Page 2 of 8

They WILL Hear our voices

KittenThe sound was tiny. So small, my brother in law, Charles, wasn’t even sure he had heard it. His wife, my sister Rhonda, was profoundly deaf, so she was no help in this particular matter.

This was nearly 40 years ago. They were both on their way to work and had made their usual trip down to the parking garage in the basement of their apartment building to make the 1 1/2 hour journey to Midtown Manhattan where they worked.

Charles wasn’t even sure he’d heard anything, but there was something wrong, he knew it. He walked around the garage, listening intently and finally, stopped in front of a drain pipe in the far corner. A soft, sad sound could barely be heard above the banging of water pumps and the roar of the central heating units.

Crouching down, Charles pulled a bit of wire away from the bottom of the pipe and out plopped 4 or 5 furry little bodies – all of them unmoving except for one. A small black kitten who was so weak from hunger and illness, he could barely move or make all but the most pitifully tiny sounds.

But my brother-in-law, who had an abiding love for cats, had heard this little one’s pleas.

Domino, the name they gave the kitten – as much from his colouring (all black with a flash of white on his toes and face) as from the lucky roll of the dice that had brought him to them – was near death. My sister and Charles took him to the vet where he was treated for worms, an infection, mites in his ears and other parasites in his fur. It was touch and go for a while.

They took him home and nursed him and within a matter of weeks, he was a hale and hearty cat who reveled in affection and drove their other cat – a rather spoiled Siamese named Cinderella, to distraction with his antics.

Why am I telling you this story now? 

Perhaps I’m drawing a bit of a long bow, but I have been thinking about Domino over and over again for the past few days. How close he had come to death and how his tiny, little weak voice managed to gain the attention of Charles over all the surrounding noises and against all odds. And how that voice – weak nearly to the point of death – eventually saved his life – and a long and happy life it was too.

Our movement was been a bit like Domino.

Everywhere around us, we are surrounded by extraneous noises that threaten to cut off our access to the very people who could – literally or figuratively – save the lives of our children and ourselves. Our message is being drowned out – quite intentionally – by those who through fear, greed or hatred – believe that our message does not deserve to be heard or might be too dangerous to their bottom line should it get out into the public.

If it isn’t the government telling us they will penalise those least able to survive through No Jab, No Pay, or saying that our healthy, unvaccinated children aren’t entitled to an early childhood education via No Jab, No Play, it is corporate bullies threatening to remove sponsorship from a film festival if they don’t censor a video that tells the truth about the vaccine – autism connection.

Vaxxed Screenshot

Our movement had been seriously weakened by this constant battle. Many of our siblings – the other groups that have fought so hard and so bravely – succumbed to fatigue and fell away. But many more of us are still here, staying the course. And we have been offered a second chance.

Rising from the ashes – against all odds

We were near death – our cries for health freedom and respect for basic human rights were, for the most part, unheard.

vaccines and moneyThen, the unthinkable happened. The government and their corporate masters became so evil and repressive, through their actions, they galvinised support for health freedom – even from amongst those of us who would not normally be involved in this issue.

Through their fascist behaviour, the government has betrayed and alienated a large minority of the population. They destroyed the social contract we have always relied upon between those who govern and those who elect.

They have abused and vilified a law-abiding segment of the community and encouraged others to do so as well.

Through discriminatory legislation like No Jab, No Pay in Australia and SB-277 in California, they effectively took away the rights, the voice and the sense of community and belonging of a large and growing proportion of the population.

Instead of listening to what citizens and health professionals had to say about vaccination, the government ignored our voices. The only sounds they seemed capable of hearing were the voices of the multi-national corporations who profit from continued illness and enslavement to their products.

From great repression comes a rebirth of freedom

Vaccination-billboard-11Through their dictatorial and draconian measures, the government here and abroad has done what the entire health-freedom movement could not do in decades of trying – they have unified the broader community around a single goal – saving the rights, the freedoms and in some cases, the very lives of those who believe that when it comes to health, parents and individuals must ALWAYS have the final say about what procedures they will and won’t accept.

The people supporting these groups will never feel the same about their government or their country again. Their belief and trust in the government has been irreparably damaged.

Hundreds of ‘old’ supporters have come back on board, offering to help with their time, their money and their willing hearts. Our depression has begun to turn into cautious optimism.

Then, the real breakthrough occurred – thousands of new supporters stepped forward and amongst them, many, many people who have chosen to vaccinate their children but who wholeheartedly support our right to say no for our own families.

The parable of Domino

Though Domino has been gone for many years, his story is the one I think of when considering the state of vaccination choice in Australia and around the world today. From weakness to strength, we have come full circle and we will prevail.

Though the fight will be hard and wearying, while we have the support of such a broad base within the community, and the knowledge that our goal is a just and truthful one, a victorious outcome is assured.

Never doubt it.

by Meryl Dorey

Please note: Blog posts are opinion pieces which represent the views of the authors. They do not necessarily represent the viewpoints of the nocompulsoryvaccination blog. This blog is a forum, support and information site and outlet for discussion about the relative benefits and risks of vaccinations in particular – and medical procedures in general. We do not provide medical advice but believe that everyone has the opportunity and the obligation to do their own research before making decisions for their families. The information we provide (including your personal review of the references we cite) should be taken in conjunction with a range of other data, including that obtained from government, your health care provider and/or other medical source material to assist you in developing the knowledge required to make informed health choices.

 

Does Malcolm Turnbull support censorship?

OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA
Patrick Stokes – vaccine-risk denialist

A very active and lively discussion has been taking place on the Prime Minister’s Facebook page regarding the No Jab, No Pay law.  I made several posts in response to Dr Patrick Stokes – a Senior Lecturer in Philosophy who supports censorship when it comes to vaccination as evidenced by his article on The Conversation entitled: No, You’re Not Entitled to Your Opinion.

Dr Stokes is an Australian academic who readily admits that he is not an authority on the this issue.  Furthermore, he openly states that he does not WANT to know about the science of vaccination, instead claiming that everyone should defer to doctors and health authorities because they are the only ones capable of understanding the subject. Please read his statement below:

Stokes Defers to Experts

Is the PM Censoring Debate?

