My kids are important to me, therefore your children must die

 

Let’s tell it like it is. Stop beating around the bush.

There are some people in Australia – many of them sitting parliamentarians, currently-employed journalists and medical officials – who still believe in child sacrifice.

They know that some children will be killed by their vaccines. They know that some will be permanently injured or have their futures stolen away from them. And quite honestly, they don’t care.

Without any evidence to back up their superstitious belief system, they think that our sacrifice to the Gods of vaccination (or perhaps, the Gods of mammon) will protect other children and therefore, they are willing to force us in any and every way possible, to do what they demand.

Who counts the cost?

Can’t afford to feed our children because they’ve taken away government entitlements? Tough!

Can’t afford rent or a mortgage so you have to live in your car or couch surf? Good!

Can’t work because you can no longer send your children to preschool or childcare due to No Jab No Play? Serves you and your children right!

At what point do your benefits outweigh our risks?

How do you justify our sacrifices?

According to the government, the medical community and their lackeys in the media, for the greater good, one child’s death is acceptable if it saves many children’s lives. The greater good assumes two options, however:

1- In order for this sacrifice to be worthwhile, we would need to believe that our children have to be vaccinated in order to protect others’ already vaccinated children. The statement “Vaccines only work if everyone does them” is one health ministers and government officials love to spout.

2- We would also have to believe that it is the unvaccinated who are spreading diseases in the community despite the fact that the majority of those who contract these illnesses are fully and appropriately vaccinated against them.

This kind of magical thinking has no basis in science and would be rejected out of hand were it not for the fear-mongering and outright lies of government and medical authorities.

Our families are not only invisible, the government wants to pretend we don’t exist!

If you can put a name to the children your policies and prejudices are killing, does that make it more difficult for you to sleep at night?

What if you saw their faces or spoke with their families?

The attempt to silence our voices

Is that why you fight so hard to deny our existence?

To try and silence us? To stop us from telling the stories of our families? To hide the faces of our children and our loved ones? To banish us from society?

You’ve never seen us – yet here we are

To end the denialism, below are a few of our family members for you to meet. These are just a few of the tens of thousands of children and adults who have been permanently injured or killed worldwide by your one-size-fits-all mass vaccination policies. These are just a few of those whose blood is on your hands.

Yes, you.

Every single person out there who is happy to say that others MUST do something to their beloved children in order to magically ‘protect’ their family has contributed to the medical murder and maiming of these victims.

Picture their faces at night when you fall asleep in your homes. Think of their families and the endless grief they are suffering when you sit down to dinner with your family. Realise that you are not – and never will be – innocent in the court of karma.

Every man’s death diminishes me
Because I am involved in mankind
And therefore, never send to know
For whom the bell tolls
It tolls for thee

For Whom the Bell Tolls
By John Donne

 

 

 

Experts in Ignorance

ignorance of expertsWe 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 education comes 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.

AMA and PolioLuckily, 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.

measles in africa, vaccination africa, measles

Measles deaths in Africa

The following article is by Greg Beattie, author of Vaccination: A Parent’s Dilemma and the more recent Fooling Ourselves on the Fundamental Value of Vaccines. It was originally published on the REAL Australian Sceptics blog and bears repeating.

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

Africa, measles africa, vaccination africa
0.450–0.499 0.400–0.449 0.350–0.399 0.300–0.349 under 0.300 n/a (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

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:

Measles Deaths In Africa Plunge By 91%[1],[2]

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.

Overview

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[3]. 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[4]. Sub-Saharan Africa, where a large proportion of measles deaths are thought to occur, still had an estimated death registration of only around 10%[5] 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[6]. 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.[7] 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

  1. Open a blank spreadsheet
  2. Enter population data for each year from 2000 to 2006
  3. Enter measles vaccine coverage for each of the years also
  4. Assume all people develop measles if not vaccinated
  5. Assume vaccination prevents 85-95% of measles cases
  6. Calculate how many measles cases were ‘prevented’ each year (using the above figures)
  7. 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[8]:

Unfortunately, the MDG[9] 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[10] 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.

No proof

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[11]. Figure 1 shows this decline from 1960 onward[12]. It also shows the infant mortality rate[13]. 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[14]. 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[15]. It subsequently dropped to around 175 by 1980, before vaccines figured. It continued dropping, though slower, to 129 by 2008[16].

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.


[1]    Medical News Today 30Nov 2007; http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/90237.php

[2]    UNICEF Joint press release; http://www.unicef.org/media/media_41969.html

[3]    Jaffar et al. Effects of misclassification of causes of death on the power of a trial to assess the efficacy of a pneumococcal conjugate vaccine in The Gambia; International Journal of Epidemiology 2003;32:430-436 http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/32/3/430

[4]    Save lives by counting the dead; An interview with Prof Prabhat Jha, Bulletin of the World Health Organisation 2010;88:171–172

[5]    Counting the dead is essential for health: Bull WHO Volume 84, Number 3, March 2006, 161-256 http://www.who.int/bulletin/volumes/84/3/interview0306/en/index.html

[6]    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

[7]    Wolfson et al. Has the 2005 measles mortality reduction goal been achieved? A natural history modelling study; Lancet 2007; 369: 191–200 Available from http://www.measlesinitiative.org/mi-files/Reports/Measles%20Mortality%20Reduction/Global/Wolfson%20Lancet2007_Measles_Mortality_Reduction.pdf

[8]    Kenji Shibuya. Decide monitoring strategies before setting targets; Bulletin of the World Health Organization June 2007, 85 (6) http://www.who.int/bulletin/volumes/85/6/07-042887/en/index.html

[9]    MDG – Millennium Development Goals, to be discussed shortly in this chapter.

[10]  Dabbagh et al. Global Measles Mortality, 2000–2008; Morbidity & Mortality Weekly Report. 2009;58(47):1321-1326 http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/714345

[11]  Garenne & Gakusi. Health transitions in sub-Saharan Africa: overview of mortality trends in children under five years old (1950-2000);  Bull WHO June 2006, 84(6) p472 http://www.who.int/bulletin/volumes/84/6/470.pdf

[12]  If you perform a ‘google’ search for ‘infant mortality rate’ or ‘under-5 mortality rate’ you will locate a google service that provides most of this data. It is downloadable in spreadsheet form by clicking on the ‘More info’ link.  http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SH.DYN.MORT/countries/1W-US?display=graph :Vaccine coverage data is available from the WHO website http://www.childinfo.org/files/Immunization_Summary_2008_r6.pdf

[13]  Infant mortality rate is “under-1 year of age” mortality rate.

[15]  Garenne & Gakusi. Health transitions in sub-Saharan Africa: overview of mortality trends in children under five years old (1950-2000);  Bull WHO June 2006, 84(6) p472 http://www.who.int/bulletin/volumes/84/6/470.pdf

junk food, healthy eating, health choice

Court OK’s denial of benefits to worker who objected to eating junk food

Junk FoodTOPEKA, 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:

Court OK’s denial of benefits to worker who objected to vaccine

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.

Not ALL mainstream media is ignoring our side of the vaccination issue

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 debatethis 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.

AVFC-Tombstones-Cartoon---final

AVFC-Donkey-Cartoon---final

Are those who want to mandate vaccines completely clueless?

by Meryl Dorey

Anti-choice campaigner, Alison Gaylard
Anti-choice campaigner, Alison Gaylard

My local newspaper, The Northern Star, ran the following article regarding the proposed punishments of law-abiding Australians trying to make informed choices for the protection of their children. These parents — the majority of whom are (according to numerous Australian government studies) highly educated and well-researched on this subject — believe that:

1- Vaccines carry serious risks including the risk of lifelong disability or death. 

2- Vaccines are not as effective as doctors have claimed them to be.

3- Healthy unvaccinated children do not carry or transmit diseases to others, though their vaccinated counterparts do (e.g. those who have received live virus vaccines and those who have been vaccinated against pertussis (whooping cough), who recent studies show may be more likely to infect others with the illness)

4- In a democratic nation such as Australia, that is a signatory to the Nuremburg Code, personal informed choice is sacrosanct and must never be abridged in any way.

Many of you may not know this, but the AVN was instrumental in the lobbying efforts to introduce a conscientious objector clause into Federal legislation so that a generation of parents between then (the late 1990s) and now was able to access all government benefits. Now, moves are afoot to wipe out our hard work on your behalf.

Below are my responses to this article (the original article is in block quotes below). I would love to hear your feedback on what you are willing to do to protect your rights. Please suggest ideas (visits to politicians, protest marches, letters, petitions, etc.), and let me know whether you would be prepared to be one of those who takes action against these tyrannical moves by our pharma-controlled government, by clicking here to send me an email with your contact details and ideas.

Vaccination supporters welcome government crack down

Luke Mortimer

Northern Star

11 April, 2015

NORTHERN Rivers Vaccination Supporters has welcomed moves by the Federal Government to crack down on parents avoiding vaccinating their children.

Well, this is no surprise! The Northern Rivers Vaccination Supporters is a small group of people involved with Stop the AVN (SAVN). They have always favoured compulsory vaccination. I would be very surprised if they were ever quoted as being supportive of health rights or the right to freedom of choice or speech. That is not their way.

ALISON GAYLARD: Everyone’s entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts. And science is factual.

No, Alison; I’m sorry to have to tell you that science is neither factual nor wrong. Science is a process by which hypotheses are tested. And there are few hard and fast rules in science. Some examples of indisputable facts are: yes, the sun always rises in the east and sets in the west; yes, living things respire, reproduce, and die. Scientific conclusions are, by their very nature, open to debate, interpretation, and testing. That process is what we call science.

In recent days, Social Services Minister Scott Morrison confirmed to media outlets the government was reviewing ambiguous legislation that allowed parents to object to immunisations for personal or philosophical reasons.

It’s strange that Minister Morrison describes this legislation as ‘ambiguous’. It is anything but. The legislation describes exactly how those who object to getting their children vaccinated can still access government entitlements. And the important word there is ‘entitlements’ — because these are things that ALL citizens and residents of Australia are entitled to. Our Federal Government is signatory to many international treaties and codes that enshrine our right to make free, informed health choices.

In fact, the Australian Medical Association (AMA), the National Health and Medical Research Council (NH&MRC), and various other government and medical industry bodies all state — quite unambiguously — that they support this right and that it is one of their core values.

So is Minister Morrison unaware of these facts? Or was he elected into public office to protect a multi-trillion-dollar international business model (that of Big Pharma) instead of the rights and needs of his constituents?

Mullumbimby’s Alison Gaylard, a founding member of Northern Rivers Vaccination Supporters, hoped the review would go some way towards improving the North Coast’s immunisation rates, which were the worst in the country in 2014.

The vaccination rates may or may not be “the worst in the country”, but no matter how bad they are, they are still orders of magnitude higher than they were in 1991, when our rate of infectious diseases such as whooping cough was far lower than it is today. So we have had an overall increase in vaccination rates along with a concomitant increase in disease. How, then, is it possible to blame the unvaccinated? And yet, read on and see that Ms Gaylard does just that!

Ms Gaylard helped start the group after her two daughters became ill with whooping cough.

Please note that both Ms Gaylard’s daughters had been vaccinated against whooping cough. Read that again: they had been vaccinated. The vaccine failed them both. But Ms Gaylard, rather than face up to the known ineffectiveness of the vaccine (not conjecture on my part: many, many studies have and still do demonstrate that the vaccinated may be unprotected), Ms Gaylard blames some nameless, faceless unvaccinated people for the failure of the vaccine to protect her children.

If I go out for a drive today and run into a light pole, I have as much right blame the full moon or the orange juice I had for breakfast as Ms Gaylard has to blame the unvaccinated for the failure of a vaccine. In fact, I would go further and state that placing the blame on the unvaccinated is not only unscientific and without any evidence; it is plain dumb.

We have a high number of conscientious objectors in this area, especially in Mullumbimby. I think it will (improve immunisation rates),” she said.

Well, no doubt there are some families who will vaccinate their children because they rely on government payments to put food on the table, a roof over their head, and clothes on their children’s backs. It is those least able to afford these financial penalties who are being targeted and who will be most likely to make the decision to vaccinate purely for financial reasons. Do we really want to live in a society in which people are forced to give their children medical procedures that — let’s face it — have real and (in some cases) quantifiable risks, against the informed choice of those who love them most, their parents? In my case, the answer is, no: I do not want to live in such a society. It is immoral, unethical, undemocratic, and just plain wrong. If there is a risk, there must always be a choice.

We have a high number of people who’ve bought into the anti-vaccination stance, so as to whether they’ll be concerned about whether they’ll lose childcare benefits or facilities, I’m unsure how it’ll impact here. We’ll be watching with interest. Our demographic here is so diverse.”

Those who have “bought into the anti-vaccination stance” — which is how Ms Gaylard and her ilk characterise anybody who doesn’t buy into their peculiar brand of magical thinking — have generally made their choice after:

1- having a child who was injured or killed by a vaccine or vaccines;

2- knowing someone who was injured or killed by a vaccine or vaccines; and/or

3- spending many hours (commonly in the hundreds or thousands of hours) researching this issue for themselves.

After all, it is so easy to say yes to vaccination; it is far harder to say no in today’s society. So that decision must be respected by a government that is truly representative of its citizen’s rights.

Ms Gaylard said there was indisputable evidence regarding immunisation’s benefits.

I would welcome Ms Gaylard’s providing such “indisputable evidence” of vaccination’s benefits. Calling vaccinations immunisations is the first clue that Ms Gaylard has no idea what she is talking about since even immunologists and paediatricians admit that vaccines don’t immunise and therefore, the words cannot truthfully be used interchangeably.

If Ms Gaylard is a woman of her word, I would like to challenge her to a public debate on this issue. Since she is so sure she has this “indisputable evidence”, let her present it in a fair and open forum to allow those in attendance to hear and see it and decide that for themselves.

If she feels that she is not qualified to present the facts behind the benefits and safety of vaccination, she is more than welcome to find a medical professional, government health official, or anyone else to take her place.

Come to the party, Alison. If you really are firm in your convictions, support them with the evidence.

Please note: Blog posts are opinion pieces which represent the views of the authors. They do not necessarily represent the viewpoints of the AVN National Committee. The AVN is a forum, support and information organisation 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.

AVN Supporters speak in support of their rights

19359622_letterbox1Below are the letters which AVN members and supporters have sent to the various State and Federal Health Ministers and Shadow Ministers in support of the right to conscientiously object to vaccination without being penalised or discriminated against in any way.

As always, these letters are articulate, intelligent and passionate. There are many letters here and at least twice as many people have informed us that they wrote but did not send copies of their letters to us. There are most likely many more who wrote without informing us as well. The upshot is – when your rights are threatened – you don’t sit back and take it, you take action. We will be contacting the Federal Health Minister’s office next week to find out what the final recommendation was after the meeting and will be sure to let you all know. But be assured – if the Ministers have decided not to press ahead with this dreadful plan to penalise Australian families, it will be because of your efforts.

