Dr Rebekah Hoffman is a GP from NSW. She recently contacted the AVN asking for our members to participate in a research survey she is conducting. You can watch an excerpt from a SBS Insight program to see her views on those who question government mandates. |
Dr Rebekah Hoffman is a GP from NSW. She recently contacted the AVN asking for our members to participate in a research survey she is conducting. You can watch an excerpt from a SBS Insight program to see her views on those who question government mandates. |
Below is the letter Dr Hoffman sent to the AVN. Please note that we are sharing the link to her survey in the letter, but do not recommend taking part in it. Obviously, it is up to individual members if they feel they do want to contribute to this project, but you will read below why the AVN committee is not in favour of doing so. Our correspondence with Dr Hoffman continues, and we will publish further updates in future newsletters. |
Below is the letter Dr Hoffman sent to the AVN. Please note that we are sharing the link to her survey in the letter, but do not recommend taking part in it. Obviously, it is up to individual members if they feel they do want to contribute to this project, but you will read below why the AVN committee is not in favour of doing so. Our correspondence with Dr Hoffman continues, and we will publish further updates in future newsletters. |
Dear Australian Vaccination-risks Network Team, My name is Dr Rebekah Hoffman. I am a general practitioner, researcher and academic based in Australia. I'm currently leading a research project exploring how general practitioners can better support patients when discussing vaccination decisions. The study aims to better understand the experiences, expectations and preferences of people with a range of perspectives on vaccination, including those who are hesitant, cautious, have declined vaccines, or have concerns about vaccination. We know that trust and communication are central to these conversations, and we want to ensure the voices of people with differing views are represented. The findings will help inform GP education and improve how clinicians engage with patients around informed decision-making and respectful discussions. I am writing to ask whether the AVN would be willing to assist by sharing our anonymous survey with your members through your newsletter, website or social media channels, or completing it yourselves amongst your team and contacts. The resources are also available here: - Survey: Microsoft Forms – Research Study – Fill in form https://forms.cloud.microsoft/r/WLd9ffGjz4
Participation is entirely voluntary and anonymous. The study has been approved through the appropriate human research ethics processes. We are seeking a broad range of participant perspectives and would greatly appreciate your assistance in helping ensure all voices are represented. If you have any questions about the study or would like further information, I'd be very happy to discuss it. Thank you for considering this request. Kind regards, Dr Rebekah Hoffman MBBS, BSci(OT), MPH, MSurg, MSpMed, GDAAD, DCH, GAICD, AICGG, AFRACMA, PhD, FRACGP
|
Dear Australian Vaccination-risks Network Team, My name is Dr Rebekah Hoffman. I am a general practitioner, researcher and academic based in Australia. I'm currently leading a research project exploring how general practitioners can better support patients when discussing vaccination decisions. The study aims to better understand the experiences, expectations and preferences of people with a range of perspectives on vaccination, including those who are hesitant, cautious, have declined vaccines, or have concerns about vaccination. We know that trust and communication are central to these conversations, and we want to ensure the voices of people with differing views are represented. The findings will help inform GP education and improve how clinicians engage with patients around informed decision-making and respectful discussions. I am writing to ask whether the AVN would be willing to assist by sharing our anonymous survey with your members through your newsletter, website or social media channels, or completing it yourselves amongst your team and contacts. The resources are also available here: - Survey: Microsoft Forms – Research Study – Fill in form https://forms.cloud.microsoft/r/WLd9ffGjz4
Participation is entirely voluntary and anonymous. The study has been approved through the appropriate human research ethics processes. We are seeking a broad range of participant perspectives and would greatly appreciate your assistance in helping ensure all voices are represented. If you have any questions about the study or would like further information, I'd be very happy to discuss it. Thank you for considering this request. Kind regards, Dr Rebekah Hoffman MBBS, BSci(OT), MPH, MSurg, MSpMed, GDAAD, DCH, GAICD, AICGG, AFRACMA, PhD, FRACGP
|
Dear Ms Hoffman,
Thank you for your email and for outlining your research project.
After careful consideration, the Australian Vaccination-risks Network must decline to distribute your survey or encourage our members to participate. We do not believe this research is conducted in good faith. The underlying intent of the project is not a neutral inquiry into patient concerns but an effort to equip doctors with more effective techniques to overcome vaccine hesitancy and steer patients toward acceptance. True informed consent does not require clinicians to be trained in persuasion tactics.
Before any collaboration or assistance from our network could even be considered, we insist on a foundational step: All major medical associations in Australia—including the RACGP, AMA, and others—must publicly call for the immediate removal of all federal and state “No Jab, No Pay” and “No Jab, No Play” policies. These policies penalise families exercising their right to refuse vaccinations and have no place in a medical system that claims to value informed consent.
