Vaccination Information Service

Whom do you trust, nature or man?



"Immunisation" against disease for children



Submission to the A.C.T. Government, in response to a public invitation to make submissions
- Bronwyn Hancock 1997

21st May, 1997.

The Secretary, Standing Committee on Legal Affairs,

G.P.O. Box 1020,


ACT. 2601.

Dear Sir/Madam,

Enclosed is my submission in relation to "Immunisation Against Disease For Children".

It has taken many hours and late nights to compile this submission, due to the high degree of research and thought involved. This has been for no financial or other gain to myself. My incentive is to benefit the community in respect of three areas of great value, all of which are currently suffering severely in respect to vaccination. They are truth, freedom and last but not least, health.

Even before we study any medical literature, the behaviour of "medical authorities" is symptomatic that the truth is suffering. For example, medical doctors have been found to be the least vaccinated group in the community, and health departments here have a stated policy of avoidance of public debate on the issue. One prominent medical doctor (a vaccination "expert" working for the government) openly gave to another his reason for lying on national television, which was that if parents were told the truth, they would stop vaccinating.

This lack of truth in turn obviously impacts true freedom, as choice has no value or meaning unless it is informed. The pressure and coercion being used on parents is also detrimental to the principle of true freedom. The big sufferer as a result of these is health. Children today generally do not have the freedom from chronic infection that their parents and, all the more so, their grandparents had. Asthma has become by now commonplace and cot death is occurring at the rate of 5 to 40 per week in the country.

I hope that the action taken by this Standing Committee as a result of this inquiry will bring improvement to the community in all these three areas.

If the study of this document is insufficient for the appreciation of the important truths contained within, I would be pleased to present it in person at a public hearing, and/or supply any further evidence or references requested. Evidence from medical journal articles exists for all relevant statements made in the submission in relation to the effects of vaccines.

 Bronwyn Hancock. BSc. CN.


SUBMISSION to the Standing Committee on Legal Affairs

(A.C.T. Legislative Assembly)

Immunisation against disease for children



Vaccination is a subject concerning which many myths and false assumptions abound and are very well-entrenched, in respect to both benefits and risks. This submission exposes these myths for what they are, in the hope that the committee will see the wisdom of not encouraging, or worse, trying to in any way force, parents to have their children injected with these toxic, pestilent substances. They are in fact of NO benefit to the health of anyone or anything, other than, ultimately, the balance sheets of the pharmaceutical industry. On the contrary they are causing much suffering and many deaths.

Since the importance of this subject is no less than a matter of life and death, it is vital that no members of the committee are so confident that these myths and assumptions are correct that they fail to recognise the significance of the evidence which I will present.

When it is known what vaccines actually contain, and their method of introduction into the body is understood, it will in fact be quite obvious why vaccines have been counter-productive for their purpose as a health measure. In fact I predict that within several decades, we will all wonder what possessed us to go along with all these repeated injections of such lethal chemicals into our fragile babies to start with.


I wish to emphasise that the source of all that I will present is data published in official government records and orthodox medical journal articles. General practitioners are only sent so-called "summaries" of new research, and naturally, many trustingly accept them. However the researchers’ conclusions in the articles do not necessarily faithfully reflect the data on which they are based. In fact they usually tend to support the practice of vaccination regardless of what the data shows or does not show. Three major reasons for this are as follows:

  1. RESEARCH FUNDING: The research is significantly funded by vested interest, i.e. by the vaccine manufacturers themselves, so the researchers are significantly dependent on these companies for funds.

    It may appear cynical to think that this may affect the research results, but many comments, from within in fact, bare this truth. One example is Dr Judith Jones, Director of the Division of Drug Experience at the FDA, who has said that if the data obtained by a clinical physician proves unsatisfactory towards the drug being investigated, it is quite in order for the company to continue trials elsewhere until satisfactory results and testimonials are achieved. She says unfavourable results are very rarely published and clinicians are pressured into keeping quiet about such data1.

  2. MEDICAL EDUCATION BIAS AND FUNDING: Researchers have themselves been taught, as part of their general medical education, to believe very strongly in vaccination as something that they should take for granted as being very worthwhile. They have not been encouraged, nor would they see the need, and nor would they have the time, to study any other research during their education, before embarking on this occupation. The result is that they have "blinkers on", so to speak, before they even start.

    This is not surprising when it is considered that over the past century the pharmaceutical industry has, in this area of education also, been a very valuable source of funds. It has provided large sums of money to academic scientists and medical schools for research, buildings, gifts, dinners, etc. Being itself entirely dependent on the loyalty of physicians for its survival, to use the words of Dr Alan Levin (an Adjunct Associate Professor of Immunology and Dermatology at the University of California, a Fellow of various distinguished medical societies, a recipient of fellowship awards from Harvard Medical School and other medical institutions, and past Director of various research laboratories), "the pharmaceutical industry has purposefully moved to develop an enormous amount of influence within medical teaching institutions." 2

  3. NO TIME GIVEN TO CRITICAL ANALYSIS: It is to a very large extent a good memory which has enabled students to achieve academic results high enough to study medicine, and medical education predominantly involves the commitment to memory of an enormous amount of information, in very limited period of time, rather than encouraging and developing skills in critical analysis, which is so fundamental to science and its progress through research. The reason for this could easily be in part another consequence of the vested interest involved. However it may be simply due to the lack of time available. If doctors spent time questioning and personally checking out everything they are taught in their medical studies, they wouldn’t get through their degree, and even if they did, they wouldn’t have time to have any patients!