One last note – this page was put together very quickly so if the formatting is a bit wonky or any letters were missed out, we apologise profusely for any problems.

Dear Honourable Health Minister,

I am disgusted yet not surprised by the latest attacks on those of us who are Conscientious Objectors to vaccination. The attacks by both State and Federal Governments on our right to choose regarding vaccination have been constant for the last 2 years.

The media implies that parents opting out of vaccination are somehow following a trend, or are stupid or (insert this weeks insult here). The Medical establishment does not like the sacred cow of medicine, vaccination, being questioned, so it is fighting back in the most bullying and hostile of ways; do what we say or face consequences. This time it will be loss of Governement payments, my feeling is that next in line will be our right to opt out of vaccination.

I could write ad nauseum on the reasons I have chosen not to vaccinate my children. After my eldest child suffered a terrible reaction to her Hepatitis B vaccine at birth I started to research the issue. I was staggered that no Doctor had ever mentioned any of the information I discovered.

In brief vaccines are toxic (ethyl mercury, aluminium, formaldehyde etc), contaminated ( monkey DNA and viruses, aborted human foetal tissue, chicken viruses, pig viruses…it’s a long list) and ineffective (all of the so called Vaccine Preventable Diseases had decreased over 90% by the time the vaccines for those diseases arrived). Not to mention that vaccinated individuals can shed the viruses they have been vaccinated with!

The list of those killed or disabled by vaccines is growing by the day. As demonstrated by VAERS ( Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System) in the USA the consequences of vaccination can be deadly or life ruining, and these types of consequences are not rare. Despite the howling protests of Governments everywhere; vaccines can cause autism. Cases like those of Hannah Poling (US courts) and Valentino Bocca (Italian Courts) prove this. There are tens of thousands of other children out there with the same story as these children.

The tragic case of Saba Button in Western Australia in 2010 shows that citizens are correct to have doubts over Government authorised vaccination campaigns. Saba was permanently disabled after receiving the untested Fluvax vaccine. Hundreds of children in WA were hospitalised as a result of this vaccination. Parents WERE NOT told about the status of this vaccine or the risks involved ( A WA health spokesperson said 1/1000 children were “expected” to have febrile seizures but the rate was 10 times higher than they expected i.e. 1/100 children suffered febrile seizures). It is criminal that parents were not told of this risk prior to vaccination. What about the right to informed consent? What happened to “first do no harm”?

Saba Button’s parents have set up a foundation in her name to raise money to help with the costs of her fulltime care needs. So for the Health Minister to take a few hundred dollars out of vaccine refusers pockets is not even a drop in the ocean of the cost of caring for a vaccine injured child. Personally there is no sum of money that could ever induce me to vaccinate my children and that is true of all the other vaccine refusing parents that I know.

The financial ramifications of the Health Minister’s plan do not bother me, but the ethics behind his decision do. If my child is vaccine injured it is not the Health Minister, Government or Doctor who pay the price. It is my burden to carry, so the choice should be mine , unencumbered by draconian and coercive Government policies.

I could provide you with a lot more information regarding vaccines, but lets face it, you already know them. Concerned and intelligent parents have been writing to all forms of Government for years now saying the same thing, fighting to maintain our right to choose.

The problem for the Government, Medical Establishment and Drug Companies is that there is now a tsunami of educated parents who are refusing to vaccinate their children. I have no doubt that the fight for our rights will be a hard one and it is already getting very ugly. Unfortunately for the Government it is too late. There are now vaccine-damaged children living on every street in Australia and their parents are very vocal. We will stay vocal. We will speak our truth and spread information about vaccine dangers wherever we go and we will not be shut up. So you may try to impose draconian legislation to “punish”us for being so caring, intelligent and righteous, but it is too late. In the words of Andrew Wakefield “There is no place for indulging futile displacement activity, sanctimonious posturing and self-protectionism. In the battle for the hearts and minds of the public you have already lost. Why? Because the parents are right; their stories are true; their children’s brains are damaged; there is a major, major problem.”

Yes the public is fast becoming aware of vaccine dangers. I ask that the Minister also looks into the issue and not be fobbed off by his advisors.

Some interesting points to research

1) The safety studies of the current vaccine schedule (no wait, there aren’t any).
2) The safety studies proving that is safe to inject infants with ethyl mercury (these studies don’t exist either)
3) A study comparing long term health outcomes of fully vaccinated verus fully unvaccinated children. (This doesn’t exist either. Would the Minister please make this type of study his number one priority. We have been asking for this study to be done.)

I trust that the Minister will allow parents the right to choose whether or not to vaccinate their children. Anything less would be an infringement on human rights.

In Support of Conscientious Objection to Vaccination,
AH

Divider 1

Dear Minister Dutton,

I have just spoken with your office of my concern that family tax payments may be withdrawn from parents who have chosen not to immunise their children.

The person who took my call suggested that I send an email to support the phone call.

I treat many children with autism spectrum disorders, severe allergies and worrying gastrointestinal disturbances whose parents firmly believe their problem began with vaccination. I believe them for two reasons – first, their stories have convincing yet uncanny similarities – and there are so many of them, and second, because what happened to their children mimics what happened to mine when they too were vaccinated.

At the time I knew little about the vaccine debate but expressed my concern to the vaccinating doctors that the high fevers and problems that followed were somehow linked to the vaccine they had not long given. My concerns were dismissed out of hand, and still are today whenever I retell what happened. Though much improved my children continue to be affected by those early problems, even into adulthood.

If I had my time over again I would certainly be one of those seeking an exemption for my children as they and I (and others like us) have had to bear the burden – not the doctors who gave the vaccine or the government that advised them to do so.

Did you know that most people who now have a conscientious or medical exemption to vaccines started out as vaccine proponents and trustingly had their child vaccinated as recommended? Do you know that they only stopped giving subsequent vaccines because that child became one of the unlucky ones? These are the people you wish to remove family tax payments from – payments that initially were never intended to be linked to vaccination.

If you remove these payments you will not be punishing parents who just can’t be bothered to go and get the vaccine, you will be punishing those who have already tried to do the right thing and now bear the consequences of following medical and governmental advice. It seems to me that they should be compensated rather than punished like naughty school children for not continuing to do something they are convinced harmed their children.

Please don’t compound their heartache and loss by removing this much needed payment. To do so would be grossly unfair.

Yours sincerely,
FS

Divider 1

To: Mrs Jo-Ann Miller Shadow Minister for Health, Queensland

Dear Mrs Miller,

I am writing to you about this matter, since you are the Shadow Minister of Health in my State of Queensland.

I find it very hard to comprehend that there should be vaccinations, and taken beyond that mandatory vaccinations. I have taken close interest in reading all the articles I can on this matter from sources that are not censored. It seems that all information in the Australian Media is censored.

As a child in South Australia in the war years I was given a tetanus vaccination, and I came out in a total severe body rash. In India in 1946, as a child aged 11, I had another fall from a horse, with a cut requiring stitches. Although the Doctor was told by my Mother about the first reaction, he insisted on giving me another tetanus vaccination. This time I was paralysed over my body for two days, and could not get out of bed or turn over, and was kept in a darkened room in the family house with someone with me all the time.

It is a fact that the Pharmaceutical companies have taken control of the whole world, paying for medical training for doctors, and totally influencing their decisions, so they don’t think of questioning their training. They are rewarded by holidays and gifts, provided they write out a sufficient number of prescriptions. The Minister of Health said on a broadcast that any doctor who would not vaccinate would no longer be able to practice as a doctor. Most doctors have families and mortgages, and how would they find another career. So the GPs continue to vaccinate, but those who know with families, do not vaccinate their own children.

All vaccinations damage. Most of them create the very disease they are meant to protect against. They all have mercury and formaldehyde, and unfortunately viruses have also got into the mix.

The flue epidemic after the War 1914-1918 was created by vaccinations and killed more people than died in the War. Those who were not vaccinated did not get the flue.

Please investigate this yourself. You will not be able to change the world situation, due to bribery and corruption, but at least you will be able to influence decisions about mandatory vaccinations, giving the choice to parents who know the dangers, or who are just wary about damaging their children.

You are welcome to forward this email on to others.

Sincerely
SW

Divider 1

Dear Ministers,

On the eve of ANZAC Day it seems the Australian Government seeks to dishonor what our countrymen fought for 100 years ago. Freedom, choice and democracy.

I oppose any moves by the Government to remove the right of a person to be a conscientious objector with regard to vaccinations.

People should have the same rights to vaccinate or to not vaccinate.

I oppose any moves to take away our right to entitlements based on our vaccination decision and status.

I am sure that in legal circles this could be called ‘Blackmailing’. (Blackmail refers to a situation that arises when a person threatens another person with some form of punishment if they do not offer some form of concessions. http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=blackmail)

Nobody should be FORCED to have their child be vaccinated.

We live in Australia, a democratic society which means (taken from http://moadoph.gov.au/democracy/australian-democracy/):

The Australian democracy has at its heart, the following core defining values:

freedom of election and being elected; freedom of assembly and political participation; freedom of speech, expression and religious belief; rule of law; and other basic human rights.

As far as I am concerned it is my basic human right to choose how I medicate myself and my children. If you take away government entitlements you are penalising those that make an educated and informed choice that is different to the current political and medical dogma, and are saying that I don’t have a right to choice.

Regards,

DW

Divider 1

Dear Minister Dutton,

I ask you to please not participate in the discrimination against loving parents who have legitimate concerns about vaccinating their children, please do not persecute parents by taking away government entitlements that are meant for every eligible low income family struggling with the costs of raising their children, it is ethically and morally wrong.

The current environment of blaming unvaccinated children for every disease outbreak under the sun is unjustified and very worrying especially for me as I am both a conscientious objector and a recipient of the government payments that they are thinking of taking away from parents like myself.

My name is Tasha David and I am a widowed Mum of 8 and also a committee member of the AVN, but today I am writing to you as a Mum. I have vaccinated 6 of my children to varying degrees and they all have neurological, allergic and autoimmune disorders as well as having poor general health. My two unvaccinated children have excellent health and no neurological disorders yet I had them when I was in my late 30’s when they should have been more susceptible to the disorders that are affecting their elder siblings. We also did genetic testing and there was no genetic reason found for their afflictions. In my position would you have continued vaccinating your children, and do you believe that I should be punished financially for doing what I believe was in the best interests of my children?

What this proposed legislation is in essence saying, is that parents like myself are bad parents and do not deserve the same rights as other parents but on what basis is the judgement made? I love and adore my children, I make sure that my children are safe from physical harm, that they are educated, they are fed nourishing whole meals that I cook from scratch, I support their immune systems through nutrient rich supplements, foods and probiotics and we avoid all additives, preservatives etc and toxic chemicals in the home, and they get plenty of fresh air, exercise. If my children are sick which is very rarely then I keep them home so that they are not exposing any other children to any illnesses that they may have and this has worked really well for my children especially my unvaccinated children, they have never had or needed an antibiotic in their lives unlike their elder siblings which have all had antibiotics. Almost all of my vaccinated children have been admitted to hospital for either asthma attacks, rotavirus and grommets for chronic ear infections etc, my unvaccinated children have not. I have researched countless vaccine studies that show pros and cons and have seen firsthand what vaccines can do to my children, so by deciding that vaccination is not for my children anymore does this make me a bad mother?

If we are going to start penalising parents for making their decisions that they know in their hearts is best for their children and call them irresponsible parents, where does it end? Is it fair that parents that smoke, drink and do drugs around their children are eligible for these payments, are they better parents than us? What about parents that feed their children chips and coke and sweets all day and let them run around the streets all hours of the day and night, are they better parents? Going on the proposed legislation by Minister Springborg they are, as they will still be eligible for these payments yet we will not. How can this be considered anything other than discrimination?

I always wonder how a parent who believes in vaccination would feel if they were punished for vaccinating their child because of the shedding from the live vaccines? If they were vilified and condemned by their government,the media and other parents and were told that there children should not be allowed near other children in school, in public etc how would they feel? How did we get to this point where the Government and media are stirring up hatred against parents like me, are there great epidemics of disease in unvaccinated children? No, there isn’t so why the hatred, the demonising of parents, the encouraging of the us and them mentality, why are we so eager to hate others for being different?

If the Government is so worried about conscientious objectors why don’t they talk to us, why can’t we have an open discussion where both sides can be heard, how can you think that financial penalties are the only way to reach an understanding with parents?

The other part that does not make sense to me about all of this is why the Government thinks taking away Centrelink payments is going to change the minds of the rich affluent suburbs which are the ones with the lowest vaccination rates, this type of discrimination only targets the poor?

We have just experienced the largest Whooping cough epidemic and the vast majority of cases were in the vaccinated, so how many others are not protected by their vaccinations and are walking around thinking that they are? Or are asymptomatic transmitters of the disease?

“This research suggests that although individuals immunized with an acellular pertussis vaccine may be protected from disease, they may still become infected with the bacteria without always getting sick and are able to spread infection to others, including young infants who are susceptible to pertussis disease.”

http://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/Newsroom/PressAnnouncements/ucm376937.htm

Why is that the Government has only got a passive surveillance system in place for vaccine reactions/injuries? How can we really know how many vaccine injuries and deaths there are if they is no mandatory reporting system in place?

“Professor Bryant Stokes, the eminent neurosurgeon and former head of WA Health who reviewed the events for the state’s health minister, concluded in a report tabled in the WA Parliament last August that the “slow response” by federal and state authorities had “not served the public well”. It was “disturbing”, he noted, that Australia had not put in place the surveillance and reporting systems recommended by the World Health Organisation, which had advised all countries in August 2009 to “conduct intensive monitoring for safety and efficacy” of the pandemic vaccine, Panvax.”

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/features/virus-in-the-system/story-e6frg8h6-1226063484330

How is it that we can vilify parents for not vaccinating their children by saying that the science is clear when there has been no long term health outcomes comparing the fully vaccinated vs fully unvaccinated? Shouldn’t this be done before we even start to think about discriminating against conscientious objectors?

How can we have herd immunity when adults have not been vaccinated appropriately for decades, and the theory was based on natural immunity to start with not vaccine induced immunity?

http://www.webmd.com/vaccines/news/20140206/many-us-adults-not-getting-key-vaccines-cdc

Why is there such a push to force vaccination on parents when they are much more serious priorities that deserve the governments full attention ie 1 in 6 having developmental delays, sky rocketing numbers of Asthma, Allergies, Autoimmune disorders, Autism, ADHD, Alzheimer’s, Cancer etc? What about the estimated 18,00 to 30,000 dying from medical errors in our hospitals?

