Anti-vaccine lobby spreads more lies about Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation

Just over three weeks ago I came across an email sent to Australia’s premier anti-vaccination organisation, headed India kicks out Gates Foundation. The author offered a YouTube link and the observation “Some good news. Conflict of interest in vaccine policy & Gates ties with big pharma.”

I followed the link and ended up at The Corbett Report channel and an episode of New World Next Week, entitled India kicks out Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. This exercise in conspiracy theory and misinformation was presented by James Corbett and James Evan Pilato – the latter of Media Monarchy. The channel blurb tells us that the gig, “covers some of the most important developments in open source intelligence news”. No, really.

During the introduction James Evan Pilato tells us, “Bill Gates gets the boot, we’ve got that story…”. When he finally gets to “that story” Pilato cherry picks enough material to tell a nodding Corbett that;

A lotta times it’s kinda like whack a mole with eugenics obsessed so-called elites like the Gates Foundation but we’ll take a good whack on ’em. James…?

How utterly charming.

Corbett thinks this is “exactly right” but is not sure this spells “the end of Gates’ immunisation plans”.

Sigh. Perhaps Corbett might have simply stated that he’d read what was being reported by Reuters, a day before Corbett Report was uploaded. Primarily, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (BMGF) have not been “kicked out” of India. Nor is it true, as the masters of feverish antivaccinationism at Vac Truth proclaimed, that “India holds Bill Gates accountable for his vaccine crimes”. And no, the Foundation has not been “found guilty of fraud” as another den of Internet rubbish contended.

This issue is about image, perceived “conflict of interest issues” and the influence of India-centric forces upon government. So who is involved and how does it line up?

India’s peak immunisation advisory body is the National Technical Advisory Group on Immunisation (NTAGI). This body was being serviced by the Immunisation Technical Support Unit (ITSU). The ITSU is funded by the BMGF. This funding arrangement has been in place for years. The ITSU monitors and strategises New Delhi’s immunisation programme which is estimated to reach 27 million infants per year.

Around 2000, the BMGF initially committed $750 million to the Vaccine Alliance (newly launched GAVI) and presently have donated over $1.5 billion. GAVI is partnered with large vaccine companies. A fact that is integral to GAVI’s funding and co-financing policies.

It is the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation backing of GAVI that leads to the apparent conflict of interest. But why is this a problem?

The Indian government’s decision comes after influence from senior medical officials and organisations such as Swadeshi Jagran Manch (SJM). SJM is firmly opposed to multinational corporations and operates under an India-centric philosophy. The argument raised time and again against the present immunisation funding arrangement is that it may shape vaccination policy and strategy.

In December 2015 an independent policy watchdog released a study advising caution against international philanthropy and BMGF for this very reason. Nonetheless India had already implemented a wide raft of restrictions on non-governmental organisations to ensure more effective decision making in major policy areas. In 2016 dozens of foreign-funded health experts working in public welfare were dismissed by order of the Indian government.

According to Reuters a spokeswoman for the ITSU recently said the grant ends this month, and;

We are in advanced stages of discussion with the ministry on the contours of the next phase of technical support.

The perception of a possible conflict of interest leading to vaccine policy influence means that the government, and not BMGF, will now fund a key ITSU unit responsible for assisting the NTAGI. A senior health ministry official Soumya Swaminathan said of the funding change that the government felt there was a need to completely manage it on its own. On February 8th she told Reuters;

There was a perception that an external agency is funding it, so there could be influence.

Reuters continued;

Swaminathan, however, stressed there were no instances of influence found and the decision was only in part prompted by a wider perception about foreign funding of the program.

The ITSU also runs units responsible for tracking vaccination coverage and logistics management. These will continue to be funded by BMGF.

Thus the tale of Gates being kicked out of India for fraud and “vaccine crimes” is slanderous fiction. Even the claim that his ties to pharmaceutical companies reveal a conflict of interest demanding banishment is in error. Merely the perception of a conflict of interest may exist. It has been argued that ties to the pharmaceutical industry may influence India’s vaccination strategy.

