Censorship of Vaccine Safety Discussions for Australian Nurses and Midwives

The Guardian published an article this past October (2016), which reports that "Nurses and midwives who ignore scientific evidence by promoting anti-vaccination to patients and the public [will be] cracked down on in a tough new position statement from their industry regulator."

The article goes on to urge the public to report any nurse or midwife who promotes anti-vaccination literature (even on social media) so they can face prosecution for their "offence."

This is troubling news for Australian nurses and midwives. What is labeled "anti-vaccination," more often than not, is discussion about vaccine safety.

Since there is science to support both sides of this discussion (a lot of it), it does not make sense to censor one side over the other, and to do so is irresponsible and dangerous. I will never understand why a more comprehensive and unbiased approach to vaccine science and studies, and health in general, is so seldom considered in mainstream media, among medical professionals, and in politics. 

This kind of intimidation is why I've had nurses, and one pediatrician, hesitantly tell me in private, behind closed doors, in very hushed voices that they understand my concerns and have seen many children adversely affected by vaccination. These are often the ones who have read the inserts and who (mostly) still promote vaccination, but understand why delaying and/or spacing vaccines can be advantageous for the health of our children (despite the one-size fits all approach of the CDC). They believe informed consent should be upheld. These were the same nurses who told me their children were on delayed schedules. I even had one nurse confide in me that if she expressed her concerns and thoughts on the issue, she'd be fired.

Intimidation, coercion, and censorship... is this really the way to promote health? Is this really the way to a respectful relationship with each other? with our doctors? Is this how we promote openness, truth, and a healthy discussion on this topic? 

Beware Australian nurses and midwives: shut up and do what they say (despite the real-life, front-line effects you've personally witnessed); keep your mouths closed--or else. That's a sad and desperate state to be in, Australia.

While vaccines may have a place in the medical tool box, they are not a cure for any disease, and they come with great risk just like any pharmaceutical drug. Yet instead of allowing true informed consent for all medical interventions, governments are attempting to force vaccination on the public in the name of the greater good, which is sad because vaccines are not designed to work that way (in the sense of herd immunity). Our US supreme court stated in 09-152 Bruesewitz v. Wyeth LLC: that vaccines are “unavoidably unsafe.” The thought that vaccines are unavoidably unsafe and cannot be improved upon was the foundation for the ushering in of the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, which effectively shields the vaccine manufacturers from liability, which became the catalyst for the creation of the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System and the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program to manage vaccine induced injury/death. If vaccines were completely safe and effective, why would we need these two entities?

Why are certain individuals in government and pharma, as well as entire nations, treating the public as children who couldn't possibly understand or make informed decisions? It's insulting.

The bottom line is that you must do the research in earnest--looking at all sides of the story. If you do the research and decide vaccination is for you and your children, you should have the right to do so, BUT on the same avenue, if you do the research and decide that the risks do not outweigh the benefits, you should also have the right to decline that medical procedure. Basic human rights secured by the Nuremberg code (or so we thought).

What would the world be like if the peanut industry came out with some "solid" science that eating one peanut a day would prevent all people from ever developing stomach cancer because they contain polyphenolic antioxidants? 

To promote their cause and scientific findings, the peanut industry is willing to give government officials, medical professionals, and mainstream media generous compensation. 

Now, despite the fact that many people react adversely to peanuts, they advise that, for the greater good of all, we must mandate this recommendation. 

There will, of course, be people who will rally against this mandate--the troublemakers and outliers of society--who protest under the grounds that certain children and adults are having adverse reactions to this treatment, and some have even died from it. Moreover, there are multiple measures that can be taken to prevent this disease other than what is being forced on the public. "Health is not one-size fits all," they say.

Those who promote this mandate and make the laws will rally against the dissenters and argue that there is science to back up their findings. They will hold that peanuts are a safe and effective way to prevent stomach cancer, and if you or your child has suffered an adverse reaction/injury/death from this mandated procedure of consuming one peanut a day, then it must merely be coincidence. They will go on to publicize the false-belief that all those who oppose this reasonable and safe procedure are misguided "quacks," and any parent who believes his or her child was injured by this procedure is crazy.

This is the exact same scenario that happens with vaccines.

Let's be smarter than that. Let's not be herded into belief without doing the proper research, and for the sake of integrity--look at both sides of the issue earnestly before placing judgment.

What the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency calls "false, misleading or deceptive information," has a lot of science to support it (which is science that shows vaccines are not as safe and effective as they are advertised--the vaccine inserts themselves admit that)--but perhaps it's just not the science they wish to look at.

Let's look at all of it! Let's make an informed decision on whether to vaccinate by looking at our own family history, the health of the individual, and considering all the science on it. Let's preserve our right to informed consent for ALL medical procedures. Where there is risk, there must be choice. 

Compassion, Liberty, Respect, and Open Communication

This is the proper way to promote Health.