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-04-06/australia-on-verge-of-allergy-epidemic/2628058 http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/Lookup/4428.0main+features42009 http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-02-04/cancer-now-biggest-killer-in-australia/5236148 http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-06-10/lack-of-data-creates-concern-over-true-extent-of-medical-errors/4744286 http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-02-04/cancer-now-biggest-killer-in-australia/5236148

Why have we forgotten the hundred children rushed to hospital in WA with febrile seizures because of the Fluvax vaccine, and the death of Ashley Epapara, the severe brain damage of Saba Button and even more recently Lachlan Neyland? Do these children not deserve to be protected also, why is it that a child that is injured or killed by a disease is given priority over children that have been injured or killed by vaccination? Who decides which life is more worthy of protection?

http://www.tga.gov.au/safety/alerts-medicine-seasonal-flu-100702.htm#.U0UEb6J7R2A http://www.perthnow.com.au/news/western-australia/saba-button-the-girl-who-is-never-alone/story-e6frg13u-1226035296706 http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/nsw/toddler-who-was-given-an-adult-flu-shot-is-left-severely-brain-damaged-and-unable-to-walk-or-talk/story-fni0cx12-1226756398505 http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/toddler-ashley-jade-epapara-2-dies-after-flu-vaccination/story-e6freon6-1225857803417

Conscientious objectors are just trying to raise healthy children like everybody else we just believe that there has to be a better way than injecting substances in to our children with an unknown long term health outcome. Parents should be allowed to make the choices that they believe are right for their children whether it be to vaccinate or not, especially when there is no way of knowing whether your child will be the one having a serious adverse reaction. I couldn’t save my first six children from life long chronic illness please do not punish me for trying to save my last two from this.

This is my family’s story…

Thank you for your time and I hope that this helps in some way Kind regards Tasha David

To all the Honourable Members of Parliament State and Federal to whom this has been sent.

I believe you are meeting to decide wether or not to continue to allow Government payments to be made to those who object to vaccination. No mention as to the legitimate reasons for objections, of which there are many.

My wife and I raised our children from 1974 till the last born in 1990. We were aware of the discussion and claims regarding the efficacy of vaccines, but chose to vaccinate untill our last baby reacted badly to the vaccine and we saw what others had warned us of. There are real dangers with vaccines and to deny that is to deny the truth. Who is responsible for the wellbeing of our children? Did you give them to us? Why are the vaccine manufacturers indemnified against prosecution for the death or disablement of those injured by vaccines?

Should you even consider such a proposal then we do not live in a democratic country.

Yours Sincerely
DGS

Divider 1

Minister Dutton,

I have spoken with Alex in your office and left a message for you. He suggested I could also write.

With respect, I want to pass on my views as they relate to your discussion with state health Ministers on the potential removal of (or tightening of) conscientious objection (CO) clauses with Vaccination policy.

First, CO is NOT used ‘willy nilly’ – people who do appropriate research and then make an informed choice take advantage of this right. The difficulty experienced in actually finding a GP who will sign such a form is testament enough to the fact that the clause is not being ‘taken advantage of’.

Second, our constitution provides us with the right to refuse medical treatments against our will. As such governments of both persuasion have often argued that vaccination is not compulsory – but you then tie access to certain family payments to vaccination status which effectively ‘force’ compliance with vaccination policy. This is under-handed and dishonest.

If you do believe vaccination is such an important public health initiative, then make it compulsory, institute protection-schemes for those that are vaccine-damaged (or better yet, allow once again the common law right to sue vaccine manufacturers!), fund and instruct the TGA to do proper analysis including post-market safety studies, don’t ‘farm out’ investigation of reactions to the companies that produce the product, and instruct all health practitioners to keep accurate reaction statistics rather than just voluntary adverse reactions registers. Also, fund the studies that have been called for ad nauseum (with such calls being ignored so far) for long-term health outcomes of the fully vaccinated versus the fully non-vaccinated.

The FTB is an important payment most used by needy families in our society. It should not be in any way linked to whether or not you have a medical procedure. The fact that it currently is, means you MUST allow conscientious objection.

The argument you and others have put forward regarding the importance of high vaccination uptake is always predicated on the ‘greater good’ which is turn is based on a theoretical mathematical model of herd immunity…the levels required to achieve herd immunity continue to change and rise, because we reach the level suggested and then we find eradication has not occurred, and fully or mostly vaccinated populations are still contracting these diseases! You can’t blame unvaccinated children for fully vaccinated outbreaks! True, there are populations that for whatever reason are not able to be vaccinated (partly because of the toxic ingredients in vaccines!)…but if you look into the history of flu vaccine policy for example, you find profound conflicts of interest and policies derived from ‘expert’ panels without any evidence or research – particularly the justification to vaccinate the over-65 age-group originally was non-existent!

Ministers are often guilty of spouting inaccurate information regarding vaccination – first confusing vaccination with immunisation (they’re NOT the same thing!), second, claiming extremely high levels of safety based on voluntary reporting data, third claiming efficacy based on the fact that people don’t contract the disease after innoculation (with no evidence they were EXPOSED to the organism and no analysis of differences in immunocompetency or the factors which might raise immunocompetency in some population groups/individuals while not in others!) Leaps of faith are made with inadequate basis, and this informs your public policy.

Please…if you (and by this I mean the pro-vaccine lobby) are not willing to sit down and have a real, inclusive debate and address areas of perceived or actual lack in the evidence to back up your policy, don’t force people who HAVE researched the issue into something they firmly believe could cause greater harm than good.

If you cannot achieve herd immunity through education then surely there is some reasonable doubt you have not adequately addressed…and the way most pro-vaccination experts contribute to the public debate further inflames this issue. By just simply trying to deny that there is a valid debate, or for that matter ridiculing alternative points of view, you don’t actually do your cause any favours! Removing the only real option for people to still receive their rightful government funds

As Minister for HEALTH (not minister for sick-care) it would be amazing if you began to heavily promote research and public policy based not on the minimum standards needed to avoid illness, but on what is required to achieve sufficiency to maximise full function and the expression of ultimate health. The philosophy underpinning allopathy – whereby society is effectively taught to only respond to their health status when they experience a symptom is the real issue here!

Clearly I’m passionate about this issue and I would welcome any indication from you that you have considered this email – a ‘pro-forma’ email will just further reinforce my opinions as presented in this letter!

— Regards,

Dr. P

Divider 1

Peter Dutton,

I oppose any moves to take away our right to government entitlements based on our vaccination decision.

Nobody should be FORCED to have their child be vaccinated.

The Australian Constitution No 51 ‘The provisions of maternity allowances, widow’ pensions, child endowment, unemployment, pharmaceutical, sickness and hospital benefits, medical and dental services (but not so as to authorize any form of civil conscription), benefits to students and family allowances’

By removing the family tax will not get me to vaccinate my children but will place more financial stress on my family and will cause us to tighten our belts even further. Are you sure this decision will really profit out children? Are you not satisfied with the 90% you already have claimed?

Jesus therefore says to him, If thou doest, do quickly.

God bless

PB

Divider 1

Letter of Objection for Peter Dutton.

I write in regards to the proposed removal of the conscientious objection clause in relation to vaccination and remove entitlements. This is in Violation of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution. The Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act was signed & Sealed in 1900, by Queen Victoria using the Royal Seal, which then became the law-making seal of the Federal Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia at Proclamation in 1901. No other symbols or system can be used to create an authority of any kind, OVER the civil & political rights of the legal or private Persons of the Commonwealth of Australia. The Queen holds the title Defender of the Faith, upholding our Commercial and Civil rights to Common and Canon Law . That title is a direct covenant with God Almighty. A contract. In her, and her alone, through that contract, lies the authority to Judicially adjudicate over the men & women of the Contract.

Commonwealth Of Australia Constitution Act

Part V – Powers of the Parliament

51.The Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to make laws for the peace, order, and good government of the Commonwealth with respect to: –

(xxiiiA.) The provision of maternity allowances, widows’ pensions, child endowment, unemployment, pharmaceutical, sickness and hospital benefits, medical and dental services but not so as to authorise any form of civil conscription, benefits to students and family allowances.

Correct me if I have read this wrongly but it states not as to authorise any form of civil conscription to medical services. So there we have it, this is why vaccination is a voluntary procedure.

Be aware that we the people are watching you and are growing in numbers and will hold you accountable for the decisions you make.

I have informed you of the illegality of enforcing vaccinations and hereby this communication is a letter of objection.

Vaccination has no scientific background to support it. Wherever we have so many vaccine failures it becomes a scam.

Science means 100% efficacy, nothing less can be deemed to be back by science. No failures not now not ever, I have witnessed to many vaccine failure particularly the Flu Vaccine for it to be considered scientific.

We the people are now looking at this hoax in growing numbers as you can never fool all the people all the time.

You are elected by the people to stand up for the people. Its high time you backed the people who elected you to office as opposed to the corporate entities who only have profit as there agenda and care not for anyone or the planet.

Yours Sincerely

RM

Divider 1

To the Hon. David Davis, Hon. Peter Dutton, Hon. Catherine King and Mr Gavin Jennings

I am a Victorian resident, Company Director, mother of young children and supportive wife to a very hard working tax payer, and I write sharing my concern regarding current discussions about vaccination and the removal of rights of Conscientious Objectors (CO).

As a fellow Australian citizen, I respectfully ask that our Health Ministers and Government Officials please respect our rights as parents (and human beings) to make decisions on behalf of our children. Many parents choose to vaccinate, but some believe it is not in the best interests of their children to follow the current Australian Vaccination Schedule or to vaccinate at all. With so many vaccines required to stay “up to date”, my husband and I do not feel comfortable injecting our children so often and with so many vaccines as is currently suggested. My mother was instructed by her GP back in the 1980s not to even think about vaccinating me until I was at least 6 months old, and with far less vaccines required when I was a child, it is no wonder some parents are not “fulfilling” the current schedule.

As it stands, we are one of the CO families which have been vehemently despised, blamed and shamed throughout the media and some medical circles in recent times. We submitted the CO paperwork (which, ironically, was misplaced at Medicare for one of my children although we sent the letters together) so that Centrelink/Family Assistance/Childhood Vaccine Registry would cease sending us so much correspondence in reminder letters, tax benefit reduction threats and the like. We thought it was the right thing to do considering our options, and we trust you will take on board that right to choose. Considering my vaccinated daughter contracted the chicken pox last year from who knows where and gave the illness to her siblings, one of which is unvaccinated, I really cannot see us changing our position in the near future and I do not believe it is fair, constitutional or downright “Australian” for my children to be forcibly medicated against our wishes.

It is very unfortunate when an industry (which does not have any scientific research supporting the safety of injecting multiple vaccines at a time as suggested by the current schedule) has more clout than the parents of the precious children being injected. The right to choose to vaccinate or not is one right we desire to stand up for; for our children and for their wellbeing.

Please take note of my conscientious objection to any discussions penalising CO families for making a decision for their individual family.

Yours sincerely
SE

Divider 1

The Hon. Peter Dutton, MP Minister for Health

Dear Minister,

I am writing to offer an ordinary, informed citizen’s view of a proposal by your Queensland state counterpart, Lawrence Springborg, for using undue and unrelated financial penalties to coerce conscientious parents, in contravention of Australia’s human-rights obligations, to undertake a course of action that in their view may endanger, threaten, or compromise their own children’s health: Mr Srpingborg’s proposal to remove from such parents the admittedly burdensome option of lodging conscientious objection, for the purpose of receiving an unrelated tax rebate, to the questionable* practice of universal vaccination using all the vaccines not yet banned that the industry that stands to profit by their sale “recommends”.

That such a successful industry as the pharmaceutical industry is must increasingly rely upon punitive measures, upon physical force, upon court orders, and, at least in the United States, upon physical violence in order to force its most disreputable products upon resistant consumers is a strong indicator that something has gone awry in the most expensive marketing campaign that any industry has yet financed.

What industry with a product that works and offers great benefits to its potential customers has ever had to force that product down their throats? If the most expensive marketing in history has failed to persuade a minority of parents of the value of all vaccines to their children, what has gone wrong that the product must be delivered punitively (and, in the U.S., even at gunpoint)? If the product cannot be sold at any price, then perhaps it is the product, not the consumer, that has something wrong with it.

What has undermined the success of vaccine marketing, minister, may be a mix of fundamental changes in perception.

First, formerly pro-vaccination parents have seen their children being harmed by vaccines and have chosen to educate themselves and to realise that vaccination is not the be-all and end-all of child health.

Second, formerly zealous paediatric proponents of vaccination have seen their patients damaged and have undertaken their own research.

Third, international studies of the long-term health of the vaccinated and the unvaccinated have come up with results that unarguably speak against indiscriminate childhood vaccination as a long-term health strategy.

Fourth, several studies that supported vaccine efficacy and safety have emerged as having been tampered with, ghostwritten, and forged altogether.

Fifth, alternatives to vaccination have been studied and have been found to be effective preventatives of infectious illnesses.

And, sixth and most tellingly, the Internet, as did the Gutenburg press in its day, has enabled parents and concerned citizens to conduct their own research, communicate their findings, and question formerly unquestionable dogmas.

Possibly the greatest subversion of the success of vaccination marketing, however, has been the refusal by the most vehement proponents of the unquestionable dogmas to answer such questions — except by attempting to subvert the right of all parents to make the health choices most appropriate for their children with the assistance of the most accurate information available on the subject and without undue pressure by industry or government.

Could you yourself possibly give a straightforward, informative, and accurately referenced answer to a question concerning a particular vaccination’s value to a particular child whose parents have noted that child’s familial or personal history of sensitivity to that vaccine or to a related one? If not, then on what possible basis could you justify overcoming that child’s parents’ better judgement and parental intuition using the force of financial penalties?

Undermining the set dogmas more broadly than do questions of safety in relation to a particular individual are some of the larger statistical studies that have demonstrated some vaccines’ surprising roles. Two of the better-known reasons for concerned citizens to question the universal truths of the dogma of vaccinations’ universal benefit to their recipients are (a) the evident role of pertussis vaccine (whole-cell in particular as opposed to acellular) in perpetuating cycles of pertussis and parapertussis epidemics, and (b) the evident role of the now highly discredited “swine flu” vaccines in increasing susceptibility to annual influenza. Could you yourself possibly offer the least evidence to contradict the studies that have elicited these relationships? If not, then on what possible basis could you justify using pressure of any kind to sway a parent’s better-informed decision?

Minister, these questions and many more like them deserve answers based on respect for truth and for the rights of the individual, not answers that come from the barrel of the handiest financial cannon.

The more readily the pharmaceutical industry and the Government turn to force in order to sell the unsellable to the unwilling, the stronger the Government makes the message that it has no recourse in terms of rational argument and evidence but must use irrelevant penalties — withholding of irrelevant tax payments — in order to enforce its opinions. Such irrational measures do less than nothing to inspire confidence in the ability of our ministers for health to understand evidence and argument and communicate it. Rather, they demonstrate the inadequacy of such ministers to their portfolio.