The reprehensible contention that Bill Gates or the BMGF are involved in eugenics or seek population control via genocide that’s inexplicably caused by vaccines, is a favourite revulsion spread by antivaccinationists, based upon one intentionally misrepresented statement from Bill Gates.

Other quotes from Gates reveal how far from reality this notion is;

The metric of success is lives saved, kids who aren’t crippled. Which is slightly different than units sold, profits achieved. But it’s all very measurable, and you can set ambitious goals and see how you do.

[…]

I’d be deeply disappointed, [if in the next 25 years he can’t lower the death toll by 80%. Otherwise,] we’re just not doing our job very well.

Melinda Gates has observed;

If a mother and father know their child is going to live to adulthood, they start to naturally reduce their population size.

Those against vaccines are of course against Gates. Misrepresenting the relationship between vaccine preventable disease and population growth is something antivaccinationists do purposefully, due to the internalisation of conspiracy theories or through an inability to understand evidence.

Two years before the BMGF was formed Gates and his wife funded a John Hopkins project to use computers to educate women in the developing world about contraception. Family planning has become a key focus of BMGF. Initially there was a basic equation involved.

Health = resources ÷ population.

A similar formula underscored his multibillion-dollar funding of education reform. With smaller class sizes teachers could devote more time to students, resulting in better educated and smarter children.

Success = teachers ÷ students.

Where vaccine preventable diseases ravage communities in developing countries parents face the probability their children will die or be disabled. If not, long periods of illness severely compromise the chances of completing a comprehensive education which may be followed with further study or employment. Faced with this harsh reality families will consequently be large, increasing the chances of children surviving to adulthood and being able to contribute to family and community life.

The availability of vaccines removes these hardships. Children have the opportunity to survive, remain healthy and grow to adulthood. More so they can do this with a basic education, a university education and far greater chances in the employment market. In this way families do not have to be as large and children can advance to a socioeconomic status greater than their parents. As Melinda Gates so succinctly put it, when parents know their children will live a healthy life, a reduction in population size is natural.

Other unjustified claims levelled by the anti-vaccine lobby against the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation relate to accusations of reckless HPV vaccine administration in India by the trial’s managers resulting in fatalities and illness. In short serious vaccine injury. BMGF had funded the $3.6 million HPV vaccine trial, which was halted following the deaths of seven girls involved. The trial’s managers were absolved by state investigations. The managers were the Program for Appropriate Technology in Health (PATH) and the Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR) in New Delhi.

As reported in Science;

Five were evidently unrelated to the vaccine: One girl drowned in a quarry; another died from a snake bite; two committed suicide by ingesting pesticides; and one died from complications of malaria. The causes of death for the other two girls were less certain: one possibly from pyrexia, or high fever, and a second from a suspected cerebral hemorrhage.

Government investigators concluded that the link between vaccination and pyrexia was “very unlikely” and between stroke and vaccine “unlikely”. However in 2010 a health ministry appointed panel concluded there were shortcomings and ethical lapses in the trial. In August 2013 an all-party parliamentary panel came down very harshly on PATH, and levelled an “astonishing allegation” accusing PATH of ignoring women’s health in the hope of convincing India to add HPV vaccination to it’s roster.

PATH released a statement which included;

…we strongly disagree with the findings, conclusions, and tone of the released report and its disregard of the evidence and facts.

Although the BMGF was not targetted by the panel for it’s role in funding, it said in a statement;

[That] the World Health Organization, the International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics, and the Federation of Obstetric and Gynaecological Societies of India all have recommended vaccination “as a proven and highly effective preventive measure for cervical cancer.”

Read the Science article for a better understanding of this controversy.

One should not be surprised at this latest attempt to smear the name of BMGF given the history of antivaccinationists misrepresenting evidence. This piece from Skeptical Raptor covers “anti-vaccine hatred” levelled at Gates’ vaccination programmes in Africa. I’m not surprised to see Mike Adams of Natural News feature with a splendid pack of lies.

