Social media: A Source of Information, Support and a Trap

We are all tough guysI have accounts on Facebook, Twitter, Pinterest, Instagram, LinkedIn and Flickr. They take a bit of time, but I’ve felt that the investment was worth it for the gain received.

News tends to come out very quickly on these venues, so I have stayed on the very cutting edge of updates about vaccination, health and politics. I’ve also liaised with activists around the world in ways that just don’t seem to happen in other venues. We’ve strategised, supported each other and instantly shared information, local events and vaccination and other personal data.

It’s been marvellous!

But it’s also lulled me into a false sense of action.

Armchair warrior

From the comfort of my own chair, I’ve gotten to the end of the day feeling like I’ve accomplished so much when in fact, all I’ve done is talk (and virtual talk at that!)

You see, getting onto social media and saying rah, rah, rah! You’re right and what the government is doing is wrong, makes me feel better; makes me feel like I’m part of the solution; but if that’s all I do, it accomplishes nothing.

Social media has so many benefits, but one of its downsides – and perhaps one of the many reasons why participation in these outlets is openly encouraged by so many businesses and governments (aside from the purposes of data mining and financial gain) is that it keeps ‘the masses’ complacent. It makes us feel like we are participating in the issues we feel passionate about when really, all we’re doing is sending out a bunch of ‘me too’ posts that might make us and the post-recipients feel good, but do nothing to remedy any problems or right any wrongs.

These outlets are a tyrannical government’s dream! Yes, on the one hand, they do allow us to share information quickly, efficiently and with little government interference (Twitter and Facebook being the notable exceptions with censorship and algorithm fiddling constantly suppressing anti-government and anti-corporate interest posts), but on the other hand, they keep us in front of our computers and off the street.

Civil disobedience and protests before social media

An artist's depiction of the Leicester anti-compulsory vaccination protest of 1885 which saw up to 100,000 people marching against compulsory shots.
An artist’s depiction of the Leicester anti-compulsory vaccination protest of 1885 which saw up to 100,000 people marching against compulsory shots.

In the mid-1800s when the UK Parliament first passed compulsory vaccination legislation, without any media or social media, England organised massive protests which were eventually successful at overturning that draconian legislation which, like today’s No Jab, No Pay laws, unfairly targeted those on lower incomes whilst not touching the wealthy.

In the Leicester rally of 1885, as many as 100,000 people marched in protest to these laws – 100,000 people who found out about the protest and got off their arses to publicly protest against government overreach!

Rallies in Sydney, Brisbane and other capital cities last year – with all the benefits of media and social media – only attracted a maximum of 1,000 individuals in each location – far less the second time around.

Why is this? Why is it so difficult today to get people out of their houses to physically attend protests against injustices which, if allowed to continue, may harm or even kill us? Why are we so unwilling to show up, even when we know that NOT showing up will appear to uninformed outsiders to indicate tacit approval or even support of these laws?

I believe that social media is one of the reasons.

Say it to my face

After speaking with many people who fully intended to come to these anti-No Jab, No Pay rallies last year, but who never actually got there, a single theme appeared. I have paraphrased some of the reasons below:

1- I was busy, but I did share it with my friends on Facebook.

2- I was afraid to come, but I emailed a couple of people. Did they turn up?

3- I am SO behind this event, but I just couldn’t make it. I put it out on Twitter and I’m sure lots of my friends would have been there.

4- Great event! Would have loved to have come. I support it 100%. Saw it on Pinterest and did share it with a few friends who I know are on side. Didn’t want to have any blowback from my other friends though.

All of these people believed they were supporting the events and the cause. In their heart, they were actively involved in advancing informed choice because they shared information on social media. Don’t get me wrong – sharing is VERY important, but it will take so much more than that to overturn discriminatory legislation; to change the minds of an uninformed public, to make Australians understand how wrong it is to coerce parents into doing something to their child that is not (according to the parents) in their best interests.

It takes action – physical action.

It takes letter writing – not just emailing.

It takes protests where tens of thousands turn up.

It takes people getting outside of their comfort zones to speak with friends, family and associates and explain why they support free and informed health choice.

If, like me, you have been a keyboard warrior who hasn’t gotten out much of late, don’t despair! That false sense of action hasn’t been a complete loss. Sharing information and support is one plank in a vital effort to raise the consciousness of Australians everywhere about the dangers facing them, their families and their basic, inalienable human rights.

But it is just ONE plank. There is so much more that needs to be done.

