccine, which protects against measles, mumps and rubella. It’s typically given between 12 and 15 months.
Emily Eichhorn-Nye waited about 18 months before giving her son, Owen, the MMR vaccine. She echoes the concerns of others who worry that the shot will cause autism – even though there’s no proven link between the two.

“It’s the fears that were created in my own head – that was the reason for the delay,” she explains, while playing with her son in the waiting room of her pediatrician’s office in Los Feliz. “The waiting wasn’t based off fact – it was being comfortable about giving the vaccine.”

Those fears are so widespread that Dr. Marcy Hardart says when she suspects a child may have developmental issues or autism, she’ll suggest the parents hold off on the shot.

“I will tell the parents that the reason I’m doing it is not because I’m concerned that the MMR will do any damage – but I’m concerned that if the child’s language doesn’t develop, or if there is autism, I don’t want the vaccine to be blamed,” she says.

It’s nearly impossible to determine how widespread these alternative vaccination schedules are, since the state doesn’t begin tracking immunizations until kids enter childcare or kindergarten.

But the anecdotal evidence has experts worried, especially about delays of early vaccinations that protect against diseases that can kill, specifically meningitis and whooping cough.

When I tell Shae’s mother, Felicia Mollinedo, that babies in California still die from whooping cough, she gasps – and reconsiders her position on vaccines.

“I, of course, become afraid,” she says. “I, of course, question everything. And the topic comes up again. It’s a constant conversation in this house.”

Pediatricians say that’s the most they can hope for: That parents will stay open to the idea of vaccinations, and get their kids immunised – hopefully sooner rather than later.

By Wendy Lydall, author of Raising a Vaccine Free Child.

Around the world, medical authorities tell parents that it has been scientifically proven that vaccination does not cause SIDS, and sometimes they are even told that vaccination prevents SIDS. However, the studies that are used to justify these claims use research methods that do not adequately investigate the possibility that vaccination may actually increase the risk of SIDS in susceptible babies.


A favourite method used by researchers who are looking at the relationship between vaccination and SIDS is the case-control method. Case-control studies compare babies who died with babies who did not die.

The researchers select a group of babies who died of SIDS within a particular geographical area, and these babies are called the cases. Each case is matched with two or three live babies who are called the controls. The vaccination history of the baby who has died is then compared with the vaccination histories of the two or three babies who have not died. Babies who have not received any vaccinations are excluded from the study.

In the case-control studies that have been published, researchers have found that when the live babies were at the age at which the case baby died, they had received more vaccine doses than those who had died. This leads the authors to conclude that vaccination does not cause SIDS, a happy conclusion for those who want to promote vaccination, but far from scientifically sound.

One problem with the case-control method is that it could be comparing fragile babies who are susceptible to dying from an immunological onslaught with tougher babies who can survive being injected with animal tissue, human tissue, peanut oil, attenuated germs, toxic metals, toxic chemicals, and genetically engineered yeast. Case-control studies can be useful for investigating something that is static at the time of death; for example, whether the baby was sucking a pacifier, or lying face down.

However, the effects of vaccination are not static; they are ongoing, and they are unknown. Case-control studies can also be useful if you take all the confounding factors into account, but in the case of vaccine susceptibility, no one yet knows what the confounding factors are. Controlling for factors that are known to increase the risk of SIDS does not mean that you are controlling for factors that increase the risk of SIDS from vaccination.
In the most recent case-control study, which was done in Germany, researchers found that the babies who died had had fewer vaccinations than the ones who were still alive, and that their vaccinations had been done later. [1]
The latter finding may be significant. Parents can be reluctant to turn up on time for vaccinations when they feel that their baby is unusually fragile, or when they know that vaccine reactions run in the family. Some parents who are not keen on vaccination eventually comply because of the extreme pressure that is put on them, but they do it later than at the prescribed time.

Interestingly, the researchers did find a statistically significantly higher rate of developmental problems, hospital admissions and special investigations, like x-rays or electrocardiograms, in the SIDS babies compared to the live babies. [2] This discovery might mean that the babies with these problems, who were only 22 percent of the SIDS babies, were more susceptible to dying unexpectedly, and that vaccination played no role in their deaths.

Alternatively, it might mean that these babies were susceptible to an unknown effect of vaccination, and that vaccination killed them. A different study design would need to be used to ascertain whether vaccination played a part in the deaths of this 22 percent. The fact that these babies had had fewer doses of vaccine than the live babies with whom they were compared does not mean that they were not pushed over the edge by the vaccines that entered their bodies. It is illogical to say, “Baby A had 6 vaccines and is dead, while Baby B had 11 vaccines and is still alive, so that proves that vaccines had nothing to do with the death of Baby A.”


There has been some consideration of the role that metabolic disorders might play in making children susceptible to adverse reactions from vaccination, but while the possible relationship to SIDS has been considered by one group of doctors, there has not been an actual study. There are many types of metabolic disorders, but each one occurs in only a few children.

In 2010, a group of doctors published an article in which they considered the possibility that some children who were born with metabolic disorders may have died from the whole-cell whooping cough vaccine. The doctors paid special attention to a metabolic disorder called medium-chain acyl-CoA dehydrogenase deficiency.