Getting back to the Prime Minister’s Facebook page, as I said, I was having a lively debate with Mr Stokes about the issue of vaccination. I prepared a comment in response to his repetition of the fact that he does not know anything about vaccination and does not believe the issue should be publicly debated. When I tried to post my response, however, I got a warning that there was a problem and I should try later. This was yesterday afternoon and I have tried 4 times now and each time, I get the same warning.

Lucy TurnbullSince there are plenty of new comments on this page, including many casting aspersions on my honesty, integrity and intelligence, I can only assume that I have been blocked. Fair go, Malcolm or whoever you have delegated to moderate your page! Are you afraid that your wife’s profits at Prima BioMed (profits that jumped to AUD $5.5 million mere weeks after No Jab No Pay legislation was announced) might be affected if enough people start to question vaccination? Valid fear, that – but is that a reason to silence opponents of government policies? Do we live in a democracy or not, Mr Turnbull? Or are the Australian people no more than cash cows (cash vaccas, the origin of the word ‘vaccination’, appropriately enough?) to you and your government?

Think about it for a minute. NSW Premiere, Barry O’Farrell resigned over the gift of a bottle of wine; then Prime Minister, Paul Keating, scandalised the nation when it was discovered that he had profited from the sale of a piggery to Indonesia whilst undertaking trade negotiations with that country; and former Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd’s wife, Therese Rein, was forced to sell the Australian division of her international employment agency when her husband was elected due to contracts the company had with the Australian Government.

Australia has a long history of holding its elected representatives accountable when there is even a hint of corruption or profiteering – yet the current PM’s wife is Chairman of the Board of a company involved in vaccination and other pharmaceutical pursuits whose value has increased dramatically due – at least on the surface in my own opinion – to policies which her husband has helped push through Parliament. Did Mr Turnbull excuse himself during the debate on No Jab No Pay? Did he tell Parliament that he had a conflict of interest and excuse himself from the vote on this legislation? These are genuine questions – I don’t know the answer and my investigations so far have not been fruitful. Despite the apparent conflict of interest, not a word has been raised about this in the media or by the opposition.

I guess when it comes to vaccination, carte blanche is always given to those who support the procedure and a blind eye will be turned if there is any question of propriety or what is right for the nation.

But I digress.

Before I was unceremoniously booted from the PM’s Facebook page, I had issued a challenge to debate the benefits and risks of vaccination at a public venue. My challenge stands – if anyone from the medical industry, pharma or government believes that they can publicly support vaccine safety and effectiveness, I will gladly meet you in a fair debate with a neutral compere.

For those who would like to see my response to Patrick Stokes, here it is.

@Patrick Stokes – if I have no expertise on this subject (and by your own admission, you are neither qualified nor interested enough to learn about what you discuss when it comes to vaccination), then it should be simple to prove it. Not debating me or anyone else from the pro-information side of the issue is simply a ruse.

And here are just a few recent studies that HAVE been published on the ineffectiveness and risks of vaccination. Maybe you need to get someone more qualified to read them for you and tell you what they say?

BMJ. 2014 Jun 24;348:g3668. doi: 10.1136/bmj.g3668.

Whooping cough in school age children presenting with persistent cough in UK primary care after introduction of the preschool pertussis booster vaccination: prospective cohort study.

Objective To estimate the prevalence and clinical severity of whooping cough (pertussis) in school age children presenting with persistent cough in primary care since the introduction and implementation of the preschool pertussis booster vaccination.

Design Prospective cohort study (November 2010 to December 2012).

Setting General practices in Thames Valley, UK.

Participants 279 children aged 5 to 15 years who presented in primary care with a persistent cough of two to eight weeks’ duration. Exclusion criteria were cough likely to be caused by a serious underlying medical condition, known immunodeficiency or immunocompromise, participation in another clinical research study, and preschool pertussis booster vaccination received less than one year previously.

Main outcome measures Evidence of recent pertussis infection based on an oral fluid anti-pertussis toxin IgG titre of at least 70 arbitrary units. Cough frequency was measured in six children with laboratory confirmed pertussis.

Results 56 (20%, 95% confidence interval 16% to 25%) children had evidence of recent pertussis infection, including 39 (18%, 13% to 24%) of 215 children who had been fully vaccinated. The risk of pertussis was more than three times higher (21/53; 40%, 26% to 54%) in children who had received the preschool pertussis booster vaccination seven years or more previously than in those who had received it less than seven years previously (20/171; 12%, 7% to 17%). The risk of pertussis was similar between children who received five and three component preschool pertussis booster vaccines (risk ratio for five component vaccine 1.14, 0.64 to 2.03). Four of six children in whom cough frequency was measured coughed more than 400 times in 24 hours.

Conclusions Pertussis can still be found in a fifth of school age children who present in primary care with persistent cough and can cause clinically significant cough in fully vaccinated children. These findings will help to inform consideration of the need for an adolescent pertussis booster vaccination in the United Kingdom.

Divider 1

Clin Infect Dis. (2012) doi: 10.1093/cid/cis287

Unexpectedly Limited Durability of Immunity Following Acellular Pertussis Vaccination in Pre-Adolescents in a North American Outbreak

Results We identified 171 cases of clinical pertussis; 132 in pediatric patients. There was a notable increase in cases in patients aged 8-12. The rate of testing peaked in infants, but remained relatively constant until age 12. The rate of positive tests was low for ages zero to six, and increased in preadolescents, peaking at age 12. Vaccination rates of PCR positive preadolescents were approximately equal to that of controls. Vaccine Effectiveness was 41%, 24%, 79%, for ages 2-7, 8-12, 13-18, respectively.

Conclusions Our data suggests that the current schedule of acellular pertussis vaccine doses is insufficient to prevent outbreaks of pertussis. We noted a markedly increased rate of disease from age 8 through 12, proportionate to the interval since the last scheduled vaccine. Stable rates of testing ruled out selection bias. The possibility of earlier or more numerous booster doses of acellular pertussis vaccine either as part of routine immunization or for outbreak control should be entertained.

Divider 1

This is not a peer-reviewed study, but it speaks to the fact that drug companies control the information governments rely upon to make policy decisions. It is written in plain English.

