Do doctors have to sign Conscientious Objector forms?

New information has just come to light on this question, which I wanted to share with you because it is very important and will have implications for all parents who are filing as a conscientious objector to vaccination. It is also quite different from my previous understanding of this issue.

From the very beginning of the policy that required parents who were not vaccinating to see an immunisation provider in order to get their conscientious objector form signed (in order to get the Maternity Immunisation Allowance and the Childcare Benefit), the AVN has had a steady stream of parents approach them because GPs were refusing to sign the form.

We were told by the AMA that there was no requirement for doctors to actually sign this form – leading to parents seeing up to 20 or more doctors before finding one who would agree to sign. One wonders if the AMA were lying or simply ignorant. Either way, it is not a great recommendation for their integrity.

This made no sense to us because the requirement was for a doctor to ‘counsel’ the parent on the benefits and risks of vaccination and then, sign the form to say they had counselled – not that they agreed or disagreed with the decision of the parent.

Despite this, as I said above, it has been common for doctors to refuse to sign these forms leading to great stress on the part of parents who have felt bullied, intimidated and even abused by some less than ethical medicos.

Now however, I have been given a copy of an article from the Australian Doctor Weekly.

Written by Dr Craig Lilienthal, a practising GP, medicolegal consultant and a member of Avant’s Medical Advisory Council, it appears that there is a legal requirement for doctors to sign these forms. This is information parents need to be aware of and, if doctors do refuse to sign, it looks as though parents would be well within their rights to file an official complaint with the healthcare complaints commission in their State or Territory.

From the article:

Case one:

A young mother asks you to provide her with a medical certificate stating she is a conscientious objector to her children being immunised. She needs the certificate so they can attend school and she can receive Family Assistance payments (please note – this information is incorrect since the conscientious objector has nothing to do with school entry or Family Assistance payments – only the two payments noted above).

You are personally opposed to her views and believe her thinking – about the risks of vaccinations and the benefits of immunity through healthy eating – is unrealistic.

You advise her accordingly and state that you are a conscientious objector to providing the requested documentation.


You can decline to provide her with the requested document because:

A – Her views fly in the face of accepted medical knowledge.

B – You are opposed to her views and believe she is putting her children at risk.

C – The legislation allows you to decline the request.

D – None of the above

Answer A may be supported by the great bulk of your professional colleagues, but does not constitute grounds for declining her request. Answer B represents your personal views and we know and accept that we cannot impose our personal opinions on our patients. Answer C is not correct either. The Family Assistance Act imposes a legal duty of care on doctors to sign the forms after discussing the pros and cons of the situation with parents. Your refusal to sign a form or provide a certificate amounts to a disregard of the legally recognised right of every person to refuse medical treatment. The correct answer, therefore, is D, none of the above.

Please share this information widely since the best way for parents to defend their rights is to be aware of them and we all need to be aware of this requirement on the part of doctors.

Also, remember that the Health Insurance Commission regularly ‘loses’ the Conscientious Objector Forms that have been submitted by parents. Therefore, be sure to keep a copy and to send your form in by registered mail.

Posted in Homepage
182 comments on “Do doctors have to sign Conscientious Objector forms?
  1. Elizabeth Gillespie says:

    My doctor signed the “Conscientious Objection” forms for both of my children-“RELUCTANTLY” but he still signed them!

  2. Amy says:

    I know that feeling of sitting with a Doctor and i wait while they run you through all the protocol of good parents who vaccinate and some where in there i remind myself that i am there to have my form signed: I have read enough on vaccination, I have experienced vaccine damage in my eldest child, I do not argue, I have consciencely acknowledged that the Doctor has a ‘duty’ to the vaccination program: and I smile to myself, when in desperation the Doctor realises she has lost me and throws out that there is a Whooping Cough epidemic up the road at the school, this makes me smile more: I do not argue, the poor dears at the school are most likely vaccinated but the Doctor doesn’t need the push, I agree that i have heard her and ask if she is now able to sign my ‘conscience objection form’ and she grimmaces, I smile comfortingly for her and help her through the signing process: I thank her because she has been of great help to me and has done something beyond her understanding.
    If there is a rule to having a form signed: Don’t argue, listen (politely)and Thank them for pointing out all the ‘Scary’ stuff they have learned by rote and remind them to sign your form.
    Consciencely deciding to not vaccinate means you should read, ask, research vaccination information before you go to the Doctor with your form. Asking the Doctor while your there to have your form sign is a signal that the Doctor will work on your lack of knowledge to argue with you.
    Remember don’t take it personally: Don’t argue with the Doctor: You may know what you know about vaccination but you are not there to convert the Doctor: You are his/her business and you are asking them to sign the form.
    Hope this may help

    • Judy says:

      Great advice! You are quite correct.Doctors are aware they are required to support the government vaccination policies otherwise their practices are investigated and livelihoods affected. It is an unwritten part of the doctor’s contract.Please observe the obuse and ridicule any citizen is subjected to if they dare to speak against vaccines. Would you risk your reputation when the alternative is a wealthy lifestyle? Until society allows a proper academic debate on the arguments and not destroying the individual then public health is at risk. The doctors are receiving their education and risk assessments directly from the pharmaceutical companies. This is not a secret – there are a multitude of books out there trying to wake up the public!

      • Mark Rolls says:

        May I just point out a few things:
        1) You state that the government requires us to support vaccines and that we are investigated if we don’t and then in the next breath say it is part of some ‘unwritten contract’. Which is it?
        2) We doctor make good money, that’s true. But do you really think we are in it for the money? That we would risk the lives of our patients to live a ‘wealthy lifestyle’ as you put it?

        • Kym says:

          I don’t believe doctors are in in just for the money, well maybe some out there got into it for a good income and status. Money does however make an excellent smoke screen and I believe most doctors are fed false information through dodgey trials and professional magazines run and owned by guess who…BIG PHARMA ! All doctors should read the book titled BIG PHARMA. And in general shouldn’t hoe down tripe fed to them by those who benefit. Alike, parents should do the hard yard and read through the endless sides of this debate. I have a ten month old whom I do not want to give vacs to but am still learning. Good job people to continue with this debate, ever vigilante! If gov, and professionals and big companies were really trying to make this world better, they are pretty crap at it.

        • C’mon Mark, of course you are in it for the money. Or do you give it all to charity and drive a 1974 Volvo? You orthodox practitioners have to put up with doing harm every day, struggling by with the cognitive dissonance of the “wounded healer”, and then trying to displace the blame to elsewhere. (For instance, all pediatricians see this with vaccines, and know well the harm caused: they simply could not justify and deny the adverse reactions away forever without embracing the cold and dark identity which “cremates care”.)
          You are stripped of the ability to really heal by the pharmacentric establishment, which has committed the unthinkable over the course of the last hundred years: from totally dominating your educational institutions through to corrupting your ‘professional’ practice with all of their enticements–to both practitioners and medical ‘scholars’ alike; from physically, legislatively and criminally oppressing real cures from both inside and outside of the mainstream medical community, through to the veritable usurping of the whole world’s government’s concept of health, through petrochemical big dollars, into the bigoted, intolerant and often plain-dead-wrong approach of pharmacologically driven, reductionistic allopathy. This paradigm makes such a mockery of the original tenets of the Hippocratic oath’s “do no harm” that the Oath itself has been relegated to a ‘passe’ status wherever possible, as if that was to cloak the harm being done.
          THERE WILL ALWAYS BE US, those who choose to be educated in your ways and see through the sham, the wretched disease industry and it’s mechanisms that anywhere beneath the most superficial rendering, really care not for the health of the public at all, but foremost prioritise the hideous monster, the money munching golem that is the medical establishment. And we are not going to take your sh*t (or that of the govt stooges) lying down.

          So I am sorry for you if you have been sucked into a career and seemingly inescapable life choice that is based around deceit and harm, whether you are conscious to it or not. But really Mark, isn’t it time you got conscious to it? Isn’t this question a plea from somewhere in side you to break free of the wounded healer inside? Is there still a soul in there to save?

          • Merkus Hilleman says:

            Totaly respect and endorse this comment. Any doctor who champions vaccine, charges above the bulk billing rate and turns a blind corrupt eye to the iatrogenics of sv40 is guilty.

    • Concerned grandparent says:

      What you say flies in the face of logic and evidence! How do you know that it was vaccination that ‘affected’ your eldest child? How can you sit in front of the doctor who’s read the research, and not just that that supports their personal view, nod your head sagely and leave without considering that you may be wrong? Your reading may be selective, it may not consider both sides of the argument and the evidence pro and contra. Open your mind! You seem as fixed in your ways as those pesky doctors you rail against because they don’t kowtow to your extremist views.

      • Extremism is ignoring a radical negative change in the entire health of the worldwide population and its real causative agents. No matter if you have a multi-billion dollar establishment backing up the lies, the truth will still seek the light of day. Vaccines. SSRIs. NSAIDs. GMOs. EMF. etc. etc. A barrage of food, air and water borne environmental toxins, ad nauseam… things the med orthodoxy conveniently ignores in favour of filling you up with toxins, nuking you and cutting you to pieces.
        “your reading may be selective”–the bible said it was good practice to remove the log from your own eye before you criticize the twig in your brother’s. The doctors are, in general, woefully ignorant to the vast literature that addresses vaccine adverse reactions and inefficacy. That’s their ‘education’.
        Your comment is so biased, so hypocritical, so blind to it’s own fallacious underpinnings, that I will have to keep it earmarked for quoting when I am speaking of medical ignorance and it’s promulgation by the ignorant.

      • television is brainwashing says:

        logic and evidence? Extremist views?Research the ingredients in vaccines, there is nothing good for the body in them with exception of some salts. Also when reading, for example Fluvax vaccine ingredients it says “May also contain trace amounts of detergent (sodium taurodeoxycholate),egg protein,(ovalbumin),sucrose,neomycin,polymyxin B sulphate and beta propiolactone.” Now i ask if they are telling us there may be traces of all of these things, how the hell do they know how much is in each dose and what are all of these “may also contain” ingredients doing on the production line and what DON’T they know is in them.
        The list of side effects are some 42 ranging from mild to severe requiring urgent medical attention. A little difficult for a baby to express,but never fear the media surely would tell you if there was something to be weary of…. Wrong again i bet you didn’t know that in 2010 there was an “unexpected increase in reports of fever and seizures/convulsions in children under 5 and fever in children 5 to 9”. And who knows how many unreported.
        Now an extremist view to me would be to force these ongoing experiments on the population.You might want to look into fluoride aswell,another poison we have been force fed in the name of good health.

    • Penxta says:

      Great post!

    • Ellie says:

      Gosh that is just perfect! Thankyou for that advice. I wish you well and hope your children appreciate what you have done for them 🙂

  3. Adam says:

    We found a fully qualified naturopath who was only to happy to fill in and sign the form, after we lost faith in the advise given to us by our regular GP.

    • admin says:

      Hi Adam,
      Unfortunately, only people with an immunisation provider number (eg GPs and council clinic sisters) are legally able to sign the conscientious objector form. I don’t believe that the HIC will accept your exemption, but you never know.

      • looking at my form,it says the must put the medicare providers number,if they got that they can sign the the form

        • MedStudent says:

          The form may still not be accepted – physiotherapists also have a medicare provider number, but they are not considered as a recognised vaccination provider. Having a medicare provider number does not mean that they are legally able to sign the form.

          • meryldorey says:

            MedStudent – who said anything about a medicare provider number (if it was in one of the comments, I missed it). They need to have an immunisation [sic] provider number – not medicare.

  4. Dr Anne Coady says:

    There is NO LEGAL REQUIREMENT for a doctor or other immunisation provider to sign “conscientious objector” forms for parents who choose not to vaccinate their children.
    This is the latest legal advice from the AMA
    “There has been some discussion indicating that individual GPs have a legal obligation to sign conscientious objector forms for parents who do not wish to have their children vaccinated.
    If you do not feel comfortable that you can adequately explain the disadvantages of vaccination during a consultation you are within your rights to not sign a conscientious objector form.”
    If you have any concerns please contact AMA (NSW) on 9439 8822.
    From Sarah Dahlenburg
    Director, Medico-Legal and Employment

    • admin says:

      Thank you for your input Anne. Of course, we have 2 medico-legal experts and 2 different opinions. Perhaps it will take a case before the court to decide this once and for all?

      Just one question I have for you first however. Are you aware that when you sign the conscientious objector form, you are simply saying that you have fulfilled your obligation under the law to discuss vaccination with the person whose form you are signing? If so, what possible reason could you have for objecting? Are you saying that you don’t want to discuss vaccination with your patients? Of are you saying that you will discuss this issue but only agree to help those who agree with you? Please let me know. I’m sure many of our readers will be interested in your answer.

      • Dr Anne Coady says:

        Dear anonymous admin,

        There is only one legal opinion on this page. That is the quote that I posted above from todays bulletin from the AMA. The quiz from the magazine that you have posted above is not a legal opinion.

        I am not involved in the vaccination programme or form signing and your questions to me are irrelevant.

        • admin says:

          Dear Anne,

          What you are saying is not correct. There are two legal opinions – one which I have not seen though I take your word for it that is coming from the AMA. According to that opinion, doctors do not have to sign the conscientious objector form. The other opinion is not from a magazine but from the Australian Doctor Weekly and it is by a medico-legal expert whose legal opinion is that:

          The Family Assistance Act imposes a legal duty of care on doctors to sign the forms after discussing the pros and cons of the situation with parents. Your refusal to sign a form or provide a certificate amounts to a disregard of the legally recognised right of every person to refuse medical treatment.

          Was the information from the AMA’s bulletin citing any changes to legislation or amendments to the Family Assistance Act? If not, then I would respectfully suggest that it is not correct. Perhaps you can share the text of this bulletin so we can have an informed discussion about it?

          I also would love to know the answer to the two questions I posed in my last response to you. They are as follows:

          Are you saying that you don’t want to discuss vaccination with your patients? Of are you saying that you will discuss this issue but only agree to help those who agree with you?

          And my name is Meryl Dorey – I’m sorry, I thought I had said that earlier.

          • Dr Anne Coady says:

            Dear Ms Dorey,

            I have already shared the text of the message from the AMA in my previous post, but will post it again as requested.

            Published by the AMA(NSW) 9/5/2102 in an email to all members.

            “There has been some discussion indicating that individual GPs have a legal obligation to sign conscientious objector forms for parents who do not wish to have their children vaccinated.
            If you do not feel comfortable that you can adequately explain the disadvantages of vaccination during a consultation you are within your rights to not sign a conscientious objector form.
            If you have any concerns please contact AMA (NSW) on 9439 8822.
            From Sarah Dahlenburg
            Director, Medico-Legal and Employment”

            Please note contact details so you do not have to “take my word for it”. Parents are not forced to submit their children for vaccination and doctors cannot be forced to sign paperwork.

            The opinion you have quoted in the blog article above was from a quiz in the Australian Doctor magazine 16 May 2011, the online edition of which includes dissenting opinions.

            I have already answered the questions you have raised once again about my medical practice but repeat that I am not involved in the vaccination programme and these questions are irrelevant.

            • Dr Anne Coady says:

              Hi Ms Dorey,
              As I have reposted the text of this bulletin at your request I had hoped that moderation would be prompt. I am now no longer following this thread due to the time lag for posting of replies.

            • Judy says:

              It is of great concern that doctors are displaying the attitudes expressed by Dr.Coady above. It is a display of a generation of doctors that are being subjected to an education (funded by industry)which amounts to propaganda. The selective removal of the risks of vaccines has resulted in doctors who feel entitled to arrogantly ignore the wishes and feelings of their patients – the very foundation of their profession. Perhaps someone could inform this generation of doctors that in 5 years time their ‘facts’ will be fiction and whilst they may not agree with their patients wishes we are entitled to be respected and not coerced into medical procedures. Vaccination is not compulsory in Australia and therefore all doctors are required to sign the forms which the government has unethically linked to welfare payments. Ms.Coady will not win respect for her profession with these attitudes. In fact, many patients will soon be more educated than doctors because of the industry influence over the entire medical profession.