After considering the biological pathways in children with medium-chain acyl-CoA dehydrogenase deficiency, the doctors concluded that one third of the babies who were born with this disorder, and who were also injected with the whole-cell whooping cough vaccine, could have died from resultant low blood sugar. [3] Because medium-chain acyl-CoA dehydrogenase deficiency is very rare, this amounted to only 39 babies per year in the USA.

The consideration of medium-chain acyl-CoA dehydrogenase deficiency was only done seven decades after the whole-cell whooping cough vaccine was introduced. There are more than four hundred metabolic disorders that need to be considered and studied. There may be other types of vulnerability apart from metabolic disorders that make babies susceptible to dying quietly from vaccination. Case-control studies are unable to detect deaths that occur because of individual susceptibility.

Long ago, I mentioned to a pediatrician who publishes articles about SIDS that I considered case-control studies to be an inadequate way of testing whether vaccination increases the risk of SIDS. He replied, “That’s the way it has always been done.”

Valentina A. Soldatenkova is a mathematician and physicist who has also expressed the opinion that case-control studies are inadequate for assessing the relationship between vaccination and SIDS. In her published critique of the existing case-control studies, she criticises the study designs employed and statistical methods used by researchers to conclude that there is no relationship between vaccination and SIDS. [4]

The Institute of Medicine in the USA has the job of publishing complicated whitewashes about vaccine side effects, and they, of course, have done exactly that in regard to the question of whether vaccination may cause some cases of SIDS. Their lengthy report on the existing studies concludes that “the evidence does not support a causal link” between vaccination and SIDS.

Soldatenkova says that their report should have stated that “the evidence is inadequate to accept or reject a causal relation between SIDS and vaccines.” [4]


Another type of study that is often quoted as proving that vaccination does not cause SIDS is the temporal study. Central to these studies is the assumption that if vaccination were to cause a sudden unexplained death, it would do so within 12 hours, or 24 hours, or 48 hours, or 7 days, or 14 days. [5,6,7,8,] No one knows what vaccines do once they get inside the body, so no one knows what the time frame is for a negative effect. Implying that they do know is bordering on fraudulent.

Antibodies only start appearing two weeks after vaccination, and the production of antibodies continues for a few more weeks. The researchers, who are sometimes being paid to do the study by a vaccine manufacturer, have no basis for assuming that any negative effects of the ingredients in vaccines would take less time to develop than it takes for antibodies to develop.


It is possible that some SIDS deaths may be caused by low blood sugar. Dr. C. Horvarth reported that during a three-year period in New Zealand, the blood sugar level of 84 babies who had died inexplicably was measured at autopsy, and in 81 of them, the level was found to be below the normal range. [9]

Other studies have shown that low blood sugar is strongly associated with SIDS. [10,11,12,13] When the whole-cell whooping cough vaccine causes the level of blood sugar to drop, the drop starts at about 8 days after injection, reaches its lowest point at about 12 days after injection, and becomes normal at about 24 days after injection. [14]


Many countries have passed legislation that an autopsy must be done after every SIDS death, and they have introduced protocols that have to be followed. This is a great step forward. Previously autopsies were only done if someone felt like doing one, and they could decide what to investigate and what to ignore.

One of the benefits of the introduction of autopsy protocols is that explanations are found for some of the otherwise mysterious deaths. In Germany, for example, a non-SIDS explanation for 11.2% of the SIDS deaths was found because of the autopsies. [15]

In the future, the protocols will help to identify ways to reduce the incidence of SIDS. In the mean time they help detect to infant abuse, and they help to prevent parents from being falsely accused of abuse. The protocols also mean that doctors can no longer write off blatantly obvious reactions to vaccination as SIDS.

The usefulness of the autopsies would be enhanced if they were to include an assessment of the blood sugar level at the time of death, which can be done even though blood glucose continues to be broken down for a short while after death. [10, 16]

SIDS has been occurring since long before vaccination was invented. [17] As records of its incidence were not kept until relatively recently, it is not possible to know whether the rate of SIDS in modern times is different to what it was in the distant past. To gain more insight into the distressing phenomenon of SIDS, blood sugar levels at the time of death should be assessed in every SIDS autopsy, and every vaccine that is recommended for infants should be tested to find out whether it causes blood sugar levels to drop at any time after vaccination.

1. Vennemann, M.M., Butterfaß-Bahloul, T., Jorch, G., Brinkmann, B., Findeisen, M., Sauerland, C., et al. (2007). “Sudden infant death syndrome: No increased risk after immunization.” Vaccine: 25(2), 336–340.
2. Vennemann, M.M., Findeisen, M., Butterfass-Bahloul, T., Jorch, G., Brinkmann, B., Kopcke W. et al. (2005). “Infection, health problems, and health care utilisation, and the risk of sudden infant death syndrome.” Archives of Disease in Childhood: 90(5), 520–522.
3. Wilson, K., Potter, B., Manuel, D., Keelan, J., & Chakraborty P. (2010). “Revisiting the possibility of serious adverse events from the whole cell pertussis vaccine: Were metabolically vulnerable children at risk?” Medical Hypotheses: 74(1), 150–154.
4. Soldatenkova, V.A. (2007). “Why case-control studies showed no association between Sudden Infant Death Syndrome and vaccinations.” Medical Veritas: 4, 1411–1413.

