Time: Tue Mar 25 21:48:08 1997
by primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id QAA02482;
Tue, 25 Mar 1997 16:40:20 -0700 (MST)
id RAA25358; Tue, 25 Mar 1997 17:56:39 -0500 (EST)
id RAA25353; Tue, 25 Mar 1997 17:56:38 -0500 (EST)
id AA23921; Tue, 25 Mar 1997 17:56:33 -0500
by usr10.primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id PAA05536
for <snetnews@world.std.com>; Tue, 25 Mar 1997 15:56:26 -0700 (MST)
Date: Tue, 25 Mar 1997 19:44:53 -0800
To: snetnews@world.std.com
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar]
Subject: SNET: GOVERNMENT GETS TOUGH ON VACCINATIONS
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
-> SearchNet's SNETNEWS Mailing List
Several years ago, the United States
Court of Claims heavily modified their
local court rules to accommodate what
they expected to be a rapid rise in
the number of wrongful death claims
attributable to a federal innoculation
program. The rule changes were printed
on very thin onion-skin paper, so as
to be less conspicuous.
/s/ Paul Mitchell
At 09:29 PM 3/25/97 +1000, you wrote:
>
>-> SearchNet's SNETNEWS Mailing List
>
>The following article is from New Dawn No. 41, and is featured on New Dawn's
>BRAND NEW Web site: http://www.peg.apc.org/~newdawn
>
>Check out our new Web Information Mall in which we ask you to contribute!
>
>_________________________________________________________
>GOVERNMENT GETS TOUGH ON VACCINATIONS
>- WHO'S REALLY BEHIND THE PUSH?
>
>By JOHN LESSO
>
>During the last decade governments in Australia have dramatically stepped up
>their push towards increasing vaccination levels and to that end they have
>initiated campaigns which threaten one of the the very essences of this
>country's appeal: freedom of choice.
>
>Back in 1987 state governments announced through the media that vaccination
>would be a condition of entry into state schools, which in effect would mean
>compulsory vaccination through the backdoor. Although they were unsuccessful
>in their initial attempt, some States enacted legislation which in effect
>achieved the same desired outcome. Incorrect statements by health officials
>and the media about the new legislation misled many parents. For example,
>the Sydney Morning Herald reported: "When parents enrol their children in
>NSW public schools next year they will be asked for documentary proof that
>they have been fully immunised, under new legislation approved by the State
>Government."1 Many parents interpreted this as meaning mandatory
>vaccinations upon school entry and worried about their children's education
>rushed them for their shots. However, the new legislation only required
>schools to ask parents to provide their children's vaccination certificate
>upon school enrolment. It didn't even make the production of a certificate
>obligatory. In the absence of a certificate "the child is taken not to have
>been immunised against any of the vaccine preventable diseases."2
>
>GOVERNMENT GETS TOUGH
> Beginning this year the Liberal/National Federal Government decided to get
>very tough on vaccine non-compliance by initiating schemes which would be in
>direct contradiction to the Liberal philosophies of freedom of choice and
>individual responsibility. The most dramatic is a bold move by the Minister
>for Education Dr David Kemp who announced in late January that he will be
>calling on the State and Territory governments to make vaccinations
>compulsory upon school entry - the real thing this time! Dr Kemp said the
>matter was so serious that he would put the plan to State and Territory
>education ministers at a meeting in the next month. He expected "effective
>action" to increase the child vaccination rate. "A school would be quite
>entitled to say to parents: 'Go away and have your child immunised and bring
>the papers back tomorrow,'" he said. He did not explain how the policy would
>be enforced but said parents who had no acceptable reason for refusing to
>have their child immunised would have to "consider their legal obligation to
>have their child educated". Fortunately, Dr Kemp's proposal was rejected by
>many as too heavy-handed. The Australian Education Union, the Federation of
>Parents and Citizens' Associations, the NSW Teachers Federation, and the NSW
>State Government, to name a few.3 Just a week later the Federal Health
>Minister Michael Wooldridge assured the Australian public that vaccinations
>would not be made compulsory.4 Citizens should be aware that the Australian
>Federal Constitution is a more reliable assurance than a politician's word.