That parents manage to stand up to the already significant financial pressure of losing access to a relevant payment — the Maternity Immunisation Allowance (M.I.A.), through payment of which the Government tacitly admits a certain degree of risk to the child it pays on behalf of — says that some parents retain both a sense of higher vaccine risk than the Government acknowledges and stronger principles than the Government counts on in using the M.I.A. as blood money. Seeking deliberately to add to such conscientious parents’ burdens is the work not of good citizens and servants but of those who believe in their own power above all else. That your office, when I phoned, was punctilious in insisting that such deliberate privations neither force parents to vaccinate nor constitute, technically, penalties — is a clear indicator that you yourself are conscious both of the burden and of the force of that burden upon parents. I urge you to become equally aware of the existence of an entire library of careful research demonstrating that the dogmas underlying your Queensland colleague’s proposal have had their day in the court of scientific investigation and been found wanting in factual accuracy.

I look forward to your prompt, public assurance that you have forsworn committing the grave errors of judgement and disrespect for your electorate that your Queensland colleague would willingly lead you to commit. And I look forward to learning that you have led a movement toward a factual basis for government policy via research uncontaminated by unarguably vested interests.

Yours sincerely,

JH

* I use the word “questionable” here advisedly. A medical procedure whose value has become beyond question becomes impossible to subject to intelligent investigation. In the minds of those who think of science as a canon of established, unquestionable knowledge rather than a process of careful discernment, vaccination has already reached such a canonised state. It is truly remarkable, in the poisonous atmosphere that habitually attends the questioning of vaccination’s value, that any independent research in the field continues to be done. It nonetheless does occur. For a start in reading independent research on vaccination, you could do worse than to consult the writings of Dr Tom Jefferson, of the Cochrane Collaborative. I’d be happy to refer you to peer-reviewed work by him and other notables in such places as the British Medical Journal.

cc Shadow Minister for Health, the Hon. Catherine King <Catherine.King.MP@aph.gov.au>

cc A.C.T. Minister for Health, Katy Gallagher <gallagher@act.gov.au>

cc A.C.T. Shadow Minister for Health, Jeremy Hanson <hanson@parliament.act.gov.au>

Divider 1

Dear Minister Dutton

It has come to my attention that tomorrow a meeting will be held and one of the topics for discussion is the Family Tax Benefit A and the possible removal of the conscientious Objection as a qualifier for this payment. I truly hope you can see that doing so will be indirectly forcing parents to ignore their childs health needs in favour of receiving a cash reward. If you are going to pay families for vaccinating, you need to make the payment available to those who do not wish to vaccinate for what ever reason they may have. You may argue that only medical exemptions will be acceptable, but I put it to you that… there is no medical testing of children and infants prior to their vaccines to test for possible allergies or reactions. At present parents must subject their children and babies to vaccines on blind faith that everything will be ok. Often times it isn’t ok. Therefore the medical exemption is not good enough in my opinion, it is not going to prevent children from becoming vaccine damaged. Personally I believe this payment should be removed all together from both vaccinating and non vaccinating parents and redistribute it fairly back to families in another way or perhaps remove the link to vaccinations for this payment all together and just leave it as a family assistance payment. Health decisions must be made based on an individuals needs and should never be influenced by monetary gain or reward. If parents choose to vaccinate it should be based purely on their belief that it will benefit their child. As it is, most parents who choose not to vaccinate do so based on what they believe is most beneficial to their childs health.

Trusting you will remain unbiased and fair to all in your decisions.

Regards

MS

Divider 1

Dear Shadow Minister King,

I am writing to inform you of my personal opposition to remove parental rights to government entitlements based on my family’s vaccination decision. For the past fourteen years I have worked as a Special Education Teacher, both in government and non-government positions. During this time, I have observed the very rapid increase in children being diagnosed as developmentally delayed, more specifically autistic. When I first commenced in my career, it was apparent that a more widespread array of disabilities was evident in the classroom demographic. Nowadays, a proportionately high number of the classroom demographic consists of autistic children, many classed as severely autistic on the spectrum.

Parents have personally attested to the fact, they believe their child’s autism was a direct result of vaccination. One parent asked me whether I had my own children. At the time I hadn’t, and the mother said to me, do your research. She was well versed on the topic and I still remember her very vividly today. I have also counselled many parents in person or over the phone who have just stepped out of the Paediatrician’s office to be told their child is autistic. I cannot describe to you the devastation and emotional state of these poor, helpless parents. It broke my heart.

I started to observe consistencies in parents stories; about how their child was developing atypically, then suddenly they stopped speaking, giving eye contact, ceased interacting with peers and siblings etc. etc. All children mentioned here where fully vaccinated according to the schedule.

In 2006 I had my own adverse reaction to the DPT vaccine. I had to undergo a minor procedure at a medical centre after I sustained a small fragment of glass in my fifth finger. Having being asked by the medical staff when my last tetanus shot was, I couldn’t recall, so was then vaccinated with what I thought was a ‘tetanus’ vaccine. I later learned that the tetanus vaccine is a three in one shot and includes Diphtheria and Pertussis. Tetanus cannot be given in isolation. A resulting adverse reaction became immediate following the vaccination and lasted 3-4 days.

Due to my personal experiences, I began a course of research and read material from both sides of the vaccination debate . Countless hours where spent conducting this research and consequently an INFOMED decision not to vaccinate my own children resulted. For me, vaccination is a medial procedure I simply did not want for my children. The potential risks simply outweighed the apparent benefits.

Nobody should be FORCED to have their child vaccinated.

We live in Australia, a democratic society, which for me, means freedom of choice. By denying a parent access to this government payment is discriminatory.

I strongly urge the government to act justly and fairly on this matter.

Yours Sincerely,

MF

Divider 1

Dear Peter Dutton & co-workers,

I understand that as politicians, you are under increasing pressure from pharmaceutical lobbyists and the higher powers that be at the Australian Medical Association to pass legislation that will take away the rights of hard-working and educated parents of non-vaccinated children to receive government assistance payments.

Before you consider enacting upon such a drastic and oppressive endeavour, I beg of you (and your colleagues) to please take the time to view the award winning and informative documentary, ‘The Greater Good’; http://www.greatergoodmovie.org/#!prettyPhoto I also encourage you and colleagues to educate yourselves about the specific ingredients in vaccines, rather than assume blindly that because a person with a white coat or esteemed medical title has assured you, that every word they utter is to be considered an unequivocal and eternal truth.

Please keep in mind also, that most parents who have chosen not to vaccinate, have not made this decision on a whim, but rather painstakingly – many after witnessing serious adverse reactions to vaccinations in their child or other loved ones. In fact, most parents (like myself) were previously PRO vaccination, blindly trusting in the authorities, and have only bothered to educate ourselves about the ingredients, manufacture and funding of vaccines after experiencing an adverse reaction in our families.

Pharmaceutical and other medical authorities whom benefit financially from these vaccines are disturbed and dare I say frightened, by this growing number of educated adults who are taking the time to do their own research. But enforcing draconian laws upon people, borne out of pride and anger is never a good recipe for a democratic society that wishes to look back in time without regret.

Australia is and should remain a free, democratic country, where the rights of all to access government assistance and the right to accept or decline medical drugs for our children should be respected. Our children are OUR responsibility… not the governments.

All scaremongering and drug-pushing aside, I can assure you that the growing number of non-vaccinated children out there are far healthier and arguably happier than their vaccinated counterparts. Rather than be injected with heavy metals, formaldehyde and other neurotoxins, they are nourished with pure, unadulterated healthy food, clean water, a good dose of fresh air and daily sunshine and are thriving! Sadly, this is not a reality which the pharmaceutical vaccine industry can benefit from. Please open your heart and mind and consider our plea…..

In freedom and truth,

JL

Divider 1

Dear Minister Gallagher/Shadow Minister Hanson,

We are forwarding this email to share our concerns about family tax payments that may be withdrawn from parents who have chosen not to immunise their children. Don’t punish those of us who thought we were doing the right thing but simply weren’t aware of the dangers that immunisations pose until we learnt the hard way.

Here in Australia we live in a democracy and that gives us the right to make choices and the right not to be discriminated against. We feel that what you’re doing is impinging on our right to make decisions. In this case, one that is researched and in the best interest of our children.

We can only speak for ourselves in this matter however we are very well educated and intelligent people. We did not make the decision not to immunise lightly; rather we made the decision to immunise too lightly!! We did not research how immunisation works & what the chemicals can do to the body, especially in one that is still developing, we just blindly trusted our doctor and the information disseminated to the general public. Our children are only partially immunised because after an immunisation at 2.5 years old, our eldest had a major gut/bowel reaction over a period of weeks. Our doctor & nurse did not believe it was a reaction & of course we were not encouraged to report it.

Both our sons now suffer multiple food/chemical/environmental intolerances & allergies; our eldest suffers from ADHD & asthma. Although we fully understand that our children have different dispositions etc., our youngest (who is only immunised to 6 months) does not suffer to the same extent or with the same issues as his older sibling. He suffers from far less infections etc. and also recovers from illness significantly quicker & more effectively than his older brother.

These are children that were both breastfed, eat wholefood organic diets and live in safe non-chemical environments. We insist on healthy practices with our children to ensure their health is the best it can be, however we can’t take back the immunisations they were given early in their lives.

As a result of our sons reaction, we have read books & information written by highly respected medical professionals and people who have carried out great deals of investigative research on the matter. They do not use scare tactics they simply present information & facts. We do not support fear mongering, discrimination or hatred by either side of this debate and hope that you might take note of this letter.

Yours sincerely,
M & A 10 April 2014 (out of fear of retribution, we not supply our full names)

Divider 1

Dear Mr Springborg,

As a parent of a child who has been vaccine damaged and diagnosed with Aspergers I have had to reassess my previous personal views on vaccines and their effects, function and success.

I am 41. I had very few vaccines as a child. I caught the mumps, measles as a young boy around 4 and 5 and chickenpox at 15. All were mild. I enjoyed the time off school as a teenager. I grew up in Perth. I travelled with my parents throughout Australia and the US and the UK at various times. I attended a normal State Primary School and a Private Highschool and I went to University and got a degree. I got married and became an MCSE – Microsoft Certified Systems Engineer. I’m a very normal Australian.

I was, in the past a person that didn’t think much about vaccines and trusted in the information I had been given. I was what you would call very pro-vaccinations however the irony of that position was that I had very very little knowledge of them other than that I had gleaned from documentaries on small pox and polio. After the adverse reaction my son experienced and some of my own personal experiences I’ve spent some significant time researching for myself and have come up with a far different conclusion to that which we are told in the nightly news and pro-vaccine documentaries, and at a standard GP or Paediatrician’s office – namely that they are safe and effective.

Although my son was fully vaccinated as per the Australian schedule he at 7 years of age in his Grade 1 class contracted Pertussis along with 8 others in his class – all of whom had been fulled vaccinated. So either the vaccine hadn’t worked or it had worn off. In other words it was ineffective.

In the past I had myself received two flu vaccinations, the second of which made my extremely ill.

This only furthered my drive to gain more understanding and after reading 7 books plus numerous websites and videos on the subject (from doctors, immunologists and neurologists) I have some key basic tenants I know hold to be true. I now call myself a vaccine-sceptic.

1. Vaccine induced antibodies do not necessarily grant immunity – even if they can be observed in sufficient numbers with a blood test http://www.greenmedinfo.com/blog/study-disproves-cdcs-primary-justification-vaccination

2. Vaccine induced antibodies wear off – thus the need for boosters

3. Most adults who have not received boosters are thus themselves in the same camp as an “anti-vaccer” – ie. NOT IMMUNE and therefore adding to the theory of herd immunity.

4. Many vaccines “shed” for up to 21 days (read the package insert)

5. The adjuvants used in vaccines to promote and ensure an immune response are toxic even in small doses when injected into muscle and veins – especially in the young and those who are susceptible

http://www.ff.ul.pt/FCT/PTDC/SAU-FAR/110871/2009/Aguilar2007.pdf

6. Vaccine injuries and adverse reactions are seriously under reported

7. Most outbreaks in the Western World occur in vaccinated groups

8. Those who are vaccinated still do carry many of the viruses they espouse they are now immune to. http://www.fhfn.org/why-vaccines-spread-disease-an-in-depth-analysis-of-flawed-vaccine-science/

9. Vaccine companies have been distorting their success and their efficacy http://www.vaccinationinformationnetwork.com/merck-scientis-claim-merck-forced-them-to-falsify-vaccine-efficacy-test/

10. Herd Immunity is an impossible lie http://www.vaccinationcouncil.org/2012/02/18/the-deadly-impossibility-of-herd-immunity-through-vaccination-by-dr-russell-blaylock/

11. Some vaccines work very very poorly. So poorly as to be almost worthless. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/mutations-explain-poor-showing-of-2012-flu-vaccine/

I know you are busy men, however I would ask you to read the articles below:

http://gianelloni.wordpress.com/2014/04/07/dear-parents-you-are-being-lied-to/

http://vaccineresistancemovement.org/?p=13481 – Measles Report

http://vaccineresistancemovement.org/?p=10185 – Autism Report

Although my wife and I may not have another child, the numbers of children with neurological disorders, diagnosed on the ASD spectrum and allergies is growing constantly, I believe that Vaccines have had some part to play in this rise and I cannot stand to see that total lack of honesty or openness surrounding any discussion on vaccines from the medical community or vaccine makers. I believe there is an epidemic of autism and allergies.

I oppose any moves to take away any rights to personal exemption from vaccines for anyone via any means of coercion, be it physical or financial (such as removing government entitlements) based on a vaccination decision.

Nobody should be FORCED to have themselves or their child be vaccinated. That is part of the worst possible totalitarian nightmare scenario of a “1984” like society.

As far as I am concerned it is my basic human right to choose not to vaccinate my child or myself and to choose to be fully informed regarding vaccines.

I understand you will be discussing removing government entitlements from those who do not vaccinate. I think this is wrong for all the reasons given above.

Kind regards

LB

Divider 1

To the Hon David Davis MLC

Regarding tomorrow’s deliberations on vaccinations and government benefits I have one simple request:

Do not use your voice at the table to support coercive implementation of the health department’s vaccine regimen.

Coercion has no place in this area when parents, like me, are solemnly issued with ultimate responsibility for our young children’s health decisions.

Do you know Grace White? She is my daughter, I know her well. I also know her four siblings better than you do because they are my children. Please use your position to support my right to parent my children in their best interest as I, their responsible guardian charged by God with their upbringing, see it.

I can’t imagine how a round-table bureaucratic discussion in sunny Queensland can determine once and for all that I have lost my parental rights on this issue.

