OF THE
TIMES

The University of Wollongong has accepted a PhD thesis from a prominent anti-vaccination activist that warns that global agencies such as the World Health Organisation are colluding with the pharmaceutical industry in a massive conspiracy to spruik immunisation.
Judy Wilyman, the convener of Vaccination Decisions and Vaccination Choice, submitted the thesis late last year, concluding Australia's vaccination policy was not a result of independent assessment but the work of pharmaceutical industry pressure on the WHO.
Several medical researchers and public health advocates have slammed the PhD thesis — to be awarded through the university's School of Humanities — with some calling for it to be sent to the university's academic board for review. (source)
What you need to consider when it comes to mandatory vaccinations
Going a step further, legislators in Australia have recently passed laws that require both children and young adults to be vaccinated in order to receive family tax benefits payments. The newly passed "No Jab, No Pay" laws (see: Social Services Legislation Amendment) will commence as of January 2016 — at the same time that mandatory vaccination laws also in California take effect.
The Social Services Legislation Amendment was originally proposed to cease financial benefits to parents of children up to and including age 7 of who weren't complying with the immunization schedule set out and monitored by the Australian Government. Now however, the Government has quietly altered the age definition of children from "under 7 and born on or after 1 January 1996" to "under 20" — with barely a peep from the mainstream media. This amendment is the first step in making vaccines compulsory for all Australian adults.

Dr. Peter Gotzsche, head of the Nordic Cochrane Collaboration, one of the few research outlets free from industry influence, has come out strongly on the lack of efficacy and safety of psychiatric medication. He also has analyzed the behavior of pharmaceutical giants comparing it to that of organized crime. He speaks clearly about his conclusions, on video, in his book, and in interviews, stating:"Our citizens would be far better off if we removed all the psychotropic drugs from the market...It is inescapable that their availability creates more harm than good."What are we to do with all of this information? We must start to get more comfortable with these truths:
- The pharmaceutical industry uses fear to engage customers.
- It relies on a one-pill-one-ill model that ignores root causes and never asks why a given patient is suffering.
- It over-promises and under-delivers. It may be a wonderful idea to have a pill that sweeps symptoms away without leaving wreckage in its wake. This is not reality. It is not supported by the literature, and is why I have let go of any application of psychotropics. They don't do what they say they do and they exact harm in the process.
- There is an easier (ultimately) way to help, to heal, and to resolve psychiatric suffering. It involves looking at the person in their journey, in their environment, and in their bodies.
Comment: Is the Food Industry Manipulating Your Chemistry?