>Section 51, Part 23A of the Constitution makes it unlawful for a government
>to impose any form of compulsory medication. However, in
>recent times in this country, governments have shown an increasing
>propensity to override, circumvent, or simply
>ignore the Constitution. More on this later.
>
>CASH FOR A JAB PLAN
> In the same month Dr Wooldridge announced that his ministry is considering
>a "cash for a jab" plan. Under the proposed scheme parents would receive a
>cash bonus every time their child received an injection. The Health Minister
>is also considering payments to doctors and local regions. Doctors could be
>given a cash incentive if they increased the vaccination rate of children in
>their practice, and local governments, which run vaccination systems in some
>States, could have their funding increased if they increased the proportion
>of children vaccinated.5 The payments to doctors and local councils would
>make the scheme open to abuse. It would encourage opportunistic doctors to
>vaccinate children without parental consent, a problem that already exists
>thanks to an earlier scheme by the Government.6 And already a council has
>banned two unvaccinated children from attending a council-run childcare
>center in Queensland.7 The cash incentives would encourage such human rights
>abuses. The foolishness of the Government's intentions is highlighted by its
>later suggestion that children may also be entitled to McDonald's fast-food
>vouchers upon vaccination.
>
>CASH PENALTIES PLAN
> Soon after the Government announced its cash incentive scheme it decided to
>take a harder line by threatening to financially penalise parents who fail
>to vaccinate their children. A spokeswoman for the Health Minister said a
>financial penalty, perhaps through child allowances, could be part of a
>national plan to increase vaccinations. "The cash incentive idea has been
>blown out of all proportion," the spokeswoman said. "Why reward parents who
>aren't doing the right thing?"8 The Government has for some time considered
>a similar proposal. "Radford suggested one way to
>encourage age appropriate immunisation is to link compulsory immunisation to
>the receipt of family allowances as occurs in some European countries."9 In
>the USA, many of its states have already linked
>vaccination compliance to receipt of government welfare and, in some cases,
>a parent's right to care for their own children. One example of the
>consequence of this policy is the case of a Bellefontaine woman whose baby
>died 17 hours after receiving a DPT shot. The mother was threatened with
>losing her WIC benefits (food assistance for low-income families with
>children) for refusing to vaccinate her subsequent child.10
>
>VACCINATION STATUS
>TRACKING SYSTEM
> Beginning last year the Government implemented the
>National Childhood Immunisation Register (NCIR), a computer database system
>that would tag, track and monitor the vaccination status of every baby born
>in this country. The NCIR database makes personal information available for
>all and sundry to see. Immediately after the NCIR was implemented reports
>were coming in that opportunistic doctors, having access to the NCIR
>database, were without parental consent or knowledge injecting children
>brought into hospital emergency rooms for unrelated conditions.6 The
>Government justifies the NCIR database based on their misconceived view that
>the failing vaccination program is largely due to busy but consenting
>parents who simply forget to take their children for their shots. Through
>the NCIR, parents with children falling behind in their vaccine schedule
>would receive reminders by post, and further non-compliance would lead to
>community nurses knocking at their doors offering on-the-spot vaccinations.
>This caused many fears among health professionals and parents. Adverse
>reactions to vaccinations do occur - sometimes life-threatening - so how
>would the vaccinator respond in such situations?
>
>SHOPPING MALL VACCINATIONS
> Shortly after, the Government announced the introduction of vaccination
>stalls at shopping malls. Again this was justified on their belief that the
>falling vaccination levels were largely due to forgetful and busy parents
>not having the time to arrange their children's inoculations. The
>vaccination stalls were intended to overcome this situation - parents could
>simply have their children inoculated while doing the shopping. Would the
>shopping mall vaccinator be equipped to respond to a life-threatening
>vaccine reaction?
>
>FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
>HAS GOT IT WRONG
> All the above schemes share a common thread - that the Government
>attributes their failing vaccination program to complacent but consenting
>parents. The Government wants us to believe that 90% of parents support
>vaccinations but don't keep up with the vaccine schedule because of
>complacency. Using this logic the Government is ignoring a fundamental
>truth: many parents cease to support vaccinations sometime during the course
>of their child's schedule because of either witnessing their child's
>reactions, learning about someone else's reactions, or being exposed to
>information. The fact is that vaccines do cause adverse reactions and, as
>demonstrated by the disease outbreaks that still occur in the highly
>vaccinated United States (a country which has 95% coverage in most states),
>they aren't all that effective.