What we can be absolutely sure of at present is that the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation has not been “kicked out of India”, for the imagined vaccine crimes and fraud that antivaccinationists would have unsuspecting readers believe. They still fund tracking vaccination coverage and logistics management at India’s ITSU. The ITSU will be partially funded by India’s health ministry. The changes are part of India’s larger clampdown on non-governmental organisations to allow control over policy decisions.

Whilst India ordered the dismissal of foreign-funded health experts last year the BMGF was not one. The so-called “Gates ties with Big Pharma” relate to vaccine policy design and are perceived only, due to the BMGF backing of GAVI. A senior health ministry official stressed there were no instances of policy design influence found.

And no. Bill Gates has not, does not and will not use vaccines for eugenics or as an instrument of global depopulation.

He has never proposed anything of the sort.

AVSN president Tasha David misleads ‘We Are Vaxxed’ audience

Current president of the Australian Vaccination Skeptics Network, Tasha David, visited Atlanta Georgia in the USA to attend the so-called “CDC Truth rally”.

This caper was a big deal for antivaccinationists obsessed with the dishonest, deceptive film Vaxxed. In forming a view about the push to promote Vaxxed and the individuals involved it is important to understand how utterly false and potentially harmful it is. Like most outspoken antivaccinationists Tasha David keeps reminding us of her own dishonesty.

Whilst in the US, on the weekend of October 15-16, David joined the parade of vaccine victims appearing as video subjects for We Are Vaxxed. Although dishonest throughout her stint it is the first lies she offers that are so patently absurd. Initially David offers:

The government made us change our own name because we’re not allowed to choose our own name in Australia, so that’s basically one of the reasons why we’re here because in Australia we don’t have a Bill of rights we don’t have guaranteed freedom of speech, so we’re not allowed to speak on a lot of things.

Freedom of speech? Bill of Rights? Not allowed to choose our own name in Australia? Oh my. The government had “made us change our own name”? Balderdash and Blubberblurt. The Australian Vaccination-Skeptics Network are obsessed with manipulating discourse and social media to keep their prior name – the Australian Vaccination Network (AVN) – alive.

The AVN was formed in 1994. Twenty years later Tasha David became president. Clearly the AVN had a long run with the name they had chosen. It was however a confusing name and always intended to deceive. Regrettably the official sounding name was successful in fooling members of the public, and a legitimate midwifery organisation listed the AVN as reputable. The NSW Department of Fair Trading received complaints to this effect.

In December 2012 they ordered the AVN to change its name within two months or be deregistered. Minister for Fair Trading at the time, Anthony Roberts, said the group’s name “is confusing and has misled the public as to its operational intention”. The order was a huge blow to the twisted morale of the group which thrived on whenever possible snubbing regulators and mocking the vital purpose of regulation. They unsuccessfully challenged the order and by March 2014 changed their name to the Australian Vaccination-Skeptics Network.

By the time of the name change the Fair Trading Minister was Stuart Ayers. The ABC reported:

Fair Trading Minister Stuart Ayres says the association’s original name was misleading.

“The title wasn’t reflecting their strong anti-vaccination stance and so we after receiving numerous complaints requested them to change their name,” he said.

“They’ve now complied with that request and the new title reflects their anti-vaccination stance.”

The Australian Medical Association (AMA) says it hopes the name change makes sure the organisation is not mistaken for a government agency.

It would appear that David’s intellectually contorted statement suggesting government strong arm tactics and suppression of free speech is a calculated lie crafted to gain sympathy. In reality it is the health of Australian democracy and Fair Trading legislation that led to the order to change their deceptive name.

  • Listen to the first 2 min of David’s interview. NB: I edited out the confusion around live video streaming but have not altered the commentary in any way.

Tasha David continues:

I see that you guys are up in arms about that new CDC um, rule we’ve been talking about – forced vaccinating um, children, or people basically in the US. But I’m really sad to say that they’ve already passed that law in Australia. It’s called the Biosecurity Act 2015 so basically, um, they can force vaccinate you if you have a disease or um, some kind of illness that is a risk to human health.