Say yes to choice for parents on vaccination. Yes to a choice without punishment.

I will awake three or four times tonight to tend to my children. No matter how interventionist the nanny state becomes in this country, you won’t lullaby my kids to sleep when they are distressed, so please do not insinuate yourself into jabbing them without ever having met them.

Kindest regards
MW

Divider 1

My name is XXXXXn. I am a NSW and Federally registered voter in this country. I am 37years old, a teacher, daughter, sister, friend and recently a new mother. I pay taxes, drive a car, have 2 dogs, a partner, go to the beach on the weekend and go camping at Easter…my point with this seemingly irrelevant, and trivial information, is that I am what society might consider “normal”. However, I CONSCIOUSLY chose not to vaccinate my 7month old son. It was what I believe to be a very well researched choice and I am astounded at the vitriolic reaction from some people when I mention that he is not having/had his needles. I was born in 1977 in the same hospital as my son and my mother chose not vaccinate me or my 2 younger brothers. She meticulously raised us in good health; so that we as adults would have a true understanding of what health and living a healthy lifestyle means and we do. I went to primary school and high school like every other normal kid in the 70s and whether I was vaccinated, or not, never came up in conversation; people did not “talk” about it. But now, oh now, everyone has got an opinion about vaccination! It’s astounding! No longer is this a decision talked about only amongst my direct family and my GP- this has become public debate and my decision has become somewhat controversial and people are more than happy to tell me so. I don’t discuss with people when they had their last pap smear, prostate examination, blood test or flu shot so why is it that I have to discuss/justify my health decisions/choices with people? I believe that this is now such a hot topic because it involves money; a financial payment of “candy” if you are up to date with your child’s shots. But here is the problem with financial candy. It is public, and scientific, opinion that widespread vaccination will keep disease under control in this country. It is also public, and scientific, opinion that smoking is disastrous to your health. It is also public, and scientific, opinion that eating too much deep-fried food is bad for your long-term health and it is also public, and scientific, opinion that drinking too much alcohol over a long period of time can cause a variety of health problems. There is a lot of medical and scientific information proving that smoking, drinking and eating fried food is very bad for you. There is also a lot of information indicating there are benefits to you by vaccinating your child. These 2 statements are backed up by information from the health department. But why offer the money for getting the immunisations and penalise the people not doing it? Why the financial candy for sticking to the immunisation schedule set out by the government?? I don’t get a financial benefit for not smoking, not drinking too much alcohol or not frequenting fast food chains so why should a benefit exist for me to get my child vaccinated? If vaccinating was truly in the best interest for children in this country then why do the government have offer parents money to do it?? The government is already paying FOR the actual vaccines and then they also have the extra financial commitment of having to entice parents into sticking to the schedule. I don’t understand. I didn’t realise the government had enough spare cash to offer a financial reward for people to take medications that they (the gvmt) have just paid for. I also think that since I am not costing the government any money, as I have not used the immunisation service, could I please have what figure it would have cost to keep my son up to date with the immunisation schedule put into my bank account. Instead, you are attending a meeting tomorrow in Brisbane to discuss various issues, including the potential removal of my right to conscientiously object to the immunisation schedule and the removal of my financial candy…oh sorry…’benefit’ because I have used a loop-hole and not played by the correct rules! By the way this is a direct link to the Merck website and a 2013 Letter to Shareholders. http://www.merck.com/finance/proxy/letter-from-chairman.pdf In 2012 Merck had $5.1billion in sales of vaccines, that’s billion written there, not million…billion and $5.7billion in the sale of diabetes medication. Call me a conspiracy theorist if you like but I can’t help wondering if there is a connection between the Australian government bullying families into joining the non-compulsory vaccination schedule and companies like Merck being able to boast about a 5% increase in sales. The GlaxoSmithKline website was not user friendly at all and that finding an actual figure on their profits was very confusing (I can’t help but think that it’s designed to be that way that the staggering figure can’t be as easily known). http://www.gsk.com/content/dam/gsk/globals/documents/pdf/Investors/GSK%20publishes%20historical%20quarterly%20restated%20financial%20information.pdf And BAYER made a handy £20 million profit after costs but at least they made their statement easy to read and find. http://www.annualreport2013.bayer.com/en/income-statements.aspx At the meeting tomorrow I believe the clause of ‘Conscientious Objector’ is up for debate and there are moves to potentially cancel this as an option for parents to use to not vaccinate their child/ren. The removal of me having choice about the vaccination schedule for my child is not ok. It is undemocratic and very un-Australian. You were VOTED into your current office and it would do you well not to forget that. You are a Public Servant and I am member of the public so therefore you are my ‘servant’. I am asking you to ‘serve’ me and leave this clause right where it is. With respect, I don’t care whether you as a person agree with my decision, it is not your business as Health Ministers to decide what I do with my child. It is my business and I believe that I am the best person to be making decisions about his health and welfare and if I need advice I will seek it. I do not wish to have schedules imposed on me like I don’t know what I am doing or run the risk of financial penalty because I don’t fit into the mould. Should you wish to take the same amount of time that I have today and send me a reply then I would be happy to hear some of your thoughts as health ministers of my state (Jillian) and country (Peter and Catherine). I expect your reply to address my concerns and reassure me that you understand that I know best for my child and will continue to support me, as my public servants, in my journey of motherhood.

Yours sincerely
AN

Divider 1

I am writing to all of you, representatives, and public servants regarding this discussion that I believe you intend to have tomorrow regarding Vaccinations and penalising conscientious objectors to this most barabaric practice.

No One has the right to impose upon others their opinions regarding ones own body, and also the bodies of those entrusted by GOD to their care, ie parents, grandparents, etc as the case may be.

Vaccinations are proven to be dangerous. Your continued promotion of this barbaric pratice is abhorrent. But even if injecting foreign bodies, toxins, pathogens, dangerous chemicals into the body of another was not dangerous, it is still abhorrent.

NO ONE has the right to do that. I am disgusted that in Australia, which is supposed to be a DEMOCRACY, you are continuing to foster genocide against the will of the people.

I AM A PEOPLE. I am against this practise period.

But as regards this discussion that you will be having tomorrow I am against you even contemplating penalising those brave souls amongst us who are standing up for their bodies, and the bodies of their children by consciously objecting to this barbarous practice.

I support them, I applaud them, and as my public servants I expect you to do the same.

Conscientiously objecting to anything is a right that should be sacrosanct in a FREE and DEMOCRATIC society. You have an obligation to uphold DEMOCRACY.

Uphold IT.

It Is MY WILL that you Do NOT Even raise this issue tomorrow, or any other day. It is MY WILL that vaccinations be stopped. If Vaccinations continue against my will, then it is MY WILL that they are NEVER made compulsory.

Sincerely TMC

Divider 1

Mr Dutton,

As our Federal Health Minister I would urge you not to support moves that would discriminate against parents who have chosen not to vaccinate their children.

You would be aware that there is a large body of peer reviewed medical literature that clearly indicates that vaccines are not nearly as effective or safe as generally portrayed by the medical establishment. Indeed, vaccines can maim and they can kill.

By removing the “conscientious objector” clause with regard to the Family Tax Benefits, you would be effectively coercing parents into submitting their children to controversial medical procedures that could cause great harm.

Please be reminded that we elect people like you to support our rights, not to take them away.

Regards,

BB

Divider 1

Dear Mrs Miller,

I rang your office earlier today and was advised by Tracy that it was her understanding that you will not be attending the State Health Minister’s meeting with Minister Peter Dutton scheduled for tomorrow, Friday 11th April. However, I felt it was prudent to email you, just in case circumstances change.

I would like you to know that I vote, am a resident of Queensland and that I am strongly opposed to any move to remove my government entitlements based on my vaccination choice. Australia is supposed to be a democracy. It is my right to make my own health choices and most definitely NOT the government’s to strip me of them.

It is my will that all Conscientious Objectors are treated with respect.

Regards,
SK

Divider 1

Dear Minister for Health (The Hon Peter Dutton MP) and the Shadow Minister for Health (The Hon Catherine King) and; the QLD Minister of Health (The Hon Lawrence Springborg) and the QLD Shadow Minister for Health (Mrs Jo-Ann Miller),

I am writing to you regarding the article in today’s Courier Mail regarding your joint opinion to stop the the $726 Family Tax Benefit A payments to parents of unvaccinated children.

I am a mother of 3 healthy children and also a health practitioner residing in QLD.

Before I chose to become a conscientious objector I thoroughly researched the existing literature on the benefits and detrimental effects of vaccinations.

To my understanding and knowledge vaccinations do not confer guaranteed protection to the diseases that they are ‘protecting’ babies and children from. There are still cases of children who have been immunised getting sick from whooping cough, measles etc.

If you would understand the basics of a healthy immune system and quoting the words of Louis Pasteur ‘it is not the germ, rather it is the soil’.. meaning that the difference between a person that gets sick and one that is well, is based on a healthy immune response, rather than the supposed germs out there, then you may realise that there is probably no point to vaccinating at all. Furthermore, until a child is 2 years old, their B lymphocytes are not fully matured so they do not retain the antigenic memory of viruses which is why vaccines go through the alternate T cell route (and many top ups and boosters) in order to make them ‘stick’. In addition, many of these viruses can be managed (medically) if they do become complicated.

Unfortunately, in my view, the problem stems in (parents) poor dietary habits/practice (and lack of public education and awareness of how to stay well) and possibly lack of sufficient funds to be able to buy ‘health foods/supplements to maintain a good healthy immune system. Sadly it is probably the same types of parents that will probably suffer from the removal of the FTBA if they conscientiously chose to keep their children free from being vaccinated.

There are many medical arguments for both sides of the vaccination debate and I lean towards the side that promotes healthy living and informed choice.

I personally have seen in my practice what the effects of vaccination can do and prefer to keep innocent young babies and children who should be given a chance to live ‘normally’ in this world before they are injected with viruses and the like to let their own bodies adapt (and become resilient) to the world around them. Hence maybe the rise of so many allergies, atopic diseases (eczema, asthma), autism etc…

We do live in a democratic country, therefore I am enacting my right to be able to voice my opinion and concern for parents who may be affected by your potential decision to remove their welfare entitlement based on whether or not their child is vaccinated. How and why are the two linked anyway?

Thank you for your time and consideration of my letter.

Sincerely,
NS

Divider 1

Dear Minister Springborg,

As per my conversation with Aaron of your office earlier today, I would like to reiterate that I do vote, am a resident of Queensland and that I am strongly opposed to any move to remove my government entitlements based on my vaccination choice. Australia is supposed to be a democracy. It is my right to make my own health choices and most definitely NOT the government’s to strip me of them.

It is my will that all Conscientious Objectors are treated with respect.

SK

Divider 1

Hi there jo-ann.

a little ignorance goes a long way apparently, especially when it is backed by billions and billions in lobbying. and that’s a ‘B’.

from memory, and I might be out the odd billion, in 2001, US pharmaceutical companies alone spent in the order $9bill on free drug samples, and $16bill on marketing.

this link has later figures that are much higher and show that US drug companies spend approx double on marketing as they do on R&D.

http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pmed.0050001#s6

so plenty of money sloshing around for lobbying, misinformation campaigns, corruption, and worse.

the world-wide Big Pharma vaccination industry is a massive possibly trillion dollar industry (paid for by us by our Govts) – and a lobbying and disinformation effort and budget to fit that amount of money.

yet the real vaccination science going back decades does not support its effectiveness, and also shows the long term damage to individuals’ health (and deaths)

there are none so blind as those who will not see. or is it simply corruption bought and paid for by the pharmaceutical companies?

vaccination is not about your health or the health of your children (if only!): it is solely about MONEY. And how much more they can gouge out of our Govts and our taxes.

if vaccines actually worked as we are told (otherwise why get them?), why would anyone who had vaccine get the relevant disease?

only those unvaccinated would, and you could say ‘serve them right’.

so isn’t it funny that the people who get flu most are those that have been vaccinated?

and isn’t it funny (not) that those who have been vaccinated against whooping cough now get a more dangerous and deadly form of it?

billions and billions given to greedy and corrupt global corporations for something that not only doesn’t work, but makes things worse

the links below substantiate various facts, such as that vaccines don’t work, actually cause more disease, and massive health side effects.

http://www.vaclib.org/sites/debate/web2.html

http://www.vaclib.org/sites/debate/web1.html

http://www.soilandhealth.org/02/0201hyglibcat/020132sinclair/vaccinaion.htm

http://www.vaclib.org/sites/debate/web3.html

btw, have you noticed how much sicker and sicker and sicker our population is becoming? it seems these days the population spends half their time in a doctor’s surgery, not being made healthy, just being subscribed more and more drugs, incl vaccinations?

so why are people and children getting sicker, getting diseases, so much more often, so constantly and frequently, than in the past? (when, btw, in fact the vaccination rates for so many diseases and sicknesses have never been higher.)

there is an answer.

kind regards
DC

Divider 1

Dear Mr Dutton

I am concerned in regards to the meeting that you will have with the State Health Ministers tomorrow, discussing Conscientious Objection and plans to remove it.

As a loving mother of three children, I do everything that I can to do right by my children. I am well aware at how emotional the vaccination issue is in Australia. The decision whether to vaccinate or not should always be the decision of the parent as should all care of our children. It doesn’t matter if I agree with someone who wants to vaccinate or doesn’t, basic human right means that each parent should have the right to decide. Any parent who goes down the Conscientious Objection path must speak with a doctor and be counselled by them before the doctor will even sign the form, so they are fully informed and have made their decision having the information. I don’t believe that they should be penalised by having parenting payments removed or reduced. In a democratic society, freedom to choose should exist and parliamentarians, our representatives should uphold those rights.

Yours sincerely
MH

Divider 1

I am a voter in our Australian democracy. I am writing to have my opinion heard over conscientious objection.

I became a conscientious objector after changes in my son’s general health after vaccinations. I did my research in order to make this decision, and I continue to do extensive research on the contraindications of vaccinations.

I am aware that a meeting is taking place to discuss the removal of the conscientious objector clause to force all children/people to be vaccinated according to a schedule set by the government. Aside from the fact that it is impossible to legally enforce such a position, it is also contrary to the basic rights parents have to raise their own children by their own set of ethics and beliefs.

I 100% believe I have done the right thing by my son to protect him from further damage, including the Gardasil vaccination which is now being given to boys in Year 7. This vaccine has not been proven to prevent cervical cancer and it has killed or permanently injured 1000s of girls across the U.S. Many countries have now banned this vaccine or refused to put it on their schedule in the first place.

There is plenty of peer-reviewed research outlining the dark side of vaccination however it is actively suppressed. I seek out this information and circulate it. I have 15 years of research training behind me and I am very capable of identifying bogus research when I see it. Unfortunately most of the bogus research I read is paid for by the manufacturers of damaging vaccines and other chemicals to make their products falsely appear safe.