              • admin says:

                Hear, hear, Judy! You have stated this so clearly! No doctor has the right to overrule another person on what they will do in regards to their health or the health of their child. They are advisors – not lords and certainly not gods. It’s time they were reminded on that fact.

                • Samantha says:

                  No body is forcing vaccination. You say that now about doctors and then when you’re in acute medical crises you sing their praises!! Total backflip! Thank you to our wonderful doctors!!

                  • Petunia says:

                    Samantha- I believe the point being made here is NOT that vaccination is compulsory (albeit that there is indisputably a great deal of pressure on parents to vaccinate), The issue is that there is discrimination happening. Those who choose to vaccinate automatically receive a publically-funded government payment. Those who choose not to, from an informed place of conscience, do not receive the same payment, which may well be used to support their children’s health in other ways, without being required to produce the signature of a registered doctor, oftne after a patronizing grilling. A G.P.s refusal to sign, however well-intentioned, is nothing less than an attempt to control vaccination outcomes.

                    You have however brought up a valid point, Medicine can be exceptionally good at dealing with emergencies and people have every right to avail themselves of ‘the good bits’. It does not follow by any stretch of logic that people (taxpaying citizens in this country which thankfully has a universal healthcare system) who are challenging doctors on the vaccination issue do not hold other medical interventions in high regard..

                • Jimmy says:

                  I have a cousin that is a sales rep for a pharmaceutical company and they design a full make up of the GP or Doctor and they are constantly enticed with lovely little gifts that best suits the Doctors wants, imagine what what you get if you work for the AMA Satanic rule over the world no matter how you look at it

                  • MedStudent says:

                    Jimmy, do you realise that pharmaceutical companies would actually make a lot MORE money if people didn’t vaccinate? Treatments for a lot of these vaccine-preventable diseases cost far more than the vaccines do, and would make the pharmaceutical companies (as well as doctors) much more money.
                    Oh, and if you want to claim that it is only through gifts and bribes that doctors form their support for vaccination, then you are quite wrong. Even in year 12 biology students are taught how vaccination works to builds up immunity. In first year of medical degrees, this is taught in even greater detail, and I can assure you that pharmaceutical companies give nothing to medical students.
                    If you want actual facts on the science behind vaccinations instead of only being able to contribute the “Big Pharma” scare tactic to the debate, then I suggest you go to a local TAFE or adult education centre and study year 12 biology, or even just read one of the textbooks (which oddly enough, aren’t written by pharmaceutical companies!).

                    • meryldorey says:

                      MedStudent – you are a prime example of med school brainwashing. First off – most so-called vaccine-preventable diseases are viral and there is no mainstream medical treatment for them.
                      Secondly, if vaccines cause chronic ill health – as many believe – then the drug companies make out like bandits because you aren’t treating someone for 8-10 days for the course of an infection – you are treating them forever.
                      As Dr Robert Mendelssohn said – vaccinate a child once and you’ve got a customer for life.
                      Oh, and MedStudent – I suggest that amongst the assigned texts you read for Uni, you also read the works of Dr Merrill Chase who in the 1940s, proved that antibodies are NOT indicators of immunity. In fact, white blood cells and other immune factors (T and B cells amongst many others) are what will protect us from infection – antibodies only indicate exposure. So how then, Mr “greater than year 12 biology” are vaccines supposed to protect if all they do is induce the production of antibodies?

            • Julie says:

              Dear Dr Coady

              I realise you are not responding to posts here, but if someone else could answer this question I would be grateful.

              I would have thought that a doctor who is unable to explain the “disadvantages of vaccination during a consultation” should not be vaccinating at all. Is this not a “duty of care” to advise the advantages and risks of every procedure?

              • Jennifer Power says:

                Good point, Julie. Some advice I’ve read on this suggests that a parent go to the doctor with another person: spouse or friend. Do not take the child to the appointment as it is for information gathering only. Have the Medicare form for conscientious objection already printed out. It is available online on the medicare site. Politely listen to the doctor’s wise words, ask for printed information for any/all of the vaccines the doctor is spruiking, then give the doctor the form to sign. Have your friend ready with a recording device (film is best but audio works as well) in case the doctor starts to behave unprofessionally. If he/she won’t sign the form, you will have video evidence that you asked politely and were refused. It is your legal right to refuse vaccination for yourself and your children . Do not let your doctor take this right away.

                • admin says:

                  Great suggestions, Jennifer. There is definitely strength in being more than one person and especially if the second person is not emotionally involved with the child in question so they can remain more objective. Also a great idea to leave the child home so you are not pushed into making a snap decision. You have made an appointment to become informed and you’re paying for this information so you deserve to be given the information and treated with respect.

                  • Jennifer Power says:

                    Forgot to add this as well. Keep a copy of the signed form for your own records. My doctor who signed the form for me more than 12 years ago now suggested this because, he said, these forms sometimes can get “lost”!

                    • admin says:

                      Absolutely Jennifer – great point and it happens far too often for it to just be carelessness. I believe there is a deliberate attempt to make this as difficult for non-vaccinating parents as possible and constantly losing these forms is part of that.

                    • Jess says:

                      they absolutely get lost in Hobart ( where they get sent I think ) I learnt the hard way with maddie ( 12) when I had to do it twice !!

                • bad_advice says:

                  This is appalling advice. In New South Wales I believe recording a conversation with your doctor as suggested above may be a breach of the Surveillance Devices Act 2007 (NSW).

                  • admin says:

                    Bad_Advice, nowhere is it stated that the recording should be secret. In fact, since it is recommended that the recording be a video, it is not easy to make such a recording secret. I don’t want to put words into other people’s mouths, but to my way of thinking, letting the doctor know you will be recording them puts them on notice that they will be held responsible for their behaviour – a refreshing idea for some of the abusive health professionals who have been abusive towards those who don’t want to vaccinate their children.

                    • Jennifer Power says:

                      Thank you, admin. I should have stated more clearly that the recording should be upfront; guess I was giving some people too much credit for common sense! It has been the practice for some years that a patient may bring along a friend or relative to a medical appointment for clarification in the form of a second set of ears and eyes, including the opportunity to write down what the doctor says. Think of the case of an elderly patient who really needs another person to take in the doctor’s advice. Why shouldn’t the patient’s advocate record the conversation via audio or video so that the record is factually correct and less open to subjective bias? If the doctor has no plans to behave unprofessionally, then a recorded record of the transaction would benefit both parties. I wonder if Bad Advice has looked at any of the youtube videos in which a child’s guardian films their first vaccinations at 2 months. There are literally 1000s of videos of vaccination appointments for all ages and for all vaccines. So it seems, at least in some parts of the world, that life is recorded in minutia; and, in this example, creating what some would call the smoking-gun of evidence for vaccine-induced brain injury.

                    • admin says:

                      Thank Jennifer – I think that most people would have read what you had written and taken it as meaning that the recording should be done with the knowledge of the practitioner. In fact, I think most people would have understood that letting the practitioner know that they were being recording (and could be held accountable) was one of the major reasons for doing this in the first place!

              • not to mention due dilligence,they should sign there form and leave there own prejudiced views to emselves,lesson for life”never trust ANYONE with financial motive”

              • Your question strikes at the heart of the violation of informed consent that takes place in most instances of vaccination.

                Ask your doctor whether they are prepared to accept personal liability in the event of a adverse vaccine reaction, for some light comic relief.

                • Diane Prima says:

                  I received this information from Dr. Rebecca Carley from a video about vaccines being the true weapons of mass destruction.. She was attending a conference, and the doctors there were given a pamphlet from the CDC about what doctors should know about vaccines. In the CDC publication 99-6194, page 9, there are vaccine information statements which list the side effects, injuries and death that can result. You have the right to ask the doctor to give you this information.

              • television is brainwashing says:

                haha i’m glad someone pointed this out,it was the first thing i thought after reading it. It just goes to show that there may be something pretty important missing from the textbooks at medical school when it comes to the side effects.They only need to teach them to sell pharma drugs and potions.

    • Thankyou DrAnne Coady, I am glad that this question received balanced input. My GP agrees with yourself and quotes the AMA position regarding Concientios Objectors. I feel safer that my children are less likely to be exposed to unvaccinated children, especially when they are too young to be vaccinated against certain vaccine preventable diseases.
      Parent who really cares.
      Christer Svennson.

      • Karen says:

        “I feel safer that my children are less likely to be exposed to unvaccinated children”

        here is where i constantly find a hole in the arguement…such anger and concern.. from parents that have vaccinated their children and are apparently safe from catching anything?

        What do you care if other kids are vaccinated or not if yours are? surely you trust that the vaccination is going to “save them” from catching anything ? why do parents get worried about unvaccinated children when theirs are vaccinated is totally hypocrytical. Unless deep down they dont trust the vaccination 100%.

        if your kids are vaccinated and you trust it 100% blindly as you are told to do, then you should be skipping off into the sunset happy they have this impenetrable shield around them, and should not be chiming in about this arguement. Whether my baby child is vaccinated or not should have no bearing on whether you feel “safer”. Your vaccination should make you feel SAFER!!

        • Leonie says:

          Those of us who choose to vaccinate our children, do so not only to care for our own children, but to care for those community members who are, for one reason or another, unable to be vaccinated.For example,those who are too young (which is what Christerbjorn above was talking about), or those who are immunocompromised. There are also those, who despite immunisation, do not seroconvert and remain at risk for a given disease. (No one will tell you that immunisation is 100% effective – the information about this is freely available).

          The concept is called herd immunity – minimise the non immune population so that the disease has no foothold with which to spread.

          • admin says:

            Hi Leonie – I understand how the concept of herd immunity is supposed to work, but please tell me how a vaccine, which never imparts true immunity and which will wear off after time (for whooping cough – 3 years at most) can create herd immunity? Immunity to whooping cough from the disease – 30-80 years – from the vaccine – 3 years. Why are we seeing adults transmitting whooping cough to infants now? Could it be because they were vaccinated themselves as children and have no true immunity whereas previously, they would still be immune and therefore have provided REAL herd immunity? If we are going to discuss the science, let’s be scientific about it. How can something that doesn’t provide immunity to the individual create immunity in the community?

            • MedStudent says:

              Vaccines provide immunity by injecting antigens – the things that the immune system recognises as identifying something as foreign to the internal environment of the body. When people are infected with a disease, the virus or bacteria or other pathogen (disease causing organism) already has these antigens on the outside of them. The body works to produce an antibody that fits the antigen, like a key and a lock. However, this takes time as the body produces antibodies through randomly scrambling the DNA sequence and basically producing randomly shaped antibodies until it finds one that matches the antigen. Then, the antigen – attached to the antibody – is returned to the lymph nodes where the immune system takes the information from the antibody and produces 1 cell that makes more antibodies and one memory cell to store information about the antibody for some time. It is these memory cells that create immunity by being ready to mass produce antibodies if a person is ever infected again.

              Now, when somebody get as disease such as whooping cough, there are many more antigens in the body because the pathogens continue to display antigens until the person’s immune system clears the disease from the system (if they survive the disease, that is). When someone is vaccinated, much less antigens are injected into the body, meaning that less memory cells are created to respond to that antigen. If less memory cells are created, then there is more of a chance that they will die off sooner, thus meaning that the person is not immune for as long. However, booster vaccinations which are given after some time (a few months to a few years later, depending on the vaccine) also have antigens in, and because the body already recognises the antigen it produces a lot more antibodies, and creates many more memory cells. This builds up long term immunity without someone having to have suffered from the disease.

              We see adults passing whooping cough on to infants because many adults have not been vaccinated or have not kept their booster vaccinations up to date. This is because most healthy adults tend to experience whooping cough very mildly, and often mistake it for a common cold or flu-like condition. Thus, adults tend not to bother vaccinating against what will not be likely to harm them. They do not realise that if they have whooping cough and pass it on to an infant, elderly person, or someone with an already compromised immune system (e.g. cancer patients) then that person will suffer much more from the disease, and may in some cases not survive. While lots of expecting parents are vaccinated to prevent them from passing whooping cough onto their child when it is born, it is almost impossible to prevent infants from coming into contact with other adults who may be carrying the disease.

              In the case of whooping cough, we are no where near achieving herd immunity, as so many adults are not vaccinated, so the disease survives in the community. However, in cases such as smallpox and tuberculosis, herd immunity has been successfully achieved because nearly everyone in the community was vaccinated, and thus the diseases had nobody to spread to and have been eliminated from Australia. Now, because herd immunity wiped out the diseases, we no longer need to vaccinate against these diseases (except if travelling to countries where they still exist). Hopefully someday the same will happen with whooping cough and other horrible diseases, and we will eventually see them disappear from society too.

              I hope this answers your questions!

              • meryldorey says:

                I actually only asked one question – how do vaccines provide immunity if all they are meant to do is induce antibodies.

                Antibodies do not indicate immunity. Look it up.

                And herd immunity is a theory that has never been proved.

                People can develop and recover from infections without ever developing antibodies.

                People can develop high, supposedly protective levels of antibodies and still get the infection.

                So how then can vaccines prevent disease.

                Oh, and how can either being vaccinated or being naturally immune, prevent someone from carrying or transmitting infectious agents?

          • Aussie mum says:

            The study was funded by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency, and the South Korean Government. Hmmmm!

            • Rodney says:

              I’m glad you mentioned The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation is financially backing and publicly endorsing mass polio virus vaccinations in India. In case you didn’t hear him yourself, Bill Gates publicly announced that vaccines could help REDUCE the world population by 15%.
              Learn more:

              I have 4 kids that have been vaccinated and one on the way which will Not be.I have in the last 6 months become awaken of not only the risks of vaccination but the agenda of the New World Order which is call (Agenda 21). What that means in a nut shell is 90% Depopulation of the world population and no rights for anyone except the Global elite who owns the Banks and most countries around the world.They also run the United Nation and NATO.That my 2 cents.God be with you all.We need it.

              • N busso says:

                Here here. it is big business that is ruling the world! Governments are just another pawn. If your vaccinations work then why should i have to vaccinate to protect you? That is my question to all?

              • Jessica says:

                You have taken Bill Gates’ comments completely out of context. Look a little deeper. What he said was this:

                “If you improve health in a society … surprisingly, population growth goes down,” Gates told CNN in 2008. “And that’s because a parent needs to have some children survive into adulthood to take care of them when they’re old.”

                “And so, if they think having six children is what they need to do to have at least two survive, that’s what they’ll do. And amazingly, across the entire world, as health improves, then the population growth actually is reduced.”

                What he means, of course, is that the reason more children are surviving (and, subsequently, less children are being born) is because they are being vaccinated against diseases that would kill them otherwise. Vaccinations keep the children Bill Gates is talking about alive, meaning that their mothers do not need to continually have more babies just for a couple of them to survive. Therefore, the mother’s health also improves. The father / breadwinner of the family may not need to struggle to feed a family with 8 children, 5 of whom are sickly. The family’s entire financial and health situation is improved.

                If you think that anything OTHER than a vaccination program is responsible for limiting polio to only two countries in the world then you are out of your tree.

            • as all the studies that have found in favour of vaxxs

              • Kym says:

                Michael Smith – you mean all the Pharma sponsored studies are in favour of vax, derrr! Independent and often suppressed studies don’t. Look into the ingredients yourself don’t believe someone else studies. – Kym

    • A says:

      The doctor is being paid for a service. The parent is paying for the doctor to explain the “advantages” of vaccination, and sign a declaration that this service has been provided. Surely if the doctor can refuse to provide the service (or the accompanying signature that the service has been provided), the parent (or customer) can refuse to provide payment for the service that was never provided?