Now that could be anything. Could be a cold you know, so we’ve already got the legislation in place. I haven’t seen it be used yet but the fact that it’s even in place is scary to me, you know, so…

Here, David is contending that forced vaccination is a reality in Australia if circumstances meet conditions outlined in the Biosecurity Act 2015. She further contends that the Act permits forced vaccination of an individual suffering “some kind of illness that is a risk to human health… that could be anything… could be a cold”. Putting aside David’s alarming lack of understanding the role of vaccination we should look closer at the Biosecurity Act 2015.

The Act is headed, An Act relating to diseases and pests that may cause harm to human, animal or plant health or the environment, and for related purposes.

The HTML version I’ve linked to has 681 pages, including endnotes. The word “vaccination” appears eleven times, the majority of these being in subsections or related sections. That is to say this vast document does not present a number of novel reasons for vaccination. Rather parts of the Act describe when vaccination is relevant to interpretation and application of the Act.

David is in error when claiming the Biosecurity Act 2015 deals with “anything” or “a cold”. The diseases this Act is designed to manage are in fact far removed from such a dismissive notion. Chapter 2 – Managing biosecurity risks: human health includes Listing Human Diseases:

(1)  The Director of Human Biosecurity may, in writing, determine that a human disease is a listed human disease if the Director considers that the disease may:
(a)  be communicable; and
(b)  cause significant harm to human health.
(2)  Before making a determination under this section, the Director of Human Biosecurity must consult with:
(a)  the chief health officer (however described) for each State and Territory; and
(b)  the Director of Biosecurity.
(3)  A determination made under this section is a legislative instrument, but section 42 (disallowance) of the Legislative Instruments Act 2003 does not apply to the instrument.

With regard to Human Biosecurity Control Orders it should be noted that these are not applied frivolously and when an individual objects to the application of such measures the Director of Human Biosecurity “must take into account any factors that may affect the health of the individual”. Thus an established risk to an individual of an adverse reaction from vaccination would prevent administration of a vaccine.

With respect to imposing biosecurity measures the Act includes, in Chapter 2:

[Protections] aim to ensure that a power is exercised, or biosecurity measure imposed, only when circumstances are sufficiently serious to justify it, and only if it would be effective, it is appropriate and adapted for its purpose, and it is no more restrictive or intrusive than is required. [Protection] also ensures that the requirements of this Chapter do not interfere with an individual’s urgent or life‑threatening medical needs.

It’s important to realise with respect to disease a great deal of this Act and the application of biosecurity measures involve individuals entering Australian territory and the operation of aircraft or vessels entering or leaving Australia. Managing risks to human health include human biosecurity control orders. Section 59 of the Act includes:

A human biosecurity control order that is in force in relation to an individual may require the individual to comply with certain biosecurity measures. [Those measures] include vaccination, restricting the individual’s behaviour and ordering the individual to remain isolated.

In Division 2 of the Act it states under Entry Requirements (bold mine):

The Health Minister may determine one or more requirements for individuals who are entering Australian territory at a landing place or port.

for an individual to provide either:
(i)  a declaration as to whether the individual has received a specified vaccination or other prophylaxis within a specified previous period; or
(ii)  evidence that the individual has received a specified vaccination or other prophylaxis within a specified previous period

With respect to vaccination identical requirements exist under Exit Requirements.

Unvaccinated Australians are freely travelling to and from the country without being vaccinated against potential disease. Despite the Biosecurity Act travellers have brought measles to Australia, resulting in a sixteen year diagnostic high in 2014. Tasha David may claim that under this Act a simple cold could lead to forced vaccination, but there was no evidence of Human Biosecurity Control Orders in the wake of a recent measles outbreak in Melbourne. David would benefit from understanding just why she hasn’t seen this Act used to force vaccination for trivial reasons.

Section 74 of the Act notes when an individual is expected to comply with a biosecurity measure. Subsection (2) reads:

The individual is required to comply with the measure only if:
(a)  the individual consents to the measure; or
(b)  the Director of Human Biosecurity has given a direction for the individual to comply with the measure…

Section 92: Receiving a vaccination or treatment:

An individual may be required by a human biosecurity control order to receive, at a specified medical facility:
(a)  a specified vaccination; or
(b)  a specified form of treatment;
in order to manage the listed human disease specified in the order, and any other listed human disease.