It takes an enormous amount of time, interest, motivation, commitment and relatively high intelligence to find and do a thorough analysis of the data in enough research articles to start to understand the true effects of vaccines. However many people in the world have done just that (though still a relatively small proportion of the world population, as one would expect).

These have included many medical doctors as well as lay people. Some have been parents who have seen it as their own responsibility to establish the truth for themselves for the sake of the health of their children.

Another has been a retired scientist, Dr Viera Scheibner, who, after co-developing a baby breathing monitor without any thought being given to vaccinations, stumbled across the link to cot death (after finding that low-volume breathing patterns were pointing back consistently to the day on which the babies were vaccinated). This led to a study of, by now, well over 60000 pages of orthodox medical research articles on the subject, whose data reflected the same patterns and whose study eventually resulted in a total change from her originally very pro-vaccination position.

Many of these people have, as a result, written well-referenced books on the subject, some of which are included in my references. Study of these books will show that these people have independently come to basically the same conclusions. The references also include a sample selection of articles published in orthodox medical journals. These are only a tiny proportion of the hundreds that supply evidence for all the statements made herein, despite the financial interest behind them.

1. The Necessity and Desirability of Immunisation.

Vaccination is both unnecessary and undesirable for the health of the community. I will support this with important facts grouped under these four subjects:

1.1 The past decline of infectious diseases, and the effect of vaccines

1.2 The contents and mechanisms of vaccines - why they are harmful

1.3 The REAL, documented effects of vaccines

1.4 Prevention - is targeting specific diseases even necessary?

1.1. The past decline of infectious diseases, and the effect of vaccines

1) The decline in infectious disease before and after vaccines

What shows most clearly that vaccination played no role in this decline is statistics showing past declines in cases and death rates. Infectious diseases had universally already steadily dropped by 90% well before the vaccines were even introduced. Further and very significantly, the decline did NOT become any faster after their introduction. (See Appendix A for a sample of graphs which demonstrate this).

Many diseases that were common of yesteryear, such as scarlet fever, have virtually disappeared without ANY use of vaccines (and in the case of TB only very limited use), and before antibiotics were invented.

It is apparent that most doctors, as well as lay people, have no idea of these trends, and assume that the most significant declines occurred only AFTER the introduction of vaccines (not that even that would be proof that they were the cause)

2) The negative impact of vaccines

Rather than helping the decline, much data points to a SLOWING of the decline by vaccines. Of note are the following facts (a few of many that are evident of the same trend):

  • In the case of whooping cough in the US, when vaccination was mandated in 1978, there was actually an immediate reversal in the trend from a decline to an equivalent increase, which has continued to occur at least until 1996, by which time the level had reached its 1967 level. 3 (Refer to the graph in Appendix B, and the update).
  • After an epidemic of whooping cough in Sweden in 1978, in which the percentage of cases who were FULLY vaccinated was found to be least as high as the population compliance rate of 84%, the government discontinued mass whooping cough vaccination.4
  • In a recent trial in Sweden of the new acellular whooping cough vaccine (which we use in Australia), there was a huge outbreak in children fully vaccinated, so the trial was abandoned.
  • After Haemophilus Influenzae type b vaccine was introduced in the US in the late 1980s, by far the greatest decline in Haemophilus Influenzae diseases occurred in the under 1 year age group, which were NOT vaccinated at the time (until October 1990)5,6,7
  • The evidence indicates that the gradual disappearance of smallpox in the West was IN SPITE of vaccination, not BECAUSE of it. Record epidemics occurred 100 years ago ONLY in communities which had just suffered mass vaccination campaigns. It disappeared in countries which never had vaccination8. Smallpox in fact HAS CONTINUED TO OCCUR in pockets of Africa, India and S.E. Asia (Aust Dr Weekly 17.7.92), where there is conflict and poor nutrition, despite vaccination.9
  • In the United States’ large Amish community, who do not vaccinate, there were NO reported cases of measles from 1970 to 1988 (American Journal of Epidemiology, 1996). Notifications, alone, in the heavily vaccinated remainder of the U.S. population, where it has even been mandatory for school entry since 1978, were, on average, 1 in 12000 per YEAR (in the same period).

Epidemics in the US of measles, mumps, whooping cough, etc, have continued to occur in populations which are at least 98% (some 100%), vaccinated10, e.g. in Illinois 1984 (100% cases vaccinated)11, Hobbs, New Mexico 198512, Corpus Christi 1985 (100% cases vaccinated)13. An attempt at modelling measles susceptibles in the US in 1984 resulted in an expectation of the number of susceptibles in 50 years time reaching levels "greater than the pre-vaccine era". It was further stated that "The model did not consider the effect of waning immunity"14. (This effect will be discussed later.)

Many more examples are cited in "Vaccination – A Parent’s Dilemma" by Greg Beattie (1997, The Oracle Press, Qld). One research article related "In the fall of 1990, an outbreak of mumps occurred at a Texas high school where, according to school records, more than 98% of students were vaccinated", and said "Vaccine failure may play an important role in contemporary mumps outbreaks". I think it is becoming evident that this is rather an understatement.


