Australian Government Threatens to Destroy Careers of Doctors Who Refuse To Vaccinate Without Informed Consent

Australian Government Threatens to Destroy Careers of Doctors Who Refuse To Vaccinate Without Informed Consent

0 Reads  By: Staff Reporter

1 vaccineingredients

Dr John Piesse is one of very few Australian doctors who took his oath to “first do no harm” seriously. Recently, he has come under fire for standing up against the tyrannical Victorian government who are stripping away basic human rights.

As a young doctor who gave vaccinations to infants in the 1970’s, Dr Piesse followed the recommendations of the Australian Health Authorities without question. He trusted that the information he had been provided was backed by science. Like the majority of medical practitioners, he believed the official assertions that vaccine reactions were “one in a million” until he noted that, in fact, they weren’t.

Upon reflecting on his records, Dr Piesse observed that approximately 50% of his infant vaccine recipients became quite ill.  More tragically, 2 post-vaccination infant deaths came to his attention, both deaths brushed off as SIDS. Over the subsequent years, he noted many cases of vaccine-damaged individuals and thus began his research into the science of vaccination.

What he found was truly shocking. Not only were there no gold standard studies proving the efficacy of vaccination – an inconvenient truth for a profession that prides itself on being scientific, but according to Dr Piesse, “One analysis indicated that national infant mortality rates were proportional to the number of vaccine doses (Miller NZ 2011), contradictory to the claim that ‘vaccination saves lives’.” He went on to say “… there is an over-whelming quantity of  ‘manufactured science’…scientific fraud, and [doctors are] ignoring evidence supporting causality [between vaccines and vaccine damage]“.

So how did Dr Piesse, a man described by his patients as a caring, honest and brave doctor, find himself the subject of an investigation?

Grant McArthur, a reporter from the Herald Sun who is believed to have colluded with Jill Hennessy (Victorian Health Minister) on a fabricated tweets saga blaming “anti-vaxxers” for abusing her, broke this story with the alarmist title ‘Secret Melbourne cell of anti-vaxxer doctors under investigation’. His article leads readers to believe Dr Piesse is guilty of serious misconduct. Some basic investigation will show that not only is this untrue, but everything Dr Piesse did was perfectly legal and medically indicated.

According to section 147(2c) of the Public Health & Well Being Act, in order to access child care or kindergarten in Victoria, a parent needs to present their centre with an Immunisation history statement from the Australian Immunisation Register OR an Immunisation Status Certificate (ISC) from any immunisation provider. In the event a medical exemption is required, that ISC must certify that the provider has “evidence that the immunisation of the child would be medically contraindicated under the specifications set out in the Australian Immunisation Handbook.” It does not state that a doctor must disclose those reasons – after all, that would be a breach of patient privacy.

While many people, including medical professionals, have been led to believe that reasons for medical contraindication to vaccination must be consistent with the very strict guidelines set out in the Immunisation Handbook, the Handbook’s disclaimer in fact, expressly states that exemptions are “subject to clinician’s judgment in each individual case”.

Furthermore, the Handbook states that it is “a general guide” and that “there are unaddressed scientific questions, complex medical practice issues and continuous new information, as well as differences in expert opinion” and  “it is… possible that errors have been missed”.

This confirms that a clinician is not to treat any said guidance as superior to their own judgment, especially considering “The Australian Government Department of Health does not accept any liability for any injury, loss or damage incurred by use of or reliance on the information” contained in the handbook.

This is precisely what Dr Piesse did. He used his own clinical judgement coupled with his patients’ detailed history to decide if vaccination, based on his professional opinion, was or wasn’t appropriate. He did this knowing he had the right to clinical autonomy and that the Immunisation Status Certificate he was providing to his patients met the requirements of the legislation.

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal, in a 15 February 2017 ruling, further highlighted that “the Handbook recognises the importance of a clinician’s judgement in each individual case” and

acknowledged “the medical complexity of the issues under consideration”, thus confirming that the circumstances in which a determination may be made of a medical contraindication are not restricted to the set of circumstances listed on the Australian Immunisation Register “IM011” form.

A second GP also under investigation who wishes to remain anonymous stated:

“Most doctors are not aware that the Immunisation handbook doesn’t even meet its own mandatory guidelines for gold standard evidence. For example, there are no links to any safety studies on the MMR vaccine and a textbook reference is used to claim the MMR is effective. That textbook is co-written by Dr Paul Offit, a doctor who has profited in excess of $13 million from the rotavirus vaccine he produced with Merck, a company which also holds a monopoly on the production of the MMR vaccine”.