With respect to the use of force one notes Section 95: No use of force to require compliance with certain biosecurity measures:

Force must not be used against an individual to require the individual to comply with a biosecurity measure imposed under any of sections 85 to 93.

Note: Force may be used in preventing an individual leaving Australian territory in contravention of a traveller movement measure (see section 101) or in detaining a person who fails to comply with an isolation measure (see section 104).

Thus contrary to Tasha David’s claim that, “they can force vaccinate you” under implementation of the Biosecurity Act 2015, we can see in this case that the Act itself prevents forced vaccination. It’s clear that no force can be used for the imposition of biosecurity measures under Sections 85 to 93. Vaccination, being Section 92, falls within this range.

No doubt antivaccinationists will disagree with any legislation that involves vaccination to protect the public from serious disease. What is important however is to underscore how this group will continually mislead the public without compunction. The Biosecurity Act 2015 is not used for just “anything” or simple “colds”. Nor does it permit forced vaccination.

David continues with considerable more nonsense. Offensive, crude dishonesty. Her next target is No Jab No Pay but it is the impact she claims to have observed that is quite sickening.

So these people that are single parents that don’t have that money to pay, you know that need that money just to survive… they can’t work, they can’t afford child care. So they’re basically on the street. We have so many stories on our web site of people living in cars, that are having abortions because they can’t afford to have a child in Australia now because of these laws.

Typically there is no evidence for these claims. If they were true the right thing for Tasha David to do would be to advise these individuals to have their children vaccinated and thus be eligible for the payments in question. Or perhaps the AVSN could help with some of that donated cash instead of spending it on trips to the USA.

Either way I doubt the AVSN will change their deceptive habits.

Andrew Denton on Assisted Dying

Earlier this month Andrew Denton presented what might be called his findings on the need for assisted dying, or voluntary euthanasia in Australia. Without this legislation one Victorian per week suicides to escape pain. Just one state. These mainly “elderly violent suicides” are composed in the book Denton released on August 10th titled The Damage Done.

Denton has travelled to Belgian, The Netherlands and Oregon where assisted dying legislation exists in law. Whilst there are differences and similarities in these laws it was what such legislation is not that is most striking to the Australian situation at present. There is no sign that the many horrors organised opponents insist will accompany such legislation exist.

No slippery slope. No sanctioned killing of the disabled, the elderly, the sick or the frail. No sign of greedy family members metaphorically marching a family member to an early unwanted demise. The legislation itself presents this from happening by ensuring the decision is that of the individual in question.

An individual must be of sound mind, enduring intolerable suffering, aware of the consequences of their decision and checked and double checked by separate, independent physicians. There are many reasons why the fear conjured by self-appointed moral guardians is simply fallacious. Not least, in their own words, organised planning to distort facts and feed the public and legislators unrealistic images as to what assisted dying would mean.

Denton presents the primary four “myths” that sustain opposition to the much needed and compassionate legislation that would see assisted dying a right in Australia. These are demolished with more than enough hard evidence gleaned from where assisted dying is legal. Furthermore these points and many more are embellished. Australians it seems, are fed deception. With over 80% in favour and under 10% in opposition to assisted dying the orchestrated abuse of power denying public will is thunderously immoral.

It’s important Australians understand that we were once world leaders in such legislation. Assisted dying existed in N.T. under the Rights of the Terminally Ill Act 1995. The Liberal Party’s Kevin Andrews (“a leading member of the conservative Lyons Forum, dubbed by some ‘The God Squad'”) and Labor’s Tony Burke, assisted by powerful fellow Catholic busnessmen undermined the will of the N.T. public, ultimately having the law repealed. Their harmful work continues today. 28 attempts have been made in the last 20 years to pass assisted dying legislation.