5. Keens, T.G., Ward, S.L., Gates, E.P., Andree, D.I., & Hart, L.D. (1985). “Ventilatory pattern following diphtheria-tetanus-pertussis immunization in infants at risk for sudden infant death syndrome.” American Journal of Diseases of Children: 139(10), 991–994.
6. Hoffman, H.J., Hunter, J.C., Damus, K., Pakter, J., Peterson, D.R., van Belle, G., et al. (1987). “Diphtheria-tetanus-pertussis immunization and sudden infant death: results of the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Cooperative Epidemiological Study of Sudden Infant Death Syndrome risk factors.” Pediatrics: 79(4), 598–611.
7. Brotherton, J.M., Hull, B.P., Hayen, A., Gidding, H.F., & Burgess, M.A. (2005). “Probability of coincident vaccination in the 24 or 48 hours preceding sudden infant death syndrome death in Australia.” Pediatrics: 115(6), 643–646.
8. Griffin, M.R., Ray, W.A., Livengood, J.R., & Schaffner, W. (1988). “Risk of sudden infant death syndrome after immunization with the diphtheria-tetanus-pertussis vaccine.” New England Journal of Medicine: 319(10), 618–23.
9. Horvarth, C.H. (1990). “Sudden infant death syndrome.” New Zealand Medical Journal: 103(885), 107.
10. Hirvonen, J., Jantti, M., Syrjala, H., Lautala, P., & Akerblom, H.K. (1980). “Hyperplasia of islets of Langerhans and low serum insulin in cot deaths.” Forensic Science International: 16, 213–226.
11. Read, D.J., Williams, A. L., Hensley, W., Edwards, M., & Beal, S. (1979). “Sudden Infant Deaths: Some Current Research Strategies.” Medical Journal of Australia: 2(5), 236–238, 240–241, 244.
12. Aynsley-Green, A., Polak, J.M., Keeling, J., Gough, M.H., & Baum, J.D. (1978). “Averted sudden neonatal death due to pancreatic nesidioblastosis.” The Lancet: 311(8063), 550–551.
13. Cox, J.N., Guelpa, G., & Terrapon, M. (1976). “Islet-cell hyperplasia and sudden infant death.” The Lancet: 308(7985), 739–740.
14. Dhar, H.L. & West, G.B. (1972). “Sensitization procedures and the blood sugar concentration.” Journal of Pharmacy and Pharmacology: 24, 249.
15. Findeisen,M., Vennemann, M.M., Brinkmann, B., Ortmann, C., Röse, I., Köpcke, W. et al. (2004). “German study on sudden infant death (GeSID): design, epidemiological and pathological profile.” International Journal of Legal Medicine: 118(3), 163–169.
16. Palmiere, C. & Mangin, P. (2012). “Postmortem chemistry update part I.” International Journal of Legal Medicine: 126(2), 187–98.
17. Limerick, S.R. (1992). “Sudden infant death in historical perspective.” Journal of Clinical Pathology, 45(Suppl), 3–6.

Vaccine programmes cancelled in unsafe needles investigation
Posted on Mar 24, 2015 by Janene Van Jaarsveldt

Syringes of the frequently used Terumo brand could contain epoxy resin, which could unintentionally leak into a patients bloodstream, current affairs program Dossier EenVandaag revealed last night. Based on this information the National Institute for Public Health and Environment (RIVM) launched an investigation and advised against the use of Terumo syringes.

According to RTL, all health authorities in the Netherlands will now use other syringes for vaccinations. The Public Health Service Limburg Zuid has cancelled its vaccination program for today, tomorrow and Wednesday because of a lack of other needles. According to the RIVM’s website, the needles were used, among other things, for the government’s vaccination program against MMR – measles, mumps and rubella – and hepatitis B.

Dossier EenVandaag reports that one in 5 syringes have problems with glue resin, which means that there are at least 100 thousand flawed needles in the Netherlands. The epoxy glue that is released by these flawed needles contain BADGE and BPA, which are substances that are considered disruptive to hormones. These substances are associated with prostate cancer, obesity, breast cancer and fertility problems.

Terumo admitted to EenVandaag that there is a problem with the glue, but claims that the amount of BADGE that can enter the body is far below the permitted level.


VaccinationThis book provides parents with a comprehensive, scientifically-based guide to the facts, myths, problems and solutions associated with raising a vaccine free child. It helps them protect their children both from the wiles of the vaccine industry and from harmful germs. With 467 references, there are no trendy anti-vaccination myths in this book. Readers will learn that vaccination is not the reason for the absence of infectious diseases, that insidious, long-term side effects are very common, and that there is a media blackout on the topics of vaccine side effects and vaccine failures.

Understanding the difference between childhood illnesses and the other infectious diseases is the key to understanding vaccination. This book advises parents on how to bring children safely through childhood illnesses like measles and whooping cough, and discusses medical and non-medical prevention and treatment of the non-childhood infectious diseases.

The myth that herd immunity exist6s paves the way for the persecution of non-compliant health-conscious families. The information in this book empowers parents of vaccine free children to withstand the accusation that they are spoiling herd immunity. A look at the early documents regarding vaccination reveals that it is an unscientific procedure that is based on falsehood, cruelty and supposition.


‘Why NOT vaccinating my kids was the best decision I ever made’

By Tasha David

VaccinationWhen I first became a Mum, I never questioned getting my children vaccinated. It was just what you did when you have children – you do what your doctor tells you, because they know best.