      • Petunia says:

        Indeed, especially if your only purpose for booking a consultation is to get the form signed!

        This reminded me of a recent experience with a GP who I will not be returning to. I left feeling disgruntled about having to pay someone who is authorized to insult and patronize me. My son had chicken pox, along with HIS ENTIRE PRE-PRIMARY CLASS, both vaccinated and unvaccinated (bar one student who had been absent in the lead up period, and one whose Mum had chicken pox while pregnant with her and had passed on immunity that way)!! I explained the bit about the whole class having it. The doctor nevertheless went into his rant about the perils of not vaccinating. I listened to him, rolling my eyes internally. I explained that I am not a ‘do nothing’ parent- my son is actually on the homeopathic immunization program available in Australia, based on reading Isaac Golden’s work on the topic. His book about homeopathic prophylaxis includes some pretty credible research findings about successful mass homeopathic trials in overseas countries, where regardless of what you believe, medical vaccination is simply not affordable and doctors are often also trained homeopaths (homeopathic medicines being cheaper and easier to distribute than vaccines with their expensive, complex machinations). My thinking is that medicine has a limited expertise in how to boost immunity and typically responds to but does not prevent illness. I ask the question: If you as a parent were made aware of of two prophylactic strategies,one of which was known to risk a percentage of harm and one of which was known to cause no adverse side effects, which do you think you would choose? Would you not at least be willing to look into the non-harmful one and its potential?

        Anyway, the doctor’s response revealed his ignorance- he said “I wouldn’t waste my time reading that rubbish!”. What I heard and saw was a grumpy, frazzled, overworked guy who, by virtue of his training in a particular world view, working in a particular environment, has no idea how to take care of himself, even if he had the opportunity to, was socially authorized to ignore and rubbish credible scientific findings that conflicted with his own closed opinion, and to take out his frustrations on me before billing me for the privelege. Someone who indeed doesn’t have or take the time to read the latest findings on anything, let alone something as loaded as vaccination.

        By the way, my degree is in anthropology, with medical sociology as my major, so I’ve read and thought a lot about how other factors, including social conditions (sanitation and improvements to health) have contributed to a demise in disease incidence in more ‘developed’ countries before the advent of mass-vaccinations- and an increase in other health problems has been documented since mass vaccination. As for certain happy historical co-incidences, major pharmaceutical interests have thoroughly exploited and routinely distorted those.

      • Jessica says:

        By your own logic, A, if a doctor that signs the form is providing a service then surely another doctor can choose NOT to provide that service, yes? As a ‘service provider’ surely a doctor can choose not to provide the service you are seeking, based on their own personal beliefs? It’s a bit like Catholic pharmacists who refuse to sell contraceptives, even those only available with a prescription. They don’t believe in it and they don’t want to, even if it is to the detriment of their business and goes against the wishes of the patient.

        If a particular doctor doesn’t want to sign your form for whatever reason, then perhaps you should find another doctor whose practice better reflects your own personal beliefs and preferences.

  5. brad says:

    Amy- well said…… the old whooping cough epidemic scare tactic. I get that every time too. I’m 37 and have NEVER known anyone or any child to have had whooping cough. Not to say it’s not out there at all but just so sick of the scare tactics. I took my 1 year old to the doctors and was told that she had the Measles and that I had to race as fast as I could to the hospital. Don’t stop don’t talk to anyone and seriously that she could die. WELL she scared me so much I had more chance of killing my whole family and potentially others in a car crash on the way to the hospital than form the Measles. With the measles she had a rash and was running around like she wasn’t even sick. Again i’m not saying that it can’t kill children but what I have proven to myself over the last few years with both my kids is that they have a strong NATURAL immune system and they are rarely ever ill but whenever they do get ill it’s very brief. Best researched and informed decision I have ever made by NOT vaccinating my kids. I feel so sorry for all my friends kids who are vaccinated and constantly sick. Poor things

    • Joanne says:

      Brad, aren’t you a lucky man not to know anyone who has had whooping cough! I am 32 and know 4 people who caught it last year, one of these being my 1 week old baby boy! He contracted it from an adult who held him for all of 10 mins while she was infectious with whooping cough. She had not had her booster. It is definitely out there and lucky for myself, husband and family, we had all had our boosters either before he was born or within 2 days after so we did not contract it. If you knew what my family and most of all my helpless little boy had to go through during his recovery of this preventable, highly infectious disease you would think twice about not immunising. What was meant to be the happiest time of our lives turned into 4 months of hell including one awful week where we did not know if he was going to pull through. Seeing your baby in hospital, being fed through a nasal gastric tube and on oxygen at 4 weeks of age because someone had not got their whooping cough booster, it’s just not fair! Not to mention the coughing fits that peaked every half hour, where myself or my husband would have to pick him up just so he could cough properly, this included constant coughing all through the night! Yes, you are one lucky man.
      P.S Meryl, I would love to know how your family only had the cough for 2 weeks as you had stated in an interview, as everyone I have spoken to about Pertussis has confirmed the cough usually lasts about 3 months, hence the nickname “100 day cough” are you just lucky like Brad? Also, I don’t believe giving my baby vitamin c and keeping him warm, as someone suggested on the AVN Facebook page would have helped him recover any quicker.

      • Amy says:

        Hi Joanne, Does that mean that you blame the unvaccinated for your whooping cough epidemic.

      • jessica says:

        I am sorry to hear that your newborn contracted whooping cough off an adult during his first week on the “outside” . I am sorry to report though that many other families that HAVE been vaccinated still manage to contract whooping cough and so do their newborns. I was vaccinated as a child and managed to contract it 2 times ! My last time being when I was 22 and working as a chef for the grand prix in Adelaide (back in the day ) My experience with the dtp vaccination has been less than positive. I had my son immunized at 2 months and 4 months in 1990. after his 4 month DTP shot he reacted so badly I too thought that he wouldnt pull through . Now he is almost 22 years old and I have 3 other children aged 12, 5 and 2 years old . I have not vaccinated any of my last 3 children ( nor my first after reaction ) even though doctors have offered to “split” the vaccines for me to decrease the reaction chance. ( Im not sure why doctors arent offering everyone this option either) I can understand both sides of this story . I think vaccination needs to be an EDUCATED choice and parents should reserve their right to choose based on their research . I have researched for the last 21 years ( before google ) and have decided against . My children are not sickly , are not spreading disease and many of their school and kindy friends are much sicker when they contract childhood illnesses such as measles, chicken pox , scarlet fever etc even when they have been immunized against the first two ! I also have many close friends who do CHOOSE to immunize and I am certainly not judgmental on their choice. I have seen the dark side of immunization and even with a financial gun to my head (by our government) would NOT ever immunize again . I wish you and your family well and in the future and sincerely hope that you do not blame the un-immunized in our society for on going illnesses. Most illnesses can run their natural course and by simply handwashing and teaching our children to cover their mouths and noses when coughing and sneezing, the spread of infection can be reduced. Thanks , Jess

        • Jennifer Power says:

          Jess, what you have written is exactly what I think. I, too, vaccinated my first partially (and against my instincts), but once I began to read and read and read (after the internet : )), I stopped all vaccines and my second child is vax-free. He is the healthiest child I know. The 2 times he has been admitted to hospital were both for cuts needing stitches. The last time was earlier this year and the anaesthetist couldn’t wait to meet the ONE child without any allergies, asthma, recurring illness, immune-system disorders, diabetes, seizures, nightmares…
          Apparently, truly healthy kids are few and far between- at least in his experience. My older child is also very healthy and they are both very smart and active. They get vit C every day and when they are sick (which is rarely) they fight it off with little time off school and no intervention from medical types. My children are not a burden to the Medicare system and paying for top cover in our health fund has really been not necessary for our family. But we do.

          When I made the decision to stop vaccinating, my GP was in my corner. He said ” vaccinations are barbaric” once when we were thereon a different matter and another child was screaming in the room next door. That was when I decided to follow my gut and find out what he knew that I didn’t. I filed a CO form way back then and have never had any problem with daycare, preschools, or schools – they want my kids to attend because they contribute to the school in so many ways and they are not sickly.

          I tell anyone who asks (and some who don’t) that my kids aren’t vaccinated. I will not argue with any one unless they can show me the research material they have read. I am happy to discuss the subject with them if they have read even a vaccine-package insert. Which, of course, most have not. I continue to research and, so far, not one thing has come up that would cause me to wonder if I’d done the right thing.

          In an aside applicable to another topic, that same doctor told me that when he was a young professional working in Hong Kong, they used intravenous Vit C in cancer patients with amazing results.

          Thank you to the AVN for being the voice of reason and source of information in this debate.

      • Penn says:

        Like others I feel sorry for the children of this new generation who are getting bombarded with vaccination. Yes Whooping cough is just too horrible and it can last for 100 days but vaccine injury can last for a life time. I know three babies who are now adults that are severely damaged by vaccination. They rely on 24/7 care for anti seizure drugs, feeding, comfort and entertainment. They were completely normal before vaccination. What you are saying is that they are sacrificial and that it’s just bad luck, to bad. Vaccines are not safe for everyone and in fact are quite detrimental to a new babies and a young child’s sophisticated immune system that is still developing. Parents and Doctors should, must get fully informed about the ingredients and risks of these vaccines. Thank you to everyone out there who tell their stories about vaccine injury. When it happens to you it is not a statistic it is an ongoing, everyday for the rest of your life tragedy. .

        • admin says:

          Well stated, Penn! When the child who is injured is yours, the risk to that child is 100% so nobody has the right to say you have to vaccinate nor does anyone have the right to withhold or suppress information which might be relevant to your making a decision for that child.

      • L says:…/newsroom/pressannouncements/ucm376937.htm FDA Study saying whooping cough can be spread by the recently vaccinated. DO YOUR RESEARCH.

    • Petunia says:

      Brad- I couldn’t agree more agree about doing what we can to boost natural immunity. Sometimes we need to let our kids be sick…and then hopefully never experience the thing again There is a school of thought that suggests it’s the vaccinated who are spreading diseases, since vaccination (can cause full blown contagious symptoms. It seems to me that part of the problem is the ‘one size fits all’ approach to vaccination. Medical thinking assumes ‘small doses’ of a disease pathogen will affect an entire group of individual human bodies in the same way, when clearly it doesn’t (unless homepathic and therefore without all the dodgy additives). I have found this to be true for varicella (chicken pox) and whooping cough in my sn;s world- vaccinated kids still get it, but people cling to the persecution of the non-vaccinated. I know so many varicella-vaccinated adults who get shingles.too.

  6. brad says:

    Dr Anne Coady, I hear Doctors are not getting paid anymore to force vaccinations on any children. Ouch that must hurt the bottom line. OH well one less conflict of interest in regards to this subject. Maybe you can sleep better at night now anyway so it could be a good thing right? Maybe now the Pharma companies will stop lobbying the Government and pushing there profiteering ways onto other people… not likely.

    • Dr Anne Coady says:

      Dear Brad,
      I’m not paid anything to vaccinate anyone.
      Attacks on the medical profession and conspiracy claims about Big Pharma and the Government do nothing to further your cause.

    • Elizabeth Gillespie says:


      Does that mean that doctors no longer receive the “Medicare Vaccine Incentive?”
      Have you a link, I am curious to look this up.

      Mum to Vaccine Injured Son.

      • Sian Morton says:

        The incentive payment for immunisation (currently $6 per vaccine patient) encounter and, in our practice, the only money we receive for the actual visit) will cease from the 1st July 2012. In our general practice children will have 6 vaccine encounters before they start school (at 2,4,6,12 & 18 months, and 4 years). Not really enough to retire early on.

        • admin says:

          Sian – that is 6 doctor visits that most parents would not have were it not for vaccinations. So a great percentage of the visits doctors get with children – and therefore, a large percentage of their income – would not exist were it not for vaccinations. And correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t the $6 payment for reporting to the ACIR – it is not the same as the payment that is stopping in July which was $18.50 a visit.

          • Samantha says:

            What a joke!! Doctors spend a lot of time with their patients…pay heaps of cash to study medicine…. get piss all from medicare, not financially worth it but they do it because they care

    • Sian Morton says:

      Nobody forces vaccinations on anyone, Brad. And the remuneration for vaccination encounters have never made it a lucrative aspect of health care. You are free to choose for yourself. Fortunately most people choose differently to you.

      • admin says:

        Sian – I know people who have lost their jobs because they wouldn’t take vaccines so please don’t say that nobody is forced. No, a gun was not held to their heads, but if you are told get vaccinated or lose your job (or your place in university), I would consider that forcing.

        • Dan says:

          That’s because we deal with immuno-compromised patients who we don’t want to infect. The medical profession is better off without anti-vaccine students, I prefer to study alongside students that study the evidence. Maybe you should read this for starters:

          • admin says:

            Shows how much confidence you in the ‘medical profession’ have in the ability of vaccines to protect. If vaccines did what they are supposed to do, then it wouldn’t make any difference whether you were surrounded by vaccinated or unvaccinated individuals – you would be protected. Your constant need to try and separate yourselves from those who are healthy and unvaccinated demonstrates to clearly (to anyone who is thinking logically) that even YOU don’t believe in vaccines.

            • Leonie says:

              I think you have missed Dan’s point completely. Health professionals often deal with immunocompromised patients – those who are vulnerable to infectious disease. Health professionals are themselves vaccinated so that they can better protect their at risk patients. They are protecting their patients along with themselves.

            • Paul says:

              Admin – are you saying that all patients who are vaccinated effectively seroconvert? Surely seroconversion does make a difference?

      • Jennifer Power says:

        Help us keep it that way, Sian. We must not let them sell 49 doses of 14 vaccines to our babies before they reach age 6! Mandatory vaccination means that whenever a new drug is licensed it is added to the schedule and we will have no choice!

  7. Phil says:

    By Dr. Mercola

    In 1776, Dr. Benjamin Rush, a signer of the Declaration of Independence, foretold a grim scenario that has now taken shape right before our eyes. He said:

    “Unless we put medical freedom into the Constitution the time will come when medicine will organize itself into an undercover dictatorship. To restrict the art of healing to doctors and deny equal privileges to others will constitute the Bastille of medical science. All such laws are un-American and despotic.”

    Now, in 2012, we are very much facing this reality, as we live in an era where our medical freedom is increasingly under attack, and “healing” has been replaced with “treating” disease, most often with toxic chemicals and surgery. This drug-driven medical paradigm not only depends on the sacrifice and, some might say, torture, of animals in medical research, but also in many ways uses humans as sacrificial lambs.

    Read the complete report here;

  8. jess says:

    I am an objector as my eldest (now 22) had a bad reaction to his first dtp shot . My youngest is almost 2 and this year my trusted family doctor refused to sign my form . I felt shocked and disheartened , particularly that she had been my doctor for years and I felt our relationship was established and I trusted her and she knew I didnt immunise and never made a big deal of it . She wanted to refer me to a paediatrician as she didnt feel like she could inform me. I am pretty sure the parents of the children she does immunise do not have to go to the paediatrician before being immunised. Aside from that I lost weeks of childcare benefit and had to hunt for a doctor that would sign. I am not even sure the government should be discriminating against me and withholding CCB if my doctor will not sign the form !! If I had objected on religious grounds would anyone have signed it ?? I am a working single parent chef and am also studying full time towards a diploma and just dont believe I should be fighting so hard for something that is well with in my rights to make an educated decision about. very disappointed with the whole system … jess

    • Amy says:

      Hi Jess,
      Standing by what you believe about vaccination is a time when you will see who is friend or foe. Some may say that it is your choice to vaccinate or not but the truth is once you have made that decision not to vaccinate: they will give you a cold shoulder. Look at your doctors walls in the waiting room: the evidence of how much they believe in vaccination will stare at you from them. Vaccine advertising in the waiting room is a good indicator of how much the doctors rely on vaccintion for helath as oppose to diagnoses for health.
      Keep on, There are Doctors who don’t have a chip on thier shoulder about your choice for conscientious objection from vaccintion.

