We are told all the time that we are not qualified to make medical or healthcare decisions for ourselves or our children. Instead, we need to leave it up to the ‘experts’ – namely the doctors and medical specialists – whose training has supposedly made them better-qualified than any of our own research and knowledge possibly could.
This is despite the FACT that medical doctors learn very little (nothing, really) about vaccination, nutrition or most other aspects of staying healthy when they receive their medical school training. Once they leave school, much of their continuing educationcomes directly from the drug companies so really, I think they are not qualified to advise anyone about these topics. The only exception would be if they themselves have done research outside of their normal areas and, if they have done so and offer advice that goes against the status quo, they are threatened with deregistration or worse!
Most doctors are only qualified to advise patients about drugs, and even that qualification is not independent since, as I said earlier, their training, in large part, comes from the multinational pharmaceutical companies who test and market their own products.
Do doctors understand health?
If you feel that health does not come from a pill or a needle, I think there is very little that a doctor can offer you in the way of staying healthy.
Time and time again, doctors have demonstrated clearly that their knowledge of the basics of health and the immune system/infectious diseases is seriously lacking.
A recent example of this was the incident with Dr Richard Kidd, head of the Australian Medical Association in QLD. During a hearing into legislative changes in the QLD Parliament, Dr Kidd advised a sitting Member to ask her doctor to give her an MMR (measles, mumps and rubella) vaccine during her next pregnancy. This despite the fact that MMR is absolutely contraindicated during pregnancy because the rubella portion of the shot could possibly cause congenital rubella syndrome in an unborn child.
I filed an official complaint with the QLD Health Care Complaints about Dr Kidd’s dangerous advice and was told that because Dr Kidd had said this during a hearing, it was not official advice and therefore, was not covered by their legislation! Yet, if you’d said this to your neighbour over the back fence, you could be in trouble! Double standards once again.
In the last few days, another AMA official – this one, none other than the National President – has demonstrated an incredible ignorance of something so basic, most parents would be ashamed to have made this kind of error.
Luckily, Dr Julie Leask (a social scientist – not a medical doctor) picked him up on his mistake, but the fact remains that not only is the President of the AMA displaying a shocking lack of knowledge about one of the main diseases we vaccinate against, but he is comparing those of us who are better informed and better qualified than himself on this subject (e.g., most educated parents and natural therapists/holistic GPs) to Islamic terrorists!
Now, I can’t follow the link to the BBC article the @amapresident was referring to because he removed his original tweet (what is it with health officials constantly trying to rewrite history in order to cover up their numerous errors?) but the implication is obvious: If you are sharing information about vaccination that the AMA does not agree with, you are the equivalent of a terrorist.
Responsible health choices
I believe that making decisions by ONLY seeking the advice of self-proclaimed experts who make such basic errors is irresponsible. I also believe that parents should be taking responsibility for the health of their children, and this means that in addition to speaking with their doctors, they should be seeking out information from a wide range of sources, including their own reading and research and sourcing data from organisations that are critical of government vaccination policies such as the Australian Vaccination Network and the National Vaccine Information Centre (for just two examples).
To show you that this sort of institutional ignorance is nothing new, here is an interview I did on Channel 7’s Sunrise Program in 2002 with Dr Trevor Mudge, then Vice President of the AMA. While I was able to cite data from peer-reviewed medical journal sources, Dr Mudge’s only comeback was to accuse me of being Anti-Vaccine and therefore, claim that everything I said was wrong whilst not being able to back up anything he said with source material.
He admitted that we did not test vaccines here in Australia; he admitted that he had no information on the known side effects and deaths from the vaccine in question (the then unlicensed meningococcal vaccine) and he admitted that the strain covered by the shot did not match the circulating strain of the majority of cases in Australia.
Despite these admissions and despite his lack of knowledge, he still urged people to get this shot because – SCIENCE!
There’s science – and then, there are vaccines…
Science means never having to say you haven’t studied anything thoroughly. Science means always questioning, always testing and never making any absolute statements because today’s science is tomorrow’s junk.