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/lawrence-solomon/merck-whistleblowers_b_5881914.html

Merck Has Some Explaining To Do Over Its MMR Vaccine Claims

Merck, the pharmaceutical giant, is facing a slew of controversies over its Measles-Mumps-Rubella (MMR) vaccine following numerous allegations of wrongdoing from different parties in the medical field, including two former Merck scientists-turned-whistleblowers. A third whistleblower, this one a scientist at the Centers for Disease Control, also promises to bring Merck grief following his confession of misconduct involving the same MMR vaccine.

The controversies will find Merck defending itself and its vaccine in at least two federal court cases after a U.S. District judge earlier this month threw out Merck’s attempts at dismissal. Merck now faces federal charges of fraud from the whistleblowers, a vaccine competitor and doctors in New Jersey and New York. Merck could also need to defend itself in Congress: The staff of representative Bill Posey (R-Fla) — a longstanding critic of the CDC interested in an alleged link between vaccines and autism — is now reviewing some 1,000 documents that the CDC whistleblower turned over to them.

The first court case, United States v. Merck & Co., stems from claims by two former Merck scientists that Merck “fraudulently misled the government and omitted, concealed, and adulterated material information regarding the efficacy of its mumps vaccine in violation of the FCA [False Claims Act].”

According to the whistleblowers’ court documents, Merck’s misconduct was far-ranging: It “failed to disclose that its mumps vaccine was not as effective as Merck represented, (ii) used improper testing techniques, (iii) manipulated testing methodology, (iv) abandoned undesirable test results, (v) falsified test data, (vi) failed to adequately investigate and report the diminished efficacy of its mumps vaccine, (vii) falsely verified that each manufacturing lot of mumps vaccine would be as effective as identified in the labeling, (viii) falsely certified the accuracy of applications filed with the FDA, (ix) falsely certified compliance with the terms of the CDC purchase contract, (x) engaged in the fraud and concealment describe herein for the purpose of illegally monopolizing the U.S. market for mumps vaccine, (xi) mislabeled, misbranded, and falsely certified its mumps vaccine, and (xii) engaged in the other acts described herein to conceal the diminished efficacy of the vaccine the government was purchasing.” (Click the above link to read the rest of this article).

Divider 1

And here, a release from that rabidly anti-vaccine body, the American College of Pediatrics:

http://www.acpeds.org/the-college-speaks/position-statements/health-issues/new-concerns-about-the-human-papillomavirus-vaccine

New Concerns about the Human Papillomavirus Vaccine

American College of Pediatricians – January 2016

The American College of Pediatricians (The College) is committed to the health and well-being of children, including prevention of disease by vaccines. It has recently come to the attention of the College that one of the recommended vaccines could possibly be associated with the very rare but serious condition of premature ovarian failure (POF), also known as premature menopause. There have been two case report series (3 cases each) published since 2013 in which post-menarcheal adolescent girls developed laboratory documented POF within weeks to several years of receiving Gardasil, a four-strain human papillomavirus vaccine (HPV4).1,2 Adverse events that occur after vaccines are frequently not caused by the vaccine and there has not been a noticeable rise in POF cases in the last 9 years since HPV4 vaccine has been widely used.

Nevertheless there are legitimate concerns that should be addressed: (1) long-term ovarian function was not assessed in either the original rat safety studies3,4 or in the human vaccine trials, (2) most primary care physicians are probably unaware of a possible association between HPV4 and POF and may not consider reporting POF cases or prolonged amenorrhea (missing menstrual periods) to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), (3) potential mechanisms of action have been postulated based on autoimmune associations with the aluminum adjuvant used1 and previously documented ovarian toxicity in rats from another component, polysorbate 80,2 and (4) since licensure of Gardasil® in 2006, there have been about 213 VAERS reports (per the publicly available CDC WONDER VAERS database) involving amenorrhea, POF or premature menopause, 88% of which have been associated with Gardasil®.5 The two-strain HPV2, CervarixTM, was licensed late in 2009 and accounts for 4.7 % of VAERS amenorrhea reports since 2006, and 8.5% of those reports from February 2010 through May 2015. This compares to the pre-HPV vaccine period from 1990 to 2006 during which no cases of POF or premature menopause and 32 cases of amenorrhea were reported to VAERS.

Many adolescent females are vaccinated with influenza, meningococcal, and tetanus vaccines without getting Gardasil®, and yet only 5.6% of reports related to ovarian dysfunction since 2006 are associated with such vaccines in the absence of simultaneous Gardasil® administration. The overwhelming majority (76%) of VAERS reports since 2006 with ovarian failure, premature menopause, and/or amenorrhea are associated solely with Gardasil®. When VAERS reports since 2006 are restricted to cases in which amenorrhea occurred for at least 4 months and is not associated with other known causes like polycystic ovary syndrome or pregnancy, 86/89 cases are associated with Gardasil®, 3/89 with CervarixTM, and 0/89 with other vaccines administered independently of an HPV vaccine.5 Using the same criteria, there are only 7 reports of amenorrhea from 1990 through 2005 and no more than 2 of those associated with any one vaccine type.

Few other vaccines besides Gardasil® that are administered in adolescence contain polysorbate 80.6 Pre-licensure safety trials for Gardasil® used placebo that contained polysorbate 80 as well as aluminum adjuvant.2,7 Therefore, if such ingredients could cause ovarian dysfunction, an increase in amenorrhea probably would not have been detected in the placebo controlled trials. Furthermore, a large number of girls in the original trials were taking hormonal contraceptives which can mask ovarian dysfunction including amenorrhea and ovarian failure.2 Thus a causal relationship between human papillomavirus vaccines (if not Gardasil® specifically) and ovarian dysfunction cannot be ruled out at this time.

Numerous Gardasil safety studies, including one released recently,8 have looked at demyelinating and autoimmune diseases and have not found any significant problems. Unfortunately, none of them except clinical safety pre-licensure studies totaling 11,778 vaccinees9 specifically addressed post-vaccination ovarian dysfunction. While data from those studies do not indicate an increased rate of amenorrhea after vaccination, the essential lack of saline placebos and the majority of participants taking hormonal contraceptives in those studies preclude meaningful data to rule out an effect on ovarian function.