My husband and I had never been told that there could be any adverse reactions, only a bit of redness and swelling at the injection site. So as each of our six eldest children got progressively sicker after each vaccination, we never made that connection.

Out of our six vaccinated children, our 16, 12 and 10-year-old have moderate to severe Autism, our 25-year-old has ADHD, our 14-year-old has a severe language disorder, and our 20-year-old has severe mood swings.

They also suffered from chronic ear infections, bronchiolitis, asthma, eczema, psoriasis, urinary infections, gastrointestinal and autoimmune disorders, allergies, chemical sensitivities and intolerances.

We tried genetic testing to look for answers, but no reason was found for our children’s afflictions. So I started looking for answers on my own. I read books, went to seminars, read all the scientific studies I could get my hands on and that’s when I discovered that our family was not the only one.

There were many other families suffering from the same issues as ours.

This realization led us to not vaccinate our five and eight-year-old old and they have thrived because of it. Out of all their siblings they should have been the most susceptible to genetic problems considering that I was in my late thirties when I had them and was overweight.

Yet our two youngest never had to suffer through the many illnesses that their brothers and sisters did.
Not because they had never been exposed to illness because like all preschool and school children, they had been. But they had a resilience that had been taken from their siblings.

They have never had or needed an antibiotic in their lives, but more importantly they had none of their sibling’s disorders.

This was an especially bitter sweet realisation for me, as I looked at them and realised just how much my other children had lost because of me.

I had to come to terms with the fact that my ignorance about what I allowed to be put in to my children’s bodies had caused at least two (possibly three) of my children to NEVER be able to have the chance to be independent, fall in love and have a family. That when I die, they face the possibility of living with strangers who don’t love them the way they deserve to be loved.

People need to realise that vaccination is not one size fits all, that there are families in your community that are struggling with the harm that vaccines have caused.

Have we so quickly forgotten Saba Button, Lachlan Neylan [both toddlers were left severely disabled following flu shots in 2010 and 2012, respectively], and Ashley Epapara? [who died a day after receiving a flu shot in 2010]

This is why vaccination must always remain a choice – otherwise we are saying that some children matter more than others.

This issue has been thrown in to the spotlight once again by the tragic loss of four week old Riley Hughes to Whooping Cough. My heart goes out to this family – no parent should ever have to suffer through the death of their child.

Unfortunately a few journalists have seized on this tragedy to create more hatred and animosity towards innocent children and their families.

They are recklessly setting parents against each other and in the process they are doing a great disservice to this family and to the other families that are not aware of the shortcomings of this vaccine.

In 2009 a fully vaccinated nurse is suspected to have infected four infants with Whooping cough in a maternity ward in Sydney, as well as several studies since then that show that this vaccine is not providing the protection that our children deserve.

In 1991 we had a 71 per cent vaccination rate for Whooping Cough, yet there were only 347 cases, but in 2011 with a vaccination rate of over 92 per cent, we had over 38,000 cases. How can the unvaccinated be to blame?
Pregnant women need to be aware that vaccine product inserts say that the effect of this vaccine on the development of the embryo and foetus has not been assessed. Vaccination in pregnancy is not recommended unless there is a definite risk of acquiring pertussis.

The attacking of parents whether they vaccinate or not needs to stop, because at the end of the day we all love our children dearly, and we all want what is best for them and for all children.

Divisiveness is not the answer and it never will be, we will only find real solutions when the fighting stops and open discussion begins.

Tasha David is president of the Australian Vaccination-skeptics Network.

SA pharmacists to give flu shots after successful Queensland trial

Pharmacists will soon be able to administer flu vaccines. Picture: Getty Images

The Advertiser
January 13, 2015

SOUTH Australian pharmacists will be able to give flu shots this year despite opposition from the Australian Medical Association, which has warned vaccination should be about health care rather than cost.

Health Minister Jack Snelling said the move followed a successful trial in Queensland which saw an additional 11,000 people vaccinated over a five-month period.

Until now pharmacists could supply the vaccine but it had to be administered by a doctor or registered nurse.
Mr Snelling said enabling pharmacists to administer influenza vaccinations from March would help increase the immunity rate of the community. SA had a record 11,000 flu cases reported in 2014.

“Influenza is seen by many people as a relatively harmless illness, yet it affects thousands of
South Australians each year and can have a serious impact on their health,” Mr Snelling said.
“The easiest way to prevent catching the flu is to get a vaccination every year, but many
people have difficulty finding the time to book an appointment with their GP.

“Allowing pharmacists to directly administer the flu shot will encourage a greater uptake of the
vaccine in 2015.

“Having as many people as possible vaccinated against influenza each year will go a long way
towards creating a healthier community and helping to reduce the additional burden on the
health system.”

The move to allow pharmacists to directly administer the jab to people aged over 16 follows an SA price war in last year.

Chemist chain Chemist Warehouse advertised flu shots — which were administered by registered nurses — from as low as $13.99. Priceline had them for $24.50, Terry White Chemists for $25 and Chemmart for $27.95.
Prices in council clinics also varied.

The cost for a shot from a doctor depended on whether the GP charged a gap fee and what he or she charged for the vaccine. There also was a charge to Medicare.