The ignorance being displayed by those who the government claims are the experts we should be listening to without question is disturbing. It is frightening and it should not be allowed to continue.
Doctors have done nothing to earn our trust or our respect, nor have their peak bodies. Indeed, the arrogance, the ignorance and the insistence on being trusted simply because they are doctors has only led to a great deal of suspicion from the majority of the thinking public.
Some doctors have even gone so far as to say that those who disagree with them should be punished, fined or jailed for their beliefs – even if those beliefs are backed by real science! The question that needs to be asked here is – is there more than one way to stay healthy? And if the answer to that question is yes, should any one segment of society – especially one responsible for a holocaust’s worth of pain, death and suffering worldwide each year – be allowed to dictate to others?
YOU as the parent and a thinking adult are and will always be the expert on your body and on the bodies of your children. YOU should ask your doctor for advice, but YOU should only consider taking that advice after seeking out a second (and perhaps a third) opinion, doing your own research and considering your options carefully.
Any doctor who does not respect that innate right; any industry body (like the AMA) who insists on your not being allowed to make these choices, deserves to be shut down; and any government that tries to force free citizens to make medical choices which they do not feel is in their family’s best interest deserves to be charged with crimes against humanity and replaced by a truly representative body.
This information and the graphs included are excerpted from Mr Beattie’s latest book. It demonstrates very clearly that a true sceptic will not necessarily believe in headlines such as “Measles deaths in Africa plunge by 91%” without seeing the proof of those claims. Question everything – accept nothing at face value – that is the credo of the true sceptic.
Man is a credulous animal, and must believe something; in the absence of good grounds for belief, he will be satisfied with bad ones. Bertrand Russell
If you are not one to follow the news, you may have missed it. Others will have undoubtedly seen a stream of good-newsstories over the past five years, such as:
There have been many versions on the theme; the percentage rates have changed over time. However, the bodies of the stories leave us in no doubt as to the reason for their headlines. Here are some direct quotes:
In a rare public health success story on the world’s most beleaguered continent, Africa has slashed deaths from measles by 91 per cent since 2000 thanks to an immunization drive.
An ambitious global immunization drive has cut measles deaths…
Measles deaths in Africa have fallen as child vaccination rates have risen.
These stories represent a modern-day version of the belief that vaccines vanquished the killer diseases of the past. There is something deeply disturbing about the stories, and it is not immediately apparent. The fact is: no-one knows how many people died of measles in Africa. No-one! Not last year and not ten years ago.
I will repeat that. No-one knows how many measles deaths have occurred in Africa. So, where did these figures come from? I will explain that in this blog. In a nutshell, they were calculated on a spreadsheet, using a formula. You may be surprised when you see how simple the method was.
We all believe these stories, because we have no reason to doubt them. The only people who would have questioned them were those who were aware that the deaths had not been counted. One of these was World Health Organisation (WHO) head of Health Evidence and Statistics, who reprimanded the authors of the original report (on which the stories were based) in an editorial published in the Bulletin of the WHO, as I will discuss shortly. Unfortunately, by then the train was already runaway. The stories had taken off virally through the worldwide media.
First, an overview of the formula. The authors looked at it this way: for every million vaccines given out, we hope to save ‘X’ lives. From that premise, we simply count how many million vaccines we gave out, and multiply that by ‘X’ to calculate how many lives (we think) we have saved. That is how the figures were arrived at.
The stories and the formula are both products of a deep belief in the power of vaccines. We think the stories report facts, but instead they report hopes.
The nuts and bolts
Hardly any of the willing participants in spreading the stories bothered to check where the figures came from, and what they meant. That was possibly understandable. Why would we need to check them? After all, they were produced by experts: respected researchers, and reputable organisations such as UNICEF, American Red Cross, United Nations Foundation, and the World Health Organisation.