3) Why some statistics have been misleading

- Factors affecting the figures given

The statistics for some countries for some diseases do not always reflect the true impact of vaccines, but it must be born in mind that the beliefs and encouragement fed to doctors will tend to bias their diagnoses and notifications (which are NOT obligatory) in favour of vaccines. The fact that vaccines alter the immune response, and therefore the symptoms, also reduces the proper diagnoses of diseases in those vaccinated. The effect of all these factors on the figures is shown up by trends in other data, such as deaths (as opposed to reported cases) for the same disease in the same country, or notifications in other countries.

Another factor which produces misleading statistics is a deliberate change in diagnostic criteria. Polio is a classic example of this. The vaccine firstly was introduced after a significant decline of polio in the early 50s (UK peaks were in 47 and 50, vaccine introduced in 56, US peaks in 48 and 52, introduced 55, Aust. peak in 53, introduced 56). The vaccine was then actually found to cause MORE paralysis15, and soon afterwards (1958) the diagnostic criteria and guidelines were made much stricter. The criteria now required paralysis to occur (still rare), and to last over 60 days (rarer still). The guidelines now included: "No history of immunisation". As the recorded cases of "polio" continued to decline, there was a significant increase in "cerebral palsy" (a broad term which covers it well), "aseptic (viral) meningitis" and "Guillain-Barré syndrome".16,17

 - The data NOT included

When statistics are given in evidence of a case, the lack of inclusion of some data encourages assumptions to be made of a cause and effect relationship in what IS included.

One example of this is that we are told that there has been an enormous decline in infectious diseases since the introduction of vaccines. This is true, but analysis of the data PRIOR to the introduction times reveals that decline was already occurring and did not speed up after their introduction. We are also told of complications which can result from the diseases, but not how many of these cases of complications actually occur in vaccinated children. For example a new dangerous form of measles ONLY occurs in (up to 50% of) vaccinated measles cases, and can lead to pneumonia and meningitis, with a mortality rate of 12-15%.18

Studies have been done of outbreaks of childhood diseases such as measles in (ONLY!) school-age children where important data such as whether or not measles had been contracted in the past (giving immunity) was not even collected. This is very significant because vaccination has been shown to alter the age distribution of the disease so that it occurs less in the proper age group, which IS school age, and more in the lower age groups, when it is less desirable, but would still usually result in life-long immunity. An example is "Measles outbreak in western Sydney - Vaccine failure or failure to vaccinate?" (MJA May 95), where even among the 5-9 year age group, parents of 78% of the cases said that they had been vaccinated, which would probably be similar to the uptake level in the community, though no-one knows what this important figure is !

Another example is that we are told that there has been a recent increase in diphtheria in Russia, which is blamed on the drop in vaccination compliance (even though the drop was due to social disruption which would in itself increase the risk of disease!). However this explanation is countered by the unmentioned simultaneous increase in highly vaccinated countries, e.g. the US, Denmark and Sweden19. In fact the outbreak in Russia was predominantly occurring amongst 15-45 yr olds, a well-vaccinated age group. The medical literature is highly contaminated with such unscientific conclusions.

According to the British Medical Journal ("The Poverty of Medical Evidence", May 10, 1991), "only 1% of articles in medical journals are scientifically sound."

5) So, what DID cause the past decline?

What IS necessary for the control of diseases is to study what DID bring about all these declines before vaccines. These true causes are what should be promoted. They are most likely to be mainly the gradual increase in breast feeding, and great improvements in knowledge and availability of clean water and nutrition (particularly fresh fruit and vegetables) and in disease management. The virtual disappearance of measles in Europe (until the vaccination programs began, when it then promptly rose again !), was paralleled by improved nutrition programs, particularly increasing Vitamin A levels. Perhaps some diseases are naturally dying out anyway, as part of a bigger picture in Nature, to be possibly replaced by others.

1.2 The contents and mechanisms of vaccines - why they are harmful

1) The ingredients. Here is a list of what vaccines can contain:

  1. Highly toxic substances such as mercury, in the form of merthiolate, a KNOWN sensitiser, formaldehyde, aluminium and carbolic acid. They are used as adjuvants (explanation below), tissue fixatives and preservatives. EACH of these, in EACH dose, has a maximum level of as high as 0.025%. Yet ANY level at all of these substances is stated by Poisons Information to be unsafe. Recent rules require such substances to be listed as ingredients in the product insert only if their levels are higher than 0.05%, which is obviously ridiculously high for such highly toxic substances.
  2. Toxoids (toxins from the relevant micro-organism treated with another toxin such as formaldehyde to supposedly make them harmless(!) ), e.g. the pertussis (whooping cough) toxoid itself, whose level cannot even be controlled.
  3. Unlimited unknown contaminants in the form of bacteria, animal viruses (live) and amoebas. Vaccines are cultured on live animal cells, which can harbour many unknown viruses (and amoebas) for which tests are not done. It is very difficult to test for viruses which you do not know exist. Such microbes can be harmless to the animal but very harmful to a human, e.g. SIV from the rhesus monkey becoming HIV in humans20.
  4. Antibiotics (more toxins !)
  5. Foreign animal proteins and tissue (and human too, i.e. aborted foetus tissue), which should not be introduced undigested.
  6. Animal genetic material, which is KNOWN to be transmissible to human genetic code21. This particularly has frightening long-term possible repercussions, already appearing. It does NOT belong in a human body.
  7. Pus and blood
  8. Yeasts
  9. The bacteria or viruses or parts of them, to which immunity is actually intended to be gained. There is a claim that when these are whole they are "attenuated" (by heat, radiation (!) or formaldehyde), and thus rendered harmless, but the results contradict this.