Under the changes announced today, pharmacists will be able to provide the vaccine to those over the age of 16 who are not already eligible for a free flu shot under the National Immunisation Program.

People offered the free vaccine — including pregnant women, people over 65 and those with underlying health conditions — will still need to visit their GP to receive their shots.

Pharmacy Guild SA immediate past president Ian Todd said the move reflected the changing role of pharmacists within the community.

“Pharmacies have long been a place where members of the public can seek advice from a
trusted, easily accessible health professional,” Mr Todd said.

“The pilot program in Queensland in 2014 demonstrated that the community are happy to
receive vaccinations from their pharmacist.

“Offering vaccinations through pharmacies is a great way to reach people who may not have
had a flu shot before, which helps to increase immunity across the entire community.”

Pharmacists will need to undergo training to learn how to deliver the vaccine and to identify and treat possible side effects.

The pharmacies they worked for would also need to be accredited by SA Health and undergo an audit every two years.

Adult Vaccinations by Theresa Wrangham, NVIC Executive Director

During the National Vaccine Advisory Committee’s (NVAC) February meeting, American adults were put on notice by Big Brother that non-compliance with federal vaccine recommendations will not be tolerated. Public health officials have unveiled a new plan to launch a massive nationwide vaccination promotion campaign involving private business and non-profit organisations to pressure all adults to comply with the adult vaccination schedule approved by the Centers for Disease Control (CDC). [1]

NVAC has authored the National Adult Immunisation Plan (NAIP) and, once finalised, the plan will be turned over to the Interagency Adult Immunisation Task Force (AIFT) to create an implementation plan. Notably, this task force is composed of “vested interest” stakeholders and no consumer representation for those groups concerned with vaccine safety and informed consent.

The National Vaccine Information Centre (NVIC) has submitted our public comments and recommendations for the NVAC’s draft National Adult Immunisation Plan. [2]

What you need to know – the nutshell

The basis of the NAIP rests on Healthy People 2020 Goals, [3] many of which are arbitrary. [4] The key fact the plan seems to lose sight of in using these goals as its foundation is …THEY ARE GOALS. These goals have no legal authority over your healthcare decisions and are being used by government officials to shape public health policy, which in turn is spurring legal mandates to force you to comply with them. [5]

The adult immunisation plan also “incentivises” doctors and other vaccine providers to convert patient data into Electronic Health Record (EHR) formats that can then be shared across state and federal electronic databases to track national vaccine coverage rates and also track and identify who is and is not vaccinated. Many states already have electronic vaccine tracking registries (Immunisation Information Systems – IIS) in place, but do not share this information due to laws preventing the sharing of personal medical information and/or limited vaccination data on adults. This is where financial and other types of incentives come in to convince vaccine providers and state legislators to participate in the gathering of this private medical information on all adults.

The NAIP states that it will take more than providers raising awareness about the adult schedule and encouraging compliance to meet Healthy People 2020 goals. So the NAIP contains objectives that foster partnerships with your employer and your community and religious organisations to make you and all adults get every federally recommended vaccine according to the government-approved schedule.

The NAIP makes it clear that in the future, all American adults will be informed of the recommended adult schedule at every possible opportunity outside the healthcare provider domain. You will be encouraged to comply with the adult schedule not only by your healthcare provider, but also via community-based partnerships to ensure that you have the opportunity to roll up your sleeve at work, school, church and other community gatherings.

NVIC has always supported awareness and access to preventative healthcare options, including access to vaccines for everyone who wants to use them. However, there is a difference between awareness, access, recommendations and mandates. In the past, these types of government vaccine use plans do not just seek to increase awareness and access but also make recommendations that foster vaccine mandates without flexible medical, religious and conscientious belief exemptions that align with the informed consent ethic.

Adults should examine this plan carefully because the U.S. Constitution guarantees American citizens the right to privacy. [6] In that context, it is important to understand that the NAIP objectives include electronically harnessing your personal medical information and that of all adults for the purpose of increasing adult vaccine uptake in the U.S. by tracking your vaccination status, with little regard for your privacy. [7]

There is no language in the plan that provides for consumer privacy protections. This is a glaring omission given the acknowledged and known risks for patient data being hacked (security breaches) by malicious outside entities. [8] The plan does not include provisions for raising consumer awareness of their ability to opt out of electronic tracking and patient data sharing schemes. [9] [10]

While the NAIP also supports increased reporting to the federal Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) and ongoing analysis of claims submitted to the federal Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP), it is hollow support. For this to be meaningful, stronger language is needed to support closing vaccine safety research gaps highlighted by the Institute of Medicine’s (IOM) series of vaccine safety reports [11] to lessen the number of VICP off-the-table compensation claims.

These off-the-table claims are a direct result of the continued expansion of the numbers of government recommended adult (and childhood) vaccines without the accompanying identification of vaccine side effects and injury outcomes to expand the federal Vaccine Injury Table (VIT) that governs the awarding of vaccine injury compensation. Off-the-table adult vaccine injury claims now represent the majority of claims[12] filed with the VICP and the compensation process has become highly adversarial and costly.

As NVIC President Barbara Loe Fisher stated at the U.S. Health Freedom Congress last year when pointing out that responses to vaccines and infectious diseases are individual:

We do not all respond the same way to infectious diseases [13] and we do not all respond the same way to pharmaceutical products like vaccines. [14] [15] [16] [17] Public health laws that fail to respect biodiversity and force everyone to be treated the same are unethical and dangerous.