  9. Darren Glen says:

    personally i feel Dr Anne Coady’s tone in her responses is both condescending and elitist.

    As well she continues to dodge a simple question by Meryl which cuts to the point and problem which is indeed relevant. If the topic is irrelevant to you Dr Anne as you state then you should not have posted on this topic indeed in the first place.

    I must say this kind of sentement and tone is typical of the attitude i have recieved from other doctors when trying to discuss this issue in their office.

    So congratulations Dr Anne, you are no different.

    PS. i congratulate the abolishment of the Money for Jabs scheme of the 1st July. it should never have been in place and most people are shocked to hear it even existed.

    • Jennifer Power says:

      Agree completely with you, Darren. Pure simple bribery is all the money for jabs scheme is. I personally would like to see just one doctor’s office that doesn’t have pens and pads advertising harmecueticals. Wishful thinking!?!

      • Megan says:

        Bribed with pens and pads… you’ve got to be joking, right? I’m a medical student, supporting myself independently with a part-time job and on youth allowance, and even I can afford my own pens and pads. Do you really think that these highly trained and educated are THAT easily bought?

        At no point during training have I been coerced into either side of the immunisation debate. During my paediatric rotation I encountered a parent whose child was hospitalised with Gastroenteritis caused by Rotavirus. They had chosen not to immunise either of their children. In this instance, the treating paediatricians simply fulfilled their moral/ethical obligation to discuss with the parents the pros/cons of immunisation. The parents (politely and without animosity) stated that they did not believe in vaccinating their children, and that was that. The doctors respected the fact that the parent’s had made up their mind, and there was no further discussion on the matter.

        It’s our job to inform parents as to what we believe to be in the best interests of their children. And just as it is a parent’s right to refuse immunisation for their child/children, it is a doctor’s right to refuse to sign this form if they do not feel that, in that particular instance, with that particular parent, they were not able to adequately communicate the risks/benefits. Keep in mind – the doctor needs to be able to sleep at night too, and if they don’t feel they’ve fulfilled their obligation to the patient, this can be troublesome. In doing so, the parent is not ‘forced’ to have their child immunised.

        And just for the record – I do agree that it is wrong to try and force a parent to have their child immunised. It’s not mandatory – a parent should not be bullied/coerced into doing something that they strongly disagree with. Although I DO believe in immunisation. And when the time comes – my children will most definitely be receiving their full schedule. Not because of what I’ve been told in lectures, or what I have read in textbooks, not because I receive extra monetary rewards for having them vaccinated, and definitely not because of the pens. I will have them vaccinated because I feel that I, just as all of you, have looked into both sides of the debate. And I genuinely believe that any supposed risk is far overshadowed by the potential benefits.

        • admin says:

          Megan, perhaps all health professionals are not as ethical as you because study after study say that these sorts of small gifts influence a doctor’s decision about what drugs to prescribe and when.

          Doctors should be making their decisions based on the best available information at the time and pharmaceutical companies should not be able to give ANY gifts or pay for ANY trips, junkets, etc. Whenever that happens, there is an impression of bribery even if that impression is incorrect.

          I think you sound like the kind of doctor who should be practicing because you seem to agree with parental choice. Hopefully you would agree to sign a conscientious objector form for parents should they ask you to do so.

          Unfortunately, there are too many doctors who are in practice who are ignorant, arrogant and abusive when it comes to the issue of vaccination and parental rights.

          • Darren Glen says:

            i think the “pens and papers” in this example are more referred to as a symbol of pharmaceutical companies being prepared to market and influence doctors….when there should be ZERO influence. This is all we just see on the surface. i would not be getting all excited and taking this literally.

            I wouldnt be bribed by a pen and notepad. but staring at the brand logo on my desk every day might make more of a subliminal impact. And probably the pharmaceutical company rep that visits periodicially will be offering more considerable kickbacks under the table than a pen and paper to the doctor anyways.

            i remember my doctor a few years ago had a whole shelf in the corner of little baskets full of samples from companies that he would dish out.

          • Megan says:

            I completely agree, and I can promise you that most doctors and students that I’ve personally encountered would too. Gifts do influence doctor’s decisions as to drug to prescribe, and need to be regulated/banned. Unfortunately in the past this was not as strictly regulated as it should have been, however I think it’s fair to say that a lot of progress has been made in this area. It’s an area that is addressed in medical education, and which continues to be addressed by professional regulatory bodies. An example can be found in the 41 page document produced by the Australian Medical Students Association “Guidelines for the interaction
            between pharmaceutical
            companies and Australian medical
            Futhermore, I’d just like to point out that there is a definite focus in medical education, as well as in hospital practice, for the use of generic names when learning and writing up drugs on charts, in order to steer people away from simply prescribing brands they feel familiar with.
            Whether or not these regulations are tight enough… I’m personally undecided. However I honestly don’t believe that treatment prescribed by doctors is influenced by any monetary or material incentives.

            Finally (sorry for the long post), with regards to whether or not I’d agree to sign the form – my current stance is that yes, I would, assuming I was able to have an appropriate discussion with the parents regarding their choices. It’s still a doctor’s responsibility to try to educate people as to why vaccination is recommended by the medical profession, however if respectfully given the opportunity to do so, I personally see no benefit in not signing a conscientious objector form – it’s not going to change the parent’s decision to refuse vaccination, and will only stand to further harm the physician-patient relationship.

  10. Steve says:

    “…If you do not feel comfortable that you can adequately explain the disadvantages of vaccination during a consultation you are within your rights to not sign a conscientious objector form.”

    What an absolute cop out!!!

    This sounds to me like a considered directive to head for the loophole exit door. But then, we can’t have all the doctors in Australia researching the disadvantages of vaccinating now can we? Too many of them will wake up to what they are doing!!! And parents may become too well informed (anything would be more than what most of them get now) when given the information for a properly considered ‘informed consent’ of this procedure. They might just opt out. Can’t have that now can we?

    • admin says:

      I agree 100% Steve. On the one hand, we’re told that doctors are the experts on vaccination and they can and will answer all of our questions. But on the other hand, they can’t answer all of our questions at all and because of their own inadequacy, they refuse to sign the form. That IS a cop-out!

    • Jennifer says:

      You hit it in one, Steve. I’ll wager they wish that sentence hadn’t gone to print!

      The doctors already KNOW the disadvantages of vaccines – that’s why they don’t vaccinate themselves or their kids!

      • Megan says:

        I’m afraid I have to disagree here. At every hospital I’ve done placements at all health workers are offered a yearly free flu vaccine. The purpose of this vaccine is multifactorial:
        1. to protect ourselves from the flu (lets face it – it’s just not a pleasant experience)
        2. to ensure we don’t have to take unnecessary leave from work due to illness (doctors find it almost impossible to take sick leave: if one person is absent, the rest of the team needs to pick up the slack and most units are stretched to capacity as it is)
        3. to protect patients in the hospital with weakened immune systems due to concurrent illness etc from contracting the disease from health workers
        As a medical student, I have had my flu vaccine every year of medical school. It has almost been difficult to do so given how booked out the staff immunisation sessions can be at times! But I consider it a duty of care to patients that I do so. It was also a condition when I entered medical school that we check our immunisation status, and ensure that we are up-to-date with all of our vaccinations. This was as much for our personal benefit as it was for patients. We deal with pregnant mothers, young children, and the immunocompromised – it would be irresponsible not to.
        Furthermore, when I have children, I assure you – each and every one will be receiving their scheduled vaccinations.

        • Christer Bjorn says:

          Your justification for vaccinating is very logical and quite valid. I continue to seek guidance when deciding whether to vaccinate myself and my family. I have found it difficult to find good balanced arguments in this regard. I believe that the duty of care can be extended to the general community, and I suppose I have a duty of care to pregnant women, children and immunocompromised people in the street who I come in close contact with to ensure that I do not infect them with an illness that I can fight but they can not. Thankyou for your post, I’ll be continuing to vaccinate.

        • Amy says:

          HI Megan, It is good to see a health worker who see the benefits of vaccination in relation to the enviroment you work within. I am a mother and work within a limited amount of people which should surely be accounted for since my family are unvaccinated. I do not have to deal with immuno-compromised or sick, pregnant or elderly on a daily basis like yourself. Can i ask how you treat those nurses or patients that do not vaccinate? I ask this as the general attitude of the vaccinted comes accross as bullying or dismissive if you don’t vaccinate. i.e doctors not signing the conscientious objection form.

          • Megan says:

            Thanks Amy. As far as I’m aware, the flu vaccination offered free to all hospital staff is voluntary – it’s up to the individual to take up the offer. Plenty of students don’t – it’s not compulsory, just advised, and sometimes even just the sheer inconvenience of getting an appointment can be enough to deter. No one follows it up if we don’t get it. As for nursing staff – once again, it’s not compulsory. Everyone can make up their own mind as to whether or not it’s right for them.

            I would never treat anyone differently for their choice not to get vaccinated. I believe that it’s an effective public health measure – just as I believe in promoting exercise, healthy eating, quitting smoking, etc. I have friends who smoke. Do I agree with what they are doing? No. If I was their doctor would I advise them at every opportunity to quit? Yes. Do I think any less of them as a person for not quitting? Definitely not.

            As for patients – I wouldn’t expect them to get the flu vaccine. I think it’s a good idea to get it, but I can see why the cost and inconvenience associated with it would be enough to deter most people, especially if they’re otherwise healthy, and not in regular contact with people who are immunocompromised.

            I’m genuinely sorry that people feel that they’re being bullied or coerced into going against their beliefs when it comes to vaccination. Medical education (at least these days) tries to steer future doctor away from becoming the historical paternalistic authoritarian figure. We’re repeatedly taught that every patient has the right to make up their own mind when it comes to what healthcare treatment they receive. It’s our care of duty to try and inform patients as to the risks and benefits of each of their options, and then let them make an educated decision based on what is right for them (in the context of their physical health, and their social and cultural beliefs).

            This is why doctors will always bring up vaccination with any parent who chooses not to vaccinate their child. We’re obligated to – not by our desire to get bonus incentive payments as some people in this forum have suggested, but because it’s what we genuinely believe that it’s in the best interests of the public. As such, it would be negligent to not discuss it. And although it may just sound like a broken record to many parents who have heard our schpeel before – if this discussion doesn’t take place, and if they doctor doesn’t feel that they’ve had the opportunity to lay out all of the information they have at hand, then it would be negligent to sign the form.

            Once again though – I’m sorry that some people have had very negative experiences as a result. It’s unfortunate that there are parents who are feeling alienated by the health profession for their personal health choices & beliefs.

      • Dan says:

        I would have to disagree here as well. I am a surgical trainee in Melbourne.

        On admission to medical school, I was required to supply my immunisation record and have serology done to check my immune status to a range of diseases. The While my immunisation record was up to date, my serology was not, and I was asked to have booster shots for MMR and Hep B. Subsequent serology showed my immunisation to be up to date.

        6 years later, when I commenced work as an intern, my hospital again required an up-to-date immunisation record and serology before I started at the hospital.

        I have kept myself up to date with flu shots every year, aDT vaccinations as indicated, and yellow fever vaccinations when travelling in South America.

        As far as I know, most, if not all, doctors of my age in my hospital have done exactly the same thing.

        I know what the disadvantages of vaccinations are. But I have also had to treat children with whooping cough. I have had to treat people in ICU with tetanus. I know people who are infertile from mumps and who have had varicella encephalitis (chicken pox virus infecting the brain).

        I would strongly suggest that the disadvantages of vaccination are strongly outweighed by the disadvantages of not vaccinating.

        • Amy says:

          Dan, wouldn’t it be true that in your choosen profession you would expect to deal with these sick, broken and infected people: alot? It’s would be like becoming a horticulturist and wondering where all the plants come from but my point is: All your training does not make you an expert on weather the vaccines work or not or weather we are entitled to have a ‘Doctor sign our conscience objection form.

          • Megan says:

            I think there’s a misconception as to what medicine actually aims to accomplish, and what is actually taught in medical school. Prevention is always better than a cure. It’s just as much a part of a doctor’s role to discuss with a patient their weight, diet and exercise as it is to prescribe medications for the treatment of hypertension, high cholesterol and type II diabetes. I hope to never have to see a patient in ICU with tetanus, because there IS a vaccination that can effectively prevent it. I choose medicine as a profession because I’m interested in disease – I chose it because I’m interested in health.

            The medical course I’m enrolled in consisted of 2.5 years of pre-clinical medicine, during which we learnt physiology, anatomy, biochemistry, and so on. 25% of the course makeup was also dedicated to a subject which dealt with subjects such as medical ethics, the role of the doctor, biopsychosocial model of health etc. We also covered statistics etc, in order to grant us the ability to assess the quality of research papers (as I’m sure you’re aware, just because a study claims to have produced certain results does not mean that it is by any means accurate, reliable or reproducible – something to keep in mind when reading up on studies done on vaccines).
            It’s my understanding that doctor’s have been given the role of signing conscientious objector forms because they are qualified at providing and communicating medical information to patients, and at evaluating whether or not the patient is making an informed decision. I’m not advocating that doctors refuse to sign the forms – patients have a right to make up their own minds regarding what treatment they receive. It’s not legally mandatory, and as such, it’s not the doctors role to make it so. I do however dispute that doctors are not qualified in their role to decide whether or not to sign a conscientious objector form.

            • Amy says:

              You may wish to finish reading your books and get a little pract under your belt. You sound a little confused as to weather parents have a choice to object to vaccination and weather doctors should sign the form. As you are studing a field that requires an understading of what vaccines are meant to achieve does not mean that non vaccinators are blind to study either. Your chosen field is pro vaccines: my experience is against blindly vaccinating. The government should not have attached a child subsidy to vaccination as it has placed a great obligation on the doctors to maintain a medical procedure that has risks to ones health. I am happy to consciencely sign a form that would cover my whole family. At the present moment each and every child has to have a form signed which can be a pain for the doctor, the child and myself, especially if you have more than one child. A family form would be quite acceptable because i am not going to change my mind about vaccination from one child to the next. The form shouldn’t be linked to financial assitance and as such would take away the expectation that doctors are required to sign the form and thus the responsiblity to explain vaccination each and every time. The question of weather they are qualified or capable of explaining vaccination is relevant as many people are choosing not to vaccinate and as the rate goes up, the doctors get the blame by the government for not ‘convincing’ enough parents. And even you can see this would lead to the parents been labeled as ‘rebel’ non vaccinators and taking money. The cycle will continue as non vaccintors and vaccintors wage war while the government sits back and poke the doctors every now and then about thier duty of care: to the vaccination program.

              • Megan says:

                Amy, I agree that everyone needs to take responsibility for their own health. No, I am not confused, but thank you for your rather snide dig at the fact that I am still a student.
                I have consistently maintained that I believe that when all is said and done, patients have the right to decide for themselves as to what treatment themselves and their children receive.
                My reply made no mention as to whether or not payments should or should not be linked to vaccination.
                A doctors duty of care is not to the vaccination program but to the patient. It is not because of a push from the government that doctors advocate for vaccination – it’s because at present, evidence shows us that it is an effective preventative healthcare measure. My previous post simply put forth that under the current system where forms ARE required to be signed for each child to gain vaccination exemption, that doctors ARE qualified to sign these forms, as this had been questioned in an earlier post. Futhermore, regardless of how much research the parent has done prior to the consultation – if a doctor is to sign one of these forms – that is, to put their signature on a legal document – they must ensure that they have appropriately discussed the pros and cons of vaccination with each parent. To do otherwise would be medical negligence. In fact, even if the forms were abolished, it IS still the responsibility of a doctor to discuss vaccination when appropriate.
                It’s not a matter of to coerce the parent into doing something that they are adamantly against – it’s a matter of fulfilling their obligation to the patient that they are addressing all aspects of their child’s healthcare in accordance to current best practice guidelines.

