Intended for healthcare professionals

Rapid response to:

Feature Communicable Disease

UK doctors re-examine case for mandatory vaccination

BMJ 2017; 358 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.j3414 (Published 18 July 2017) Cite this as: BMJ 2017;358:j3414

Rapid Response:

Challenging coercive vaccination - time to demand a review of the schedule

There appears to be a campaign for coercive vaccination underway around the world. Who is orchestrating this campaign?

Coercive vaccination is already in place in Australia, i.e. the 'No Jab, No Pay' law, and also in the United States. Recently coercive vaccination policies have emerged in Italy, France and Germany. Now similar moves are afoot in the UK, being promoted by members of the British Medical Association. In tandem, more and more vaccine products are being added to taxpayer-funded vaccination schedules around the world, without open consultation with citizens about the level of disease risk that warrants mass vaccination interventions. Far from consultation, citizens are even being censored and denied the opportunity to debate vaccination policy, as I know from personal experience. It seems that citizens and their children are being set up to be compliant to each and every vaccine product in the vaccine industry's pipeline.

For example, currently in Australia, children aged from birth to 15 years will have at least 46 doses of vaccines via combined vaccine products and revaccinations (many of these are required to access government benefits). This does not include the annual flu vaccinations we are all being pressured to have.

Discerning citizens are questioning the quality of the 'peer-reviewed literature' supporting vaccine products, much of which may be conflicted by associations with industry. It's alarming that this material, which is impacting on international vaccination policy, is often not 'open access' for citizens' perusal, but hidden behind journal paywalls. There appears to be little in the way of genuinely independent and objective review of this journal literature, and government produced material promoting vaccination is also open to question.

With governments imposing mandatory vaccination, it's time for citizens around the world to demand a review of taxpayer-funded vaccination schedules. There must be a re-examination of the evidence supporting the burgeoning number of vaccine products and revaccinations being imposed upon children. This is particularly crucial in light of conflicts of interest in vaccination policy.

The mainstream media is largely failing to provide critical analysis of international vaccination policy. The Guardian's recent editorial attacking "antivaxxers of the western world" (8 July 2017) is an example of the crude and poorly-informed journalism which ignores legitimate concerns about the ever-increasing vaccine load being imposed upon children. Facile articles about 'vaccination' fail to consider that individual vaccine products and revaccinations are open to question. Similarly the use of the disparaging term 'antivaxxer' during the British Medical Association's recent meeting reflexively denigrates vaccine averse parents who I suggest may be justifiably worried about the over-use of vaccine products. Doctors would do well to exhibit some caution and humility, and keep in mind the possibility of 'unintended consequences' with the over-use of vaccine products, as has occurred with the over-use of antibiotics in the medical industry.

Cautious parents have every right to be wary of the vast array of lucrative vaccine products and revaccinations now being foisted upon children, does this constitute over-vaccination and over-servicing? Citizens have the right to question the quality and objectivity of the evidence supporting vaccination interventions. Where do we turn to get transparency and accountability on this matter?

Competing interests: No competing interests

24 July 2017
Elizabeth M Hart
Independent
Adelaide, South Australia