Until doctors and their peak bodies oppose government-mandated financial and social discrimination against unvaccinated individuals and families, efforts to “improve communication” ring hollow and appear primarily aimed at increasing uptake rather than supporting genuine choice.
We suggest that you should support the AVN in demanding that Australian medical authorities commission and publish a large-scale, properly controlled vaccinated versus unvaccinated study. Such a study must compare comprehensive health outcomes — including chronic illness, autoimmune conditions, neurological disorders, and overall mortality — between fully vaccinated children (per the current schedule) and completely unvaccinated children. Until this glaring evidence gap is addressed transparently and independently, claims of vaccine safety remain unproven and public trust cannot be restored.
Senator Alex Antic has repeatedly highlighted critical deficiencies in Australia’s vaccine oversight during Senate Estimates hearings with the TGA. His probing questions on the absence of proper placebo-controlled safety trials for products on the childhood schedule, the TGA’s COVID-19 vaccine safety monitoring plan (and the apparent difficulty in producing compliance documentation), and broader pharmacovigilance failures underscore the urgent need for transparency and rigorous evidence.
These exchanges reveal why many Australians have lost trust in official assurances and why independent scrutiny remains essential.
General practitioners and specialists should undertake extensive, unbiased education on vaccine science, immunology, adverse event monitoring, and the historical and epidemiological record.
A valuable starting point is Attorney Aaron Siri’s book Vaccines Amen (or associated materials from his legal and advocacy work exposing gaps in vaccine safety oversight and regulatory capture). Education should also include open examination of:
• The limitations and acknowledged gaps in vaccine safety studies
• Under-reporting in systems such as the DAEN
• Long-term population health trends following expanded vaccine schedules
• The ethical importance of true informed consent without coercion Only once the medical profession demonstrates willingness to engage these issues transparently—rather than defaulting to dismissal or appeals to authority—can trust begin to be rebuilt. Should the medical establishment take concrete steps to end coercion and prioritise genuine scientific inquiry over policy enforcement, productive dialogue may become possible.
The AVN remains committed to supporting families who seek balanced information, and continues to work hard to remove policies that penalise families for choosing not to vaccinate on the Government recommended schedule.
Regards,
Australian Vaccination-risks Network Team
avn.org.au
|
Dear Ms Hoffman,
Thank you for your email and for outlining your research project.
After careful consideration, the Australian Vaccination-risks Network must decline to distribute your survey or encourage our members to participate. We do not believe this research is conducted in good faith. The underlying intent of the project is not a neutral inquiry into patient concerns but an effort to equip doctors with more effective techniques to overcome vaccine hesitancy and steer patients toward acceptance. True informed consent does not require clinicians to be trained in persuasion tactics.
Before any collaboration or assistance from our network could even be considered, we insist on a foundational step: All major medical associations in Australia—including the RACGP, AMA, and others—must publicly call for the immediate removal of all federal and state “No Jab, No Pay” and “No Jab, No Play” policies. These policies penalise families exercising their right to refuse vaccinations and have no place in a medical system that claims to value informed consent.
Until doctors and their peak bodies oppose government-mandated financial and social discrimination against unvaccinated individuals and families, efforts to “improve communication” ring hollow and appear primarily aimed at increasing uptake rather than supporting genuine choice.
We suggest that you should support the AVN in demanding that Australian medical authorities commission and publish a large-scale, properly controlled vaccinated versus unvaccinated study. Such a study must compare comprehensive health outcomes — including chronic illness, autoimmune conditions, neurological disorders, and overall mortality — between fully vaccinated children (per the current schedule) and completely unvaccinated children. Until this glaring evidence gap is addressed transparently and independently, claims of vaccine safety remain unproven and public trust cannot be restored.
Senator Alex Antic has repeatedly highlighted critical deficiencies in Australia’s vaccine oversight during Senate Estimates hearings with the TGA. His probing questions on the absence of proper placebo-controlled safety trials for products on the childhood schedule, the TGA’s COVID-19 vaccine safety monitoring plan (and the apparent difficulty in producing compliance documentation), and broader pharmacovigilance failures underscore the urgent need for transparency and rigorous evidence.
These exchanges reveal why many Australians have lost trust in official assurances and why independent scrutiny remains essential.
General practitioners and specialists should undertake extensive, unbiased education on vaccine science, immunology, adverse event monitoring, and the historical and epidemiological record.