A Vaccine Safety Datalink POF study is planned to address an association between these vaccines and POF, but it may be years before results will be determined. Plus, POF within a few years of vaccination could be the tip of the iceberg since ovarian dysfunction manifested by months of amenorrhea may later progress to POF. Meanwhile, the author of this statement has contacted the maker of Gardasil, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP), and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to make known the above concerns and request that (1) more rat studies be done to look at long-term ovarian function after HPV4 injections, (2) the 89 VAERS reports identified with at least 4 months amenorrhea be reviewed by the CDC for further clarification since the publicly available WONDER VAERS database only contains initial reports, and (3) primary care providers be notified of a possible association between HPV and amenorrhea. A U.S. Government Representative responded that they “will continue to conduct studies and monitor the safety of HPV vaccines. Should the weight of the evidence from VAERS or VSD and other sources indicate a likely causal association between POF and HPV vaccines, appropriate action will be taken in terms of communication and public health response.”

The College is posting this statement so that individuals considering the use of human papillomavirus vaccines could be made aware of these concerns pending further action by the regulatory agencies and manufacturers. While there is no strong evidence of a causal relationship between HPV4 and ovarian dysfunction, this information should be public knowledge for physicians and patients considering these vaccines.

Primary author: Scott S. Field, MD

January 2016

The American College of Pediatricians is a national medical association of licensed physicians and healthcare professionals who specialize in the care of infants, children, and adolescents. The mission of the College is to enable all children to reach their optimal, physical and emotional health and well-being.

Divider 1

This handful of studies represents but the tip of the vaccine iceberg, but hopefully you get the idea, Patrick. You say that nothing has been published on the risks and ineffectiveness of vaccines. I say you are wrong and I’ve proved it. Will the fact that I’ve provided you with evidence to back up my claims make you look again at this issue? I doubt it. You are a true believer and your ‘religion’ leaves no room for questioning. You function on faith – not knowledge, evidence or information. I feel sorry for you, but those I feel the sorriest for are your students.

by Meryl Dorey

Please note: Blog posts are opinion pieces which represent the views of the authors. They do not necessarily represent the viewpoints of the nocompulsoryvaccination blog. This blog is a forum, support and information site and outlet for discussion about the relative benefits and risks of vaccinations in particular – and medical procedures in general. We do not provide medical advice but believe that everyone has the opportunity and the obligation to do their own research before making decisions for their families. The information we provide (including your personal review of the references we cite) should be taken in conjunction with a range of other data, including that obtained from government, your health care provider and/or other medical source material to assist you in developing the knowledge required to make informed health choices.

Opposing The Compulsion To Vaccinate Everyone – Meryl Dorey

Meryl Dorey of nocompulsoryvaccination.com and the Australian Vaccination-skeptics Network, Inc. did 2 interviews on March 10th regarding the No Jab No Pay legislation. Below is the video from one of those. The other will be posted when it is live on the internet. Thank you so much to 108Morris108 for providing a venue to air these important issues. Please share this information widely.

Jill Hennessy Should be Held Personally Accountable for Vaccine-Injuries

Many of you know of children who were injured or killed by vaccines. I personally know the families of at least 10 children who died as a result of vaccination and dozens (this is within my family and my close friends) who are permanently injured.

Feel Lucky

Vaccine reactions are not rare – it is only rare that they are acknowledged.

Jill Hennessy is the Health Minister in Victoria. In my personal opinion, she is either completely ignorant of ANY scientific information about vaccination or is totally entrenched in an effort to cover up this information. Either way, a person in her position has no right at all to make statements like she did a couple of weeks ago – statements that were reported on nationally and which may lead to children being vaccine-injured because their parents believed what she said and did not take responsibility to research this issue as a result.

Jill Hennessy stated – and you may not believe this – I had to watch it several times myself before I realised it was not a very poor joke – that “There are no risks in vaccinating your children”

The excellent Tyrannical Times blog site called for Minister Hennesy to resign because of her statement.

I’m going to go further and say that I believe she should be held personally and financially accountable for every single case of vaccine injury or death that occurs from the date of her statement going forward, unless and until she issues a full retraction and apology for her misstatement (I’m being kind here).

She was handing out negligent medical advice – stating that there are no risks to vaccination – when it is obvious, proved and not controversial at all in medical science – that these risks exist and are real. All one has to do is read the manufacturer’s package inserts for each vaccine to find a long list of potential reactions and contraindications (reasons why vaccines may not be appropriate for everyone).

Below is a new video by Larry Cook from www.stopmandatoryvaccination.com.

This video tells the stories of several families who all believed the pronouncements of people like Minister Hennessy – that vaccines were safe for their children. Sadly, they found out otherwise. These are the families and children Minister Hennessy believes don’t exist. My family and our vaccine injury experience is also invisible to the Minister. A quick search of YouTube will find thousands and thousands more videos like this one.

It is time to show the Minister the error of her ways.

A good way to start would be to write to her at her Parliamentary email address – jill.hennessy@parliament.vic.gov.auSend her your story or just tell her why you believe what she said is wrong and potentially dangerous.

You can also send her the same information via her twitter account: @JillHennessyMP and comment on her Facebook page at https://www.facebook.com/JillHennessyMLA/

If you feel so inclined, feel free to cc me on your emails or send me links to your posts at meryl@avn.org.au and feel free to use the hashtag – #VaccineRisksAreReal

by Meryl Dorey

Please note: Blog posts are opinion pieces which represent the views of the authors. They do not necessarily represent the viewpoints of the nocompulsoryvaccination blog. This blog is a forum, support and information site and outlet for discussion about the relative benefits and risks of vaccinations in particular – and medical procedures in general. We do not provide medical advice but believe that everyone has the opportunity and the obligation to do their own research before making decisions for their families. The information we provide (including your personal review of the references we cite) should be taken in conjunction with a range of other data, including that obtained from government, your health care provider and/or other medical source material to assist you in developing the knowledge required to make informed health choices.

 

People who want other people’s children vaccinated to protect their vaccinated kids are selfish (and not very bright).