However, I did check them. I checked because I knew the developing world wasn’t collecting cause of death data that could provide such figures. In fact, it is currently estimated that only 25 million of the 60 million deaths that occur each year are even registered, let alone have reliable cause-of-death information. Sub-Saharan Africa, where a large proportion of measles deaths are thought to occur, still had an estimated death registration of only around 10% in 2006, and virtually no reliable cause-of-death data. Even sample demographic surveys, although considered accurate, were not collecting cause-of-death data that allowed for these figures to be reported. Simply put, this was not real data: the figures had to be estimates.
I was curious as to how the estimates were arrived at, so I traced back to the source—an article in The Lancet, written by a team from the Measles Initiative. After reading the article, I realised the reports were not measles deaths at all. They were planning estimates, or predictions. In other words, they represented outcomes that the Measles Initiative had hoped to achieve, through conducting vaccination programs.
Don’t get me wrong. We all know that planning and predicting are very useful, even necessary activities, but it is obvious they are not the same as measuring outcomes.
The title of the original report from the Measles Initiative reads, “Has the 2005 measles mortality reduction goal been achieved? A natural history modelling study.” The authors took one and a half pages to explain how natural history modelling applied here. I will simplify it in about ten lines. I realise that in doing so, some may accuse me of editorial vandalism, however I assure you what follows captures the essence of the method. The rest is detail. If you are interested in confirming this, I urge you to read the original article for that detail. Here we go… the formula at the heart of the stories:
My interpretation of the Measles Natural History Modelling Study
Open a blank spreadsheet
Enter population data for each year from 2000 to 2006
Enter measles vaccine coverage for each of the years also
Assume all people develop measles if not vaccinated
Assume vaccination prevents 85-95% of measles cases
Calculate how many measles cases were ‘prevented’ each year (using the above figures)
Calculate how many measles deaths were ‘prevented’ each year (using historical case-fatality ratios)
There, simple. As you can see, this is a typical approach if we are modelling,for predictive purposes. Using a spreadsheet to predict outcomes of various plans helps us set targets, and develop strategies. When it comes to evaluating the result of our plan however we need to go out into the field, and measure what happened. We must never simply return to the same spreadsheet. But this is precisely what the Measles Initiative team did. And the publishing world swallowed it—hook, line and sinker.
As mentioned earlier, WHO Health Evidence and Statistics head, Dr Kenji Shibuya, saw the problem with this method. Writing editorially in the Bulletin of the WHO, under the title “Decide monitoring strategies before setting targets”, Shibuya had this to say:
Unfortunately, the MDG monitoring process relies heavily on predicted statistics.
…the assessment of a recent change in measles mortality from vaccination is mostly based on statistics predicted from a set of covariates… It is understandable that estimating causes of death over time is a difficult task. However, that is no reason for us to avoid measuring it when we can also measure the quantity of interest directly; otherwise the global health community would continue to monitor progress on a spreadsheet with limited empirical basis. This is simply not acceptable. [emphasis mine]
This mismatch was created partly by the demand for more timely statistics …and partly by a lack of data and effective measurement strategies among statistics producers. Users must be realistic, as annual data on representative cause-specific mortality are difficult to obtain without complete civil registration or sample registration systems
If such data are needed, the global health community must seek indicators that are valid, reliable and comparable, and must invest in data collection (e.g. adjusting facility-based data by using other representative data sources).
Regardless of new disease-specific initiatives or the broader WHO Strategic Objectives, the key is to focus on a small set of relevant indicators for which well defined strategies for monitoring progress are available. Only by doing so will the global health community be able to show what works and what fails.
In simple terms, Shibuya was saying:
We know it is difficult to estimate measles deaths, but
You should have tried, because you attracted a lot of interest
Instead, you simply went back to the same spreadsheet you used to make the plan—and that is unacceptable!
If you want to make a claim about your results, you need to measure the outcomes and collect valid data
Until you do, you cannot say whether your plan ‘worked’
Unfortunately, by the time Shibuya’s editorial was published, the media had already been trumpeting the stories for more than a year, because the Measles Initiative announced its news to a waiting media before subjecting it to peer-review. So, without scientific scrutiny, the stories were unleashed into a world hungry for good news, especially concerning the developing world. The result… the reports were welcomed, accepted, and regurgitated to a degree where official scrutiny now seems to have the effect of a drop in a bucket.