The animals from which proteins, tissue, genetic material and contaminants are sourced include chick (embryo), monkey (kidney), rabbit (brain), dog (kidney), cow and pig. It has also been stated in at least one journal article: "The toxicity of vaccines has never been addressed".

2) How the process of the injection of this material causes harm

Injections bypass the skin and mucous membranes, which are now being recognised to involve important defence mechanisms. The reason for the lack of the normal symptoms that one gets when the disease is contracted naturally is that most symptoms, uncomfortable that they are, are reflecting the mobilisation of the body’s defence to fight off the invasion and protect the vital organs and systems. Nature has designed our system in such a way as to give particular protection to these, yet this unnatural act bypasses this protection.

Of course the most obvious result of this is direct access and resultant damage to vital organs. This is often not externally immediately obvious, particularly in the case of most types of damage to a baby’s brain, though many common reactions to the vaccine, such as high fever, excessive sleepiness, otitis, diarrhoea, vomiting, high-pitched screaming, persistent crying, collapse, shock, seizures, convulsions, irritability, headaches, etc are identical to the symptoms of encephalitis (inflammation of the brain).

Whatever specific damage a particular virus can normally potentially do in a person with a weak immune system, it has a greater chance of doing as a result of the greatly enhanced access. Further, viruses now have access to hide deep in the tissues with the potential for insidious damage and/or a latent effect, i.e. many years later they can be activated by stress and cause a serious problem, e.g. an auto-immune disease or brain tumour. (And who looks to a vaccine as the cause?)

Of course an inevitable result of all of this unexpected assault of toxic chemicals and known and unknown antigens is a general debilitation of the immune system, leading to immune responses which are weak, suppressed, altered, or inappropriate. Vaccines are even deliberately used in experiments to sensitise (the opposite of "immunise"!) animals, yet there is a lack of public acknowledgment of that effect being what occurs in humans.

3) What vaccine-induced antibodies are showing - immunisation? Or sensitisation?

- Vaccine-induced antibodies’ involvement

Certain types of antibodies can be produced in an attack from a foreign microbe. They show an effort to fight it, but other processes are crucially involved in the long process of the building of actual immunity to future invasions. These processes require, again, the involvement of the skin or mucous membranes, which are BYPASSED by vaccines. Antibodies induced by vaccines, in contrast to the natural disease, are of varying duration, but even when long-lasting, still only show prior exposure. They are not what is needed for actual immunity22. As Dr Archie Kalokerinos points out, "You can have tons of antibodies and no protection, or you can have no antibodies and tons of protection."

In the extremely rare cases that tetanus is contracted when we "tread on a rusty nail", there may be no involvement of the skin or mucous membranes, so immunity is not built in these circumstances. (Young children probably eat soil instinctively for a reason!)

Antibodies passively-acquired from the mother through the placenta and breast milk do help protect (still only temporarily), however these are not the same as the type of antibodies induced by vaccines.

- Few antibodies can be induced anyway without toxic sensitising chemicals

In fact in the case of most vaccines, the body’s antibody response is very limited unless toxic sensitising substances, called adjuvants (item (1) in above list), are included. (Immunologists publicly admit this, and many express discomfort in relation to it - "Dirty Secrets", New Scientist, 2 Nov 1996, pp 26-29 - located at URL This fact shows how unnatural the whole process is, but it also is really a further indication that these antibodies are showing that the recipient has been actually sensitised by the process, NOT immunised, as assumed.

The following of the "any response must be good" principle may have been excusable 100 years ago, but there should by now be a far superior understanding and respect for what our immune system needs and certainly does NOT need, sufficient for the recognition that this principle does not hold.

- The uselessness of trying to attempt immunity simply through exposure

Immunity will not develop if the disease is sufficiently mismanaged that it is not allowed to progress thoroughly enough through all the necessary natural stages23.

The influenza and hepatitis B viruses rapidly become strongly resistant to antibodies of the vaccines, rendering any vaccines for these diseases useless for this reason also.24

- Shots in the dark

The immune system is very complex, and even immunologists admit that current understanding of it is limited. Yet they blindly play with it, exposing it to materials and experiences to which it has never before been exposed in human history. This means that all those of us vaccinated comprise a big long-term experiment on the human race (with many bad results showing already). And they assert, confidently and arrogantly, that they are doing no long-term harm.

1.3 The REAL, well documented, effects of vaccines

Some effects for which we already have evidence are listed below (I’ve concentrated on long-term effects):

* Damage to organs
, e.g. brain, pancreas, liver, heart, respiratory system. This manifests in cot death (10 to 40 per WEEK in Australia, some 95% caused by vaccines25, diseases and conditions such as encephalitis (Japan suspended MMR vaccination in 1992 because this was diagnosed in up to 1 in 1044 recipients), panencephalitis, meningitis, neuropathy (often irreversible)26, Guillain-Barré syndrome27, diabetes mellitus, lupus, arthritis, Parkinson’s Disease, cardiovascular illnesses, sterility and chronic fatigue syndrome.