                • Paul says:

                  Megan – you are going to be an amazing doctor. The community is lucky to have such an informed, articulate and reasonable voice that holds consistent, ethical debate whilst under ad hominem fire. Hope you are my doctor someday.

  11. Jenni says:

    I booked in to have my conscientious objection form today in Nelson Bay and was directed to the immunisation nurse who was aggressive, rude and condescending. She belittled me and exaggerated her point. I left the practice in tears after she said ‘as long as you’re comfortable with the fact that if your child gets one of these diseases he may die’. How am I supposed to respond to that?
    My child has an extremely healthy unprocessed diet rich in vitamins and minerals and couldn’t be fed any better. He is still breastfed at 8 months, has no allergies and comes from a healthy family background. I found it really offensive that the nurse was so aggressive and made me feel like I was a poor parent, but in saying that any argument I make against her is basically saying “You inject toxins into little kids for a job”. I was never going to get a pleasant experience.

    • admin says:

      Hi Jenni – that is absolutely dreadful! Nobody has the right to speak with you that way. I would like to suggest that you file a complaint against this nurse so she is instructed a bit better on how to deal with the public and what her rights are and what they are not. Good on you for standing your ground too!

    • Vanessa says:

      The nurse was just stating fact. This is the reason why this issue really gets to me because people prefer to be ignorant. If nobody was vaccinated our society would not exist as it does today. If you live in a bubble then you have no exposure to any other living organism then i guess you are safe. The response to contracting any of these preventable diseases is serious.
      My heart breaks for parents and loved ones that are faced with children with Autism. But the link between the MMR vaccination and Autism has NOT been proven. Show me a VALIDATED scientific study that shows a direct link. There seems to be a genetic link supporting autism within families and if this was true for my family I would investigate the decision to vaccinate my child before doing so. Autism is more prevalent in males, so there too i would seek further information before vaccinating. However for the majority of the population there is no proven scientific risk, however if we all decided to not vaccinate our children we would set the health of our population back decades with epidemics that are so preventable.

      • admin says:

        Vanessa – there are many very well educated people which includes a large number of health professionals who say that if people were not vaccinated, we would all be a lot healthier. Please do yourself a favour and look for any evidence that vaccines led to the decline in mortality from infectious diseases. You might be surprised by what you find…

        • Mark Rolls says:

          There are not a ‘large number of health professionals’ who make such statements. I’m sure you can find several examples but I would be pretty confident 95% of health professionals (not alternative medicine practitioners) are indeed in favour of vaccination and believe they cause no long term harm.
          Would you be able to provide some statistics to support your claim?

          • admin says:

            Hi Mike – there are many examples that what you are claiming isn’t correct. How about the fact that 70% of doctors don’t take annual flu shots, for a start? And when asked why this is, they give three reasons:

            1- They don’t think the vaccines is safe.
            2- They don’t think it’s very effective
            3- They don’t believe flu is a dangerous enough disease to warrant vaccinating against it.

            So many doctors DO question vaccination – many doctors (including my own) don’t vaccinate their own children – but most doctors who don’t vaccinate are afraid to speak out about this for fear of being victimised by their governing bodies.

      • Penn says:

        Wow! “Show me the Validated scientific study that shows a direct link”, “The link between MMR vaccination and Autism has NOT been proven” and your heart breaks for the children with Autism (I don’t think so). And the ‘genetic link supporting autism within families’. Every one I know with ADD, ADHD, Autism, complete paralysis, epilepsy etc that became so after vaccination have completely normal loving (now devastated & exhausted) parents with no known genetic history of autism, ever- and they have other children that don’t have autism. Basically you’re saying, we should keep vaccinating until the link is proven. Actually it should be the other way around. There should be VALIDATED SCIENTIFIC evidence that ABSOLUTELY proves that any vaccination isn’t the cause of Autism or any of the other associated conditions blamed on vaccination, Such as; ADD, ADHD, Recurring ear infections, asthma, eczema, allergies.Until it is proven to NOT cause Autism Spectrum symptoms all vaccination programmes and promotions in Australia should cease immediately! People are not ignorant for choosing to not risk their child’s health for so called ‘herd immunity’. Everyone should definitely investigate vaccination injury risk before letting anyone legally inject your child whether it is a boy or a girl. You say there is no proven scientific risk to the majority of the population. So for the ones that are left over (the minority and possibly injured minority), that is okay as long as the health of the majority is assured. Oh and I find it interesting that there seems to be an enormous amount of cancer in developed countries with vaccination programmes too. UNTIL THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO RISK OF INJURY DO NOT INJECT THIS INTO YOUR CHILD!

        • Aussie mum says:

          Well said Penn!

          Having a severely autistic and non-verbal 10 year old, I am still waiting for my DSM VI assessment to prove that Autism is Genetic.

          Until then, Environmental Triggers is a more convincing argument.

        • thewombleris says:

          One cannot prove a negative. Please learn some basic science and/or logic.

          I cannot prove that the tooth fairy does not exist, but that doesn’t mean the existence of the tooth fairy is a 50/50 proposition.

          High quality epidemiologic studies have failed to find any correlation, let alone causative relationship, between vaccination and autism. The original paper suggesting the link was small, of extremely poor methodologic quality, authored by someone with a gross conflict of interest who commited scientific/academic fraud and had their medical license revoked, and was retracted by the journal that published it.

          • admin says:

            As Bernardine Healy, former head of the NIH said – you can’t discount the vaccination – autism link based on epidemiology because it is too low-powered to pick up these sorts of connections. What is needed are large-scale clinical trials and a study comparing the rate of autism in the fully vaccinated vs the fully unvaccinated. This is not rocket science! This is just plain science. Why is that so hard for you to understand?

      • Caitlin says:

        Actually Vanessa, if nobody was vaccinated our society would still definitely exist today. These diseases we vaccinate against were decreasing way before vaccines for those diseases were even invented. I think you should do some reading and not just listen to what the media tells you.

  12. Ian Harrison says:

    It seems the whole debate about the virtues or otherwise of the numerous vaccinations available is in danger of becoming like a football game, with each person barracking for their favorite team because it is their favorite team.

    Often the arguments put forward by the pro-vaccination advocates rely on the premise of ‘appeal to authority’, which according to sceptics is not a valid argument. It is a trap that, for those in favour of vaccination, is easy to fall in to, given that most ‘authority’ seems to support vaccination… but that in itself is not a valid argument.

    To be fair, it seems that a significant number of both pro-vaccination and anti-vaccination advocates are less than willing to evaluate all the data, and selectively diminish, ridicule or reject information that does not support their case.

    It does not have to be an ‘us and them’ contest. Rather than endlessly dancing around the issue, obviously what is needed is to go straight for the heart… full disclosure of all the facts, warts and all, for each vaccine product, and a thorough analysis of the risks and benefits by an impartial body, dedicated to the truth, wherever that may lead.

    Who out there is not willing to be guided by the truth? Which parent or practitioner or government official will not come down on the side of least risk for our children, availing only those products which are shown by a thorough risk/ benefit evaluation by an impartial body to reduce risk? End of argument… everybody with good intent wins, and I am sure this includes all parents, medicos, and politicians.

    What is lacking is this ‘impartial body’ acceptable to all concerned… unless the debate is elevated to this level, the issues will be forever divisive, and never be resolved to the satisfaction of all concerned. So why doesn’t our government get on with it and establish once and for all such a review body, a truly independent arbiter (with all that that entails) in the interest of its constituents. If it cannot do this to the satisfaction of all concerned, then perhaps we have the wrong people governing us… and I am not talking party A or party B here, it is bigger than this.

    We rely on a government who can serve the needs of those who appointed it to govern… perhaps that is part of the problem. Establishing the truth regarding the risks and benefits of the vaccination issue is not rocket science, and would definitely be on my list of needs that must be served.

    Offered in the spirit of service to all.

  13. Christer Bjorn says:

    Ian Harrison, now that sounds like a sensational idea. I’m not sure how practical it is, could such an individual or organisation of individuals exist? I would certainly be happy to be guided by such sound and unbiased advice. I am pro-vaccination, and my belief is strengthened not by my faith in vaccination so much as my disbelief at the arguments I read that are against vaccination. There are no doubt many who oppose vaccination and have a good understanding of the risk and benefit analysis. These are not the people posting on the Anti-vaccination websites and forums. I eagerly await unbiased advice regarding vaccination but until such advice is available or my own balance of pro-vax v anti-vax is changed, I will continue to vaccinate myself and my family.

    • admin says:

      That’s great Christer – you have the choice to do your own research and make your own decision. So do those who are critics of vaccination. That’s what the AVN is all about – ensuring that people are able to access information to balance the data provided by doctors / pharmaceutical companies and guaranteeing that their rights to choose freely on this issue are never taken away from them. I’m so glad you agree with that!

      • Phil says:

        Conflict of interest is rampant not only within the field of medicine, but the revolving doors between government and industry has effectively led to a situation where it’s now extremely difficult, if not impossible, to trust conventional health advice from the federal government—which is supposed to be independent due to this massive collusion between government and industry. Here are a few more examples of the many revolving doors between the pharmaceutical industry and the US government:

        • In January 2010, Julie Gerberding, former director of the CDC, became the President of Merck’s vaccine unit. Gerberding has admitted her “bullish” stance on vaccines, and has a long history of disregard for vaccine safety

        • January 2011, Elias Zerhouni, former director of the National Institutes of Health (NIH)—one of the world’s foremost medical research centers, and an agency of the US Department of Health and Human Services—became the President of Sanofi-Aventis’ research labs. Under his lead, the NIH became embroiled in scandal when it became apparent that the agency allowed its employees to have conflicts of interest and financial ties to industry

        • The American Cancer Society has close financial ties to both makers of mammography equipment and cancer drugs. Other conflicts of interest include ties to, and financial support from, the pesticide-, petrochemical-, biotech-, cosmetics-, and junk food industries—the very industries whose products are the primary contributors to cancer

        • Drug companies pay seven-figure amounts into FDA coffers to gain approval of their drugs. FDA staff knows that the cash means higher salaries and more perks in the agency budget. (Incidentally, the FDA’s commissioner Margaret Hamburg came straight from the boardroom of America’s largest seller of dental amalgam, Henry Schein, Inc.)

        • Conflicts of interest are also rampant in a mass vaccination infrastructure that has the same people who are regulating and promoting vaccines also evaluating vaccine safety.

        • The vaccine industry gives millions for conferences, grants, and medical education classes sponsored by the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP). The vaccine industry even helped build AAP’s headquarters.

        • President Obama’s nominee at the Department of Homeland Security overseeing bioterrorism defense, Dr. Tara O’Toole, served as a key advisor for a lobbying group funded by a pharmaceutical company that asked the government to spend more money for anthrax vaccines and biodefense researchix

        There are countless others—so many, in fact, I’m sure you could fill an entire book with examples. These types of blatant conflicts should simply not be tolerated, but they most certainly are. For now the majority still does not understand the pharmaceutical industry’s power and influence over government, and the field of conventional medicine itself, but the tide is beginning to turn, and will continue to do so as more and more people get informed.

        Excerpts from;

        • Phil says:

          Breaking news: According to two Merck scientists who filed a False Claims Act complaint in 2010 — a complaint which has just now been unsealed — vaccine manufacturer Merck knowingly falsified its mumps vaccine test data, spiked blood samples with animal antibodies, sold a vaccine that actually promoted mumps and measles outbreaks, and ripped off governments and consumers who bought the vaccine thinking it was “95% effective.”

          See that False Claims Act document at:

          According to Stephen Krahling and Joan Wlochowski, both former Merck virologists, the Merck company engaged in all the following behavior:

          • Merck knowingly falsified its mumps vaccine test results to fabricate a “95% efficacy rate.”

          • In order to do this, Merck spiked the blood test with animal antibodies in order to artificially inflate the appearance of immune system antibodies. As reported in

          Merck also added animal antibodies to blood samples to achieve more favorable test results, though it knew that the human immune system would never produce such antibodies, and that the antibodies created a laboratory testing scenario that “did not in any way correspond to, correlate with, or represent real life … virus neutralization in vaccinated people,” according to the complaint. (

          • Merck then used the falsified trial results to swindle the U.S. government out of “hundreds of millions of dollars for a vaccine that does not provide adequate immunization.”

          • Merck’s vaccine fraud has actually contributed to the continuation of mumps across America, causing more children to become infected with mumps. (Gee, really? This is what NaturalNews has been reporting for years… vaccines are actually formulated to keep the outbreaks going because it’s great for repeat business!)

          • Merck used its false claims of “95 percent effectiveness” to monopolize the vaccine market and eliminate possible competitors.

          • The Merck vaccine fraud has been going on since the late 1990’s, say the Merck virologists.

          • Testing of Merck’s vaccine was never done against “real-world” mumps viruses in the wild. Instead, test results were simply falsified to achieve the desired outcome.

          • This entire fraud took place “with the knowledge, authority and approval of Merck’s senior management.”

          • Merck scientists “witnessed firsthand the improper testing and data falsification in which Merck engaged to artificially inflate the vaccine’s efficacy findings,” according to court documents (see below).

          US government chose to ignore the 2010 False Claims Act!

          Rather than taking action on this false claims act, the U.S. government simply ignored it, thereby protecting Merck’s market monopoly instead of properly serving justice. This demonstrates the conspiracy of fraud between the U.S. government, FDA regulators and the vaccine industry.

          Chatom Primary Care sues Merck for Sherman Act monopolization, breach of warranty, violation of consumer protection laws

          Following the unsealing of this 2010 False Claims Act, Chatom Primary Care, based in Alabama, smelled something rotten. Three days ago, Chatom filed a lawsuit against Merck. That lawsuit record is available here:

          It alleges, among other shocking things:

          [Merck engaged in] …a decade-long scheme to falsify and misrepresent the true efficacy of its vaccine.

          Merck fraudulently represented and continues to falsely represent in its labeling and elsewhere that its Mumps Vaccine has an efficacy rate of 95 percent of higher.

          In reality, Merck knows and has taken affirmative steps to conceal — by using improper testing techniques and falsifying test data — that its Mumps Vaccine is, and has been since at least 1999, far less than 95 percent effective.

          Merck designed a testing methodology that evaluated its vaccine against a less virulent strain of the mumps virus. After the results failed to yield Merck’s desired efficacy, Merck abandoned the methodology and concealed the study’s findings.

          …incorporating the use of animal antibodies to artificially inflate the results…

          …destroying evidence of the falsified data and then lying to an FDA investigator…

          …threatened a virologist in Merck’s vaccine division with jail if he reported the fraud to the FDA…

          …the ultimate victims here are the millions of children who every year are being injected with a mumps vaccine that is not providing them with an adequate level of protection. And while this is a disease that, according to the Centers for Disease Control (‘CDC’), was supposed to be eradicated by now, the failure in Merck’s vaccine has allowed this disease to linger, with significant outbreaks continuing to occur.

          Chatom Primary Care also alleges that the fraudulent Merck vaccine contributed to the 2006 mumps outbreak in the Midwest, and a 2009 outbreak elsewhere. It says, “there has remained a significant risk of a resurgence of mumps outbreaks…”

          This investigation is only beginning

          NaturalNews has only begun to investigate this incredible breaking news about Merck and the vaccine industry. We are pouring through the court documents to identify additional information that may be relevant to this case, and we plan to bring you that information soon.

          For the record, Merck denies all allegations. Is anyone surprised?

          Learn more:

          • Elizabeth Gillespie says:

            What about the recent win for Lynette Rowe (Thalidomide case). I read in ‘The Age’ 19th July 2012, that in 2006

            “Thalidomide is subsidised by the Australian government as a cancer treatment.”

            Whichever direction you look, governments all over the world believe the pharmaceutical industry and their lies.