Protest-1900_518x230

Social media can be instrumental in advancing causes and achieving goals. It has brought down governments and informed the world. Without social media, the Arab Spring never would have happened. While it may have started on Twitter, it was only successful because people got out and marched and protested in their hundreds of thousands. We are missing that important final step.

I am going overseas for a few months shortly and won’t be back until early 2017 (2017? How did that happen?????) When I do, I pledge to be more present, more active and more vocal about these issues.

I pledge to do more seminars, provide more information both on and offline and write more letters to politicians and to the editors. I pledge to call more talkback radio stations and speak to more people – both friends and strangers – about why I believe in health freedom (in appropriate circumstances of course – I’m not just going to walk up to complete strangers and say, Hey, do you vaccinate?)

Will you join me? 

Please don’t stop your social media chatter – it’s important. But don’t feel that it’s the be-all and end-all. When the call comes to go to a seminar or a protest march or to visit your members of Parliament, please do it! Be there in the flesh – and make your voices heard.

I would love to hear what you think about this. Please make comments on this blog post.

by Meryl Dorey

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF INVOLUNTARY CONSENT TO VACCINATION

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

…………………………………………………
name of witness

Date: ………………………………………….

 

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

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

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

The wording of the Statutory Declaration should be as follows:

STATUTORY DECLARATION

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

…………………………………………………
name of witness

………….…
date

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Fallacy of False Balance

 

17319874_sAs you probably know, thousands of Australians marched in every capital city in Australia on June 21st to protest against the Abbott government’s planned “No Jab, No Pay” legislation.

The only reason you would know this is because you read about it on Facebook, or on this blog or another website since NONE of the Australian media actually attended or covered these marches. Some independent outlets such as tottnews.com and Fair Dinkum Radio did, but the majority of Australians who will be affected by this new legislation are totally unaware of the potential implications of these tyrannical government moves or of the efforts to oppose them.

The reason for this news blackout is a policy that has government and ‘scientific community’ approval called False Balance.

According to False Balance, there are some issues that are so widely accepted, it would be wrong to report on them except from the point of view of the mainstream.

Climate change is one of these issues and I personally have very little knowledge of those who oppose climate change, but the fact is that those who oppose the government view have had their concerns suppressed and denigrated by mainstream media.

The dangers of fluoride is another such issue and has been for decades, despite mountains of scientific proof that fluoride does not improve the risk of dental caries and can cause significant harm to the health of the population.

Information on vaccination risks and ineffectiveness, however, is the single issue which the media, the government and the medical community have been trying with all their might to completely obliterate. To the point of censorship. To the point of criminalising those who even ask reasonable scientific questions. To the point of destroying the careers of scientists and researchers who have done studies pointing to valid concerns about the harms vaccines can and do cause and the obvious corruption involved in pharmaceutically-sponsored vaccine ‘studies’.

The excuse for this suppression and censorship is False Balance.

Now, I truly believe that the Australian (and world) population is intelligent and discerning enough to view both sides of any scientific issue – as long as they are given information in order to become educated about it. That is what I have always believed but apparently, neither our elected government nor the media agree with that viewpoint.

Because they say that allowing Australians to hear both sides of the vaccination debate is False Balance. That the scientific data proving that – for a percentage of those who receive vaccines – the outcomes can be fatal or life-changing and/or the vaccines themselves may not work to prevent disease or make the person healthy will ‘confuse’ us; that we are not capable of understanding or making our own decisions and as a result, we need the government to tell us what to do with our children’s and our own bodies.

The only excuse for exercising censorship in the name of False Balance is an incorrect assumption that Australians are too stupid to read or view information and understand how that information relates to their own lives.

False Balance is the reason why every single doctor, medical authority, scientist and health minister has said no when challenged to present their information on the safety and effectiveness of vaccines to a live audience. In fact, even when the magazine I used to publish, Informed Choice, asked for an article on the benefits of vaccination, that request was declined by everyone who was asked.

Using False Balance, the government and the medical community can continue to hide behind their lies about vaccination. They can persist in making claims that are completely unsupported by evidence (such as the claims that vaccines don’t cause reactions or deaths; and that vaccines will only work if everyone takes them).

There is no such thing as false balance – there is only freedom of information and the ability to make decisions without fear of bullying, financial penalties or other forms of duress.

 

 

If you do nothing else today, please watch and share this video of Lissa Weckert speaking at the No Jab, No Pay rally in Brisbane on June 21, 2015. There is another march scheduled for September this year. Please be sure to subscribe to this blog as we will keep you informed of all future actions to protect health rights and prevent compulsory vaccination.