Last week, one of the most gob-smackingly ignorant articles I’ve read to date on the issue of vaccination (and trust me, I’ve read plenty of ignorant articles on this subject – especially from the Murdoch rags) appeared in – of all papers – the Melbourne Age.

I say of all papers because the Age used to have a reputation for excellent reporting. I especially remember the series by Ryle and Hughes in the 1990s about the scandalous vaccine testing done on orphans by the Walter and Eliza Hall Institute. These articles and more made people consider The Age to be one of the more authoritative, trustworthy and intellectual journals in Australia.

How the mighty have fallen!

The current article in question, entitled People who don’t vaccinate their kids are selfish, plumbs new depths never before charted. Lower even than those attained by Claire Harvey or Jane Hansen – and in my personal opinion, those depths were already pretty low!

This article discusses an ‘outbreak’ of measles in Brunswick, VIC. And by outbreak, they mean 10 cases – almost all in adults – not children. At no point are we told the vaccination status of those involved. For all we know, every single one of them was fully vaccinated against measles. Funny how newspapers almost never report the vaccination status of cases when trying to blame outbreaks on the unvaccinated. I guess the effect would be ruined if we were to find out that those being affected were all supposed to have been protected by vaccination.

Or, maybe not.

You see, Brunswick has a vaccination rate of 94% for one-year-olds. And the article actually implies it is that 1% difference between the mythical nirvana of ‘herd immunity’ – a 95% vaccination rate – and the reality of cases amongst adults, that makes all the difference.

At 95% vaccination compliance, measles couldn’t get a look in! The virus would be running up against an invisible wall with a big transparenKeep Outt KEEP OUT sign that only these tiny little buggers can see.

But at 94%, the gate is wide open and the MEASLES WELCOME, ENTER HERE sign is flashing its garish neon message that, again, only the virus can see.

Isn’t science grand?

But it gets better (and by better, I mean worse).

Because, believe it or not, this genius of a news hack (I won’t deign to call her a journalist. I don’t believe that moniker suits her at all) actually states that:

“The more unimmunised children there are in the room, the more likely the immunised children will be affected and catch the virus.”

Where do I begin?

Is this writer really claiming that the vaccine will only protect children up to and until the point where they are exposed to it and then, it doesn’t work? Well, though I personally believe that to be the case, I don’t use this evidence of vaccine ineffectiveness to try and force other people to be vaccinated to protect – well – the vaccinated!

In addition, what possible difference can it make whether there are Skull Biker2 unvaccinated children in the room or 18? Do viruses get stronger in groups? Are they like bikie gangs – feeding on each other’s violent impulses in a tiny little example of mob rule? I can just picture them – pathogens in leather jackets with slogans emblazoned on the back – MEASLES GANG – VIC BRANCH.

Lastly, how can the vaccinated children who are so terrifyingly at risk of contracting the ‘deadly’ measles virus possibly be considered to be immunised when immunised means by definition – immune? Either you are immune and you don’t have to worry about catching an illness (eg if you have already had measles, you are immune for life – a benefit no vaccine can give you) or you are just vaccinated and still have to worry about getting the disease.

You can’t have it both ways. And trying to blame some mysterious unvaccinated child for an illness in the vaccinated is like a woman blaming her unwanted pregnancy on the fact that her neighbour stopped taking birth control pills a month earlier.

Melbourne Age – you should be thoroughly ashamed for actually paying someone to write this ridiculous claptrap. It’s time for your paper to start reporting the news with investigative reporters like Ryle and Hughes rather than regurgitating corporate sponsored lies .

by Meryl Dorey

Please note: Blog posts are opinion pieces which represent the views of the authors. They do not necessarily represent the viewpoints of the nocompulsoryvaccination blog. This blog is a forum, support and information site and outlet for discussion about the relative benefits and risks of vaccinations in particular – and medical procedures in general. We do not provide medical advice but believe that everyone has the opportunity and the obligation to do their own research before making decisions for their families. The information we provide (including your personal review of the references we cite) should be taken in conjunction with a range of other data, including that obtained from government, your health care provider and/or other medical source material to assist you in developing the knowledge required to make informed health choices.

Is the Australian government illegally using data collected and held by the Australian Immunisation Register to deny entitlement to means-tested family benefits?

The following post is reblogged with permission kind permission of a brand new blog – tyrannical times which will definitely be a page to follow – make sure you subscribe! There are so many ways in which the Australia government, bless their little souls, have breached the constitution and federal legislation through recent No Jab No Pay legislation. This blog has raised just one more in a long line of issues – how can the government use information held by the ACIR for a purpose that was never intended and how that breaches our right to privacy. Were the drafters of this legislation really so arrogant they did not even consider this angle?

The question of the legality of the so-called No Jab No Pay law has never been far from my mind since the prospect of abolishing belief exemptions for childcare and family tax benefits first emerged in February last year, following the release of a Productivity Commission report containing such a recommendation.

However, notwithstanding the utter moral repugnancy of linking means-tested welfare payments to vaccination without provision for belief exemptions, it was always going to be a bridge-too-far to prevent this law from being passed using logical or moral reasoning, for reasons which I will not document here (readers familiar with the topic will already be aware of those reasons).

Consequently, the burden was always going to fall on pro-choice advocates to find a legal antidote to this poisonous, tyrannical law.

An obvious and critical aspect of the No Jab No Pay law is that it is dependent for its operation on the use of vaccination status data collected and held by the Australian Childhood Immunisation Register during the past 20 years.

I have always objected to the government collecting information about my children’s vaccination habits – or rather non-vaccination habits – however, like most, I was never inclined to investigate further the legality of it doing so, for the fact that belief exemptions have been permitted since a vaccination requirement was first used to regulate eligibility to child care payments.  There was simply no need – at least that’s what I thought before last year.  No Jab No Pay is a potent lesson in why we should only permit the government to collect information about us on a need-to-know basis, otherwise, some day, in some way, it will eventually be used against us, as is being done now.

Contrary to what nanny-state proponents would have us believe, information privacy is something everyone should be concerned about!

“If you’ve done nothing wrong then you shouldn’t care about what information the government is collecting about you” they proclaim.