There are also many effects which have been linked to past encephalitis (perhaps often undiagnosed). These include autism (including Martin Bryant’s autism condition, called Asperger's syndrome), mental disturbances (including suicidal impulses and schizophrenia), mental retardation, epilepsy, cerebral palsy, emotional problems, behaviour problems such as hyperactivity, ADD and criminal behaviour, sleep disorders, sexual disorders, dyslexia, appetite disorders (anorexia, bulimia) and cranial nerve damage which causes visual/ hearing/ speech disorders28. Intensified vaccination must likely be a major reason for the significant increase in crime, drug taking and other social problems in the last few decades.

It is worth noting that onwards from 1963, 18 years after vaccinations against diphtheria began to be intensified, US college entry examination results showed a drop in IQ levels. Despite the already existing evidence that vaccines can cause serious brain damage, vaccines were not even mentioned in any of the 79 hypotheses put forward to explain this drop.

It is also interesting to note that despite the demonstrable causative link between vaccination and cot death, for which the evidence is deemed sufficient for the Japanese government to pay out huge sums of money in compensation29, S.I.D.A. (Sudden Infant Death Association, in Australia) does not even ask parents of cot death babies IF their baby was vaccinated, let alone WHEN.

* Contaminant viruses
, causing auto-immune diseases such as multiple sclerosis, arthritis and many cancers (British Medical Journal, October 22, 1967). The monkey virus SV40 (which can cause serious malignant illness, including forms of cancer and leukaemia) is admitted to have been received by millions of children in the 1950s and 1960s in polio vaccines (cultured on monkey kidney tissue cells) before its detection30,31. Harvard Medical Professor Ronald Desrosier warns that you can test only for those viruses you know about, and that our knowledge is limited to perhaps "2% of existing monkey viruses". The HIV virus is strongly evidenced to have come from polio vaccine. 32,33

There is also powerful evidence that another AIDS virus was created, by the W.H.O., by combining two animal viruses and contaminating smallpox vaccine34. A virus called RSV contaminated a Hepatitis B vaccine administered to Native Indian children in Alaska (and without their parents’ consent). Many fell ill, several died.35 A recent article in the Sydney Morning Herald stated that many viruses seem to have appeared from nowhere in recent years. I wonder how that happened.

* Sensitisation effects, causing allergies36 , asthma (which can also be fatal)37, anaphylactic shock (this is publicly well acknowledged and can also be fatal), eczema, poliomyelitis (See below), Haemophilus Influenzae type b (HIB, See below for more on this also), increased susceptibility to any disease,38,39 harm associated with the virus in the vaccine (e.g. SSPE after measles vaccine).40

Polio is well documented as being a vaccine-provocation disease, i.e. it is provoked in the FIRST place by vaccines (of any type) (Lancet 1950, British Medical Journal 1950 (1 July)). It is therefore not surprising that the first recorded outbreak was not until 1887, which was soon after mass smallpox vaccinations were introduced. Epidemics have always followed intensified vaccination campaigns, e.g. the well-cited late ‘40s and ‘50s epidemic straight after the intensified whooping cough and diphtheria vaccinations in the late ‘40s (the early batches being the worst).

Polio is normally, in fact, an easy virus for our immune systems to deal with. Many of us catch it, and are usually symptom-free or have cold-like symptoms - we would think we just had a cold. Vaccines, however, sensitise us to the virus, potentially leading to paralysis or, in the worst cases, death.

Similarly HIB lives in most or all of us as a normally harmless bacteria, and the diseases associated with this (and other) bacteria are provoked by vaccines - vaccines of any type, that is41, 42

* Vascular injury - most commonly evident from haemorraging in the brain (particularly subdural haematoma), retina, rectum and/or lungs. The presence of such internal injuries has led to accusations that parents/minders have caused them by shaking the baby. This is a terrible injustice to many innocent parents who are already stressed over the damage to their baby.

* Permanent alteration of chromosomes - upsets the anterior of cells - causes malformations43

* Introduction of animal genetic material - new mutations44, tumours.

* Carcinogenic and leukaemogenic effect of "repeated antigenic stimulation" - cancer, leukaemia45. It is worth noting that 50 years ago any kind of cancer occurring before 40 years of age was unknown.

* Immune response detrimentally altered - "atypical" measles (in which the rash moves in the wrong direction, straight for the vital organs). The result can be a prolonged clinical prognosis with pulmonary involvement and resisting all treatment46. A 12-15% mortality rate has been estimated. New (atypical) forms of mumps and whooping cough have also been documented. These atypical responses ONLY occur in the vaccinated, and the rate of occurrence in these cases has been estimated to be up to 50%.

* Damage to trans-placentally transmitted immunity - (see the following section)

* Harm to immune system development - altered immune response results in less likelihood of developing the proper rash in measles, and such persons have an increased risk of developing certain types of tumours, degenerative diseases of bone and cartilage and sebaceous skin diseases (Lancet Jan 5, 1985).

* Frequent provocation of the illness which the vaccine is supposed to prevent47 e.g. almost all cases which have been diagnosed as polio in the last 30 years have been associated with the polio vaccine itself48

* General immune suppression, weakening, often resulting in recurrent tonsillitis, recurrent otitis media (ear infections), glue ear and grommets. "Hand, foot and mouth" disease, which is quite common, only occurs in vaccinated children.