Denton argues the two politicians have “engineered” a denial of evidence. He covers this dynamic, the reality of assisted dying legislation and the importance of palliative care. A significant number of patients who meet eligibility requirements and whose cases satisfy safeguards for assisted dying ultimately do not take life-ending medication. In Oregon this figure is 40%. What this tells us is that the peace of mind that comes with knowing one has control over their end is powerful indeed.

What we often call euthanasia is not “killing”. It is assisted dying. It is dying with dignity. I do urge finding the time to listen to Denton’s material.

 – Andrew Denton: The Damage Done. The price our community pays without a law for assisted dying

© National Press Club of Australia, 10 August 2016

© ABC Lateline, 10 August 2016


Andrew Denton investigates the stories, moral arguments and individuals woven into discussions about why good people are dying bad deaths in Australia – because there is no law to help them.

‘No Jab No Pay’ Success: Government will not profit financially

It has been widely reported today that the Turnbull Government’s “No Jab, No Pay” legislation has led to an increase in childhood vaccination rates.

This is excellent news and a Parliamentary Budget Review indicates conscientious objectors are not being roundly exploited to fill government coffers. Unless of course, they choose to be.

The success of the policy means a great number of Australians who previously registered as conscientious objectors, no longer do so. Therefore they are not being denied Child Care Benefit (CCB), Child Care Rebate (CCR) or Family Tax Benefit (Part A). It follows then that the government is not guaranteed financial profit from this policy.

The policy was implemented on January 1st this year. 5,738 children whose parents had previously denied them the protection of immunisation have been vaccinated since then. Social Services Minister, Christian Porter stated that 148,000 children who were not up to date with immunisations were now meeting requirements.

The Australian Childhood Immunisation Register indicates increases in immunisation for one, two and five year olds. For one and five year olds there has been an increase from 90% to 93%. The ABC reported:

Vaccination rates had fallen to such a historically low level, that we were seeing the re-emergence of diseases that we had been free of for years,” Mr Porter said.

“Of course, that was a matter of major concern to the overwhelming majority of parents who aren’t vaccination objectors and just want their kids to be safe.

In the Parliamentary Budget Review 2015-16 Michael Klapdor and Alex Grove published ‘No Jan No Pay’ and other immunisation measures. They note that No Jab No Pay involves closing off:

… some exemptions from the immunisation requirements for eligibility for the FTB-A [Family Tax Benefit, Part A] end-of-year supplement, Child Care Benefit (CCB) and Child Care Rebate (CCR) payments stating that it was extremely concerned at the risk non-vaccinated children pose to public health. […]

On 12 April 2015, the Government announced that it would remove the conscientious objector exemption but retain the medical and Christian Scientist exemption. On 19 April 2015, Minister for Social Services, Scott Morrison, announced that after discussions with the Church of Christ, Scientist, their specific exemption would be removed as the Church advised it was no longer necessary.

Also reported today is that families may lose up to $15,000 per year if parents fail to have their children vaccinated. As readers may well be aware, and as is evident in the above paragraphs from the Budget Review, “failing to have their children vaccinated” would be an insistence to deny one’s children vaccine induced immunity, by remaining “conscientious objectors”.

There is no sound reason to make this choice. There never has been, and it is most regrettable that the anti-vaccine lobby has worked feverishly to further distress those who hold misguided anti-vaccine beliefs. One theme has been that the right to make “health choices” has been removed. Or, promises of court action to challenge the legislation on the back of donations scammed by The Australian Vaccination-sceptics Network. Another, that the government would profit financially from discriminating against conscientious objectors.

However a close read of Klapdor and Grove’s Budget Review shows this claim loses credibility as more children of conscientious objectors are vaccinated. Conscientious objectors make up “a minority of the total number of children not up-to-date with their vaccination schedules”. Only 20% of one, two and five year olds not up to date with vaccinations [citation]. The authors cover in depth a number of “other immunisation measures” aimed at raising and maintaining immunisation levels, and finish their review with:

Through these efforts to improve coverage rates, coupled with financial penalties for non-compliance with immunisation schedules, the Government believes that it is taking a ‘balanced “carrot and stick” approach’ to encouraging vaccination. Of course, the sizeable savings expected from the ‘stick’ element may not be realised if these policies succeed in significantly lifting childhood immunisation rates.