The question of who was responsible for this miscarriage of publishing justice plagued me for a while. Was it the architects of the original report? Or was it the robotic section of our media (that part that exists because of a lack of funds for employing real journalists) who spread the message virally to every corner of the globe, without checking it?
One quote which really stands out in the stories is from former director of the United States Centers for Disease Control (CDC).
“The clear message from this achievement is that the strategy works,” said CDC director Dr. Julie Gerberding
What strategy works? Is she talking about modelling on a spreadsheet? Or, using the predictions in place of real outcomes? More recent reports from the Measles Initiative indicate the team are continuing with this deceptive approach. In their latest report it is estimated 12.7 million deaths were averted between 2000-2008. All were calculated on their spreadsheet, and all were attributed to vaccination, for the simple reason that it was the only variable on the spreadsheet that was under their control. And still there is no scrutiny of the claims. Furthermore, the authors make no effort to clarify in the public mind that the figures are nothing but planning estimates.
Supporters of vaccination might argue that this does not prove vaccines are of no use. I agree. In fact,let me say it first: none of this provides any evidence whatsoever of the value of vaccination. That is the crux of the matter. The media stories have trumpeted the success of the plan, and given us all a pat on the back for making it happen. But the stories are fabrications. The only aspect of them which is factual is that which tells us vaccination rates have increased.
Some ‘real’ good-news?
General mortality rates in Africa are going down. That means deaths from all causesare reducing. How do we know this? Because an inter-agency group, led by UNICEF and WHO, has been evaluating demographic survey data in countries that do not have adequate death registration data. These surveys have been going on for more than 50 years. One of the reasons they do this is to monitor trends in mortality; particularly infant, and under-five mortality.
Although the health burden in developing countries is inequitably high, there is reason to be positive when we view these trends. Deaths are declining and, according to the best available estimates, have been steadily doing so for a considerable time; well over 50 years.
One of the most useful indicators of a country’s health transition is its under-5 mortality rate: that is, the death rate for children below five years old. The best estimates available for Africa show a steady decline in under-5 mortality rate, of around 1.8% per year, since 1950. Figure 1 shows this decline from 1960 onward. It also shows the infant mortality rate. Both are plotted as averages of all countries in the WHO region of Africa.
Figure 1. Child mortality, Africa
This graph may appear complex, but it is not difficult to read. The two thick lines running horizontally through the graph are the infant (the lower blue line) and under-5 (the upper black line) mortality rates per 1000 from 1960 to 2009. The handful of finer lines which commence in 1980, at a low point, and shoot upward over the following decade, represent the introduction of the various vaccines. The vertical scale on the right side of the graph shows the rate at which children were vaccinated with each of these shots.
The primary purpose of this graph (as well as that in Figure 2) is to deliver the real good-news. We see a slowly, but steadily improving situation. Death rates for infants and young children are declining. I decided to add the extra lines (for vaccines) to illustrate that they appear to have had no impact on the declining childhood mortality rates; at least, not a positive impact. If they were as useful as we have been led to believe, these vaccines (covering seven illnesses) would surely have resulted in a sharp downward deviation from the established trend. As we can see, this did not occur.
In Africa, the vaccines were introduced at the start of the 1980s and, within a decade, reached more than half the children. The only effect observable in the mortality rates, is a slowing of the downward trend. In other words, if anything were to be drawn from this, it would be that the introduction of the vaccines was counter-productive. One could argue that the later increase in vaccine coverage (after the year 2000) was followed by a return to the same decline observed prior to the vaccines. However, that does not line up. The return to the prior decline predates it, by around five years.
With both interpretations we are splitting hairs. Since we are discussing an intervention that has been marketed as a modern miracle, we should see a marked effect on the trend. We don’t.