Vaccine mandates are made at a state level and the NAIP is a federal vaccine use promotion plan that has no legal authority to turn government vaccine use recommendations into vaccine use mandates.

However, much like the recommendations made by NVAC a few years ago for healthcare workers to receive annual flu shots, [18] these recommendations are likely to result in future de facto vaccine mandates for adults, whether through employer requirements, [19] or actual state laws. Given the introduction of legislation [20] this year in many states to remove non-medical vaccine exemptions and restrict medical exemptions for school age children in an effort to force parents to comply with the CDC’s recommended childhood vaccine schedule, there is little doubt that that the NVAC’s latest plan will result in similar actions to force adults to use all federally recommended vaccines.

One only has to read stories posted NVIC’s Cry For Vaccine Freedom Wall by healthcare workers who have refused flu shots and are being fired from their jobs to understand the threat posed by the NAIP. Is your profession next? The short answer is yes.

Make no mistake about this plan’s intent, if “awareness” efforts and “incentivisation” of vaccine policy do not increase adult vaccine uptake, the partnering with your employer and other community groups is meant to lower the hammer and force you to comply. The electronic tracking systems that are enthusiastically being embraced by not only the federal government but also state governments and employers, without regard for your privacy, will be used to identify non-compliers.

If you haven’t read Dr. Suzanne Humphries’ book Dissolving Illusions, [21] you may not realise that history is about to repeat itself. Government enforced vaccination through identification and door-to-door efforts to make everyone comply, like was seen with smallpox vaccination campaigns a century ago, is a real possibility again in America. Only this time it won’t just be about one vaccine – it will be about a lot of vaccines you will be forced to get.

The noose being tightened around the necks of our children is being thrown over the necks of adults as well. The tightening of that noose is growing daily in an attempt to strangle vaccine freedom of choice by eradicating the ethical principle of informed consent.

Adults and their children are being asked to accept a one-size-fits-all vaccine schedule that does not allow for the ability to delay or decline one or more vaccines for religious and conscientious beliefs. This is very dangerous when the medical exemption has been narrowed by government so that almost no health condition qualifies for a medical exemption anymore. Families already personally impacted by vaccine reactions, injuries and deaths will be faced with more loss, including their financial stability if they are forced to be revaccinated.
The human right to protect bodily integrity and autonomy – the core value of the informed consent ethic – is at stake.

This battle is not about an anti- or pro- vaccine position. It is a battle over freedom, values and beliefs. [22]
What is at risk is your ability as a parent and individual to decide what medical risks you are willing to accept and vaccination is the forefront of this battle.

For over three decades NVIC has supported informed consent protections in all U.S. vaccine laws and policies, which means that parents and individuals must receive full and accurate information on vaccine risks and benefits and retain the right to make voluntary decisions to accept, delay or decline one or more vaccines without being sanctioned for they decision they make.

Your rights are being eroded and vaccine exemptions are under aggressive attack in many states. NVIC will continue to advocate for your freedom as we have done for over 30 years, but this battle will not be won without your voice and action.

1 CDC. Recommended Adult Immunization Schedule. Feb. 3, 2015.
2 NVAC. Draft National Adult Immunization Plan. Feb. 5, 2014.
3 Healthy Immunization and Infections Diseases.
4 A Perspective on the Development of the Healthy People 2020 Framework for Improving U.S. Population Health. Public Health Reviews. Vol. 35, No 1. 2013
5 CDC. Vaccines and Immunizations. State Immunization Laws for Healthcare Workers and Patients. Nov. 19, 2014.
6 Cornell University Law School. U.S. Constitution – First Amendment Table of Contents, Invasion of Privacy.
7 TEDxTraverseCity 2014. Designing Technology to Restore Privacy. Deborah C. Peel, MD.
8 Fourth Annual Benchmark Study on Patient Privacy & Data Security, Ponemon Institute, Mar 2014
9 Health information exchanges introduce patient consent questions. K. Terry. Medical Economics. Jul. 8, 2014
10 CDC Immunization Services Division Presentation on IIS & Health People 2020 Goals to the National Vaccine Advisory Committee, Sep. 2013
11 National Vaccine Advisory Committee – White Paper on U.S. Vaccine Safety System. Sep. 2011.
12 Report from the Department of Justice. Advisory Commission on Childhood Vaccines (ACCV) Certified Minutes. Pg 8. Sep. 2014.
13 Hill AVS. Genetics and Genomics of Infectious Disease Susceptibility. British Medical Bulletin 1999; 55(2): 401-413.
14 Kinman TG, Vandebriel RJ, Hoebee B. Genetic variation in the response to vaccination. Community Genet 2007; 10(4): 201-217.
15 Lemaire D, Barbosa T, Rihet P. Coping with genetic diversity: the contribution of pathogen and human genomics to modern vaccinology. Braz J Med Biol Res 2012; 45(5): 376-385.
16 Institute of Medicine Committee to Review Adverse Effects of Vaccines. Adverse Effects of Vaccinations: Evidence and Causality. Evaluating Biological Mechanisms of Adverse Events: Increased Susceptibility. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press 2012.
17 DHHS. Vaccine Injury Compensation Program Data and Statistics. HRSA Updated monthly.
18 University of Minnesota. NVAC approves recommendations on health worker flu vaccination. Lisa Schnirring. CIDRAP News & Perspective. Feb. 8, 2012.
19 NVIC. Forcing Flu Shots on Health Care Workers: Who Is Next?. NVIC eNewsletter. Barbara Loe Fisher. Sep. 29, 2010.
20 NVIC Advocacy. Action Alerts and Bills Monitored.
21 Humphries, S. MD. Bystrianyk, R. Dissolving Illusions: Disease, Vaccines, and the Forgotten History. Jul. 27 2013.
22 NVIC. The Vaccine Culture War in America: Are You Ready?. NVIC eNewsletter. Barbara Loe Fisher. Mar. 8, 2015