The above problems have all markedly increased since vaccination was intensified in the 1940s. Some, despite their ease of diagnosis, were unknown before then. Some, such as allergies, were known before then but were essentially unknown before any vaccines were introduced, though there have been very occasional occurrences of conditions such as allergies, asthma and polio for a long period which would most likely, it appears, be attributable to the fact that smallpox inoculation was practised to a very small extent for many centuries before it was intensified a hundred years ago. The word "allergy" was coined in 1906.

References are available for any of the above effects not referenced here.

Another effect of vaccines we are increasingly experiencing, particularly recently with intensified Hepatitis B vaccination, is shaken baby syndrome. See

Hepatitis B vaccine is particularly (compared to the other vaccines) prone to cause problems with the eyes, brain and blood, so not surprisingly can result in retinal haemorraging and subdural haematomas. Parents find their baby not breathing or having convulsions, and in a great panic rush them to the hospital. No sooner are they rushing in the door of the hospital than the staff are noting down "Shaken Baby Syndrome". The parents are betrayed by the very establishment they have trusted and obeyed, ensuring it protects itself from blame for what it has done. Tragically many parents are sitting in jail simply for trusting the establishment and acting on its advice out of love for their precious children. Fortunately justice has prevailed on the receipt and study in court of medical journal articles submitted by Dr Viera Scheibner. These articles document the cause of these specific injuries by the vaccine, even to the extent of showing that it definitely was the vaccine and these injuries could NOT have been caused by shaking the baby.

1.4 Prevention - is targeting specific diseases even necessary?

1) The benefits of childhood diseases at the right age

In the case of childhood diseases (i.e. measles, mumps, rubella, whooping cough, chicken pox) - WELL THAT’S WHAT THEY USED TO BE CALLED, it is not even necessary to prevent them from occurring, in the proper age range. This range is from about 5 to 10 years when Mother Nature appears to use them at times when such a challenge will help mature the immune system, as part of its development. They are useful for this as they are expected (by Nature) to be harmless, and so they will be, provided the child is adequately nourished, basically healthy, and has had no damage to his/her immune system (by vaccines!).

Before the advent of vaccines, after which these diseases were stamped as frightening, the public knew not to be concerned (when the child was the right age and healthy). In fact deliberate exposure to measles, for example, was used to cure nephrotic syndrome. Whooping cough was recently found to protect against asthma (Pediatrics Infectious Diseases Journal 1996). When cases appeared, "measles" parties, etc., were organised so that other mothers could deliberately expose their own children to the virus, so they could get the benefit of these infections as well as then be subsequently immune for life.

2) Contracting childhood diseases too early - vaccines weaken passive and subsequent immunity

It is indeed undesirable for these diseases to be contracted outside of that age range, but again, artificial interference is not necessary to achieve that, in fact vaccines interfere with it. When mothers have not been vaccinated themselves, trans-placentally transmitted immunity, passed to babies, remains in tact for the first one to two years of life. The child’s own system then appears to provide temporary protection until the age of about 4-5. However, vaccinated mothers, pass weaker and shorter-lasting immunity to their babies (even when the mother had contracted measles herself). This is very well documented49, 50, 51

Through non-specifically damaging the immune system, vaccines also interfere with the child’s natural (temporary) protection which is supposed to "take over" from that received from the mother. So the recipient is rendered more vulnerable to the disease well before the age of 4-5 years.

The result of all this interference is a shift in the age distribution, so that the diseases are contracted most often in the first year or so of life. This makes the diseases far more dangerous. Compare the graphs in Appendix C of age distribution in vaccinated and unvaccinated populations in the US and Sweden respectively.

3) The vaccine approach of specific prevention is being recognised as incorrect

It is not the virus, but the interaction between virus and host that causes disease to appear (Intervirology 1993).

Viruses are everywhere, and we are constantly overcoming them, often without even having any noticeable symptoms. A "cold" is so named because we only succumb to such a virus when our first line of defence is weakened by being stressed, and a common form of stress is simply being cold. Stress uses our nutritional resources, particularly Vitamin C, and increases the production of toxins in our systems. This enables the virus to get past "first base" and multiply. The body then mobilises its subsequent line(s) of defence to overcome the virus, but at the same time initiates a clean out of the toxic waste in our system which enabled the virus to get past "first base". Thus the virus can indirectly be actually helpful.

Viruses can only, as a rule, thrive when there is sufficient toxaemia in the system. Louis Pasteur himself, at the end of his life, retracted his own Germ Theory, which is the basis of the theory of vaccination, with the statement "The seed (germ) is nothing, the soil (body)52 is everything". (This was an admission that Professor Antoine Bechamp, his far brighter contemporary who sought no fame or glory, had been right all along.)

4) Health is all that is necessary to prevent harm, even if specific prevention were possible

In relation to all diseases, all that is necessary to overcome them without any lasting inconvenience, in fact usually without even falling ill at all (blood tests will often show up antibodies to viruses that the person never knew they had ever encountered), is for the host to have or take on a truly healthy diet and lifestyle. Vitamin C intake should be high and avoidance of toxic, invasive substances (such as vaccines!) is important. Even if vaccines worked, a healthy diet and lifestyle are still necessary for immunity from diseases for which vaccines have not been developed.