Well, up until 31 December 2015, conscientious objectors to vaccination weren’t doing anything wrong, yet from January 01 2016 we are now being denied entitlement to child-care and family tax benefits.

Privacy

The passage of No Jab No Pay necessitates a closer examination of the validity of the register itself, as well as the validity of the purposes for which the government is collecting and using information held by the register against a percentage of its citizens.

Just because the government has been collecting individual vaccination status information about our children for 20 years, doesn’t mean it has been doing so lawfully!

The register, the extent of personal information collected, and how information held by the register may be legally used should be a key focus for any lawyer charged with examining ways to restore our rights.  The register law may present an easier avenue by which to achieve this end than the actual No Jab No Pay legislation itself.

History and use of the Register

The Australian Childhood Immunisation Register was constituted by regulation in 1995, and subsequently incorporated into legislation in 1996, by amendment to the Health Insurance Act 1973.  The parliamentary digest for this amendment provides an overview of the proposed, narrow uses of information collected by the register.  Importantly, from its inception up until commencement of the Child Care Payments Act 1997, vaccination status data collected by the register did not include non-vaccination, nor could it be used for the purpose of regulating eligibility to child care or family payments.

Secondly, between late 1997 and 2015 – whilst vaccination status data collected by the register was used to regulate eligibility to certain child care and family payments following enactment of the Child Care Payments Act, and subsequently A New Tax System (Family Assistance) Act – the data was collected and used on the basis that belief exemptions were in force during this period.  No Jab No Pay proposes to use vaccination status data collected for this earlier purpose (inclusive of the right to belief exemptions), for a broader purpose, namely, enforcement of a vaccination requirement without belief exemptions.

Get all the information

In other words, the government has been deceptively collecting vaccination status data about our children for the last 18 years on the basis that collection and use of that data for regulating eligibility to child care and family payments included an entitlement to register a belief exemption, but now intends to use the information collected to date for a broader purpose not inclusive of a right to register a belief exemption.  A classic bait and switch.

Evil bastards.

Constitutional bases purporting to authorise the immunisation register

The Australian Immunisation Register Act 2015 passed late last year, purports to provide authority for the government to continue to keep an immunisation register, and in fact extends the children’s register to include those “children” up to 20 years of age.  Yes, adult “children”, and later in 2016, the register will become a whole-of-life immunisation register.  Are you feeling the warmth of that nanny state blanket yet?

Section 13 of the new Immunisation Register Act provides a list of constitutional bases (as found in section 51) on which the immunisation register may be authorised and as much as I would like for the immunisation register to be dead and buried altogether, have little doubt that one or more of those bases would support the constitutional validity of the immunisation register itself.  After all, a sufficient connection between the register law and one of those powers is all that’s required for the Commonwealth to have the necessary power to legislate in that area.

(a)  the provision of pharmaceutical benefits; or

(b)  the provision of medical services (without any form of civil conscription); or

(c)  census or statistics; or

(d)  external affairs, including:

(i)  giving effect to an international agreement to which Australia is a party; or

(ii)  addressing matters of international concern; or

(e)  a Territory or a Commonwealth place (within the meaning of the Commonwealth Places (Application of Laws) Act 1970 ); or

(f)  the implied power of the Parliament to make laws with respect to nationhood; or

(g)  the executive power of the Commonwealth; or

(h)  matters incidental to the execution of any of the legislative powers of the Parliament or the executive power of the Commonwealth.

However, it’s one thing for the Commonwealth to have the necessary legislative power to create and keep an immunisation register, but quite another to collect and use personal medical information for expedient purposes in excess of its authorised powers.

For example, under the census and statistics power, it would be entirely possible to argue that the collection and use of vaccination status data about individuals – identifiable by name, date of birth, address, and Medicare number – is well beyond the scope of that power.

It remains to be seen whether or not the Commonwealth has the necessary power to collect vaccination status data about individuals with a level of identifying information sufficient to regulate entitlement to means-tested welfare payments.  If it doesn’t, then it will lose the only effective carrot it has ever had by which to lift immunisation rates, and it will only have itself to blame for enacting such a draconian law.

Only time will tell.

How YOU can protect your family and tell the Government what you think about No Jab No Pay

Freedom of Choice ImageWell, I’ve had some trouble finding the original source of the letter and statutory declaration mentioned in the previous post, Administering Vaccines Against a Person’s Wishes is Illegal but I finally managed to track it down and lo and behold, It was on Tasha David’s website, Poly mum of Eight

I really should have known. Tasha is the President of the Australian Vaccination Network and is a widow raising 8 children – 6 of whom has various levels of disability due to vaccine reactions. Only her youngest 2 – who are completely unvaccinated – are completely healthy.

Despite this and despite the fact that her doctor has attested to the fact that vaccines were the cause of her children’s problems, Tasha will lose out on tens of thousands of dollars under the current legislative changes under the immoral, illegal and discriminatory No Jab No Pay legislation.

To add insult to injury, because she lives in Victoria, she will also not be able to get childcare for her younger, unvaccinated children due to the Victorian government’s No Jab No Play legislation which bars healthy unvaccinated children from mixing with their fully-vaccinated compatriots. Find the logic there (hint from me: there isn’t any!)

Being the amazing activist that she is, Tasha has sought legal advice and the following documents were produced with the assistance of a solicitor with expertise in these issues. They should be used as is – without any changes – for the best possible effect.

I hope that all of you who are going to be affected will go to your doctors or the doctor at your local council clinic to get them to attest to the fact that they will not vaccinate your children against your wishes. If enough of us do this, the government will be backed into a corner – well and truly!

Below is the form which has been designed for this purpose for parents in this situation:

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF INVOLUNTARY CONSENT TO VACCINATION

I, …………………………………………….…..
name and title of Immunisation Provider

confirm that ……………………………..………
name of parent/s

has/have presented their child ..…………………..………………..………….…..
name of child

on this date………….… for the following vaccinations: ………..…. ……..……

I acknowledge that the consent provided by …… ……………………………….. name of parent/s is not voluntary consent.

Given the absence of voluntary consent, I am/am not willing to proceed with the vaccination of …………………………………………..
name of child

Signed by: …………………………………………………
name and title of provider

In the presence of : …………………………………………………
signature of witness

…………………………………………………
name of witness

Date: ………………………………………….