I strongly object to the mindset that any substance should be forcibly administered to any person against their will or that of their parent/guardian. It clearly cannot be enforced at law.

Yours sincerely,

GH, B.A. (Psych), PG Dip (Psych)

Divider 1

Dear Mr Dutton,

I am writing to you to express my concern at your intention to implement legislation to discriminate against parents and children who are not vaccinated.

I am a contentious objector to vaccines. However I did start out vaccinating my children, until a dangerous range of side effects (known to the vaccines AND listed on the vaccine insert) began to affect my children’s health. After much research and consideration, it was decided that it was best to no longer expose our children to the toxic load injected into them through vaccines in hope that their health will improve or at least not longer deteriorate.

It is a basic human right to make decisions about our own health. It cannot be denied that vaccines carry a huge amount of risk and a dangerous list of side effects. Should you implement mandatory vaccination, will you step up and take responsibility when these risk become a reality in the lives of your voters? Will you and government offer compensation to those unlucky ones who lives are adversely affected by following your legislation to inject foreign substances in the body of a young child? I would hope so.

Each Australian has a right to make decisions about their own life for what is best for them, without being discriminated or penalised against because those view or decisions differ from a politician’s.

I wonder why the sudden push to take people’s freedom? Is there money in it for you? Or are you trying to grab votes by appealing to one side? Whatever your motives, my vote counts too. And I will not be voting for you should you discriminate against people for making decisions about their own health.

Regards,
BT

Divider 1

In a modern democratic society, surely this right should be upheld.

As parents and grandparents of vaccinated children, we strongly feel that the right to free choice should remain with parents in this country.

In the matter of vaccination decisions, it has been noted that there is a high percentage of doctor’s unvaccinated children in affluent areas like Mosman in Sydney giving some credence to those questioning the safety of vaccination in it’s present form. In any case those listed as conscientious objectors, should clearly retain that right regardless of their socio-economic position in the Australian community.

Thank you for giving consideration to this simple, basic concept of what it means to live in a free society.

EF

Divider 1

To Gavin Jennings

I am a voter and a resident of your state Victoria. I have just called your office whom have advised me to send you an email to register my opposition to being penalised by not receiving family tax benefits for exercising my democratic right to choose whether or not to vaccinate my children. The removal of the Conscientious Objection Form Clause in this matter is a removal of my democratic right to choose what I believe is best for my children. I like most parents who have chosen not to vaccinate have actually taken the time to do the research to decide what was best for my children and find it appalling that we would be penalised for doing so. Living in a democratic nation as we apparently are means that we are not meant to be forced by any governing body to make decisions we believe are not in our and our family’s best interests, I hope this democratic right to Conscientious Objection is upheld and not taken away as that would really democratically speak for itself, wouldn’t it?

Kind Regards
RH

Divider 1

Dear Mr Dutton,

It has come to my attention that all State Health Ministers will be meeting with you tomorrow with regard to removing the Conscientious objection clause to vaccination. The removal of this clause will enable the Government to take away payments from parents who choose not to vaccinate.

I am urging you to please consider the many families whose children have been damaged by vaccines and give them the respect that they deserve. There is much more to this issue than just family payments. People have a right to protect their families, and the decision not to vaccinate does not come easily, a lot of research goes into this decision.

There are many books and scientific research articles showing that vaccines are not completely safe and for a Government to force them upon the Australian people (which is where this decision is heading) would be a sin and a grave moral injustice.

Please take the time to look much further into the issue of vaccinations, their production and their history, please look much further than what the Government Health sites have to offer. See what the rest of the world have decided on the issue of vaccinations and once again, please give the families of vaccine damaged children the respect that they deserve. They have no voice and have been completely disregarded and treated with contempt by both the medical profession and the media.

Many thanks for taking the time to read this email, I and many others appreciate it.

Sincerely yours,
HF

Divider 1

Dear Minister,

As a taxpayer resident of NSW, I wish to express grave concerns over todays Courier Mail newspaper article that mentions ministers are meeting tomorrow in Brisbane with Mr Dutton to discuss removing FTB A payments to conscientious objectors of vaccination.

I oppose any moves to take away rights to government entitlements based on a vaccination decision. To do so is discriminatory in my view.

Would this mean government will then take full responsibility for any adverse reactions of vaccination? Would it provide, as a standard, testing to see if natural immunity to a disease exists before vaccinating for it? Would it compensate for any adverse effects of vaccine adjuvants such as the newly recognized ASIA syndrome? (Autoimmune Syndrome induced by Adjuvants as presented by Professor Yehuda Schoenfeld)

I hope the proposed changes are rejected in full.

Regards,

FO

Divider 1

Dear Peter,

Do you have any concept / idea of the ramifications of your decision re vaccination ? Do you actually know what is contained within a jab? Vaccination will be recognised as the biggest con/scam ‘ever’ with devastating and lasting effects throughout the generations to come ,all of which are horrific! Please ,if you are a man of integrity, caring and have a real desire to do your best for humanity do your diligent research on this important topic. The overwhelming influence/ power and clever propaganda consistently pumped through the media has the majority blindly ‘following the heard’ and sadly believing that the injection of pure toxic poison into a defenceless baby can actually improve health and prevent disease when it is just the opposite! Simply take a look at the ingredience and you will not need to go any further ,other than to check out the ‘real’ stats which will tell you that sickness disease and death by disease and Western medicine policies is almost in plague proportion.

This process of blackmail must not be allowed to happen as it will only result in more illness disease and death. Big Pharma has got ‘most’ of the human race completely fooled and following in a heard like fashion like ‘lambs to the slaughter’ .

TS

Divider 1

Dear Federal Minister Dutton, State Health Ministers and Shadow Health Ministers,

I write with regard to tomorrows Ministers meeting in Brisbane, pertaining to a proposal by Minister Springborg to consider the abolishment of the Family Tax Benefit Part A, to parents that have a Conscientious Objection to vaccinating their children.

I note with concern: “Mr Dutton said he didn’t want to penalise forgetful parents but said a “sterner conversation” was needed with parents who were actively choosing not to vaccinate.”

Minister Dutton; realistically, that is quite threatening, intimidating and surely not in line with our Australian Democratic Westminster system; to which I might inconsequently add; am of 7th generation and my children 8th; with my parental Grandfather being a highly decorated and well literary published Senior Naval Officer.

So, Minister Dutton, the proposed idea is, to remove legitimate child directed payments from tax paying parents, whom by all accounts under recent media touting, are of an “upper class, highly educated and from wealthy suburbs”. If this were seen to be true, do you think the withdrawal of $726.00 is really going to impact upon their educated choice? I think not. I believe the likely outcome will be a rush from those driven by the dollar not education to line their children up for vaccination, so that the purchase of a new television is not impeded. But realistically, these individuals have already vaccinated their children and purchased their new TV! Parents that have duly educated themselves on the very real and possible dangers of vaccination are not swayed by this threat, but they will stand firm on their right to have a choice about their parenting without threat of punishment.

I have several major concerns with the proposed policy:

Firstly; vaccination in this country is not mandated by law;

Secondly; we have no established legal portal to manage vaccine injury and death in this country; currently the onus is on the (uninformed) parent;

Thirdly; this is in direct conflict of basic human rights and choice in this country;

Lastly; DISCRIMINATION. I need say no more; although, I am quite sure, as an educated, tax paying minority group that is being singled out for making choices for their children; I’m pretty sure that can be called DISCRIMINATION.

Minister Dutton, if your desire is to have a fully vaccinated child population; then my suggestion to you all is, to make vaccines unequivocally safe, provide proof of efficacy through double-blind placebo testing, provide a legal and financial safety-net for vaccine injuries, and perhaps, just perhaps, start telling everyone the truth!

Realistically, a traditionally unvaccinated child is going to be a potentially lesser burden on our health system; a majority of whom are free from diabetes, heart disease, eczema, neurological disorders, anaphylactic allergies – the list goes on. Does this entitle said taxpaying parents to a reduction in their Medicare levy?

Minister, have you considered the aspect of children that are unable to be vaccinated for health reasons? How would this be classified? Will every unvaccinated child be entitled to a free complete health examination by the child’s own Medical Practitioner; blood, stool and saliva testing, DNA and genetic testing to ensure that they are not at an increased risk of becoming vaccine damaged? I think the important part of this is classification, followed by clarification.

If it is the Government’s suggestion that a persons educated and informed health choices are now in the hands of elected officials; then perhaps non-vaccinating parents can share with you the expenses of raising said children, given that everyone’s choices about parenting are being rapidly removed. I am sure many would welcome your full contribution to their schooling, sports and general living expenses!

Whilst having this opportunity to communicate with you; I would request, that part of your meeting tomorrow address the need for a democratic ruling and implemented law, to ensure that all Practitioners that are licensed to vaccinate both children and adults, are mandated by law to provide full disclosure to the parent or patient to whom is being vaccinated. Yes, this would include a complete copy of the package inserts found in vaccines, a comprehensive discussion with patient or parent about the very real potential dangers, a complete listing of ingredients and Adjuvants and manufacturing processes, as well as advising the parties, that on accepting said information; they are in fact taking full responsibility for any adverse reactions. They should also be informed that there is no re-course for compensation or assistance for vaccine injury in this country, and any desire to do so, would be a costly and lengthy legal battle on their behalf.

In finality Ministers; this is very shaky ground indeed. If you insist on pursuing this discriminatory and undemocratic law; then, in all fairness to democracy, an implementation of the above proposal regarding disclosure and indemnity be implemented as well. I’m quite sure that, with this information provided directly from Practitioner to patient, that they surely would not sway away from vaccination – or would they?

AN

Divider 1

Dear Minister

REMOVING CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTION AND PAYMENTS

This is discrimination; it is disgusting what this Government is trying to do. Vaccination should be free choice. Is the Government planning on a Vaccine Injury scheme? Parents can then sue the government for ordering their child’s injury or death.

So parents that drink, smoke, and/or do drugs, abuse, feed them junk food, these people deserve these payments? You are saying these people are better parents than those who choose not to put toxins in their children’s delicate bodies. Just want to clarify that. But parents who have taken the time to check out all avenues of their child’s health, and have come to the decision that vaccination is not one of the avenues they will take because of it’s lack of testing and a history of worldwide adverse reactions; they are to be punished; these children (and some of them are actually siblings of vaccine injured children), these beautiful innocent children must suffer at the hands of bureaucratic power driven Government officials.

The financial ramifications of the Health Minister’s plan do not concern me personally, but the ethics behind his decision do. It is not the Health Minister, Government or Doctor who pay the price if a child is vaccine injured. It is the parents burden to carry, so the choice should be theirs, without coercion from draconian and discriminatory Government policies.

If I sound angry or like a crazy person, I feel I have a right too. I’m old, I’ve seen the diseases and I can tell you all this hype in the media is rubbish and obviously money driven.

This vaccination push has been going on for years and it is to the point where even the “big wig” researchers are afraid to say anything against vaccines for fear of being discredited. They have seen what happens when a scientist or researcher comes out against vaccines, it’s not pretty.

Have you even looked at the information available? And I don’t mean what you are fed by your advisors, get off your behind and Google reactions to Gardisal; at least four countries have now stopped it because of the injuries from the vaccine, in the thousands I might add. Reactions to MMR, DPT, Flu and all the rest.

Look up the package inserts for the vaccines, they will tell you about the reactions that have happened. It’s an interesting read. http://www.vaccinesafety.edu/package_inserts.htm

Then there is the historical data. These childhood diseases were almost gone through natural fruition before vaccines were even on the market. Once the vaccines were introduced, the usual occurrence was a rise in the disease. What does that tell you? I could give you a history lesson but it took me 20 years of research and reading (no Google back then) so I doubt one letter is going to be enough.

Basically, vaccines are toxic (thimerosal (mercury), aluminium, formaldehyde etc), contaminated (monkey DNA and viruses, aborted human foetal tissue, chicken viruses, pig viruses…it’s a long list) and ineffective. Check out the attached excipient table just as a sample. We still have outbreaks and it is the vaccinated that get the disease, very few un-vaccinated; what does that tell you? Not to mention that vaccinated individuals can shed the viruses they have been vaccinated with!

Think long and hard.
DM

Divider 1

Dear Ministers,

Re: Today’s health ministers’ meeting in Brisbane and agenda issue of VACCINATION

The purpose of this letter is primarily to give legal constructive notice with regard to the meeting in Brisbane today of federal and state health ministers, and the subject of vaccination that has been proposed by Mr Springborg and Mr Dutton to be to be included on the agenda.

Australian Immunisation Handbook

My friends, colleagues and I find it extraordinary that it appears that we need to refer some health ministers to directions that are, with substantial legal foundation, contained in the Commonwealth Government’s own Australian Immunisation Handbook (the latest (10th) edition, published 2013)(”Handbook”), in relation to vaccination, as of course is applicable equally to all medical procedures (other than in emergency situations):

“2.1.3 Valid Consent
… For consent to be legally valid, the following elements must be present:6,8
1. It must be given by a person with legal capacity, and of sufficient intellectual capacity to understand the implications of being vaccinated.
2. It must be given voluntarily in the absence of undue pressure, coercion or manipulation.
3. It must cover the specific procedure that is to be performed.
4. 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.”

Why does the Handbook contain these directions? It is because any form of meddling with a person’s body constitutes common law assault, unless there is fully informed (with the information fully understood), totally voluntary consent of the patient or their parent/carer.

Common Law

In Secretary, Department of Health and Community Services v JWB and SMB [1992] HCA 15, the Commentaries of Blackstone (9) 17th ed. (1830), vol 3, p 120 were accordingly quoted as follows:
“ ‘(T)he law cannot draw the line between different degrees of violence, and therefore totally prohibits the first and lowest stage of it; every man’s person being sacred, and no other having a right to meddle with it, in any the slightest manner’ “.

Hence, such meddling without fully informed consent would constitute assault regardless of whether or not any damage is occasioned, but:
a) the assault is especially serious when the meddling is invasive, and
b) the assault is more serious still when it is of a nature that to any degree is experimental in nature (which applies when there is any need for post-marketing surveillance), and
c) the assault is still more serious when it is fully acknowledged (by the Commonwealth Government itself), that it can occasion serious harm, even death itself.

All of these three circumstances, a), b) and c) obviously apply in the case of vaccination.

This is notwithstanding the seriously and obviously flawed “science” behind vaccination, which is the likely reason for the greater refusal rate amongst the more educated in the community (and amongst medical doctors themselves).

Existing Law is already in breach of common law and must be reversed

Even Commonwealth and state laws as they exist already today are in breach of the aforesaid criteria for valid consent, because in certain circumstances, parents who choose to exercise their God-given right not to vaccinate are required to have a conscientious objection form signed by a medical doctor. The doctor then becomes a potential obstacle to the parents’ exercise of their right to choose “in the absence of undue pressure, coercion or manipulation”.