The WHO region of Africa (also referred to as sub-Saharan Africa) is where a substantial portion of the world’s poor-health burden is thought to exist. The country that is believed to share the majority of worldwide child mortality burden with sub-Saharan Africa is India, in the WHO south-east Asia region. Together, the African and South-east Asian regions were thought in 1999 to bear 85% of the world’s measles deaths. Figure 2 shows India’s declining infant and under-5 mortality rates, over the past 50 years. Again, the introduction of various vaccines is also shown.
Figure 2. Child mortality, India
And again, vaccines do not appear to have contributed. Mortality rates simply continued their steady decline. We commenced mass vaccination (for seven illnesses) from the late 1980s but there was no visible impact on the child mortality trends.
In a nutshell, what happened in the developed world is still happening in the yet-to-finish-developing world, only it started later, and is taking longer. The processes of providing clean water, good nourishment, adequate housing, education and employment, freedom from poverty, as well as proper care of the sick, have been on-going in poor countries.
I would have loved to go back further in time with these graphs but unfortunately I was not able to locate the data. I did uncover one graph in an issue of the Bulletin of the WHO, showing the under-5 mortality rate in sub-Saharan Africa to be an estimated 350 in 1950. It subsequently dropped to around 175 by 1980, before vaccines figured. It continued dropping, though slower, to 129 by 2008.
The decline represents a substantial health transition, and a lot of lives saved. When cause-of-death data improves, or at least some genuine effort is made to establish credible estimates of measles deaths, it will undoubtedly be found they are dropping as well. Why wouldn’t they? This is good news, and all praise needs to be directed at the architects and supporters of the international activities that are helping to achieve improvements in the real determinants of health. In the midst of all the hype, I trust we will not swallow attempts to give the credit to vaccines… again.
I am not confident, however. I feel this is simply history repeating itself. Deaths from infectious disease will reach an acceptable “low” in developing countries, at some point in time. And although this will probably be due to a range of improvements in poverty, sanitation, nutrition and education, I feel vaccines will be given the credit. To support the claim, numerous pieces of evidence will be paraded, such as:
Measles Deaths In Africa Plunge By 91%
We need to purge these pieces of “evidence” if we are to have rational discussion. The public have a right to know that these reports are based on fabricated figures. Otherwise, the relative importance of vaccines in future health policy will be further exaggerated.
 Launched in 2001, the Measles Initiative is an international partnership committed to reducing measles deaths worldwide, and led by the American Red Cross, CDC, UNICEF, United Nations Foundation, and WHO. Additional information available at http://www.measlesinitiative.org
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.
TOPEKA, Kan. – The Kansas Court of Appeals says a food manufacturer can deny unemployment benefits to a former employee who objected to eating the company’s junk food products.
The appeals panel affirmed a lower court ruling dismissing the case of Jane Doe who had been a front-office staffer at the XYZ Food Services Corporation for the last 3 years.
In 2013, Jane objected to eating the junk foods manufactured by XYZ, claiming that they made her ill.
She was later fired and applied for unemployment benefits, which XYZ fought, saying she wasn’t eligible.
The Topeka Capital-Journal reports the appeals panel said Doe had a duty to her company to either eat their foods or stop working there. The ruling said Doe’s failure to comply amounted to job-related misconduct “and thus disqualified her for unemployment benefits.”
Sounds pretty ridiculous, doesn’t it?
Then read the original article at this link to see how crazy the situation really is:
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.
Yesterday was the long-awaited second rally against the proposed no jab, no pay legislation. Held in nearly every capital city in Australia, these rallies presented a chance for parents to express their concern and anger about government discrimination, network together to share ideas about how to fight against these draconian laws (on both the state and federal level) and just meet like-minded people for friendship and support.
The organisers of these events did an amazing job – especially considering the fact that the media (for the most part) neither attended or promoted the fact that these events were taking place. The only way to get the word out was via social media and, though this is an effective way to inform others, it is not yet as widespread as mainstream media.
I, along with hundreds of others, attended the Brisbane rally and heard some great talks by a homeopath, Greg Beattie (former President of the AVN) and a very passionate presentation by a Brisbane mum who gave a very articulate explanation for why parents must always have the final word on medical treatments for their children.