>
>VACCINATIONS DO CAUSE
>HEALTH PROBLEMS
> Health hazards from vaccinations can include cancer, multiple sclerosis,
>autism, leukemia, lupus, mental retardation, blindness, asthma, epilepsy,
>cerebral palsy, encephalitis,
>paralysis, cot deaths, damage to and/or failure of kidneys, liver, heart and
>other body organs, arthritis, meningitis,
>allergies, hyperactivity, chronic ear infections, learning
>disabilities, and death.11 The reason for such problems is simple: no
>vaccine intended for humans has ever undergone a properly conducted
>controlled clinical trial. No one has ever taken a large group of people,
>vaccinated one half, left the other half alone and compared their health
>over a substantial period of time. Because there is no scientific basis in
>the Government's assurances of vaccine safety, their vaccination programs
>can best be described as a large-scale experiment on the Australian public.
>
>WHO'S BEHIND IT ALL?
> Despite this the Health Department is working frantically to reverse the
>current trend of vaccine non-compliance.
>Appearing on the television program "A Current Affair," Health Minister
>Wooldridge has stated that "We must get the immunisation rate up to an
>acceptable international level."4
>Acceptable to whom?, or should I say, WHO? His aim for an "acceptable
>international level" is 90-95% by the year 2000 - a goal which is expected
>of his Government by the World Health Organisation because of an
>international treaty. Back in 1983 the WHO launched its Expanded Program on
>Immunization in order to achieve maximum vaccination coverage of the world's
>children. The WHO committed all national political leaders - representing
>158 nations - to achieve and maintain a goal of 80% vaccination coverage in
>their respective countries by 1990, and in that year the WHO set a further
>goal of 90% coverage by the year 2000.12,13 The WHO's latter target is
>unrealistic in the light of the growing awareness and
>concern of the dangers of vaccinations, particularly among citizens in the
>more developed and democratic countries where freedom of speech still does
>exist to some limited extent.
>
>WHO/UN TREATIES OVERRIDE THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION
> Our Government's involvement with the WHO should be a real concern among
>health freedom advocates. Although Section 51, Part 23A of the Australian
>Federal Constitution should protect us from any form of compulsory
>medication, including vaccinations, our rights can still be stolen from us.
>In recent times in this country, governments have shown an increasing
>propensity to override, circumvent, or simply
>ignore the Constitution. This is achieved by the High Court's willingness to
>allow international treaties and agreements to override our Constitution. An
>example of this is when in the 1970s the High Court ruled that the Federal
>Government could override the Tasmanian State Parliament and ban the
>construction of the Franklin Dam. Although the action was in breach of the
>Constitution, the High Court based its decision upon the fact that Australia
>was a signatory to a United
>Nations Treaty on World Heritage and therefore was more obliged to the UN
>agreement than to its own Constitution. Australia is already signatory to a
>number of UN agreements that could be misused by the High Court to override
>Section 51, Part 23A of the Constitution. Among these is the
>"Convention On The Rights Of The Child" which imposes on signatories an
>obligation to "ensure the highest possible standards" of health care for
>children. The High Court could easily interpret this as an obligation to
>ensure mandatory
>vaccinations.14 Writing in her book The Medical Mafia, Dr Guylaine Lanctôt
>stated that the UN adopted the Convention On The Rights Of The Child so as
>to beat the resistance and opposition put up by obstinate adults against the
>WHO's
>vaccination programs.12
>
>LET'S GET OUT
>OF THE UNITED NATIONS
> Many informed critics argue that our government should opt out of
>international treaties with the WHO and its parent organisation the United
>Nations, because these treaties are eroding our national sovereignty piece
>by piece, surrendering it to a world bureaucracy. The United Nations, with
>its numerous affiliated organisations, has been described by many
>critics as an "unelected World Government" which is funded and controlled by
>an elite group of international financiers and corporations for the express
>purpose of dictating the world's nations, and for this reason critics are
>calling on their political leaders to break all ties with the UN. Although
>global governance by the UN has not been completely implemented yet, its
>imminence is becoming increasingly clear. In an
>article entitled "World Government by the year 2000?", Henry Lamb of the
>Environmental Conservation Organisation informs readers that "the UN-funded
>Commission on Global Governance has completed its three-year study and has
now
>announced publicly its plans to implement global governance by the year
>2000." Lamb predicts that the United Nations will convene a World Conference
>on Global Governance in 1998 "for the purpose of submitting to the world the
>necessary treaties and agreements for ratification and implementation [of
>world government] by the year 2000." Lamb observes that "many of the
>recommendations published in this report have been under way for several
>years."15
>
>COME CLEAN PLEASE
> Until the Government admits to the real reason why
>parents are refusing inoculations, and until they come clean on the real
>risks and limitations of vaccines, instead of
>continuing its destructive course of deceit, scare-mongering, and coercion,
>while abdicating our country's sovereignty to a world bureaucracy intent on
>achieving an unrealistic vaccination coverage throughout the world, the
>human rights abuses caused by the Government's schemes will continue to drag
>this country down a totalitarian path. Protect your health freedoms - don't
>allow national and international bureaucrats to steal from you what's
>rightfully yours!
