Social Services Legislation Amendment (No Jab, No Pay) Bill 2015

Transcription

1 Social Services Legislation Amendment (No Jab, No Pay) Bill 2015 Summary All sections of the Social Services Legislation Amendment, (No Jab, No Pay) Bill 2015 should be extinguished on the grounds that it is a perverse encroachment into the rights of parents and the child where the extent of the parental rights to determine the risk of an invasive medical procedure and avoid such risk as they deem fit without financial threat or coercion in making that decision by the Australian Government. Interference by the government in the parents rights would contravene the Informed Consent to medical procedures where the outcome of such procedure may not have been anticipated and/or harm caused. If the government were to proceed with the provisions in the Bill it must accept all responsibility and liability for any harm caused. Personal experience with vaccines At age 7 the school I attended was selected to be one of three to participate in a vaccine program. A consent form was sent home with children and my parents did not consent to the vaccine being administered however the authorities ignored the consent forms and I was administered the vaccine. Several children suffered serious adverse reactions to the vaccine: swollen glands, nausea, encephalitis & cardiac arrhythmia requiring removal from school and treatment by a physician. Symptoms persisted for 6 months. I was one of those children. 30 years watching the vaccine debate My conclusion in 2015 after my experience, is that parental rights to choose the best option for their children is paramount whether they choose to vaccinate or not without coercion by government incentives, physician or media. A parent choosing to vaccinate their child after reading the original vaccine insert and safety warnings is

2 providing Informed Consent on behalf of their child: Informed consent refers to consent to medical treatment and the requirement to warn of material risk prior to treatment. 1 A parent that chooses not to vaccinate must be free to do so. - In the United States, pharmaceutical companies regularly face unprecedented fines under the False Claims Act and have paid over $11 billion in fines. 2 - US Department of Health and Human Services state that the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP) allows individuals to file a claim for financial compensation. Total compensation paid over the life of the program is approximately $3.2 billion 3 - American Center for Disease Control (CDC) admitted to omitting data that showed an increased risk of regression autism amongst African American male children 4, original letter from Dr. Thompson expressing concerns to Dr. Gerberding, the head of the CDC at the time, about this problematic study 5 an independent published study concludes The design and reporting of safety outcomes in MMR vaccine studies, both pre- and post-marketing, are largely inadequate. The evidence of adverse events following immunisation with the MMR vaccine cannot be separated from its role in preventing the target diseases. 6 - In Australia and Australian vaccine manufacturer : A FLU vaccine banned for children and found to trigger the most side-effects in adults has again been selected for the nation's flu immunisation program, on the grounds an Australian-made product would guarantee supply. Taxpayers will spend $117 million on a contract for Australian pharmaceutical giant CSL to supply the nation s seasonal and pandemic flu vaccines until CSL's Fluvax product remains banned for children younger than five, having triggered febrile convulsions in one in 100 children in The federal Health Department's Therapeutic Goods Administration, which has yet to determine the cause of the fits in children, has released new data revealing Fluvax was four times more likely to trigger side-effects in adults than two rival vaccines. 7 Perth mother Kirsten Button, whose toddler Saba suffered brain damage after her Fluvax shot in 2010, said yesterday she was "shocked" the government would award the contract to CSL when it did not

3 know why Fluvax had caused so many febrile convulsions. "What assurance does the public have, when they have not explained to us what happened with Fluvax in the first place?" Ms Button said. Call for vaccination injury compensation scheme In the United States the Supreme Court upheld the umbrella protection provided by the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, a law that created a special program to handle disputes in an effort to ensure a stable vaccine supply by shielding companies from most lawsuits. 8 In Australia, Professor Kelly, who is also head of the Victorian Infectious Diseases Reference Laboratory, said 19 countries had set up no-fault compensation schemes for children who suffer serious vaccinerelated problems. In many cases the schemes are funded by a levy on manufacturers when the vaccines are sold. The chief executive of the Public Health Association of Australia, Michael Moore, backed the call for a scheme and said it should be introduced by the federal government in its next national immunisation strategy. SMH 2011 Call for vaccination injury compensation scheme A spokesman for Health Minister Nicola Roxon said although the federal government was developing a national immunisation strategy this year, it would not set up a compensation scheme. He would not explain the reasons why the government rejected the idea. 9 Victim of flu vaccine debacle suing State Government When I experienced my own adverse vaccine reaction the family pediatrician said not to bother pursuing the authorities for any answers or seek compensation. They would close ranks and send you broke trying to get justice they would destroy your family. Vaccination is a Sacred Cow that has devastating consequences when it goes wrong. When a child suffers, the entire family suffers when you can t get swift justice, we all suffer.

4 Why is the Vaccine Industry the only industry to be so well protected by legislators? Why won t the government introduce no-fault compensation? Why does the government intend to pursue coercive measures, without compensation? The family of a West Australian child left severely disabled after receiving a flu jab has reached a settlement with the vaccine's manufacturer and the State Government. Saba Button suffered brain and organ damage after getting the Fluvax shot when she was 11 months old in Her parents launched legal action in the Federal Court against the vaccine's manufacturer, CSL Limited. CSL cross-claimed against the State of WA and the Health Minister. All parties have reached a confidential settlement which has today been accepted by Federal Court Justice Michael Barker. Any party supporting No Jab, No Pay are ethically bankrupt Today in Australia, families of children damaged or killed by vaccines are forced into the legal system to obtain compensation for a product whose manufacturer is protected like no other manufacturer in any other industry. It took the Button family 4 years stress, distress, money, perseverance to fight a system that cares so little for those damaged by vaccine products.

5 Conclusion No Jab, No Pay MUST NOT proceed unless the compensation issue is resolved AND/OR a test is administered PRIOR to the vaccine to identify children most at risk for adverse reactions to the vaccine components. Vaccine manufacturers are aware of the medical /genetic conditions that predispose certain children to adverse reactions and if coercion is to be used like No Jab. No Pay then, provide the test(s) AT NO CHARGE TO THE RECIPIENT. The collateral damage accepted by manufacturers and governments is an unacceptable price for those harmed.

6 Additional Resources Government 'too cosy with flu vaccine maker' Frank DeStefano, MD, MPH (Original Slides show increased MMR Risk) Stefanoslides.pdf Article 7 - International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. In particular, no one shall be subjected without his free consent to medical or scientific experimentation. If the outcome of a procedure may have undesirable effects, it becomes an experiment on the physiology of that individual. Informed consent without coercion is essential.