The factors which are normally needed for a virus to overrun the system are at least one of the following:

(1) the person is severely malnourished, which hampers the mobilisation of the immune system

(2) there is too much toxaemia in the system, which also does this, plus it provides a suitable environment for the virus to thrive

(3) there is no memory of the virus passed down to the person from parents, genetically, placentally (as described above), etc. (Even this factor seems insufficient on its own as entire populations do not get wiped out when a virus is encountered for the first time, e.g. Native tribes in the past when exposed to Europeans.)

All of the above factors are not common today in this country, except for the first two factors very common in Aborigines, who suffer a high death rate, despite (rather, largely because of) intensive vaccination. Well known Dr Archie Kalokerinos (recently accounced Greek Australian of the Century – update Jan 2000), who worked with Aboriginal children, saw so many, immune-suppressed to start with, not survive the assault of vaccines. This led him to discover the enormous difference made by Vitamin C53, and bravely speak out against the establishment against vaccination, including authoring a book documenting his experience, called "Every Second Child".

Not only do vaccines contribute to the three factors above, but they also have introduced additional risk factors, as has been shown earlier.

A similar principle to the above applies with other types of micro-organisms, such as bacteria.

To summarise, vaccination is both HARMFUL and TOTALLY INEFFECTIVE. It is harmful because of its toxic, sensitising nature and usually invasive delivery, whose reversibility is obviously very difficult and limited. It is evident that it is INEFFECTIVE because the requirements of Nature for the building of immunity are not satisfied by this artificial process. It appears that we cannot cheat on Nature, because we are part of it. Good health is the only immunity that there is to suffering with infection, and it is very effective. That is what ‘health" means, and it is something we do have control over, even though we cannot achieve it with a magic pill or injection.

2. Immunisation Rates And Trends.

Past rates and trends have been described above.

The current rate of 53% fully "immunised" is quite misleading when compared to Third World countries, since as little as one single injection is sufficient criteria in some such countries to stamp the recipient as "fully immunised". In this country there is by now an overwhelmingly high number of vaccine types and doses on the schedule, and it still keeps increasing, for no gain. If you count each dose and each component in each injection, children are being given over 30 vaccines by the time they go to school. It is becoming more and more obviously ridiculous. The human body was not designed for this; indeed it was not designed to be given ANY injections, as I have already covered.

Indeed many other countries have banned, suspended or never introduced various individual vaccines, e.g. Japan the MMR vaccine, Germany and Sweden the pertussis vaccine, Italy recently the HIB vaccine, the US the tuberculosis vaccine. NZ stopped pushing the hepatitis B vaccine after a study showed that it caused a 60% increase in diabetes mellitus, a similar result to what they had found with the HIB vaccine (NZ Medical Journal May 1996).

October 1998 addition : Faced with a potential health disaster, France has just suspended Hepatitis B vaccinations of school children, four years after a mass immunization program began. Health Minister Bernard Kouchner said inoculations were stopped because of fears that the vaccine could cause neurological disorders, in particular multiple sclerosis. (This is one of many reported adverse effects which has actually for a long time been listed on the vaccine product insert).

All of these vaccines are the same as those used in Australia. When Japan raised the minimum vaccination age to 2 years (in 1975), it jumped from 17th place to the country with the lowest infant mortality in the world. The mortality increased again 13 years later when the minimum age was lowered to 3 months. The US, where vaccination is now mandatory for school entry, has an increasing infant mortality rate which has been said to rival those of Third World Countries. It is now down to 26th place.

3. Immunisation Availability And Provisions.

Vaccination constitutes a deeply invasive, basically irreversible, toxic assault on the human system which is known to cause death, sometimes immediately. Whilst many insidious long-term effects are already becoming apparent, perhaps the worst are still in store. Consideration of whether or not it should be available at all to parents follows the same principle as considering whether or not a parent should be allowed to cause harm, with the risk of causing death, to their own child. It is not an exaggeration to draw such a parallel, as no benefit has been scientifically demonstrated, only enormous harm. It is no wonder that a doctor (who will remain nameless) candidly said to a mother "A vaccinated child is a patient for life", reflecting the fact that the pharmaceutical industry benefits from the sale of not only vaccines, but also the enormous range of medications taken to treat the symptoms of the resulting health problems.

The law should be set and carried out according to fact, and for the benefit of the community. There should be no influence from propaganda, or from any lobbying by powerful vested interests, though sadly it is difficult to stop secret deals from being made between players in the industry and government figures.

4. Relevant Legislative Considerations And Framework.

1) The Australian Federal Constitution Section 51 Part 23A guarantees that no medical procedure can be mandated. Yet many parents are being told that their children cannot be accepted into child care centres unless they have been vaccinated. This is against the principle of the law. Worse still, children are being vaccinated without their parents’ consent. Further, when parents vaccinate because they are misled that no other option is sensible, the principle of this ruling is being violated.

2) In Rogers v. Whitaker, the High Court of Australia 1992 (ALJR 1992 67:47-55) ruled that doctors have a legal duty of care to warn of all side effects of material nature of all procedures, from the perspective of the patient and even if the patient does not ask.

This is really a legal duty for doctors to tell parents far more than most of them know themselves, in respect to many effects of vaccines which have already been documented. So already the law is being broken in a major way. The result is that many parents are choosing to vaccinate when they would not do so if they were told the true effects. Further, even some deliberate dishonesty has been privately admitted.

3) What can and should be done by the Government (Federal and/or Territory).