A valuable starting point is Attorney Aaron Siri’s book Vaccines Amen (or associated materials from his legal and advocacy work exposing gaps in vaccine safety oversight and regulatory capture). Education should also include open examination of:
• The limitations and acknowledged gaps in vaccine safety studies
• Under-reporting in systems such as the DAEN
• Long-term population health trends following expanded vaccine schedules
• The ethical importance of true informed consent without coercion Only once the medical profession demonstrates willingness to engage these issues transparently—rather than defaulting to dismissal or appeals to authority—can trust begin to be rebuilt. Should the medical establishment take concrete steps to end coercion and prioritise genuine scientific inquiry over policy enforcement, productive dialogue may become possible.
The AVN remains committed to supporting families who seek balanced information, and continues to work hard to remove policies that penalise families for choosing not to vaccinate on the Government recommended schedule.
Regards,
Australian Vaccination-risks Network Team
avn.org.au
|
Dear AVN Team, Thank you for taking the time to consider my request and for your thoughtful response. I appreciate you explaining your reasons for declining and your willingness to outline the issues that are important to your organisation. I do, however, respectfully disagree with your characterisation of the project’s intent. The aim of this research is not to train GPs in persuasion or to convince people to vaccinate. Rather, it is to better understand the experiences, concerns and expectations of people who are vaccine hesitant, choose to delay vaccination, modify the schedule or decline vaccination altogether, so that GPs can provide better care to their patients irrespective of their vaccine status, to destigmatise the experiences patients have when they choose not to vaccinate themselves or their children. As a GP, I regularly care for families across that entire spectrum of vaccination. Many choose to vaccinate as per schedule, others not to vaccinate, some selectively vaccinate, others delay vaccines, and many are simply uncertain. There is very little formal education available to GPs on how to effectively and respectfully support all of these conversations. That is the gap I hope to address. For me, this work is about improving GP education. It is also about identifying system barriers that patients experience. For example, one issue I have already identified is the lack of flexibility in catch-up vaccination schedules, where modifying a schedule over time can be unnecessarily difficult. Whether that or other issues become advocacy priorities will be driven by the experiences reported through this research. I understand your initial decision to decline participation. However, I would gently suggest that if people who hold concerns about vaccination are not represented in research such as this, the evidence needed to advocate for the kinds of changes your members seek wont be generated. If only one perspective participates, we cannot accurately identify where the health system is failing patients or how it could improve. Thank you again for reconsidering my request. I would genuinely welcome the opportunity for your members’ voices to be included, as I believe they are an important part of this conversation. Kind regards, Dr Rebekah Hoffman |
Dear AVN Team, Thank you for taking the time to consider my request and for your thoughtful response. I appreciate you explaining your reasons for declining and your willingness to outline the issues that are important to your organisation. I do, however, respectfully disagree with your characterisation of the project’s intent. The aim of this research is not to train GPs in persuasion or to convince people to vaccinate. Rather, it is to better understand the experiences, concerns and expectations of people who are vaccine hesitant, choose to delay vaccination, modify the schedule or decline vaccination altogether, so that GPs can provide better care to their patients irrespective of their vaccine status, to destigmatise the experiences patients have when they choose not to vaccinate themselves or their children. As a GP, I regularly care for families across that entire spectrum of vaccination. Many choose to vaccinate as per schedule, others not to vaccinate, some selectively vaccinate, others delay vaccines, and many are simply uncertain. There is very little formal education available to GPs on how to effectively and respectfully support all of these conversations. That is the gap I hope to address. For me, this work is about improving GP education. It is also about identifying system barriers that patients experience. For example, one issue I have already identified is the lack of flexibility in catch-up vaccination schedules, where modifying a schedule over time can be unnecessarily difficult. Whether that or other issues become advocacy priorities will be driven by the experiences reported through this research. I understand your initial decision to decline participation. However, I would gently suggest that if people who hold concerns about vaccination are not represented in research such as this, the evidence needed to advocate for the kinds of changes your members seek wont be generated. If only one perspective participates, we cannot accurately identify where the health system is failing patients or how it could improve. Thank you again for reconsidering my request. I would genuinely welcome the opportunity for your members’ voices to be included, as I believe they are an important part of this conversation. Kind regards, Dr Rebekah Hoffman |
Dear Ms Hoffman
Thank you for your follow-up email.
The single greatest requirement for restoring any trust in the medical system is the immediate removal of the coercive “No Jab, No Pay” and “No Jab, No Play” policies, which you did not address in your response.
While these discriminatory measures remain, efforts to “improve GP conversations” or “destigmatise” vaccine refusal are largely meaningless. Parents do not trust a system that punishes them for exercising medical choice. No amount of refined communication techniques will repair that fundamental breach of trust.
The majority of children on catch-up schedules today are only there because of these coercive policies. Families have been financially pressured and socially blackmailed into compliance. This is not evidence of informed consent — it is evidence of state-sponsored coercion.