GetUp and Sherri Tenpenny Tour

GetUp lists this as one of their great achievements. I have unsubscribed from their organisation as a result. Kathy S


News broke that a notorious American “anti-vaxxer” was planning on touring Australia to encourage parents to not vaccinate their children. Sherri Tenpenny was set to make a significant profit from passing off dangerous misinformation as medical science, so GetUp member Yury decided to take action.

Yury started his own campaign on CommunityRun – the platform GetUp provides for anyone to start their own campaign – urging the venues hosting Sherri Tenpenny’s events to consider cancelling her events.

One by one, the venues hosting the anti-vaccination events cancelled Sherri Tenpenny’s booking until only two remained. Armed with his 8000-signature-strong CommunityRun petition, Yury explained the enormous public risk and community opposition to the spread of misinformation to the two remaining venues.

And it worked: after every single venue cancelled the anti-immunisation events, Sherri Tenpenny then cancelled her trip to Australia, leaving our kids safely in the hands of science and common sense.

Alex Hodges wrote to GetUp:

I am absolutely disgusted that an organisation which I have supported since it started, would then come out with a bulletin praising the bullying and harassment of a speaker who was coming from the USA to cover the little known subject of negative vaccine side effects.

What she was going to speak about is covered in dozens of books which I have in my library, many of them written by doctors, microbiologists, investigative health journalists, alternative health practitioners and others. There are thousands of scientific references in these publications. So how dare you praise the bullying and harassment of this speaker, her venues and people who had booked to attend her lectures? Don’t you realise that this is a VERY BAD LOOK for an organisation which is supposed to champion free speech and our democratic right to hear both sides of any subject!!!

After studying the whole issue of vaccines and so-called “immunisation” (a misnomer if ever there was one), it is my opinion and the opinion of millions of learned people with imagination that vaccines are one of the biggest scams being pushed onto an ignorant and uninformed public, on the planet today. In fact, these injections full of toxic poisons and viruses are causing massive ill health and even death, in susceptible, immune-suppressed people.
Vaccine manufacturers put out all the information about their very lucrative products; hardly a balanced source of information. By the way, are you now going to campaign against anyone wanting to come on a lecture tour, to speak on subjects you don’t agree with? Don’t you understand that this attack on free speech is a very dangerous precedent?

Please unsubscribe me from GetUp as I am not interested in an organisation which is obviously not what it seems.

Ms Alex Hodges Birdwood 5234

Hi Alex,

Thanks so much for taking the time to write in about this.

We received enough emails from other GetUp members who felt concerned about Dr Tenpenny’s visit prior to this community campaign being created, to feel like we should share the campaign with our Facebook supporters and give them the opportunity to get involved, if they wanted to. We surveyed a random sample of 30,000 GetUp members on this specific issue, and more than 76% said they would support a Community Run campaign that asks venues not to host her tour.

We should all be free to express our opinions on issues, but should individuals be free to spread misinformation as though it’s factual? It seems there are a number of views on this question in the GetUp community – and this is something we’re interested in exploring the intricacies of in more detail. Rather than preventing Dr Tenpenny’s access to free speech, we perceived this petition as an avenue to ask venues whether they want to be associated with Dr Tenpenny’s dangerous misinformation. If you take a look at the petition text, it’s target is Australian venues — and urging them not to be complicit in amplifying the messages on Dr Tenpenny’s tour.

Free speech is incredibly important to the GetUp movement, and we’ve campaigned in the past for issues like freedom of the press and issues surrounding Wikileaks. This CommunityRun campaign appeared to strike the right balance between respecting freedom of speech (for example, not attempting to block her entry into the country) while also trying to minimise the spread of really dangerous misinformation in our community.

According to the World Health Organisation, immunisation is a proven tool for controlling and eliminating life-threatening infectious diseases and is estimated to avert between 2 and 3 million deaths each year. Trusting this information, it was decided that the term ‘dangerous misinformation’ was appropriate. This isn’t to say that we knew better than Dr. Tenpenny, rather it gave GetUp substantial reason to believe that if her research were to be presented as fact, there’s a chance that children would be put at risk. After the survey results indicated that a majority of GetUp members agreed, we concluded that it was appropriate to promote the campaign.

This is a complex and controversial issue, and when we go out on a limb, it’s really excellent to get feedback on what the community thinks of it – so thanks for being a part of that. I’m really glad you took the time to let us know what you thought of this campaign, and again, thank you for taking the time to do so. The clear, honest feedback that we’ve received from members like yourself has been invaluable, and will be really helpful in making decisions about how we’ll act in opportunities like this in the future.