What is necessary, and importantly is all that IS necessary in this matter, is that governments support the right of every individual (of sound mind) to freedom to make any choices concerning his or her own health or his or her children’s health, provided that that choice cannot be shown to harm any individual without the consent of that individual. Such support necessitates that:

a) governments should make freely and easily available any information which is relevant, and most importantly, factual and not misleading, to enable that right to be exercised (This effort should go beyond allowing the public access to medical libraries!) All information given to the public should be scrutinised by independent parties to ensure that it is not contrary to what has been documented in medical literature.

b) no restrictions regarding any such choices should be enforced unless overwhelming scientific evidence can be presented showing that any option will harm, or reasonably increase the risk of harm, to another person.

What has been the case to date in relation to vaccination is a severe failing in respect to point (a) above which has caused the public, including many doctors, to be grossly misled. This has in turn led some to call for restrictions to be placed, as described in (b) above, to enforce vaccination. This is because, without having studied much or any material themselves, they (including many doctors) blindly believe that overwhelming scientific evidence exists that not "immunising" one’s child will put the child or other children at reasonably increased risk.

However, it has been shown that quite the reverse is the case. The evidence is very strong that the practice of vaccination is only harmful, not beneficial, to the recipient, with an increased risk of harm to others also as a result. Such harm to others includes suffering and cost to a child’s family when the child is damaged, as well as violence (in some cases death, e.g. Port Arthur tragedy) to others as a result of harm done to the brain.

This means the Federal Government should in fact be considering banning the practice, according to the principle in (b) above. I believe it inevitably will do this in the future, just as other countries have banned various individual vaccines. It is only a matter of time. (Even now, if a country decided to ban (or suspend) each vaccine that is currently banned or suspended by any other country, there would be very few left ! )

In the meantime, before we advance to that stage, it is more than desirable that all governments at least follow the principle outlined in (a), by endeavouring first to sort out fact from fiction, and then to provide factual information to the public, so that a truly informed decision can be made by parents. A country is not truly free if the people are misinformed about their choices.

4) A hazard of trying to enforce vaccination - compensation

Note the following:

*The USA, UK, NZ and Japan pay millions of dollars in compensation to victims of vaccine injury.

*The cost of the whooping cough vaccine rose from 11 cents in 1982 to $15.00 in 1992. The manufacturer was by then putting aside $12.00 per shot to cover legal costs and compensation being paid out to parents of damaged children.

The more that any government moves towards enforcing vaccination, the more liable it will be for vaccine damage, which is being increasingly recognised. The cost will potentially be enormous. In fact the cost it brings already is enormous, in respect to health care.

5. Suggested Strategies For Improving Our Immunisation Rates

Given the true effect of vaccines, and the important principles set out in the previous section, under 3) What can and should be done by the Government, the ideal immunisation rate to aim for in the future should in fact be ZERO. Assault is illegal, and this is a form of assault (though be it unintentional), in fact an irreversible form. The category "man-slaughter" is even appropriate in a large proportion of cases, as it results in death, the time of occurrence ranging from soon afterwards to many years later due to chronic or acute ill-health.

The actions which will be required by all relevant powers to move towards this ideal are as follows:

  • restrictions on funding of research and medical education by vested interests,
  • education of doctors in what does and does NOT bring true health, or at least in critical analysis,

  • education of the public also in what does and does NOT bring true health,

  • resistance of pressure from the pharmaceutical industry (directly, and indirectly through the medical establishment), and, when appropriate,

  • withdrawal of vaccines.

Of course, since this is a far from an ideal world, it is difficult to imagine any of these health-saving measures being taken in the near future to much or any extent. The pharmaceutical industry is in the top 3 industries in the world, in fact vaccines alone are the 14th biggest, and consequently the industry has an enormous amount of power. Much of this comes through the influence it has had on the beliefs of all of us, including politicians. This is apart from its huge direct financial muscle, also used to influence politicians. However, the public is experiencing an awakening, and there is, and will continue to be, an increasing and unstoppable demand for these types of changes.




1. 1989 in Sweden. There was NO pertussis vaccination in this country at this time, after being discontinued in 1979 due, as officially acknowledged, to the ineffectiveness and harmful effects of the vaccine. Below is the cumulative incidence of whooping cough in 372 unvaccinated 10-year-old Swedish children 10 years after vaccination ended. Most of the children's mothers (i.e. older than 22 years in 1979) would also NOT have received the whooping cough vaccine.

Note: 1) No incidence under 1 year age

2) Highest incidence (where there is the sharpest incline in a cumulative graph such as this one) was between 2 and 6 years of age

3) Other types of vaccines are still administered. Otherwise this age range of highest incidence would likely be closer to the ideal age range, which would be 5-9 years of age.

Source: Pediatrics Infectious Diseases Journal 1993.

2. (Below:) 1994 in the United States. Pertussis vaccination has been mandatory for school entry in most states of the US since 1978. Most mothers of infants in the U.S. in 1994 would also have received the pertussis vaccine as babies. 

Source: Summary of Notifiable Diseases United States 1996 - CDC MMWR Oct 31 1997, pg 44.

MyName Domain Name - $25 A year!

Copyright (C) 1998-9 Taycare Pty Ltd

Web Designed and Hosted by Breakfast Bytes Pty Limited
Domain Name Sponsored by
MyName - My Own Domain Name - FREE!

Putting you before the DOT COM INOZ!