A critical analysis of the Australian government’s rationale for its vaccination policy

Vaccination policies in Australia need to be scrutinised because the use of a medical intervention in the prevention of infectious disease has serious health and social implications. Deaths and illnesses to infectious diseases were significantly reduced due to environmental and lifestyle reforms prior to the widespread use of most vaccines in the mid-20th century. Mass vaccination campaigns were adopted after this time as the central management strategy for preventing infectious diseases, with many new vaccines being recommended in the National Immunisation Program (NIP). The implementation of mass vaccination programs occurred simultaneously with the development of partnerships between academic institutions and industry. The Australian government’s NIP, like all member countries of the World Health Organisation (WHO), is recommended by the Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunisation (GAVI). This is a partnership with the WHO and UNICEF that includes the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, the International Federation of Pharmaceutical Manufacturers and Associations (IFPMA), the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (BMGF), the Rockefeller Foundation, the United Nations Development Fund (UNDF) and other private research institutions. All members of this public-private partnership influence the development of WHO global health policies. It is important that independent research is carried out to assess whether all the vaccines being recommended today are safe, effective and necessary for the protection of the community. It is also important to have comprehensive evidence that it is safe to combine multiple vaccines in the developing bodies of infants. The framework for undone science is used to analyse the Australian government’s claim that the benefits of vaccines far outweigh the risks. Whilst the government claims serious adverse events to vaccines are rare this is not supported by adequate scientific evidence due to the shortcomings in clinical trials and longterm surveillance of health outcomes of recipients. A close examination of the ‘Swine Flu’ 2009 vaccine and the vaccine for human papillomavirus (HPV), intended to prevent cervical cancer, shows shortcomings in the evidence base and rationale for the vaccines. This investigation demonstrates that not all vaccines have been demonstrated to be safe, effective or necessary. It also concludes that the government’s claim that the benefits of vaccines far outweigh the risks cannot be sustained due to the gaps in the scientific knowledge resulting from unfunded research and the inadequate monitoring of adverse events after vaccination