The entire GetUp community is never going to agree on everything, and that’s not only okay – it’s what makes our movement strong. We’re a broad and diverse movement with varied views — so even if you don’t agree with this CommunityRun campaign, we hope you stick around to be a part of others in the future.

Thanks again for writing in about this, GetUp really does rely on the feedback from members like yourself and we appreciate members like you who are willing to speak up.

Don’t hesitate to get back in touch if you have any questions or if there’s anything else we can do for you,
Best wishes! (name withheld)

Hi all of you in Australia,

I just wanted to share a phone call I had with Medicare regarding school enrollments and the Immunisation Certificate that most school enrollment forms state are necessary.

I was lucky enough to talk a very nice lady who told me that Medicare now can send you an official letter that states that your child/ren has a lodged Conscientious Objection Form and this is what you give to your school/preschool when you enroll them. One letter can be used for all of your children that have CO forms, which for me is really convenient lol!

She is also sending out the Immunisation(Vaccination) History Statement just in case I need it but she said that most schools now only require the Medicare letter, she also said you can use it for your children when they get older and want to enroll in other settings that may require vaccination status.

I was really lucky to been put through to the right operator I think! Anyway I thought it may be useful info for anyone looking to enroll their child in school…:) -Tasha David

Kathy – My 13yr old son in year 8 has just received the consent form for 3 vaccinations. What I need to know is:
What are the consequences if I do NOT complete the consent form?

 What are the consequences if he does not go to school that day?
 What is the consequence of saying NO on the form to all vaccinations?
 Is there a conscientious objection form I can complete? (Much like the one we completed when he was 1yr old)
 What advice can you give in general in this situation?

Reply –
Briefly there are no consequences on paper and no requirement to even submit the form. If you can reply and tick the no consent form it should be respected but I would suggest having a conversation to be clear with the school. You can tell them that you do not want vaccines administered at school and will deal with outside of school if that helps. As long as your son understands and agrees that they will not be vaccinating him he will be alright on the day. You do not need to complete any conscientious objection forms – there isn’t a universal one for this age group anyway. The consequence is when the teachers or students chose to vilify your son for not being vaccinated, Hence the suggestion to just say you deal with this privately. I vividly remember coming home when my youngest (now 22) was in year 8 and had torn the HepB form to shreds on the front door step. I didn’t have a form to reply on!

The World Health Organization: no game of thrones

Editor’s Choice

Kamran Abbasi, international editor, The BMJ

Have you heard of the World Health Assembly? Do you have any idea of its purpose or any sense of its effectiveness? Even people who have attended the annual meeting of the 194 member states of the World Health Organization might struggle to answer the second of those questions. The arena at the Palais de Nations in Geneva, where the assembly is held, is designed for important decisions about international health, such as how to respond to the threat of Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus or the prioritisation of rapid diagnostic tests for malaria (doi:10.1136/bmj.g4123, doi:10.1136/bmj.g3846, doi:10.1136/bmj.g3730). Politicians, lobbyists, bureaucrats, technocrats, business people, and interpreters—mostly the rulers in the world of international health and a few of the ruled—gather to network, promote agendas, debate, and lunch in the hope of inching us closer to a healthier world. The World Health Assembly is Game of Thrones with smartphones for swords and no murders in the great hall.

Deaths may occur elsewhere, especially in poorer countries, because of the decisions taken here, although deaths are more likely to occur because not enough decisions are taken. The assembly has become a marketplace and a talking shop, confused in purpose between technical meeting and political gathering. Ilona Kickbusch and Mathias Bonk argue that health is a political choice and that the World Health Assembly is at heart a political, not a technical, meeting and that it should behave politically and act decisively to ensure that it has an impact (doi:10.1136/bmj.g4079). Herein lies the dilemma for WHO, which is more comfortable being a technical organisation and whose political forays can create bigger problems than they solve. This conflict in purpose helps explain the failure of the World Health Assembly to have an impact and might lead you to question WHO’s ability to transform the assembly in the way our editorialists recommend.

WHO is struggling in other ways. Its core budget has atrophied, explain Sridhar and colleagues (doi:10.1136/bmj.g3841), and the slack is being taken up by powerful stakeholders. The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and the US and UK governments were responsible for 80% of WHO’s total budget in 2013 but also seek control over how the funds are spent. A desire to interfere in disbursements is understandable: corruption in healthcare, for example, is a major concern for donors (doi:10.1136/bmj.g4184, doi:10.1136/bmj.g3169). But this interference undermines WHO’s role, and poorer countries then worry that WHO is an agent for rich nations with political agendas—the powers behind the throne of international health. Some commentators conclude that these failings question WHO’s very existence. Sridhar and colleagues instead argue that the solution is to fix WHO’s financial problems to ensure its independence and neutrality, as it is the only international agency that can tackle the threats to health security across the world.

Perhaps WHO is a victim of the rise of the medical-industrial complex, described in 1977 by Arnold Relman, then editor of the New England Journal of Medicine, to signify the intrusion of investor owned businesses in the health system (doi:10.1136/bmj.g4212). Problematic funding and ineffective governance are serious threats to any organisation. They are increasingly a life or death issue for WHO, and they require resolution. There should be no thrones. This is no game.

Cite this as: BMJ 2014;348:g4265