The question then, is what percentage of conscientious objectors does the 5,738 children vaccinated since January 1st represent? Using Klapdor and Grove’s reference we may take the figure on page iv. 14,869 children aged one, two or five years were recorded as conscientious objectors in 2012-13. Klapdor and Grove state that whilst there has been an increase in immunisation rates since 1998 overall rates have remained static in recent years [citation].

Thus with some degree of reasonable confidence we may view the 5,738 children of conscientious objectors reported by Social Services Minister Christian Porter, as a percentage of 14,869. This figure of 38.6%, in light of the historical data cited in the Budget Review, might reasonably be viewed as “significantly lifting childhood immunisation rates”, to quote from Klapdor and Grove. And as these authors reasoned a lift in immunisation rates would mean that, “the sizeable savings expected from the ‘stick’ element may not be realised”.

Thus the antivaccinationist claim that they would be exploited to fill government coffers is at this stage seemingly without merit. More to the point if antivaccinationists wish to retain their status as conscientious objectors they are making a conscious choice for financial hardship.

Immunise Australia have provided the below summary and catch up recommendations for children 10 – 19 years.

No Jab No Pay New Immunisation Requirements For Family Assistance Payments

From 1 January 2016:

  • Only parents of children (less than 20 years of age) who are fully immunised or are on a recognised catch-up schedule can receive the Child Care Benefit, the Child Care Rebate and the Family Tax Benefit Part A end of year supplement. The relevant vaccinations are those under the National Immunisation Program (NIP), which covers the vaccines usually administered before age ve. These vaccinations must be recorded on the Australian Childhood Immunisation Register (ACIR).
  • Children with medical contraindications or natural immunity for certain diseases will continue to be exempt from the requirements.
  • Conscientious objection and vaccination objection on non-medical grounds will no longer be a valid exemption from immunisation requirements.
  • Families eligible to receive family assistance payments and have children less than 20 years of age, who may not meet the new immunisation requirements, will be notified by Centrelink.
  • To support these changes, the ACIR is being expanded. From 1 January 2016, you will be able to submit the details of vaccinations given to persons less than 20 years of age to the ACIR.1. Free catch-up for children less than 10 years of ageFrom 1 January 2016, all states and territories will be providing free catch-up NIP vaccines for all children less than 10 years of age on an on-going basis.2. Free catch-up for young persons 10 to 19 years of age, of families who currently receive family assistance payments

    From 1 January 2016, parents who wish to immunise their children in order to continue to receive family assistance payments will have access to free catch- up vaccines for a time-limited period (1 January 2016 to 31 December 2017).

Vaccines and autism: A thorough review of the evidence

The following post is an exceptionally detailed review of the evidence, and scientific consensus, specific to the persistent claim of a link between vaccination and autism.

Those familiar with the integrity of the scientific method and its value in examining this particular issue will be grateful for both the quality and extent of this review.

Use of the seven tiered Hierarchy of Scientific Evidence provides an excellent device by which to gauge the value of evidence, and as such, introduces one to a reliable tool for similar endeavours.

I trust you find the article a valuable resource.

Hierarchy of Scientific Evidence

© thelogicofscience.com

The Logic of Science

One of the most common concerns that people have about vaccines is that they might cause (or exacerbate) autism. This idea is perpetuated by celebrities and innumerable websites, and it has become one of the cornerstone arguments of the anti-vaccine movement, but is there any truth to it? Perhaps unsurprisingly, both sides claim a superiority of evidence. Indeed, you can find numerous websites presenting lists of papers that they claim provide evidence that autism is caused by vaccines (such as “124 research papers supporting the vaccine/autism link“). Conversely, those who support vaccines also have lists of papers which they present as evidence that vaccines do not cause autism (for example, here and here). So which is correct? The internet is full of misinformation on this topic, so I want to cut through that crap and talk about the actual studies themselves rather than simply tossing lists around…

View original post 17,466 more words