            Good win for Lynette, now read about Graeme Peterson and his anguish (see link below)


            Elizabeth Gillespie- Mum to 10 year old, Autistic, Non-Verbal and Vaccine Injured son.

            • admin says:

              You are so right Elizabeth! And this is what happens when the regulator is 100% paid by the companies they are meant to regulate. Blind Freddy could see that but for some reason, our government and legislators can’t. Very strange type of selective blindness indeed!

  14. Jenny says:

    Hi everyone,

    I’m interested to know why you feel you are entitled to the financial payment for vaccinating your child if you don’t wish to vaccinate? If you are so commited to your cause, why not just not vaccinate and not recieve the benefit?


    • admin says:

      Jenny, the payment is a tax that has ALWAYS been available to parents. The government has just linked it with vaccination compliance. That action on the part of the government is discriminatory. So are you saying that you feel people should just give in to being discriminated against without standing up for their rights? if so, I’m afraid I have to disagree with you.

    • Dan says:

      Jenny, while I am a proponent of vaccination (and one of the people with a provider number that is allowed to sign those forms), I find it unethical to force a treatment on anyone.

      As such, I don’t think that financial payments should be linked to health care visits at all, much less to treatments.

      Vaccination is something that should be done with free will, not coercion.

      That said, I find it hard to believe that people make the decision not to with the evidence at hand!

    • Derek says:

      Hi Jenny. Nice question. Personally I’m not interested in the payments; The buzzards can go and shove them. I pay vast amounts of tax, employ 5 people and just got sick of receiving letters threatening to withhold payments I wasn’t asking for so I got an objection form signed. result, no more carrot dangling.

  15. Barb says:

    Doctors can say no too!

  16. Roy F says:

    Although this blog questions whether doctors are legally required to sign ‘conscientious objector’ forms when requested, the debate seems to have ignored the villain in this story. Instead of beating up on overbearing, uncooperative doctors, we should be tackling the government department that is discriminating against a small section of the population by requiring them to fill out yet another useless form, in order to access support to which they are entitled. Was this the whim of an idle bureaucrat, or another step towards the mass medication mentality that brought us water fluoridation? Politicians seem to respond to letters if they get enough of them, so a flood of letters (on paper) to your local federal member demanding that this discrimination be removed may be useful. Any other strategies? Please share.

    • admin says:

      I agree 100% Roy. The AVN was involved in drafting the conscientious objector clause in Federal Legislation and we simply wanted parents to be able to fill in a stat dec saying they were objectors. The government insisted on a visit to a doctor and did not include any requirement for the doctor to sign the forms in the legislation despite our warning that doctors would refuse to sign the forms were they allowed to.

      Christian Scientists are currently exempt from this because their church does not allow vaccination or medical treatments. Perhaps we can ask for a similar exemption for members of the AVN since they are all well-informed on this issue? If you would like to help organise something like this, please do feel free to contact me in the office during business hours.

      • Kate says:

        Dear admin,

        How do you conclude that all members of the AVN are well informed on this issue? What do you consider to be “well-informed” and how can you be sure that the basis of this information is sound? What are your criteria for being well informed and how will you measure this in your proposal?

        Your website proclaims the right of the individual to conscientiously refuse vaccination for their children. Signing a conscientious objector form is an episode of care for a doctor, and under their duty of care, no doctor can legally or ethically be coerced into providing care that they do not agree with. From your above comment, it seems you would support doctors being legally forced to give treatment that they do not morally agree with.

        Isn’t that akin to forcing parents to vaccinate their children?

  17. Renee Viellaris says:

    Read in Queensland’s Sunday Mail on July 15, 2012, points of view on immunisation. Will have views from both sides.
    Looking forward to feedback

    • Jennifer says:

      Hi Renee,

      Good for you for using your superb investigative reporter talents to write such an unbiased story.

      Now how about a real expose into the vaccine debate? Take what you have learned so far and run with it. The parents of vaccine injured children will not allow the truth to stay buried. They know, their doctors know, and the www will enable the rest of us to know the whole truth. Use it.

      Australians need to wake up to the reality of life in the USA where each generation is sicker, fatter and dumber than the previous generation. We need to STOP the chronic disease and dependence on pharmaceuticals that is already endemic in the states BEFORE the same happens here.

      Consider this, in 20 years time there will not be enough healthy, fit young men and women to serve in the US armed forces – if nothing is done to stop the pharmaceutical assault on the children.

      Renee, you are on the right tract. Stay the course and make a difference. For the next generation of children.

  18. Michael says:

    The whole tone of this thread is misleading. The argument is not whether Doctors should be forced to sign conscientious objector forms, but whether the forms should exist at all.

    By providing one of those forms you are trying to extort money from the government for a service you haven’t provided. Not to mention ignoring the overwhelming evidence in favour of immunisation. It would be like claiming a carer’s benefit without caring for someone. The government is subsidising immunisation due to the clear individual and societal benefits.

    If you want to be martyrs for a lost cause, go ahead. But why should my tax dollars subsidise your decision?

    • Karen says:

      Michael you are quite mis-informed, just the way the government wants you to be. the objection forms and childcare benefits are two completely different things. the money you are claiming parents are trying to “exhort” is the money for… childcare benefits….to help with the high cost of childcare. you are supporting “cutting off” parents from access to affordable childcare if they dont get their babies jabbed at the time the government wants them to, as many times as the government wants them to. You call that a free country and fair? This money from Family Assistance A pays for CHILDCARE. It has nothing to do with vaccination. It is the government that is trying to turn childcare benefits into “money for jabs” to force the issue.

      Obivously you havent looked at the OVERWHELMING evidence of the damage caused by immunisation. I suggest you do some research with your blinkers …OFF.

    • Killer Bee says:

      Likewise, If you choose to vaccinate your children, why should my tax dollars pay for their vaccines, the financial incentives needed to get people to vaccinate, and the increased health costs that come from having more illness in society? If you believe vaccines will prevent you from getting an illness, go ahead and get vaccinated for it! If vaccines are so wonderful, pay for them yourself!

      I’ll take responsibility for my own health and that of my children – financial and otherwise. So far my decisions have proven to be good – we’ve saved the government a LOT of money by being responsible for our health. We spend more time and money on good food and positive lifestyle choices than the average pro-vaccinators. We’ve seen dozens of children succumb to the very illnesses they’re supposed to be protected from whilst avoiding them without vaccines.

      The newspaper article is full of flaws. The payments have been $129 each up until July this year so NOBODY has received $2,100 as the payments are spread over a few years. Plus I believe the 4 year old health check is part of the requirement for one of the payments, not just being up-to-date with the vaccines.

    • Michael, I agree with you entirely. There is no evidence at all that I have found through days of research supporting the decisiion NOT TO VACCINATE. The fact that our Doctors study throughout their professional lives to come to the best conclusions for our community, I do not understand why the Government should support people who work to increase the illness burdon upon the community on the whole, the evidence that the non vaccinators contribute to unfortunate deaths is most concerning. It is very sad that people will believe anything that they are told by influential, allbeit, uneducated, un-credentialed people. I really believe that when reading about information, criticise the source, understand their agenda. It is essential when coming to sound conclusions with regard to this vaccination debate.
      A very concerned parent.

      • Amy says:

        Vaccinated do not protect the unvaccinated. If your belief is based on the assumtion that Doctors are ‘pro’ vaccintation and as such that the main populace is vaccinted then you are sadly deluded. There are no ‘unbias’ studdies into vaccines and it is ususally through first hand experience of a vaccine not working that questions the weight of ‘the good they can do: against ‘the damage they can do’. Until a thruthful answer can be given to appease both sides,vaccines should not be considerd compulsory nor should the government body tie a ‘pro’ vaccine stance against those who can’t or won’t vaccinate by having the ‘Doctor’ decide against signing the form. This is why a ‘Doctor should ‘RESPECT’ a conscience objection form and what it means to the non:vaccinating parent. The conscience objection form is not a grudge against ‘Doctors beliefs or a choice to make lightly; especially when people believe in vaccination. I myself was never vaccinated and have my form for each of my children signed by my ‘Doctor’ yet many friends and people i come into contact with would never guess that my children are not vaccinated. If the diffence between vaccinating and not vaccinating is not obvious, why should a parent feel that the conscience objection form be such a trial for the ‘Doctor to sign? And i’d like to know why if they don’t sign why they feel they need the law to exempt them from ‘Not’ signing? Are the conscience objectors having thier legal exemption respected by the same laws?

  19. Phil says:

    Parents make a dash for jab cash Save this story to read later

    by: Renee Viellaris
    From: The Sunday Mail (Qld)
    July 15, 2012

    Read more:

    • Darren says:

      oh my god Renee. This is the worst kind of twisting and mis-representation of the truth i have ever seen. I am speechless how someone could be so evil as to even think this way to write this story. Family Tax Benefit A surely is for assisting in Childcare. How this author can possibly suggest it is purely for Vaccination Bonus is horrid and completely wrong , surely this cant be allowed to be “printed” if its just plain misleading? it is also very vexious against AVN, i wander if it was written by SAVN

  20. Darren says:

    oh my god. i see what they have done here. THIS IS BADD. we have all been set up by these recent changes, this is how they are going to be able to justify removing the Objection Forms. they have juggled and shifted things and tinkered around so that it makes it look like the objection forms are an abuse of the system.

    next thing that will happen is that there will be a vote and the Objection forms will be removed as an option. They are no longer going to be considered as part of our freedom they are going to considered abuse….dear dear this has become so nasty. goodbye freedom

  21. justadoc says:

    Reading this hurts my head, and my heart, but what would I know… I’m just a doctor. 5 years of undergrad study and 10 years of post graduate clinical work apparently count for nothing these days. It makes me sad to see everyone getting so tied up in knots about this issue. I certainly did not study medicine so I could go out and harm people and I doubt any of my colleagues did either. I do my job because I like people, and I want to facilitate their good health. I get the strong sense from some of the posts on here that there is a feeling that we have some other more sinister agenda to persue. I’m tired of all this doctor bashing and the assumption that if mainstream medicine recommends something, it must be a crock. I recommend breastfeeding, not smoking, regular exercise and a healthy diet…I also recommend vaccination. I believe it to be safe and effective based on the scientific evidence.

    I think it is an unfortunate mistake on the government’s part to link vaccination to a financial incentive and force doctors into a ‘gatekeeper’ role.

    If you don’t want to immunise your kids, that is entirely up to you of course, but I will have to refer you to someone else to get the form signed as I cannot, in good faith, facilitate a choice I feel is not in the best interests of your child. Contrary to what is suggested by this post, we do not have to sign the forms, and I have specifically received clarification on this point from my medical defence organisation.

    Now go ahead and say something about ‘ show me the evidence for vaccination’ and something else about me being an ignorant sheep, a big pharma shill and brainwashed by scary big multi-nationals.

    I’ll just keep on doing my job.

    • Kym says:

      Your heart may be in the right place and you may be a clever person, but the big Pharma write the majority of journals that yous guys read and rely on. Have you personally investigated the individual ingredients, or are you just accepting THEIR word.

  22. Penn says:

    Congratulations on your medical degree and sorry about your headache justadoc, but It is ridiculous and wrong to have this decision linked to a parent support scheme and a doctor. This money has nothing to do with the child receiving vaccination, it was intended to support the parent to stay at home and care for the newborn child and to reduce financial hardship.

    A parent is ultimately responsible for their child’s health and well being and it is the parent who must care for a child when the vaccine has one of those supposedly very rare, bad, side effects,not the Pharmaceutical company that developed the vaccine, not the Government who bought it or the AMA, not the FDA, not the TGA, not the CDC and not the doctor and nurse who have a special number to administer it.

    All parents should and need to be fully informed of the risks before they allow this medical intervention to be undertaken on their child.

    Why should a parent have to book into the doctor, travel to the doctor, sit in the waiting room for an hour with sick people only to be told they are irresponsible and the doctor can’t sign the form because it goes against his ‘belief’ that vaccines are safe and effective as he dutifully learned at medical school? The decision has nothing to do with the doctor, Nothing! It is insulting to those loving caring parents who have gone to the trouble to make an informed decision to abstain from this intervention and massive assault on their child’s immune system.

    I really hope that you, justadoc never have to care for a vaccine damaged child of your own. Vaccination is not a religion, as a doctor you do not have to believe in ‘it’ you just have to inform the parent of the risks and possible side effects before they give their consent or abstain consent. This information is on the internet or the vaccine package insert.

    Yes justadoc, do your job and let the child’s parents decide on their child’s future or sign an affidavit that you will take all responsibility. Breastfeeding, not smoking, regular exercise and healthy diet are good things to recommend, well done! You can recommend vaccination too but it is still not your decision it is the parents. Your attitude that ‘we all hate you and nobody respects me’ is exactly what informed parents are up against when they need to have this form signed to get the money they are fully and rightly entitled to. Unfortunately the scientific evidence that is paid for by the pharmaceutical companies and delivered to Governments the world over and is not conclusive because adults, babies, children are being damaged by vaccines in Australia and all over the world. For this reason it must be a personal choice and remain. You do not want to be responsible for any vaccine injury no matter how minor.

    • Chris says:

      Penn… That is a well articulated post, but there are a couple of issues worth addressing.

      1. I agree, the support payment has nothing to do with a child’s health care as such, but the general idea is that merely providing advice to people is often not enough to encourage sensible decision-making, and financial incentives (or disincentives) are frequently applied by government (rightly or wrongly) to try to tip the balance in favour of what is perceived as the “better” option. e.g. the huge tax on tobacco products; you can tell people over and over again why smoking is a stupid thing to do, but if you actually want to see a significant reduction in the rates of smoking, you make it more expensive. It’s the same mentality that allows politicians to buy votes with tax breaks/reductions. In the case of vaccination, similarly you can try to explain the evidence to people again and again, but for some it has little impact, so the idea is that providing a somewhat indirect financial incentive is more likely to change what people do, than pouring the same money into trying to persuade them intellectually.

      2. I fully agree that all parents should be fully and properly informed of the risks and benefits of any medical intervention, including vaccination. There are risks inherent in giving vaccines. However, it’s important that decisions about such important things are based on being properly informed, with accurate information, rather than biased scaremongering from _either_ side. This is unfortunately often not the case, again, in both directions.

      3. Yes, it’s a pain in the bum hauling yourself and your kid(s) to a busy, likely infection-ridden GP waiting room just to sort out paperwork, especially when you suspect, or discover, that the GP in question won’t actually sign said paperwork. However, the reason for this imposition is related to point #2 above; whether you harbour views about all doctors being part of “the system” and robotically spouting the party line or not, and with all due respect to whatever education the parents themselves may have, the fact is that you are required to see a doctor to sort this out because they have been specifically educated in the assessment of risks and benefits for medical treatments. It’s the core of their job. They are far more likely than the average parent to (a) be aware of the relevant evidence for/against any given treatment, and (b) actually understand the evidence. That may sound paternalistic and condascending, but I’m afraid on average, it’s the truth.

      4. The data for vaccine efficacy and safety is indeed less than optimal, affected by many factors including publication bias, poor study design and so on. However, getting back to point #3 above, one of the skills absolutely required by a medical practitioner is the ability to sensibly sort through the pile of evidence, of varying quality, and derive clinically relevant information from it, which can be used to make informed and reasoned decisions about patient care. Very few published scientific papers have impeccable methodology and design, but on the balance of evidence that _is_ available to us, and in light of the imperfections that we do, in fact, know about, it is fairly clear that the benefits of the vaccines offered on the current Australian immunisation schedule quite obviously outweigh the risks. This is of little comfort if your child is the one in a very-big-number harmed by a vaccine, but overall, it is clear that much greater harm would result if we didn’t vaccinate.

      • penn says:

        You mean,unless you are Doctor you know nothing!

