Letters to Editor
Dear Sir,
Re the ‘no jab, no pay’ policy.
The government is “using the stick” of no childcare subsidies, to coerce parents to get their children vaccinated.
It seems to be this is a clear violation of the Commonwealth Constitution of Australia, Section 51, 23a because it appears that they are withholding entitlements in order to conscript for a government program.
The Commonwealth shall legislate for …. (xxiiiA) the provision of maternity allowances, widows’ pensions, child endowment, unemployment, pharmaceutical, sickness and hospital benefits, medical and dental services, but so as not to authorise any form of civil conscription, benefits to students and family allowances;
Not only that, they are violating our common law right to informed consent to medical treatment. In other words they are punishing people for exercising a right.
Would you agree?
But the big question is, how do we enforce this?
*The Australian Vaccination Network are seeking a barrister or QC to advise on this and are also looking for funding pledges.
https://avn.org.au/making-an-informed-choice/pledge-to-fight-compulsory-vaccination/
Anyone with doubts that vaccines cause death and injury should download vaccine maker GlaxoSmithKline’s own report on the issue. There is a massive list of reported injuries and some deaths, but “a few deaths” (at least those that are reported as vaccine related and not all the SIDS “unexplained” baby deaths) are a “satisfactory risk/benefit” outcome.
According to GlaxoSmithKline a few deaths and injuries is for “the greater good”!. Tough luck if your baby draws the death and injury lottery!
vaccin-dc3a9cc3a8s.pdf
There are also 120 plus medical papers here investigating possible vaccine links to autism. That issue was supposedly settled in 1999 by the British Medical Association after they vilified and deregistered Dr Andrew Wakefield who also researched the issue.
RESEARCH PAPERS ON THE AUTISM LINK
122 Research Papers Supporting the Vaccine/Autism Link
Yours
John Murray
Gold Coast
Would EUA be based on the same principle as TGAs Provisionally Approved?
I looked at EUA PDF file and it’s clear as day that with EUA is by “Informed Consent Only”
Emergency Use Authorization
of Medical Products and
Related Authorities
Guidance for Industry and Other Stakeholders
U.S. Department of llealth and Human Services
Food and Drug Administration
Office of the Commissioner
Office of the Chief Scientist
Offce of Counterterrorism and Emerging Threats
January 2017
Procedura]
OMB Control No. 0910-0595
Expiration Date 08/31/2022
See additional PRA statement in section IX of this guidance.
On page 30 is this:
Information for Recipients
Although informed consent as generally required under FDA regulations45 is not required for
administration or use of an EUA product, section 564 does provide EUA conditions to ensure
that recipients are infomied about the MCM they receive under an EUA. For an unapproved
product (section 564(e)( I )(A)(ii)) and for an unapproved use of an approved product (section
564(e)(2)(A)), the statute requires that FDA ensure that recipients are informed to the extent
pracHcable gi~’en the applicable circumstances:
That FTDA has authorized emergency use of the product;
Of the significant known and potential benefits and risks associated with the
emergency use of the product, and of the: extent to which such benefits and risks are
unknown
That they have the option to accept or refuse the EUA product and of any
consequences of refusing administration of the product;'” and
Of any available alternatives to the product and of the risks and benefits of available
alternatives.
Therefore, FDA recommends that a request for an EUA include a ‘Fact Sheet” for recipients that includes essential information about the product. In addition to the above information, the Agency recommends that the content of the Fact Sheets for recipients include the
following information:
. Product name and explanation of the intended use of the product;
A description of the disease/condition;