 

The Immunisation Provider (IP), upon being presented with the form, will either:

(1) complete the form in such a way as to indicate that the IP is not willing to proceed with the vaccination, and will then sign the form, or

(2) decline to sign the form, in which case the parent may sign a Statutory Declaration stating that the parent asked the IP to sign the form and the IP refused. This will have the same effect as (1).

The wording of the Statutory Declaration should be as follows:

STATUTORY DECLARATION

I, ……………………………….. confirm that I has/have presented my child …..………………..
name of parent/s name of child

to ……………………………..…………………
name and title of Immunisation Provider

on this date………… for the following vaccinations: ……………….. ………………

I informed the Immunisation Provider that my consent is not voluntary consent.

I presented the attached form and requested the Immunisation Provider to complete and sign the form. The Immunisation Provider then refused to sign the form.

Signed by: …………………………………………………
name of parent/s

In the presence of : …………………………………………………
signature of witness

…………………………………………………
name of witness

………….…
date

The parent may then lodge a complaint through Centrelink on the grounds that they are being disadvantaged through no fault of their own.

If the government is going to tell us they will disadvantage us for making legal, informed health choices for our children, then they must be made to take responsibility for the outcomes of this coercion.

In the Australian Immunisation Handbook, under Informed Consent for Vaccination, it states:

2.1.3 Valid consent
Valid consent can be defined as the voluntary agreement by an individual to a proposed procedure, given after sufficient, appropriate and reliable information about the procedure, including the potential risks and benefits, has been conveyed to that individual.2-6 As part of the consent procedure, persons to be vaccinated and/or their parents/carers should be given sufficient information (preferably written) on the risks and benefits of each vaccine, including what adverse events are possible, how common they are and what they should do about them7 (the table inside the front cover of this Handbook, Side effects following immunisation for vaccines used in the National Immunisation Program (NIP) schedule, can be used for this purpose).

For consent to be legally valid, the following elements must be present:6,8

It must be given by a person with legal capacity, and of sufficient intellectual capacity to understand the implications of being vaccinated.

It must be given voluntarily in the absence of undue pressure, coercion or manipulation. (emphasis added)

It must cover the specific procedure that is to be performed.
It can only be given after the potential risks and benefits of the relevant vaccine, risks of not having it and any alternative options have been explained to the individual.
The individual must have sufficient opportunity to seek further details or explanations about the vaccine(s) and/or its administration. The information must be provided in a language or by other means the individual can understand. Where appropriate, an interpreter and/or cultural support person should be involved.

Consent should be obtained before each vaccination, once it has been established that there are no medical condition(s) that contraindicate vaccination. Consent can be verbal or written. Immunisation providers should refer to their state or territory’s policies on obtaining written consent (refer to Appendix 1 Contact details for Australian, state and territory government health authorities and communicable disease control).

Consent on behalf of a child or adolescent
In general, a parent or legal guardian of a child has the authority to consent to vaccination of that child; however, it is important to check with your state or territory authority where any doubt exists.2,5 A child in this context is defined as being under the age of 18 years in Tasmania, Victoria and Western Australia; under the age of 14 years in New South Wales; and under the age of 16 years in the Australian Capital Territory, South Australia and the Northern Territory. Queensland follows common law principles.

For certain procedures, including vaccination, persons younger than the ages defined above may have sufficient maturity to understand the proposed procedure and the risks and benefits associated with it, and thus may have the capacity to consent under certain circumstances. Refer to the relevant state or territory immunisation service provider guidelines for more information.

Should a child or adolescent refuse a vaccination for which a parent/guardian has given consent, the child/adolescent’s wishes should be respected and the parent/guardian informed. 2

Administering Vaccines Against a Person’s Wishes is Illegal

The following information was posted to the Fans of the AVN Facebook Page and is reprinted here with the permission of the original author. I am also trying to obtain a copy of the StatuCoerciontory Declaration this mother gave to the two doctors who refused to vaccinate her child and will post that here when/if I am able to get the text.
For those who oppose coercive vaccination policies and want to convince the government that their discriminatory legislation will backfire, this may just be a quick, inexpensive option.

If you do go ahead and do this, please let me know by sending an email to me here.

I have posted my letter today back to Centrelink I had an appointment with a lawyer about it last week… here it is if anyone wants to do the same….

Dear Service Centre Manager
Locked bag
7834 Canberra BC ACT 2610
19/12/2015

To whom it may concern,

I recently received a letter from Centrelink dated 2 December, 2015, informing me that in order to qualify for the continuation of the Family Tax benefit and childcare fee assistance, i need to ensure that my child is fully vaccinated. I am unable to complete the vaccination requirements for my child because I cannot find a doctor who will vaccinate my child, knowing that I am being financially coerced.

To do so would breach informed consent and leave them liable for medical trespass.

Under section 2..1..3
http://www.health.gov.au/…/Handbook10-home…
consent must be valid. For consent to be legally valid, the following elements must be present:6,8

  • It must be given by a person with legal capacity, and of sufficient intellectual capacity to understand the implications of being vaccinated.
  • It must be given voluntarily in the absence of undue pressure, coercion or manipulation.
  • It must cover the specific procedure that is to be performed.
  • It can only be given after the potential risks and benefits of the relevant vaccine, risks of not having it and any alternative options have been explained to the individual

I am a conscientious objector to vaccination and so do not agree with my child being administered vaccines, due to much evidence regarding the toxicity of vaccines. Please watch and listen to this video if you can as there is much new evidence presented here by an immunologist who used to make vaccines.
https://vimeo.com/146831570

Because of my precarious financial position as a single mother /teacher able to work only between school hours and/or the possibility of my child being disadvantaged by the denial of an early education, I am being put into the untenable and the coercive position of giving my child a medical intervention that I know is not in his best interests, against my will.

On Thursday, 17th December, 2015 my doctor refused to vaccinate my child against my will and has signed a statutory declaration acknowledging that my consent is not voluntary which I have attached. On Tuesday, the 22nd December, another Dr also refused to vaccinate my child against my will and Statuatory declaration is also included.