He went on to say, “If doctors are not aware of the poor quality of evidence provided in the handbook, how can they offer proper informed consent? Without valid consent, which would include disclosing all the possible adverse reactions listed on a vaccine package insert, doctors are left open to being sued. The Rogers vs. Whitaker case is testament to that. This case has set precedent for a high level of disclosure of even rare risks. Doctors not willing to do their own research into the accuracy of the content in the Handbook may find themselves facing legal action should an adverse reaction occur. If a significant adverse event occurs which has not been disclosed in the consent process, the practitioner performing the procedure bears legal liability for the event, whereas the same adverse event would not attract legal liability had proper consent been given and the procedure performed competently. This is why clinicians like Dr Piesse should be commended for being brave enough to stand up and realise, the Government is only protecting themselves”.

While the Immunisation Handbook doesn’t contain adequate links to the safety of the MMR vaccine, this 1986 study is commonly referred to in order to defend its use. The study which states in its introduction that “little attention has been paid to reactions caused by the combined MMR vaccine” concluded that common side effects such as respiratory symptoms, nausea and vomiting were worse in the placebo group than those receiving the MMR vaccine therefore demonstrating its safety.

The placebo used however, was the MMR vaccine with the addition of neomycin (anti-biotic), phenol-red indicator (known to have serious side effects including respiratory symptoms, nausea and vomiting) minus the viral antigens. Often vaccine proponents claim it is unethical to deny a child a vaccine and this is why they can never use a true placebo such as saline in vaccine trials. If this is the case, why is it therefore ethical to inject them with the MMR vaccine minus the viral antigens that are supposed to protect them and the addition of two substances each of which in their own right can have serious side effects?

While Dr Piesse continues to be vilified by the biased media and a complacent medical board calling for him to be de-registered, evidence has surfaced showing that an unspecified law firm has provided written documentation that Dr Piesse’s Immunisation Status Certificate (ISC) meets the requirements of the legislation. In fact, their letter states that “..It would not be lawful” for any childcare centre or kindergarten to deny enrolment of a child using the ISC provided by Dr Piesse.

Furthermore, any childcare service or kindergarten who denied enrolment would be “engaging in discriminatory conduct” thus leaving them open to legal action.

A second anonymous source who wished only to be referred to as Sarah, said “I was the one who advised Dr Piesse that he could write ISC’s for his patients. Having visited 5 doctors, all of whom agreed that my son shouldn’t be vaccinated, he was the only one who was willing to give my son the certificate so I could enrol him in Kinder”. She went on to say, “I visited a lawyer, and since then a barrister and showed them the certificate Dr Piesse provided and they confirmed it met the requirements of the legislation”.

When asked why she felt Dr Piesse was being targeted, Sarah said “I’ve been in a deadlock with the Department of Health and Human services (DHHS) for 22 weeks and to date, they have been unable to prove that Dr Piesse’s letter of contraindication doesn’t meet requirements. They have tried to exert an authority that is beyond the requirements of the legislation while refusing to cite the law that shows their advice is consistent with the provisions of the Public Health & Wellbeing Act. I have no doubt this witch hunt against Dr Piesse is because they are backed into a corner and it’s easier for them to try to de-register my doctor than to admit they were wrong all along. Their behaviour is despicable”.

Jill Hennessy who is responsible for the discriminatory legislation banning unvaccinated children from childcare and kinder, states “You should get your advice from a qualified GP…” However, following the latest witch hunt, one must ask, do our politicians believe you should only seek the advice of a qualified GP who is prepared to parrot their vaccine dogma? Do we live in a democracy or in a dictatorship?

It seems evident that governments and many medicos are more interested in clobbering doctors who question vaccine safety than in promoting the good science and adverse-reaction surveillance needed to rectify legitimate concerns. Such individuals refuse to look at any published scholarly articles showing the overwhelming high-quality evidence indicating vaccines can and do cause harm, including death. Practitioners like Dr Piesse who get to see first-hand the devastation that vaccinations can cause, are gagged by the government and medical hierarchies even when they have followed the law. Have people become so closed minded that they genuinely believe a doctor who has legitimate concerns over vaccine safety should be silenced?

There is no doubt that this media scare tactic was designed to ensure any critical thinking doctor didn’t exercise their rights to use their clinical autonomy and provide legitimate medical exemptions to their patients. It is therefore imperative individuals use this opportunity to tell their own doctors the real story behind Dr Piesse.

If you’d like to support Dr Piesse in his fight for justice, you can donate to this Go Fund Me campaign. Dr. Piesse’s supporters have also called for individuals to lodge complaints to the Australian Health Practitioners Regulation Authority about the way Dr. Piesse has been treated via email to Vic-complaints@ahpra.gov.au.

 

Comments

NO COMMENTS

Leave a Reply