>
>REFERENCES:
>
>1. "Schools To Require Immunity", The Sydney Morning Herald, NSW, April 18,
>1991.
>2. NSW Public Health Act 1991, No. 10, Part 3A.
>3. "Federal push to enforce compulsory immunisation", The Sydney Morning
>Herald, NSW, January 30, 1997.
>4. Michael Wooldridge in "A Current Affair", TCN Chan. 9, NSW, February 6,
1997.
>5. "Cash for a tear", The Daily Telegraph, NSW, January 15, 1997.
>6. Meryl Dorey, VAN Newsletter, Vaccination & Awareness Network, Bangalow,
>NSW, January 1996.
>7. "Childcare ban if not immunised", The Cairns Post, Qld, January 6, 1997.
>8. "Immunise - or pay the price: Cash penalty plan to increase vaccine
>rate", The Sunday Telegraph , NSW, January 26, 1997.
>9. Childhood Immunisation: A Review of the Literature, The Commonwealth
>Department of Human Services and Health, 1994.
>10. Dayton Daily News, May 28, 1993.
>11. For an extensive insight into the dangers of vaccinations refer to Viera
>Scheibner's Vaccination: The Medical Assault on the Immune System, Scheibner
>Publ., Blackheath, NSW, 1993.
>12. Guylaine Lanctôt, The Medical Mafia, Here's The Key Inc., Canada, 1995,
>p. 124-5.
>13. James P. Grant, UNICEF, The State of the World's Children, Oxford
>University Press, 1994.
>14. Peter Sawyer, "Compulsory Immunization: Is It Good? Is It Safe? Is It
>Legal?" Inside News, Maleny, Qld, May/June 1991; Peter Sawyer, One Man
>Banned, Brian Wilshire (Ed.), Brian Wilshire Publ., Round Corner, NSW, 1996.
>15. "World Government by the year 2000?", Behind the Headlines, America's
>Future, Inc., St. Louis, MO, December 15, 1996.
>
>For further information, contact the author at:
>Campaign Against Fraudulent Medical Research (CAFMR), P.O. Box 234, Lawson
>NSW 2783, Australia. Ph/fx: +61 (0)47-58-6822. Email: cafmr@pnc.com.au URL:
>www.pnc.com.au/~cafmr Subscription to the CAFMR is $18 (Aust) per year. Add
>$6 for overseas subs.
>
>
>-> Send "subscribe snetnews " to majordomo@world.std.com
>-> Posted by: David <newdawn@peg.apc.org>
>
>
========================================================================
Paul Andrew, Mitchell, B.A., M.S. : Counselor at Law, federal witness
email: [address in tool bar] : Eudora Pro 3.0.1 on Intel 586 CPU
web site: http://www.supremelaw.com : library & law school registration
ship to: c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776 : this is free speech, at its best
Tucson, Arizona state : state zone, not the federal zone
Postal Zone 85719/tdc : USPS delays first class w/o this
========================================================================
-> Send "subscribe snetnews " to majordomo@world.std.com
-> Posted by: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar]
Return to Table of Contents for
Supreme Law School: E-mail