I was asked to present a talk due to the unexpected illness of one of the speakers. Below is my presentation – a bit of modern history of the movement started in Australia by the AVN to protect parental choice.
Hello everyone. Firstly, I’d like to say thank you to the organisers of today’s rally for doing such an excellent job of publicising this event without any assistance from the corporate media. In addition, thank you to everyone here who is standing strong to support their convictions that freedom to choose what goes into our bodies and the bodies of our children must never be taken away by any government or medical community. No Jab, No Pay? No way!
My name is Meryl Dorey and I am the founder and past President of the Australian Vaccination Network.
There is an old saying that goes something like – those who forget the lessons of history are destined to repeat them.
Well, we haven’t forgotten our lessons, but the government has.
About 18 years ago, when the AVN was much younger and so was I, we found out on a Friday that the Federal Parliament was trying to sneak through an amendment to the Childcare Payments Act by attaching it to Veterans Affairs legislation. The intent was to remove childcare payments from any parent who chose not to vaccinate their children.
Immediately, we at the AVN swung into action. Groups of women with their children in tow came from the Gold Coast and Brisbane to the AVN office that was in my home. We spent the entire weekend photocopying packages of information for every single senator and MP. We sent hundreds of copies of our book, Vaccination Roulette, down to Canberra to be distributed to all elected representatives. We called our members asking for donations to cover the airfare and costs for our 2 representatives to get us down to Canberra and back – $1,200. We found an AVN member in the ACT who would put us up in their home while we lobbied for amendments to allow unvaccinated parents to access all government entitlements their vaccinated peers received.
Lynne Grimsey and I spent nearly 2 weeks in Canberra. We saw dozens of Senators and MPs and found support amongst the Greens, the Democrats and many members of the Labor Party.
Two women who knew nothing about the legislative process had a crash-course in politics and by some miracle, 3 of our amendments were proposed by Bob Brown, leader of the Greens, and 2 were passed. Those amendments enabled an entire generation of children to be registered as conscientious objectors to vaccination and still attend preschool and childcare. They prevented a generation of families from being financially penalised because of their legal decision not to vaccinate their children.
Yet here we are today, fighting that same battle again. And just as we did more than 18 years ago, we will win this battle and the government and corporate interests will lose. Because when you have right on your side, you will always be the victor.
Vaccination is a medical procedure that carries with it real risk of harm. The AVN has collected thousands of reports of serious adverse reactions and deaths following vaccination and those reports are just the tip of the iceberg.
How many of you here either have someone in your family who was vaccine injured or know of someone who has suffered or died because of vaccines? How many of you have a child with autism or know a child with autism?
No government can require me to give my children vaccines which I do not feel are in their best interests. No government can require me to place my own life and health on the line in order to keep or access work.
My body is my own – my children are mine to care for. The government is my servant – there to represent me, even if I myself represent a minority viewpoint.
We are often told by anti-choice zealots that “the science is in” when it comes to vaccination. Well, they are right – the science IS in. Vaccines do not protect as we have been told. They are not safe and do cause tens of thousands of permanent injuries and deaths every year worldwide. These are inconvenient facts – but facts all the same.
In the US, more than $3 billion has been paid out for injuries and deaths following vaccination – at least 83 of those payments were for vaccine-associated autism. This is a huge amount of money but it would have been much more if the government hadn’t set the bar so high and constantly moved the goalposts as parents got closer to winning compensation.
More and more cases of pharmaceutical fraud are emerging. More and more evidence of collusion between government regulators and vested interests in the drug companies.
Dr William Thompson, a top government vaccine researcher who has published many studies via his job at the Centers for Disease Control in the US has now been dubbed “The CDC Whistleblower”. At the request of his superiors at this corrupt organisation, he and his associates shredded all of the evidence from studies proving that the risk of autism was far higher in those who were vaccinated – especially when it came to black boys. Unbeknownst to those same supervisors, Dr Thompson kept the originals of those shredded pages and has given them to Congressman Bill Posey who is now calling for a Congressional Inquiry into how and why the autism-vaccination connection was covered up for over 10 years.