So I have fulfilled the vaccination requirements for my son to the best of my ability and it is from no fault of my own that the doctor refuses to vaccinate my child against my will.

If you cannot provide a doctor who is willing to sign a legal document stating that they are willing to administer vaccinations to my son without my consent by the 15th January 2016, then I will consider your contract as null and void and as such, the immunisation requirements for my son XXXXXX will be considered to be met.
Yours Sincerely…

No Jab No Play in Victoria – An Update

by Mathias Graham

Brisbane 8As most would be aware, the Victorian Government introduced a Bill into that state’s Legislative Assembly back in September, the purpose of which is to prohibit the enrolment of most unvaccinated children in childcare services in Victoria. This Bill comes on the back of a similarly sinister one currently before the Queensland Parliament, and of course, the Commonwealth Bill, which is seeking to deny child care subsidies and Family Tax Benefit Part A supplement for conscientious objectors to vaccination, currently before the Commonwealth Parliament.

The Victorian Bill also represents a broken election promise. The ALP ran on a platform of supporting conscientious objector exemptions in child care laws. What a difference a few months makes.

https://www.viclabor.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/Victorian-Labor-Platform-2014.pdf
The Australian Vaccination-skeptics Network, Inc. (AVN), along with 140 other people, consequently made a submission to the Victorian Scrutiny of Acts and Regulations Committee, whose role it is to scrutinise all bills introduced to the Victorian Parliament for compliance with sound legislative practice, and in accordance with The Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006 (the charter). Under the charter, the Committee is required to determine whether a Bill introduced into Parliament is incompatible with human rights protected under that Act. This submission is available at the following link on the AVN’s website.

http://avn.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/AVN-Submission-to-SAR-Committee-Victoria-September-2015-06-WEB.pdf

The AVN’s submission identified several human rights which are significantly limited by this Bill, and provided evidence to the committee that these limitations of human rights were not reasonably justified having regard to the Bill’s stated purpose of increasing vaccination rates in Victoria, and that there were less restrictive means by which the government may increase vaccination rates without infringing the human rights of conscientious objectors.

These arguments seem to have resonated with the committee, which reported its findings on the Bill last week, and which is available at the following link commencing on page 7 (Public Health and Wellbeing Amendment (No Jab, No Play) Bill 2015).

http://www.parliament.vic.gov.au/images/stories/committees/sarc/Alert_Digests/Alert_Digest_No_12_of_2015.pdf

The findings can be summarised as follows.

1) The Bill’s immunisation requirement may constitute direct or indirect discrimination on the basis of imputation of possible future disease in contravention of the charter. However, the committee failed to note that the Bill may also conflict with the Commonwealth Disability Discrimination Act for similar reasons.

“The Committee will write to the Minister seeking further information as to whether or not new section 143B’s ban on the enrolment of most unvaccinated children in early childhood services is compatible with the Charter’s rights against direct or indirect discrimination on the basis of possible future disease.” (page 9)

2) The Bill’s provision for a temporary grace period of 16 weeks by which to comply with the immunisation requirement in relation to children of Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander descent may constitute discrimination on the basis of race in contravention of the charter.

“The Committee will write to the Minister seeking further information as to whether or not new section 143C(1)(d)’s exemption of all Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders from this requirement is a measure taken for the purpose of assisting or advancing persons or groups disadvantaged by discrimination.” (page 9)

3) The Bill’s immunisation requirement without exemptions on grounds of conscientious objection constitutes an effective mandate for those Victorian parents reliant on child care services in contravention of the charter which protects the right to consent freely to medical treatment.

“However, the Committee notes that a parent who is unable to care for a child themselves (for example due to employment or other commitments) and cannot afford or otherwise obtain private care for their child (for example from a family member or a nanny) may have no choice other than to have his or her child vaccinated in order to enrol that child in an early childhood service.” (page 10)


The committee also noted that the Bill will have the effect of denying Commonwealth child care benefits which are currently available to defray the significant cost of child care services.

The Committee called on Parliament to consider whether there is a less restrictive alternative which is reasonably available to increase vaccination rates even though the AVN’s submission provided evidence about how vaccination rates could be increased without infringing the rights of conscientious objectors.

4) In relation to the AVN’s argument that the Bill limited the right to freedom of thought, conscience, religion or belief which is protected by the charter, the committee noted that an immunisation requirement to enrol children in childcare services in New South Wales provides for exemptions on such grounds, but made no recommendation to adopt such an exemption.

Notwithstanding, the committee’s damning findings about this draconian and totalitarian Bill, the Legislative Assembly proceeded to pass this Bill last Thursday following debate, and the word ‘debate’ has been used loosely. The only debate seemed to be around the Bill not being draconian enough because it provides for a temporary grace period for disadvantaged groups. For those wishing to read the various speeches by ALP, LNP and Greens members, the links to Hansard are provided below, but brace yourselves; it’s chock full of just about every pro-vaccine fallacy of which one could think. The table of contents makes it easy to find the relevant sections.

http://www.parliament.vic.gov.au/images/stories/daily-hansard/Assembly_2015/Assembly_Aug-Dec_2015_Daily_6_October_2015.pdf

http://www.parliament.vic.gov.au/images/stories/daily-hansard/Assembly_2015/Assembly_Aug-Dec_2015_Daily_7_October_2015.pdf

http://www.parliament.vic.gov.au/images/stories/daily-hansard/Assembly_2015/Assembly_Aug-Dec_2015_Daily_8_October_2015.pdf      

What this means is that the Bill is now before the upper house (Legislative Council) which resumes sitting next Tuesday 20 October 2015, so time is running out if we are to defeat this Bill. People in Victoria who wish to retain their freedom of choice need to stand up now, and should be contacting their state representatives to voice their objection to the Bill by highlighting to them the damning findings of the parliamentary committee: that the Bill is discriminatory; violates the right to consent freely to a medical procedure and; that there are less restrictive means by which the government may increase immunisation rates without discriminating against those opposed to vaccination.

The AVN has compiled some tips for those meeting with or writing to Victorian MPs. These can be found at the following link.

http://avn.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/AVNs-tips-for-lobbying-Victorian-MPs-05-WEB.pdf