        1.Medical intervention in this country is still voluntary, as is smoking. You insult everyone when you suggest that they need financial incentive and nagging (again and again) to allow vaccination. Do you really tell them that babies are often mildly/severely injured or die from this voluntary intervention? Do you mention the possible side effects- Lowered IQ, ADD, ADHD, Asthma, Ear infections, Autism, learning issues, immaturity, fine motor skill delay, speech, hearing and sight, cancer, rare tumours, arthritis, type 1 diabetes, bowel disorders, Guillian Bare Syndrome, multiple sclerosis, macrophagic myofascitis, encephalitis, paralysis….. Some of these are listed on the vaccine information inserts and some of them just coincidentally have skyrocketed into modern society since the introduction of mass vaccination. Babies are getting too much for their little bodies to handle. Some even get a flu shot. Hep B for a 12 hour old baby? It is safe to inject more than one virus/disease matter, chemicals and heavy metals and unknown contaminants into a 2 month old baby? Do you really tell them that? Where is the data on how many vaccines in one day is safe for a baby’s blunted immune system that is supposed to be blunted and not interfered with? Is vaccine science better more advanced than Mother Nature, Mother Nature got it all wrong?

        2. I only wish you did provide the risks but based on your first point I believe you only provide the vaccine developer’s benefits. In summary nagging, lecturing, intimidating and offering money until they succumb and get the shots is what you believe is required for the good of all.

        3. Doctors have been specifically educated about vaccination by the Pharmaceutical vaccine developers that it is, safe and effective and that we will all die without vaccination and yes, they do mostly spout the party line. Why don’t you take a look at some opposing evidence before you rave on about how specifically educated you are on vaccination and how advanced you are at reading scientific articles. Your comment is absolutely condescending and you should not be nagging a parent who chooses to abstain the schedule on behalf of their child. There are many average parents who are intelligent and educated and they can even read and research. There are even some informed doctors that wouldn’t vaccinate their worst enemy let alone their own child based on their own specific education, research and experience.

        4. It is the parent who has the job of choosing vaccination not YOURS. In your first sentence your claim the data for vaccination is less than optimal. So in all fairness to the victim, how could you possibly nag (again and again in Number 1.) a parent to vaccinate their beautiful perfect healthy baby? In your last sentence you suggest there are some sacrifices the doctor must make. Well the sacrifice could be permanent injury, life long ongoing autoimmune disease or even death so No thanks, I’ll take my chances with the real immune response. The fully Unvaccinated children that I know are the absolute smartest and healthiest and happiest children I know. You probably don’t know many because they don’t need to go to the doctor.

        I suppose as an average unintelligent not specifically trained (stupid) parent we just have to toe the line and believe in the Doctor is what you are saying. Maybe you could help a parent with a vaccine injured child to read the highly technical difficult published medical scientific papers that claim their product is safe. Maybe you Doctor as the only specifically trained intelligent advanced reading one could go to the lawyer and state ” this child was completely normal and healthy before vaccination”. No I suppose you wouldn’t do that because, you have been specifically trained to market and administer vaccines on behalf of the Vaccine Developers.

  23. Chris says:

    The counseling of parents regarding the benefits and risks of vaccination, and the subsequent signing of the exemption form by a medical practitioner can perhaps most easily be thought about as a version of “informed consent.”

    Routinely, when a doctor thinks that, for example, a surgical procedure is indicated (say some plates and screws for a badly broken ankle), they are required to explain, in terms the patient or their advocate understands, the relative risks and benefits of the procedure, as well as the likely outcomes of declining the procedure, as well as listing alternatives to the procedure offered. The patient or their advocate then signs a consent form (either in the affirmative or the negative, regarding the offered/advised procedure in question) indicating explicitly that they understand the risks and benefits of the course of action they are choosing. Ideally, the doctor is meant to have the patient repeat a summary of the information given, in the patient’s own words, to verify that the patient has a fairly clear understanding of what’s going on. If the doctor is not satisfied that the patient understands the information/situation, then inform consent has “failed” (for whatever reason) and the patient cannot be consented for that procedure (unless they are incompetent to make such decisions; e.g. children, the mentally ill, demented adults, etc. in which case a parent, next of kin, or other advocate can provide or withhold consent on behalf of the patient).

    With regard to the exemption form for immunisation, the same logic applies. If the doctor feels that after their explanation of the risks and benefits, that the patient (or in this case the parent) does not have a clear and logical understanding of the risks and benefits, then it is unethical to sign a form which essentially states that the patient/parent _does_ understand.

    Merely explaining something to someone is not enough. Understanding of the subject matter must be demonstrated. This is a universal standard.

    Any action or complaint made against a doctor, therefore, for refusing to sign such exemption forms will fail to progress based, if on nothing else, on the abovementioned argument.

    Additionally, in all Australian states and territories a parent or guardian does _not_ have the right to withhold consent for necessary medical treatment for their child. In reality this only ever applies in emergency situations involving serious threat to life or long-term health, but there is a strong legal and ethical precedent for doctors “being allowed” to act in what they judge as the best interests of the child, whether their parents agree or not. Again, in reality, this is rarely put to the test, and usually only in the most dire of circumstances (e.g. a child who will probably die without a blood transfusion whose parents refuse to allow the transfusion on religious grounds…. is going to get transfused.)

    • Aussie mum says:

      There are plenty of court cases here in Australia where the parents have refused medical treatment for their children and won.

      Just because the doctors are wearing white coats, use medical jargon and scare tactics, doesn’t automatically mean that they are competent.

      Can’t wait to get my doctor on the witness stand for medical negligence; damaging my child with vaccines.

      • Jessica says:

        You’re suing your doctor for negligence based on the delivery of a vaccine? Did your doctor do this without your knowledge and/or permission?

  24. Mildot says:

    Doctors don’t want to sign them because it may mean that the parent wants to make this doctor their regular doctor. Under the incentive schemes for GPs, MEdicare requires 90%+ of seen children to be fully vaccinated or the GP/Clinic loses ALL their incentive payments. If a GP sees 100 children in a reporting period, and there are 2 – non-vaccinating families, they are border-line at risk of not receiving payments. Doctors avoid these patients congregating toward their clinc/practice by refusing to sign that they counselled the parents.

  25. Chris says:

    Mildot you are half right. Doctors do want to avoid having such patients join their practice, but not for the reasons you mention. I regret to inform you that opponents of immunisation are a tiny group, maybe one family in 10,000 in my experience. So there is virtually no effect on the clinic’s statistics. I am sure you will find a doctor out there somewhere who will share your views, just as you can probably find a doctor who doubts that smoking causes lung cancer despite all the evidence. As a doctor myself, I haven’t any interest in seeing anyone who neglects their child’s health to the extent of not getting immunised, and is willing to accept the evidence of a discredited hoaxer that there is a link between immunisation and autism. Yep there is still a flat earth society out there somewhere too !

  26. Julie says:

    I am a final year medical student and I hereby swear that I will never, ever, EVER, sign one of those forms.

    • Aussie mum says:

      If you refuse to sign the forms Julie, mums won’t trust you. Remember: First Do No Harm!

    • Kym says:

      Julie, please use your powers for good Not evil. Forcing your beliefs on others is pure evil in a position of power like yours. You are paid to fix problems at our request, we do not belong to you and especially my baby, whom I have been recommended by a leading neurologist Not to vaccinate (which I knew already) Do your job and get over your god complex.

  27. Julie, you have the right to sign or not to sign, always remember as a Do0ctor you must work ethically and never feel pressured to sign anything that you can not defend, just incase a complaint arises. I suggest that you do not hold a blanket stance to Never sign a form, but work within your legal obligations, there are some people who for medical reasons can not be safely vaccinated. You are right though to refuse to sign the form for people who do not understand the risk benefit balance in vaccination and stand behind unfounded claims of vaccine risk.

  28. Victor says:

    If you’re having trouble finding a GP to sign your form, try asking the Immunisation Provider at your Local Council.

    I had two doctors from Eastgardens Medical Centre refuse to sign the forms for my children. Frustrated, I called the Immunisation Register and lodged a complaint that parents even need to have a form signed to be exempt from their children being vaccinated. They were, surprisingly, very compassionate and understanding, even shocked that doctors were refusing to sign as the form is just meant to be about counselling to help a decision and not necessarily that they advocated the decision. They advised me to go see the local immunisation provider at my local council.

    I live in Botany Bay council in NSW and the provider there asked me why I decided not to vaccinate and although he didn’t agree, respected that it was my decision to make as a parent and signed my forms quite willingly with a smile. I can’t say this will be the experience at every local council, but knowing this earlier would have saved me the time and frustration of having to deal with doctors who have personal agendas. The government works seem to be a bit more understanding of the purpose of the form. Also the money saved to Medicare not having to pay for those doctor appointments made just to get a form signed.

    Our fight is with the government taking away our freedoms as parents, not the doctors who refuse to sign their forms. I don’t think it’s right to force a doctor to sign a form for something he doesn’t believe in.

  29. Kim says:

    Not getting your child vaccinated is like not seeking treatment for them if they had cancer. I don’t understand how a parent could be so selfish with the life of their child and so inconsiderate of other children.

    • silent majority says:

      Kim, it is called, denial, ignorance, flat earth syndrome, out of mind out of sight…. They have an argument to counteract all reason. They are so well read, but selective to their cause, are emotive rather than scientific – paranoid rather than cautious. Without the rest of us taking the “risk” they could not, as then millions of kids would start to die like they did in the early 1900’s, and presently still in third world countries where vaccination is too expensive. 10s of millions of our precious beautiful kids would be permanently disabled and disfigured would skyrocket. Places like the Deaf and Blind Society would be filled again needlessly with blind, deaf and intellectually disabled injured kids, as it was before rubella vaccination existed. Precious beautiful babies lost to hooping cough in their thousands lying limp in their parents arms, etc. The government has to make it challenging for people not to vaccinate, because they too will have to bare the cost of this. And they feel that they have a duty to the kids of parents who are putting there kids, no matter how well meaning/ led astray those parents are.

      Keep up the fight silent masses, valued doctors, nurses. You may just change the mind of one person and potential save their kids and the kids of the surrounding community. I think that all people who don’t vaccinate should talk to an elderly person,who saw it all with their own eyes.

      To the fine doctors, who work and carry out research to the highest scientific standards, standards that have lead to Australia having the best practice in so many areas of medicine; including vaccination, thank you for having done your job so well that parents on this site can have this ridiculous point of view. But please work on communicating the data, and the vast amount of info coming through weekly and monthly in medical journals in a form that inquiring parents can understand.

  30. Yana says:

    Here is my story:
    we initially went to the GP office at school my husband is attending where I tried to have the vaccination objection form signed and the experience was far from pleasant. After listening to my concerns for over 45 minutes and discrediting them as ‘your child is a different person from you’, ‘he will be the danger to other children if he’s not vaccinated’, ‘children die every day’ and so on, the doctor tried to send us to immunologist (my son is 2.5 yo), then when this wasn’t an option (immunologists generally don’t see kids until after 11), we were sent to immunisation nurse at the hospital…
    immunisation nurse was actually very understanding and nice to talk to and told me the appointment is about pros and cons of vaccination and if I still disagree they’d sign the form. The problem was the earliest appointment was 2 months away and i needed the form as soon as possible for my son’s daycare. The nurse actually was very understanding (all of that was over the phone) and suggested I call GP office back and tell them their appointment won’t change my mind and ask them if they’d sign the form. So I called back. The receptionist asked the other doctor in the health center but the other doctor also refused to sign. Interestingly enough the receptionist was apologising and feeling back for my situation that the doctor sent us for a run, wasted my time and money in the previous appointment and so on… I called another GP practice to inquire about signing the form but was also told the doctor won’t sign it.
    I started asking around for other doctors who would be a bit more open minded…
    And then magic happened – I got a call from immunisation nurse who said she talked to their specialist and they agreed to sign the form for me without me coming in… They are posting it in the mail for me as well…
    I was just appalled that the GP didn’t seem too knowledgable about the subject, in fact she was contradicting herself and had no idea what the ingredients are…

  31. GP says:

    Very disappointed to here opponents of vaccines suggesting that doctors have financial interests and fear of backlash from government or other agencies behind this push for vaccines. How do these conscious folks explain the very same doctors having immunizations themselves and immunizing their own children. If the next response is that these doctors prioritize their bad clinical practice and financial agendas over their children’s own health, well I got nothing else to respond to that.

    Also, yes some doctors might just be parroting what’s been fed by someone else. But most doctors were and are as concerned about the potential issues as a layman. I for start dug a bit deeper into this whole saga of immunizations, and to my surprise I actually figured out that most of these myths are just blown out of proportion by some of these myth creators. And myths are usually sensational unfortunately. I also question the research that goes into proving how one vaccine leads to another pathology etc. I wonder why the top medico legal lawyers in any country haven’t pursued any such case which certainly has the potential of a multi-billion dollar lawsuit/ class action. If only one can have a bit of an open perspective before diving into this controversy. And last but not least, just follow counter argument to most of this debate against non immunization. Don’t just hold the anti-research against few words by your GP, rather look for counter arguments in detail (a good start is online) and a lot of these myths will be clearer.

  32. Luke says:

    sent to Kevin Rudd via the ALP website:
    I have always been a Labor voter.
    Your policy announcement regarding withdrawal of government child support for conscientious objectors to vaccination has made me reconsider my support.

    I have an issue with the number of vaccines that are administered all at once very early in a baby’s life. I am also concerned with the lack of independent analysis carried out on the side-effects of injecting very young babies with a cocktail of diseases, especially over the long term. Requests for information regarding independent correlation analysis results between vaccinations and allergies, autism, and fevers are stonewalled and I can only assume that this is because this analysis has not been carried out.

    Because of this, I can understand parents who do not want to take a risk with their babies’ body chemistry, and why they add their name to a list as a signal to the government that there is an information gap. This is not a request for more marketing information from the drug companies. We have enough of that. This is a reaction to your move away from encouraging parents to vaccinate children and towards coercion. Parents who place their names on that list do not take that decision lightly, as GPs are well trained in placing pressure on parents to vaccinate. An interesting thing happens when you start asking questions about the side effects, however. The effects listed on the products sheet for the vaccinations paint a very worrying picture of what can happen if you follow the recommended regime. My experience that GPs are unaware of these effects and the frequency of their occurrence. We were directed to the public health unit. They even had to Google some of the terms before trying to allay my concerns with a statement of “but that’s very rare”. Well, not according to the company that produces the vaccine – their product sheet states that the side effect in question is “common”.

    I understand that your health department sees the benefit in vaccination. I understand that some incentives are necessary to encourage some parents to make it a high priority. What I believe you need to understand is that studies done by drug companies cannot be trusted and this country has a long history of well-meant government programs being proven by history to be short-sighted. Punishing parents for sending this message in the only way that is available to them is authoritarian and undemocratic.

    I can not vote for that.

  33. Mercedes says:

    Is there a list of GPs who are willing to sign the conscientious objector form? I live in Perth and I would appreciate it if you can help me with this information.
    Thank you!

    • bron says:

      Hi Mercedes, I live in Perth and I went to a Gp in Riverton next to the shopping centre. I saw my Gp when my son was about 2 months old, I had read the info on this page before seeing him and I was prepared to put up a fight! So I told him I had researched all the pro’s and con’s and I had made up my mind that I did not want to vaccinate. To my surprise he said okay and proceeded to print the form off for me! There was no discussion or persuasion and I felt dignified and respected as a concerned mother should be treated. I didn’t make a photocopy but when I returned to get one there were no issues as they kept a copy in my file. Its awful to read on here how badly some parents have been treated by their family Gp’s and I feel its unethical for them not to direct them to this site, for example, to ensure their patients are making an informed decision! Why are they refusing to sign the forms in the first place? It doesn’t say they agree with the patient it just says they explained the pro’s and con’s which they must do anyway! What have they got against their patients having an informed consent and deciding against it anyway? I’d love to have a Gp explain to me their reasons for not signing, its just wrong!