Hence the legislation changes that have imposed this existing requirement ought, in fact, be reversed.

Instead we have a proposal for more serious breaches?

Instead, the Federal Health Minister, Mr Peter Dutton, and the Queensland Health Minister, Mr Lawrence Springborg, appear to be desirous of applying even further, and significant “undue pressure, coercion or manipulation”.

It is time that all ministers:
–          wake up and smell the law – the common law, and
–          remember that pursuant to the Preamble of our Federal Constitution and its stated reliance upon “the blessing of Almighty God”, “the supreme absolute and uncontrollable authority remains with the people”[1], so there is no provision therein for any “nanny” state nor worse, a “bully” state, and
–          remember that the ministers have accordingly been elected to serve electors, not to cause electors to be subjected to a “stern conversation” (these offensive words were purportedly spoken recently by Mr Dutton) on the basis of, despite being already placed under undue pressure, their courage to remain strong and exercise their God-given inalienable right to make the health choice they believe is best for their own children, and
–          be mindful that helping to preserve, instead of to destroy, the precious freedoms for which our forefathers died, may indeed also benefit their own descendants.

Yours sincerely

BH

Divider 1

Dear Mister Dutton,

Your move to withdraw family tax benefit to parents who have an ethical objection to vaccinations is in keeping with the usual modus operandi of right wing governments.

Firstly, let me remind you, you are an employee of the people, you are not an appointed authority to lord it over the people. Not only are you violating the fundamental precepts of democracy with such draconian discrimination, but you are acting with complete irrationality.

I am sure that pharmaceutical giants contribute hugely to your party’s funds and that you therefore feel you must act on their behalf to improve their profits, however, you seem to be under the impression that as an elected official you have the right to tell families that their young children must be injected with dangerous pharmaceuticals or they will fail to receive benefits that other families receive, when such benefits are garnered from all tax payer’s money.

Answer these questions: Why can’t a parent whose previously healthy child exhibits seizures, brain retardation and other severe maladies, or death, immediately after a vaccination event sue the pharmaceutical company that gave them the vaccination? Furthermore, if that family was forced to give their child such a vaccination against their will, as you would have it, why can’t that family sue your government for forcing them into such action? Putting the burden of proof on the family when such a catastrophe has an obvious source is the same defence as  tobacco giants making lung cancer sufferers prove the connection to cigarettes – fundamentally dishonest and reprehensible.

If you believe so firmly in vaccination, and claim that 90% of children are vaccinated, then why are you afraid of the other 10%? If children are vaccinated, then what threat is there to them from unvaccinated children? According to you vaccination makes those with it invulnerable. If this is not true, then why are you bullying families to use medicines that are faulty?

I have no children, but if I did I would not raise them in this country under a government like yours.

One can only wonder why anyone anywhere votes for right wing political parties. They discriminate against the elderly, the unemployed, rape health and education, and favor mega industries over the very people they have been hired to protect. It is a fact that under right wing governments everywhere the suicide rate within the general population increases.

Sincerely,
CC

Divider 1

Dear Honourable Health Minister,
I am writing to express my opposition to the withdrawal of family tax payments to parents with an ethical objection to vaccinations. I consider myself to be an intelligent, logical and devoted parent. I have two university degrees in the fields of anatomy and the medical sciences. I researched this issue considerably and it came down to a risk/benefit analysis for me.
One of my jobs as a mum is to ensure my child is as healthy as possible. To this end, I do a number of things to achieve this. I’ve been lucky enough to fully breastfeed my child. He eats mostly organic produce. He has a probiotic daily to promote gastrointestinal health (important for appropriate immune responses). He has regular chiropractic adjustments to assist his motor and cognitive development. He attends his scheduled child health nurse/medical doctor visits. He plays outside in the dirt, with our pets and other kids to stimulate his immune system (among other things). I keep a clean but unsterile home..…. I could go on….
All of these things move him further toward health and further away from sickness on the health/sickness continuum. As a result and possibly with a little luck, he is, by far, the healthiest child I know. In his first 18 months, other than an initial reflux problem, he has had one runny nose lasting a couple of days. Period. That’s it. I’ve seen other children (all vaccinated or partially vaccinated) suffer with illness regularly. We know that disease effects those susceptible to it, not just those in the presence of infectious agents. We can agree that it therefore makes sense to make one less susceptible to disease. It is my belief that to make one less susceptible, one must be as healthy as possible, i.e. closer to health on the health/sickness continuum. Does it make sense to administer substances with known toxins inherent in their make up? This, it would seem, would bring one further from health, lowering one’s resistance to illness and making one more vulnerable (susceptible) to disease in the first place. Have you ever wondered why some vaccinated children still fall prey to the illnesses they have been vaccinated against? Yes, I understand some of these substances are required, to invoke the response considered desirable in a vaccine. But is this the best way?? There has been so much debate on this topic for a very long time. Much toing and froing. Many statistics quoted. Some credible, some downright fraudulent, on both sides of the debate. This is a complicated issue. There are many questions regarding risk. Many questions yet to be asked (some that won’t be asked) by those producing the supporting evidence, and many conflicts of interest. Researching the safety of vaccines must include the testing of all of the ingredients present in a vaccine, not just the active ingredients, to be deemed safe. It seems odd to me. From what I’ve seen, people on both sides of the debate decide on their stance, and then look for supporting evidence with a coloured view of the issue, instead of the other way round.
On the issue of benefit, for me, questions have also arisen. We constantly hear vaccination being hailed as the reason many of these diseases are not seen (much) anymore. Looking historically, can we really credit vaccination with this? Looking at the rate of decline before the introduction of vaccination, I would question this. Yes, there has been evidence to suggest vaccines are effective at promoting an immune response (which is very different from achieving immunity) and reducing the rates of these diseases. But evidence would also suggest that vaccines might only be a contributing factor in disease decline. Why does vaccination not always work? Is the vaccination status of children succumbing to these so-called vaccine preventable diseases acknowledged? The immune system is so very complicated. To assume we know exactly how it works is, at best, a tad arrogant. Are we causing damage in ways yet to be researched? How will future generations be effected? Is there a link or at least partial link between increased vaccination rates and the decreasing health in kids today? Not just the much debated behavioural problems, but asthma, allergy, obesity, auto immune conditions such as diabetes etc. And importantly, why has research into decreasing child health included a multitude of factors but excluded one of the most obvious factors? So many questions to ponder.
I would hope any parent would ask questions, source information and advice and come to a conclusion that works best for their family. In the end, we chose not to vaccinate. That does not mean we do nothing, or are neglectful. We simply chose another way. I am not opposed to those that do choose to vaccinate their children or themselves.
On a personal note, I have witnessed my husband experience serious adverse reactions to a number of vaccinations, particularly hepatitis B and more recently, the typhoid, polio and meningitis vaccines. Some of these adverse reactions are ongoing and debilitating. Why on earth would I take the risk and expose my child to these vaccines, knowing the effect they have on his father? Would you?
So, the idea of jumping the gun and making vaccination compulsory or withdrawing government entitlements to parents who object to vaccination, simply scares the hell out of me. Not just because of the immediate health implications for my family, and for that matter, the community at large, but for the dangerous precedent this move would set. Who decides what’s best for us? Who promoted them to such a task? Who makes sure these people remain accountable and free from bias? Who decided that we, as parents, are incapable of sourcing credible information and making intelligent decisions? Since when is this a country that tramples on our fundamental right to our own bodies? Will this lead to other rights being taken away in the future? What happened to self-determination and informed consent?
It is not only my right, but also my obligation to ask these questions. In the end, it is not so much the issue of vaccination, but of the coercive and unjust measures to ensure vaccination and the suppression of freedom of information, that has me so concerned. So in conclusion, I simply state that withdrawing government entitlements to parents who object to vaccination is a deal breaker for me. I cannot give my vote to any individual or party that supports such legislation.

Yours sincerely,
LB

 

Divider 1

To whom It may concerne;
I’m just writing to express my disappointment in the fact that you are trying to take away my right as a democratic voter by taking away my rights to receive government entitlements based upon my decision not to vaccinate my children.  I absolutely oppose this decision and as an  Australian paying taxes I should be entitled to make my own choice on how I bring my children up without being penalised.
Myself and my partner have not made this decision lightly, as we did our research and decided not to vaccinate my children, however our decision also included the fact that we be responsible for our children health by living a healthy lifestyle.  My children are rarely sick and if they are sick  they recover quicker than other children.  I spend a lot more money on keeping my children in a healthy lifestyle ie naturopathy, homeopathy, chiropractic , kinesiology rather than parents who do no research, feed their children rubbish, feed them Panadol and are constantly at the doctors putting a strain on our Medicare system.  However, you want to penalise me for living a healthier lifestyle which includes not vaccinating.
You want me to have faith in these vaccines, how can I when my daughter recently was admitted to hospital with a partially cut Achilles tendon, I allowed the doctors to give her the Tetnus injection (only because it was separate and not combined with other vaccines), however after they administered this injection they returned a short time later to inform me that the vaccine was 3 months out of date but don’t worry.  How can I not be!
At least we have done our research before making our difficult decision unlike those parents who have vaccinated their children because “they just do what they are told” or “just bury their heads in the sand”.  How is it that by living in a democratic society we cannot make a healthy decision without being penalised (or being bribed).  Absolutely shamefull!

Regards,
JS

Divider 1Dear Minister Dutton,

Thank you for taking time to read my letter. I appreciate the busy demands that are placed on Federal health ministry. In a recent Courier Mail article you are quoted that a “sterner conversation” was needed with parents who were actively choosing not to vaccinate. If I may, I would like to share with you some of my thoughts about Vaccine compliance to safe guard our children. I fully supported the concept of vaccination, having made sure my tetanus vaccination was up to date,  having the flu vaccination as I hate having the flu and having the hep B shot. Later I started to hear disturbing reports of one of a friends daughter who had a developed a high temperature and taken her first fit after her first MMR shots and continues to fit to this day. Later when I married my wife, she told the story of her Aunt who had been completely normal until the day she received her MMR vaccine. That night she started to have fits for the rest of her life until one of those fits ended her life early. When I had children I very spent many hours looking at this matter, wanting to do the right thing. I read many journal articles, the best was a compilation of over 500 studies, some showing there were no risks to vaccination, and some showing that there were. I also spoke to my physician about my concerns. Even United States FDA government documents from people who support or research vaccines have doubts as to the safety of Vaccines as the following document shows. (I have attached the document to this email.)

http://www.fda.gov/downloads/biologicsbloodvaccines/newsevents/workshopsmeetingsconferences/transcriptsminutes/ucm056219.pdf

“..Does anybody know if vaccines have been checked for foamy virus contamination”  Answer Maxine Linial PH.D “As far as I know, no.” Page 74

Ron Desrosiers Ph.D “I don’t worry so much about the agents that one can test for. I worry about the agents that you can’t test for, that you don’t know about’ Page 99

Dr Engler, walter reed army medical centre
“I just wanted to make a comment and ask a broad question to challenge the panel, speaking from the perspective of a clinician and an educator, trying to translate the contents of meetings like this and the recent Thimerosal meeting for regular folks whether it’s providers or the patients. And the complexity alone, and when people say.”I worry about the unknown agents,” we have to worry about foamy virus transmission, lentivirus insertion into herpes, and that all translates into, for the common man, woman, and child, is there a bad disease with chronic consequences that can result  from immunization…………An awful lot of what you all have discussed is very hard to translate, but what’s left is, “gee, I’m not sure that this is safe.” from your mouths….” page 102,103.

Then we have the disturbing report of a fatal case of pertussis infection in a child care center where all children were fully vaccinated and when this was investigated the conclusion was that Vaccinated children may be asymptomatic reservoirs for infection. (Emerging Infectious Diseases Vol 6, No 5, September-October 2000).  As you will recall the same thing happened in Australian Hospitals when fully vaccinated staff had whooping cough.

I have to confess that the more I look into this subject the more expansive it becomes. The simple message in the Media is that vaccination is safe and effective.  While this mantra is both loud and long, it does not convey the complexity of this issue. Some would have us believe there is no debate about Vaccines and that the science complete and over. If this is true then it is not science but a religious dogma. In science the debate is never over.

Reading congressional US meeting transcripts, of both those who support vaccination and those who do not,  shows to me, that this issue is not settled and is becoming very expensive to maintain. The US Vaccine compensation fund is not looking very good and is not without its problems as noted by pulitzer prize winning author John Hanchette, professor of journalism at St. Bonaventure university in his article http://www.niagarafallsreporter.com/hanchette53.html

There is much rhetoric usually from powerful industry groups/media that usually goes along the lines that science is overwhelmingly supportive of vaccinations. One only has to look at the H1N1 debacle and the harm caused to children with the CSL vaccine and the expensive Tamiflu antiviral which is now reported to be of little use according to.

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/antiviral-drug-stockpile-a-waste-of-money-says-study-20140410-zqt3i.html

When I look at the United States VAERS data base It is very evident that vaccination can carry significant risks including death, like a lot of medical interventions. Given this, it is clearly a matter of informed consent rather then the state forcing or quasi forcing a medical intervention that carries risks. If the state uses coercion then this also implies redress against the state in the case of harm. I believe the current practice of sending home children who are seen at risk in the even of and outbreak is the wisest and tested course. In addition, the history I have seen in several countries certainly does not support the notion that vaccinations saved the world or influenced the rapid decline of disease. The vaccine industry would like us to believe this, but they were mostly a Jonny-come-lately component. If someone does have overwhelming evidence (not opinion) I would be delighted if it could be forward it to me.

Where are the double-blind Placebo-controlled studies that prove the safety and effectiveness of vaccines?
Where are the scientific evidence that confirm the long-term safety and effectiveness of vaccines?
How can the safety and mechanism of vaccines in the human body are scientifically proven if their pharmacokinetics are never examined or analysed in a vaccine study?
Where are the studies showing the health benefits between those who have and have not been vaccinated?

The State needs to be very careful with powerful interest groups that want to force a particular paradigm or product in one direction which they directly or indirectly profit rather than letting people make informed decisions which is a long and established medical ethic.  It is also of concern if the state starts to either actively or passively discriminate against its citizens because they hold a different view after having studied the matter. History is littered with examples of minority groups who have different views contrary to the established science or religion of the day being persecuted. As a democratic society his was the whole point that the Australian Parliament was making in having people go to their local Doctor to have a Conscientious Objector form signed so they were aware of both the risks and benefits.

I would ask that you put this matter into perspective given that Iatrogenic injury is magnitudes larger in cost to the community and makes so called vaccine preventable injury infinitesimally small. Yet I don’t know anyone that wants to ban doctors. I would ask that you support people who make informed decisions about their children in line with the Australian Health Care Rights and the ethos of the medical community.