Until peak medical bodies, including the organisations linked to this research, actively campaign for the repeal of these punitive policies, vaccination rates will continue to fall as more families walk away from a system they rightly view as coercive and untrustworthy.
It is reprehensible that unvaccinated and selectively vaccinated families continue to be stigmatised, marginalised, and treated as second-class citizens by government policy and sections of the medical profession. This stigmatisation is not an unfortunate side-effect — it is a direct and deliberate consequence of “No Jab” legislation.
True destigmatisation starts with ending the discrimination, not with research projects that seek to better manage the victims of that discrimination. We are not interested in lending our community’s voices to research that fails to prioritise the removal of these coercive policies as the central issue.
Australian families deserve better.
The AVN has been at the frontline of the devastating effects of these policies for a decade. We know the untold stress and hardship that these policies have caused, as well as the vaccine injuries that have resulted from parents being coerced to vaccinate against their better judgement.
We recommend you read this article written by Dr John Piesse in 2017 , VACCINES ARE UNAVOIDABLY UNSAFE - by Dr John Piesse
” I have been encountering cases of vaccine injury for over 40 years. In June it was a happy, healthy nearly 5-year-old whose parents were required to put her on a catch-up schedule, in order to get her into kindergarten. She won’t be going to kinder. She’s in a wheel-chair, brain-damaged. Her life ruined. Then came a friend’s father who died after a flu vaccine, and last week a 4 -year- old boy, made autistic by a catch-up schedule.”
This is the reality of the results of coercive vaccination policies.
If the medical system truly wants trust restored, it will call for the end of these unethical policies as a matter of urgency.
Regards,
The AVN team
|
Dear Ms Hoffman
Thank you for your follow-up email.
The single greatest requirement for restoring any trust in the medical system is the immediate removal of the coercive “No Jab, No Pay” and “No Jab, No Play” policies, which you did not address in your response.
While these discriminatory measures remain, efforts to “improve GP conversations” or “destigmatise” vaccine refusal are largely meaningless. Parents do not trust a system that punishes them for exercising medical choice. No amount of refined communication techniques will repair that fundamental breach of trust.
The majority of children on catch-up schedules today are only there because of these coercive policies. Families have been financially pressured and socially blackmailed into compliance. This is not evidence of informed consent — it is evidence of state-sponsored coercion.
Until peak medical bodies, including the organisations linked to this research, actively campaign for the repeal of these punitive policies, vaccination rates will continue to fall as more families walk away from a system they rightly view as coercive and untrustworthy.
It is reprehensible that unvaccinated and selectively vaccinated families continue to be stigmatised, marginalised, and treated as second-class citizens by government policy and sections of the medical profession. This stigmatisation is not an unfortunate side-effect — it is a direct and deliberate consequence of “No Jab” legislation.
True destigmatisation starts with ending the discrimination, not with research projects that seek to better manage the victims of that discrimination. We are not interested in lending our community’s voices to research that fails to prioritise the removal of these coercive policies as the central issue.
Australian families deserve better.
The AVN has been at the frontline of the devastating effects of these policies for a decade. We know the untold stress and hardship that these policies have caused, as well as the vaccine injuries that have resulted from parents being coerced to vaccinate against their better judgement.
We recommend you read this article written by Dr John Piesse in 2017 , VACCINES ARE UNAVOIDABLY UNSAFE - by Dr John Piesse
” I have been encountering cases of vaccine injury for over 40 years. In June it was a happy, healthy nearly 5-year-old whose parents were required to put her on a catch-up schedule, in order to get her into kindergarten. She won’t be going to kinder. She’s in a wheel-chair, brain-damaged. Her life ruined. Then came a friend’s father who died after a flu vaccine, and last week a 4 -year- old boy, made autistic by a catch-up schedule.”
This is the reality of the results of coercive vaccination policies.
If the medical system truly wants trust restored, it will call for the end of these unethical policies as a matter of urgency.
Regards,
The AVN team
|
|
|
What are we watching this week? |
What are we watching this week? |
Julia joins us on the Vaxxed Bus to share her COVID vaccine injury, which resulted in a flare up of pericarditis that lasted 3 months. Julia has been left to manage her ongoing health issues on her own and is unable to claim compensation due to the standard hospital protocols. She shares her views on the government deception and coercive control during the COVID era and it’s lack of care in the aftermath. |
Julia joins us on the Vaxxed Bus to share her COVID vaccine injury, which resulted in a flare up of pericarditis that lasted 3 months. Julia has been left to manage her ongoing health issues on her own and is unable to claim compensation due to the standard hospital protocols. She shares her views on the government deception and coercive control during the COVID era and it’s lack of care in the aftermath. |
|
|
|
|