Two vaccine scientists who work for Merck – maker of many of our Australian vaccines including the MMR shot, have recently been granted whistleblower protection for their claims that the mumps portion of the vaccine is not as effective as Merck has claimed and that studies – conducted by the manufacturer and never checked by any independent authority – were fraudulent. If this case is won by the government, it has the power to close this drug giant down and I personally hope that it does.
Studies are being published nearly every day by top researchers worldwide, indicating that vaccine ingredients are toxic, have never been properly tested and are simply not preventing disease. In other words, we have scientifically valid reasons to question vaccination and the government, rather than trying to squash us should be thanking us for bringing this vital data to their attention, saving them money and potentially saving our children from dangerous, ineffective vaccinations.
And please keep in mind the fact that there are more than 271 new vaccines in the pipeline. Should this legislation pass unopposed, the number of vaccines we and our children will be forced to say yes to will be nearly unlimited.
Since 2002, the AVN has been asking the Health Department to use the data already contained within the Australian Childhood Immunisation Register to compare the overall health status of the fully vaccinated with the fully unvaccinated. This simple, inexpensive test could be done at the touch of a button and has the potential of setting parent’s minds at rest regarding the safety of vaccination. But the government has consistently refused to do this. Why do you think that is? Do you think they know that this data – data we have paid for through our taxes – would show definitively that the unvaccinated are far healthier than their vaccinated peers and that would then leave the government liable to pay for vaccine injuries?
Ashley Jade Epapara, the 2 year old toddler who died following an untested flu vaccine and Saba Button, the gorgeous little 1 year old who has global brain damage from the same flu shot would still be anonymous and happy if it were not for vaccinations. And if this legislation is allowed to be enacted, their stories will become much more common as parents are forced to choose between putting food on the table and keeping their children healthy; giving their children an education or keeping them alive.
Freedom of health choice isn’t free. It is something that we must cherish and defend by our words, by our deeds and by our actions. If you haven’t yet signed the My Will letters that are available here, please make sure you do so. If you haven’t made an appointment to see your members of parliament and senators – both state and Federal – to register your opposition to this legislation, call tomorrow and bring friends or family with you for moral support if possible. Write a submission to the Senate Inquiry and submit it before the 16th of October. If you need help, talking points or information, check out the details that will be up on my blog – nocompulsoryvaccination.com by tonight.
The only people threatened by healthy, unvaccinated children are those within the pharmaceutical and medical industry who are terrified that more of us will realise how healthy the unvaccinated really are. No vaccine can convey immunity. No vaccine can prevent a fully-vaccinated person from either contracting or transmitting infection to others.
I will never set my child on fire to keep your child warm nor should any moral government ever ask me to do so.
No Jab, No Pay will fail just as previous attempts to abridge our freedom to choose have failed – because when it comes to the crunch, we are a force to be reckoned with – a force whose momentum, energy and commitment will always ensure our victory over vested interests within government, medical ignorance and drug companies using tobacco science to justify compulsion.
One thing that emerged loud and clear at the end of the day yesterday, is the necessity to band together for political power, information and support. The only reason we achieved our first goal of a Senate inquiry into the No Jab, No Pay legislation was because the AVN and a small team of dedicated individuals took the time and had the funds to fly to Canberra three times to lobby the Senators. It didn’t happen by magic. It happened through hard work. And that hard work cost a lot of money.
If you are not yet a member of the AVN, please join today. I am not on the committee nor am I anything other than a member of that organisation. But I know that our best chance of defeating this legislation is through having a strong, well-funded centralised opposition.
Membership costs $25 a year and can be purchased by clicking here. Donations can be anything you can afford and you can donate here. Please don’t put it off. Your financial support – combined with the support of others – will guarantee victory in this battle for our freedom. How much is your freedom worth to you?
I am reposting this extremely important information here. Please everyone, read, share and consider! I have just joined this party this morning (was previously a member of the Greens – HAH! With di Natale as head, that party is now nothing more than a pro-pharma joke!). If you believe in freedom of choice in Australia; if you believe in justice for Australians, consider joining this party too and do it soon because they MUST get 700 more members by Monday. The septics are out to shut them down – let’s show them that our voices count! Read and share, read and share!