  34. Jay Witherton says:

    Why won’t a GP sign? Simple. The Conscientious Objection Form requires you to declare that: “I have explained the benefits and risks associated with immunisation to the parent or guardian of the child named, and have informed him/her of the potential dangers if a child is not immunised.” All you anti-vaccination advocates seem to have read volumes and volumes about the topic. A doctor cannot be inform you about all the benefits and risks associated with immunisation within a 15 minute consultation. Rubbish, one-sided websites like are getting way too much attention and this is extremely unfortunate. I am so glad that the AVN has been ordered to change its name. Hopefully now we will see something a little more appropriate.

    • meryldorey says:

      If a doctor can’t explain the benefits and risks of vaccination, how come the government continues to call them the experts? I can certainly describe the risks to parents within 15 minutes – and the ineffectiveness as well. So why can’t doctors explain the benefits and effectiveness? And if they need more time, they simply need to bill for a long visit – I’m sure the parents won’t mind. The fact is, many GPs feel that it is their right to bully and harass parents who don’t ‘do as they are told’ and use their signature to try and bribe parents into agreeing to vaccinate their children. Nobody has the right to do this. Doctors should be prosecuted for their behaviour in these instances.

      • Micaela Pilat-Rotelo says:

        I went to see 4 doctors on november 2013 and the 4 different doctors from different medical practice after trying very hard to bully me into given my kids the vaccines did not sign the “immunization exemption form” now I really don’t know where to go. If anyone had same problem and find a solution, please help. Thanku very much.

        • meryldorey says:

          Hi Micaela,

          There are two things that you can and SHOULD do.

          1- Fill out a Statutory Declaration (available for under $1 at any newsagent) and get it witnessed. On the form, state that you saw the following 4 doctors, name them, give their practice addresses and state the dates that you attended. Say that not one of these doctors would sign your conscientious objector form but that they all did treat you with the utmost of disrespect and you are a conscientious objector to vaccination. Make a copy of this Stat Dec once you’ve gotten it witnessed and send it with a conscientious objector form that you yourself have signed to the Health Insurance Commission in Tasmania. The law allows for anyone to do this once they have tried 3 times to get their forms signed unsuccessfully.

          2- File a complaint with the Victorian Health Complaints Commission. You can find the complaints form here – You can fill in the form online in just a few minutes and it is very important that you do this for not only your protection but for the protection of others as well. Bullying is against the law and nobody should be allowed to break the law with impunity. Not a doctor – not a politician – not anyone. If you don’t do this, they will continue to think that this sort of behaviour is OK and they will keep abusing parents.

  35. Dove says:

    We are thinking of moving to Australia from Canada, and I was horrified to find out that we could lose out on a tax benefit for not vaccinating our children. We have two unvaxxed and VERY healthy children, and another on the way. I am actually rethinking my decision to move to Aus! Everyone Canada has been perfectly fine with us not vaxxing, aside from one doctor who is not Canadian. Terrible that doctors in Aus would refuse to sign the form, too!!!

  36. Tamhas says:

    I won’t be signing any forms or putting barcodes on my kids arms. I’m not a vaccine refuser, I am just waiting for someone to sell it to me properly. So far I have only ever met people who will look at me with disdain and shock that I should even dare consider even delaying a single vaccine … who would be quite willing to bully me if they could, but back out quickly when they realise a civilised discussion will be required.

    • Kym says:

      Hi Tamhas, Great to see Awaken people(thinking for themselves). Love that you know whats coming and therefore what to look out for (barcodes and chips) Do you know about Chemtrails too? Bless your independent mind, don’t let the bully sheeple get one over on you!

  37. Chris says:

    there was discussion today on 3AW in the morning from 9-12 about a father and mother that had separated, the father wanted to vaccinate their child but the mother was not happy about it, and the presenter was pushing for “it to be compulsory by a court order to vaccinate a child if a parent refuses”. he was only putting to air callers that were saying how irresponsible parents are if they don’t vaccinate. I was driving along and furious I was steaming from my ears!!!! did anyone else hear it all?

    • WoundedHealer says:

      I have read nearly every post on this page. Many good points, and I particularly liked one contributors’ plea that we should not make this discussion an ‘Us vs Them’ scenario. While most of the arguments here are articulate, the whole idea of dualisms, self and other, patient and doctor, vaccine vs not vaccine….seriously, we are all human beings.

      I believe that many doctors support vaccination because they believe it is the best for the child’s health. But they are wrong. Are they bad people for this? How many years did they invest in study for that profession? Is it surprising that it would be very difficult for them to now reverse their viewpoint, and admit that vaccines are bad?

      I don’t believe that anyone wants to think that they are doing the wrong thing, even those people at the top of the pharma-industrial pyramid. When the Club of Rome and Bill Gates talks about population reduction, that’s because they are afraid that there is not enough to go round. They FEAR that energy is limited, because energy to their mind, is strictly physical.

      And it is FEAR that motivates people to vaccinate. FEAR of being labelled, judged, denied childcare payments – and above all, FEAR that their child or someone elses may die or suffer some horrible disease because they refused to vaccinate.

      There is good news…LOVE melts FEAR!

      I was undecided on vaccination until my reading tonight, though my instinct told me to go with unimmunised (my partner is 6 months pregnant). Still, I wanted to be responsible.

      My conclusion is that whatever happens is whatever was meant to happen, and it is not up to me or the medical establishment (and its god-complex) to decide the fate of my child because of fear. Instead, I choose to love whatever happens, be it sickness or health, long-life or short. This, like everything else, is a paradox. When I cease to fear the negative consequences, they cease to be negative. they in fact cease to be anything as I’m no longer judging what happens in my life as ‘fair’ and ‘unfair’, ‘just’ and ‘unjust’, but merely accepting what is and what will be.

      In love lies our salvation. As human beings we are finding that the only thing we ever had to fear, was fear itself…

      • Chris says:

        hi Wounded, your post is great but I would rather you chose not to vaccinate for strong, medically founded concerns instead of just your belief in “love” and believing that “whatever happens was meant to happen”, as if you suggest that if your child dies from fate then they were meant to die.

        Lots of people who had “love” in their heart and believed in fate ended up dying in many wars. love and a belief in fate did not help them.

        I personally do not believe that Love is a medical implement. and I believe we can change our fate. I am changing my childrens fate by not vaccinating. I believe they will be healthier and less likely to be damaged by vaccination. I hope you choose not to vaccinate for the same reasons.

  38. Kate.R says:

    Apparently there was a public health report commissioned last year to predict the effects of excluding children without full vaccination schedules from traditional education facilities. Rumor has it, there are provisions for alternative schooling for parents who still refuse, recommendations to encourage female economic participation in objector-families, and legal review of anti-discrimination vs public health laws and found that the same loop-holes that enables the anti-smoking legislation to exclude smoking (a lifestyle choice) within perimeters of certain buildings may have set a precedent to see the recommendations in the report fulfilled… Don’t know how much truth is in this rumor, but it will be interesting to see whether something like that happens!

  39. "Against vaccinating or any synthetic medicine, in fact, keep my body clean, healthy and strong" says:

    Dearest darling sweetheart Dr Anne Coady, I would like an answer from you:
    How on earth did humans, neanderthals etc survive without medical intervention for was it MILLIONS or THOUSANDS OF YEARS before doctors were ever invented??? From the crap the medical associations spout, anyone would think we would have killed ourselves off as a human race by choosing not to inject their bodies with synthetic micro versions of the disease, as if the human body is not capable of healing itself???? If its that smart to create from a ‘seed’ the blueprint in the womb, we have the arrogance to mock the ability of the human body not only to survive, but to PERSIST, doctors think they have figured it out but NOPE, we lived before they existed….. Surprising, that one. Perhaps one from the AMA might even have the nerve to say ‘medical intervention’ created evolution of mankind from monkeys to what we are now, haha come on, make me laugh.

    Um, how do we even walk without ‘divine’ medical intervention? And I’m not referring to people saying their baby was born a cripple and would die without X intervention…. this is to me proof of generations of people who have fallen away from a natural living diet, and for a few hundred years now have the dna of junk food, meat and dairy deep within their cells, which in itself causes disease and low immunity to disease……. isnt that how we create dna on the most FUNDAMENTAL LEVEL? blood? tissues? cells? … with FOOD? NATURES MEDICINE?? That is living, not cooked and lost most of its heat sensitive minerals and vitamins, thus ADDING to the burden of elimination and dealing with ‘dead’ elements it doesnt recognise? (trans fats for example, cooked grains = carcinogenic, True story that, finally recognised but done nothing about because humans want their bread and biscuits regardless of the risk! and DNA passed on to future generations) LIVING FOOD, Rich in vitamins, amoino acids, minerals that create the chemical reactions that build tissue, remove waste, etc? Genes passed down can impact on ability to carry, or ineffectively deal with (perhaps leading to death), disease… those genes have been adulterated with cooked meats, (meat – the food most people eat when the body can live without it, what is that telling you! lol NOT A CONTRIBUTOR TO HEALTH, thats for sure), refined grains, completely processed ‘what is that’ foods, over time, over generation to generation. You might not see it but slowly thru the generations you are creating an INFERIOR, weaker human system. Se Pottengers cats experiment for a basic fundamental example. THAT is what leads to disease, all those ‘concerned mums’ worrying about their baby dying if they fail to vaccinate, I would be MORE worried about what you have been fed via your parents, grand parents etc and what you’re feeding yourself before, during and after pregnancy, as well as what you’re feeding your baby! And dont get me started on pollution, plastics, petrochemicals, household chemicals, overcleaning and removing natural bacteria the body requires to carry out its functions… almost everything we touch these days (made just to make someone a buck) is toxic or poisonous in some way the body absorbs or ingests or inhales it and has to deal with it, no I wont mention these things the concerned mums should really be worried about. No vaccination will do the job of dealing with the disease: thats the body’s job. You should not need synthetic crap to make the body do what it should do naturally. And if it doesnt on its own (how it has for not only humans over the millenia and evolution of mankind, but animals!!!) FIX THE BODY, DONT RELY ON THE SYNTHETIC TOXIC VACCINATION ‘MAGIC PILL’ CURE that everyone seems to think does the job! How brainwashed humans are over hte reality of things: ALL FOR THE SAKE OF A DOLLAR!! Imagine if you will: that money DOES NOT EXIST (for it only does in order for people in positions of power to exert control over the masses)… do you think we would be corrupted with such a sh!t diet of fast food, junk food, medicine, vaccinations? Do you think the AMA would set the curriculums for studying medicine, to learn a certain way and if you learn this is fake and vested interests, you would not be able to qualify as a doctor, and thus be subject to ridicule? Do you think ‘Big Pharma’ and genetic modification would practically own the world in their quest to get power and money??? Well my thoughts are: they didnt 50,000 years ago! And we survived to get to this point.

    I just CANNOT COMPREHEND how BRAINWASHED the general public is!!!!! They really believe all this medico crap, that a magic pill will sort your life out in every way!!!! From aspirin daily to avoid a heart attack (old people living off tinned food and dry biscuits / noodles etc) BUT NO RAW VEGETABLES (the body’s cleansers and cell builders); to accepting a diabetic shot every single day instead of improving your raw vegetable intake. The extent people are willing to go just to justify their crap lifestyle!!! “I’d rather take a cup full of pills (including RAT POISON WARFARIN!! UGH!) for my heart attack for life, and risk going through it again and possibly die,,, rather than add some raw vegetables to repair my heart, oh yuk” or how about “I’d rather thin my blood with synthetic aspririn that f#%^cks my liver, kidneys, brain, internal organs I need to LIVE, than eat living food that does the exact same job but with no poisonous effects” !! And be sucked in to medical ‘scientific’ control of society!!! Unreal! When it all starts to collapse in a hundred years or whenever, won’t those future people be saying: Why was the human race so sucked in by this BS??? Look at the body in its perfection. It knows what to do. Nourish it with living foods, for more than 2 minutes or 5 years, I am talking “generations”, pass it on to your kids, and you will not only survive but THRIVE! Without any medical intervention whatsoever! Throw away everything in your pantry and learn to love raw vegetables. Teach your family to do this too. Teach everyone you know. That’s what creates your genes, repairs cells, gives TRUE immunity, nourishes your blood and lymph systems, thats what the body needs to do its job and fight off disease and LIVE. Not a magic cure all whether be it pill or jab!!!

    BACK TO BASICS GUYS! LIVE HOW YOU WOULD IF MONEY DID NOT EXIST? IF NOONE HAD ANYTHING TO SELL YOU AND YOU HAD TO FIGURE IT OUT YOURSELF USING THE TOOLS NATURE PROVIDED YOU. And that is NOT a lab! It’s green and its out there and its the way to health, not vaccination. What do dogs eat when they’re sick?? Pills? GRASS!!!!!!

    i’ve always said what are pro-vaccination groups worried about if their vaccinations work! Keep your nose on your own business and MIND YOUR OWN BUSINESS! Free choice to refuse to poison your or your offspring’s pure bodies, what a smart, THOUGHTFUL thing to do when you focus on what you NEED TO: Food as medicine. LONG TERM. PERMANENT. You don’t need to worry that little Jack who hasnt been vaccinated will give your Jill a disease, after all the Medicos keep feeding you the crap that it works 99.99% or whatever, so your mind should be at ease. Jack isnt going to stop Jill’s immune system from functioning, that’s you’re choice with what you feed her when you give her the building blocks of life to create her blood, immune system, genes and DNA! These things are not created within the body by VACCINATIONS!! For f@@%s sake!! Fill a car with pills and see how far it gets with crap fuel, or if it dies! If you’re worrying about little Jack succumbing to disease, perhaps you have too much time on your hands and also try to stop every single fight your kids have…. you cant control everything, LET, IT. GO. Little Jack has his own concerned mum making a choice to care for him DIFFERENTLY TO YOU. If that bugs you, you need to emigrate to another country where you can be dictator, perhaps North Korea would suit you? I hear it’s pleasant this time of year. I would rather be happy that little Jack has proved you wrong in your worrying and maintained his health and acquired no permanent or fatal brain injury due to the toxic god knows what in all those jabs you gave Jill! Which she will pass on to her own children, if she has the ability to reproduce in time due to her damaged DNA from modern living that you and your family gave her over the generations!! The answers are out there but we’re too busy ‘hating’ those who speak out against establishments that hold power and sway over the little brainwashed people, against those who are out for a quick buck and make you think you have choices but not really! Why hate the people who can distance themselves from the superficial CRAP of society’s strictures and can see through those with vested interests? Why not hate those who are trying to poison you and perpetuate disease to keep their “industry” alive!? Who want to rape the earth to make a quick buck and own you? Seems the most LOGICAL thing,,, unless of course you have your own vested interests, ie power, money, or little things like “I don’t want to give up my petroleum based synthetic “virtual facebook” life! Wow, what a life that is!!! You wanna keep the status quo so bad? That badly that you rant and rail against those who hate pretentiousness and hypocrisy?? Focus this on those who sell you the ‘dream’. The MacDream. The Pill that solves your life problems…. except it doesnt.

    Ciao Darlings, “back to earth” and “away from industry” after all what is it they say when you are sick: get back to nature… but back to the rat race the second you’re fine… BAD philosophy. NATURE wins every time over humans hands down.


    Peace out for now

  40. earthsistar says:

    Can anyone please share where in the Family Assistance Act it covers that doctors are imposed to sign the CO form? Thanks.

  41. Man Pear says:

    Does anyone have any information about what they’re going to do when the new legislation gets passed for compulsory vaccinations? There must be some way to get around this and get an exemption

  42. Lou Coppola says:

    I have recently had an exemption form signed by my GP. As requested, I posted a copy to Medicares. A reply arrived saying that because my son is over 7 years of age, he cannot be registered.

    Why would that be? Does it mean the signed exemption form is invalid?