Thank you for your time and commitment in representing the people of Australia.

Respectfully
BH

Divider 1Dear Sir(s)

It has been brought to my attention that you are planning to vote on removing parental rights to be a conscientious objector when it comes to childhood vaccinations. Thereby affecting their entitlement to Family Tax Benefits.

I understand that we would all like to live in a world without disease. Our natural immune systems are designed to develop natural antibodies when we come into contact with viruses and bacteria, pathogens and toxins. Unfortunately vaccinations introduce us to man made replica viruses and bacteria, pathogens, toxic heavy metals, deceased animal and human tissue, unnatural hormones all of which can have (in some instances) catastrophic affects in the recipient leading to death, serious and permanent disability, cellular damage amongst many vaccine side effects. There are court cases in progress and completed whereby vaccine could be and has been proven to be the cause of devastating and life changing effects within the recipient(s) and their families.

For these reasons and a great many others, this decision MUST and SHOULD remain the choice of the parents. They do not make the decision lightly in whichever direction they choose. Educated parents take away the information given to them, research their options and discuss their concerns with family, friends and health care professionals.

Please take this into consideration when making your decision.

Kind regards

D

Divider 1
I am a voter in New South Wales, previously having lived in Kallangur, QLD.

I object strongly to any moves to remove access to Government entitlements based on our vaccination decision.

This is total discrimination. When the authorities compare the health of the vaccinated and unvaccinated, and do it according to valid scientific procedures, then there is room for proper debate. Until this happens, there is no way government should be contemplating penalising people based on their decisions. If proper evidence is not being looked at, then you will continue to hear more and more prejudice in the community, and such a lot of unnecessary hate.
Conscientious objectors are people who have made carefully thought out decisions. When you know that something has caused unwanted side effects, you have the right to reject that something, especially when it comes to health. Health decisions should be made carefully with information on the subject freely available, not under threat of punishment.
Government continues to ignore that some of us have suffered greatly from the effects of vaccines, some much more than others, but fail to make the necessary impartial investigations. Those who have lost loved ones should never have it explained away as coincidence, and be made to look simple minded.  Taking away benefits based on vaccination status, in many cases simply means further punishing victims of  vaccination.
We need to investigate just how strong those links between vaccines and sides effects really are and be sure people know these before accepting vaccines. It would seem obvious since labelling is important everywhere else. We should know if statistically there is evidence showing our children are more susceptible than others, eg if  Archie Kalikoneros’ work with Aboriginal children is still just as relevant today.
Autism keeps rearing its head in the debate, – again rigorous investigative work needs to be carried out. How much government funding is being taken up with this disorder?

To sum up, our decisions especially in the case of our health should be freely made by ourselves, with quality research by independent parties freely available and promoted and people’s concerns should never be put down. Punishment  and discrimination for making valid choices is not acceptable.
Further, I strongly object to the notion that forgetfulness is ok, but those who have made choices in life should be subject to sterner conversations. Sounds like Nazi Germany.

Please make your time in Parliament a time for democracy to shine through.
Yours faithfully,
SM

Divider 1Dear Ministers,

I write to voice in the strongest possible terms, my protest against the removal of Family Benefits for those families who choose not to vaccinate their children!
I have an Honours Degree in Pharmacy from Sydney University and a Postgraduate Diploma in Clinical Nutrition. I am a much-published author. In 2011 I received the Sydney University Pharmacy Alumni Award for Achievement for my work (over more than 30 years) to improve the health of both parents before they conceive a child. My goal in promoting preconception healthcare is to improve every aspect of reproductive health and the health of the unborn child, which includes strengthening the child’s immune system by natural means!

I know of many like myself, intelligent, informed and concerned individuals, involved in the delivery of true preventive healthcare, who feel as I do about the issue of vaccination.

What’s more, concerns about vaccination are now also voiced by those once convinced of its benefits. For example Tetyana Obukhanych, with a Ph.D. in IMMUNOLOGY recently stated …

“I know of many alternative health practitioners and even of a few pediatricians who have embraced the non-vaccination approach to health. However, I have yet to encounter one among my own kind: a scientist in the trenches of mainstream biomedical research who does not regard vaccines as the greatest invention of medicine.

I never imagined myself in this position, least so in the very beginning of my Ph.D. research training in immunology. In fact, at that time, I was very enthusiastic about the concept of vaccination, just like any typical immunologist. However, after years of doing research in immunology, observing scientific activities of my superiors, and analyzing vaccine issues, I realized that vaccination is one of the most deceptive inventions the science could ever convince the world to accept.”

Hardly an encouraging view on vaccination!

At a personal level, I am 66 years old and attribute my robust good health throughout my entire life, to the fact that my mother had the great wisdom not to vaccinate me. I have two sons – aged 24 and 28 – also totally unvaccinated. In their combined 52 years on this planet, they have together seen a doctor 6 times (the average number of visits for a newborn in the first YEAR of life). My 9 week old grandson will follow in the family footsteps.

I am therefore shocked that in this democracy, the payments that should flow to his parents, and to the many other couples who follow my recommendations, all of whom have spent much time, effort and money on true health-promoting measures, may stop!

I await your early response

Yours faithfully
JR

Divider 1

Greens confirm anti-choice stance

LATE BREAKING NEWS FOLLOWING YESTERDAY’S POST

http://nocompulsoryvaccination.com/2013/09/04/the-greens-deceiving-voters-or-just-playing-dumb/

Greens confirm they will remove parents’ choice

– Greg Beattie

A letter written by a staffer from Greens Senator Richard Di Natale’s office has confirmed the party’s intention to pursue the removal of parental choice from vaccination:

 “The Greens do not support compulsory vaccination. We do however support the government’s recently announced amendments to Family Tax Benefit system… Parents will still be able to decide not to vaccinate their children, but this choice will have a financial impact.”

iStock_000013256542XSmallThis can be taken to mean: “The Greens do not support hunting, holding down, and vaccinating children by force”. (And that’s just as well because it would mean the violation of just about every human right in existence.) “We do however support penalties for those who won’t submit peacefully.” Gotcha.

The letter was received by an AVN supporter just yesterday, a full nine weeks after her request for clarification was received by his office! We can now be certain Di Natale’s recent repeated announcements that the party does not support compulsion was nothing but a deceptive ploy to avoid losing disapproving voters on the eve of tomorrow’s election.

We can also be certain, from its recent actions, that the Greens are now the most anti-choice political force in the land. In NSW Parliament this year they argued vigorously to have all parental choice removed from the ‘No jab, no play’ legislation. They introduced two separate amendments. The first was a blanket attempt to remove all conscientious and religious exemptions. That was voted down. The second was a ‘Plan-B’ attempt to sneak around opposition by suggesting pre-schools could ‘choose’ whether they wanted to accept the children of conscientious and religious objectors. That was also voted down.

It was not long after that Di Natale delivered his error-laden and mischievous address to Federal Parliament, calling for the disbanding of AVN. Was this a burst of frustration?

One thing is clear: a vote for the Greens tomorrow is a vote for medical fundamentalism. If they are given political power we can kiss goodbye our freedom of choice with vaccines. And once this happens it will be virtually impossible to reverse.

The party that once stood for integrity, social justice, and the environment, has just tacked mass-medication onto the list. And like an aggressive cancer it has the potential to kill the host if not removed. It has already paralysed its leaders.

If you value what the Greens once stood for please don’t vote for them tomorrow. Instead send them a clear message that you will not tolerate voter deception being condoned to cover up the party’s intentions. And you will certainly not tolerate your cherished party being infiltrated by industry.

The Greens: Deceiving voters or just playing dumb?

Mistakes, traps, ethics, and integrity

– Greg Beattie

The federal election falls at the end of this week. While the economy, asylum seekers, and education have dominated the airwaves, something else has been brewing…

iStock_000014317717XSmallThe Australian Greens don’t want you to know it, but they are spearheading the push for compulsory vaccination in Australia. They believe there should be no parental choice. They argued vigorously in NSW parliament to have all conscientious exemptions and religious exemptions removed. Fortunately they were defeated (read Hansard here). Shortly after that, their health spokesperson, Senator Richard Di Natale, made his now infamous speech in Federal Parliament calling for the disbanding of the AVN.  Read the speech here.

Surprised? I think most people are. In fact, disbelief is the reaction from many who have traditionally supported the Greens. But it gets worse. In a bizarre recent move, Di Natale confused things by issuing a statement saying neither he nor the Greens supported compulsory vaccination. Has the party changed its stance? Or is he playing a semantic game with the word ‘compulsory’? We have been trying to find out but despite being pressed, neither he nor party leaders, will answer the question. Click here and here to read Di Natale’s statement and letters we have sent asking for clarification.

Love them or hate them one thing is clear: when it comes to vaccination, the Greens are currently the most vehemently and vocally anti-choice political force in Australia. Ironically, it’s a stance they are unwilling to articulate to voters on the eve of this election.

But first a bit of history for those who have not followed the saga. It has now been more than two months since I last attempted to communicate with Senator Christine Milne, leader of the Greens, concerning Di Natale’s outburst in parliament. Two phone calls and three emails to her and not one breath of response! So I contacted deputy leader Adam Bandt three weeks ago and, again, no response. Click here to read all of the emails.

Obviously the issue is something they don’t want anything to do with. Why might that be?

Mistakes

Delete "MISTAKE"We all make mistakes. Just over two months ago Di Natale made a pile of them in parliament. Unfortunately, he didn’t check his story before opening his mouth. I won’t go over all the mistakes but I will mention a few.

He said the AVN claims “… the MMR vaccine causes autism, a claim they know has been thoroughly and comprehensively debunked”. The truth is the AVN says that evidence of a link has been published. And that’s a fact. In fact, since the original ‘Wakefield’ report, more than 80 studies have been published supporting this proposition. And numerous court cases for damages have found in favour of it after considering the competing evidence. Clearly it is a mistake to claim it has been “thoroughly and comprehensively debunked”.

There were a few more in relation to the actual vaccine debate, but the really worrying examples were the ones where he attempted to slander at a personal level.

He said “[former president] Ms Dorey is alleged to have called Chris Kokogei, whose child died of chickenpox, and said that his child died because his child was weak”. The truth is Ms Dorey doesn’t know this man at all and has never had any contact with him whatsoever.

He went further, claiming grieving families have endured “months of harassment from the AVN“. However there is absolutely no evidence of this. The AVN has certainly never harassed any grieving family, and never will.

He also said “To silence critics they take out apprehended violence orders”. Now that’s some imagination. Here’s the truth. Our former president, Ms Dorey, has an AVO against a man because of a series of depraved and threatening phone calls made in the middle of the night to her home. You can read more about this and listen to the calls by clicking here. The calls were traced by police to the man’s home. You may find this difficult to believe, but Di Natale actually named the man and thanked him:

“I am grateful to people like Daniel Raffaele…”

Yes, this all occurred in the same speech. It was obviously a mistake; one of gargantuan proportions. Surely he didn’t mean to do it, but being so ill-informed, he didn’t even know what the AVO was about, and that the man he was thanking was the subject of it. Again you can listen to the phone calls by clicking the link above.

As I said, we all make mistakes. Perhaps we don’t often make this many in one go, and perhaps we rarely let our carelessness extend so deep, especially when speaking from such a prominent platform. But we’re all different. The question is why did he get so much wrong when he had so much time to prepare his speech?

Traps

He had obviously been lobbied. It’s no secret there is an organised group (calling itself “Stop the AVN”) that formed for this purpose. Its members regularly use smear tactics in an attempt to turn people against the AVN. They’ve been doing it for years. They lobby whoever will listen. Enter Di Natale, who swallowed the stories, hook, line, and sinker. He then made his first mistake. He neglected to contact us.

But that’s part of what ‘hook, line, and sinker’ means, isn’t it? A person falls so completely for a trap that they make not just one but a succession of mistakes. Would you believe he has never contacted the AVN about these stories ever? Still he decided to give parliament a rundown on the organisation, based entirely on the stories.

So question number one is why did he not seek a response first?

The AVN has been a legally constituted consumer organisation and a registered charity for the past 16 years. We promote discussion and support consumers in their quest for information. We also strive to ensure that their right to make free and informed choices is never taken away. We’re publicly available via mail, email, fax and phone. Contact from members of parliament is always welcome: in fact, encouraged.

Ethics

A lesson I learnt in childhood was “whenever you make a mess in life, clean it up before moving on”. Isn’t it true that we’re all judged ultimately, not by the mistakes we make, but by the way we clean up? There are always two options: clean up and move on, or just move on and hope no one saw.

When the Greens were made aware of their mistakes (again please read the emails) they had a choice: clean up the mess, or simply ignore and hope no one saw it happen. They took the latter option and that was the biggest mistake of all.

People historically see the party as ethical. Even those who disagree with Greens policies tend to think of its key players as possessing integrity. According to former leader Bob Brown, the party used the guiding principle of placing one’s self in the shoes of a person 100 years from now and asking, “Will this person thank me for my actions today?”

Graffiti wall with choice, street backgroundI think the Greens were relevant to many for these reasons, but what about the current crop of players? I can’t comment on them all but Di Natale certainly fell short. He knows by now he left a big mess and, in the process, impugned the character of many decent people. He was careless and used his position of influence in an irresponsible way. But, again, that’s a mistake. The real issue is that when it was brought to his attention, and an invitation was extended, he chose to run from his mess.

Christine Milne knows what happened, and rather than face the problem, and manage the clean up, she chose to ignore it. Her party has, via a monumental error of both fact and judgement by its spokesperson, publicly condemned an organisation of decent caring people. And when approached by the organisation’s president to discuss this, she has shunned the opportunity to manage a clean-up. Deputy Adam Bandt has now joined her. This type of behaviour is inexcusable from any political party, but from the Greens it is particularly disappointing.

Fast forward

Whatever damage has been done to their reputation through this is something for the longer term to address. It’s time to get back to the title of this article. Our federal election takes place at the end of this week. What the Greens need to do now, if they wish to salvage any integrity with pro-choice voters, is clarify where they stand regarding compulsion. And they need to do it quickly.

Do they still want to remove all parental choice, as they made clear in the ‘No jab, no play’ debate in NSW parliament? Or have they changed? Do they now support and  respect the right of parents to make choices on this controversial issue, without fear or favour? It’s time to come clean. Voters are waiting…

[This article is a follow-up from earlier posts:]
http://nocompulsoryvaccination.com/2013/06/28/are-greens-showing-their-true-colours/
http://nocompulsoryvaccination.com/2013/07/05/whatever-was-senator-di-natale-thinking/
http://nocompulsoryvaccination.com/2013/07/08/letters-from-avn-members-to-the-greens/