As you all know I have been telling you about Jeff Hodges from the Consumer Rights and No Tolls political party. Unfortunately the anti-choice community have decided that he should be silenced and have put in a complaint to try and get his website domain taken away. He now has until Monday to get 700 members to register as a national party. This assault on anyone who dares question the status quo needs to stop, it is unnecessary and ridiculous. Please join me and showing them that we are sick of being pushed around and let’s get some politicians in parliament that will be our voice! Jeff’s party has been running since 2012/13 and are getting close to having enough members to register with the electoral commission, if any of you can support his party please check out his website http://www.consumerrights.org.au/ and register. He needs your name, address and birth date, if you are already a member of another party you have the option to join his party and take your allegiance over to Consumer Rights and No Tolls party it is your right and your choice. It is free to join and if you feel like changing your mind later on you can do that too, but let’s get Jeff’s party up and running and let the cyber bullies know enough is enough!
“Hello, I am Jeffrey Hodges, Founder and secretary of the new Consumer Rights & No Tolls party, and we really need your help please.
We want to stand at the next election for consumer rights issues, and we stand strongly beside you in regards the rights of people to refuse vaccinations and not be discriminated against. We will do whatever we can when elected to repeal the discriminatory ‘No jab, No pay’ legislation which both the ALP and LNP support.
However, to become a registered party we need at least 700 foundation members – and we need you to provide your full name, date of birth and residential address as per the electoral roll.
There is no cost – membership is totally free – and there is no obligation for you to be involved in any way. You would just be helping us ‘have a go’ and stand against ‘No jab, No pay’ and other important consumer rights issues. Please have a look at our website and join us if you agree with what we stand for. You can join online at www.consumerrights.org.au
There is an urgency in this as we are wanting to register the party next week – so please, please, join us by the weekend! If you have any questions, you can call me personally on 07 5445 7994.
If you do nothing else today, please watch and share this video of Lissa Weckert speaking at the No Jab, No Pay rally in Brisbane on June 21, 2015. There is another march scheduled for September this year. Please be sure to subscribe to this blog as we will keep you informed of all future actions to protect health rights and prevent compulsory vaccination.
Is Big Brother using Australia as his ‘testing ground’ for repressive policies? Will Australians stand idly by whilst their rights, their livelihoods and their children become nothing more than profit centres for corporate interests? The future will see what the result will be. But I am hoping that our proud Australian nation will stand up and draw a line in the sand – only this far and no further!
On June 18, 2015, the Sacramento Bee, a major daily newspaper from California’s capital city, published an article about the funding push behind SB277 – legislation intended to take away parent’s rights to philosophical and religious exemptions to vaccination.
The attempts to remove parental choice that we are seeing in Australia are happening in just about every country around the world and are being coordinated and funded directly by the companies that produce and profit from vaccines.
Entitled,Drug companies donated millions to California lawmakers before vaccine debate, this article in a major, mainstream newspaper, paints a sordid picture of corruption occuring in plain view. Senator Richard Pan, a medical doctor who introduced this bill and has been playing all sorts of nasty tricks to prevent the opposition from having a say. He has had over $500,000 donated to his campaign by drug companies over the last 4 years. Many others in the California Senate have had similar amounts ‘given’ to them by these vested interests and I personally believe that these politicians have been bought in order to gain their support for this tyrannical legislation.
As bad as this information is, at least in the US, it is available to the public. In Australia, there is no way to find out how much money our politicians have taken from Big Pharma (and other corporate interests) in order to promote their products.
A Voice for Choice, a consumer organisation that supports freedom of choice on this subject, is funding a week’s worth of political cartoons in the Sacramento Bee newspaper. Even if I had the money to do the same here in Australia, I doubt that any newspaper or magazine would run these cartoons because they answer to their advertisers – not their readers.
Here is the first cartoon – I will publish the others on this page as they are published in the US.