Are you a frog?

There is an old parable that goes something like this: 

If you try to put a frog into a pot of boiling water, they will jump right out, thereby saving themselves. But if you put them into a pot of cool water and slowly increase the heat, they will stay in there until they are boiled alive.

I’m not sure if this has ever been tested, but I am reminded of this story by what has been happening in Australia recently – and especially by the announcement today that Prime Minister Rupert Murdoch (sorry, I meant to say Malcolm Turnbull) is taking $28 per child per fortnight away from any family that does not comply with Australia’s ‘one-size-fits-all’ vaccination regimen.

Let’s recap.

Families who make informed and conscientious choices not to expose their children to vaccines which have never been independently tested for either safety or effectiveness and which the High Court of Ireland and the US Supreme Court have labelled as unavoidably unsafe products, have already lost:

The $726 end of year Family Tax Benefit Supplement Part A which is a tax rebate previously given to all Australian families. The government is phasing this payment out for all Australian starting with the end of this financial year and finishing on July 1, 2018.

Approximately $14,000 per child per year in childcare benefits which are no longer accessible to anyone who has refused to subject their children vaccines.

But wait, there’s more

Now, Rupert Turnbull has announced that families who don’t vaccinate (named, depending on the media report you see, as either anti-vaxxers or pig-headed – sometimes both!) will lose an additional $28 a fortnight for each unvaccinated child from their Family Tax Benefit fortnightly payments, adding approximately $530 per year per child to the hit they have already taken for making legitimate, informed health choices.

It is apparent that our gover-maceutical authorities are treating us like frogs. If we won’t do what they tell us to do, they will slowly turn the heat up until we either following their orders regarding our family’s health or agree to be boiled to death.

I don’t know about you, but the only end result of that sort of compliance is croaking – one way or another!

I’ve had enough! Have you?

So I’ve decided to stand my ground – right here and right now. That line has been drawn in the sand and they will step over it only over my dead body.

Here is my plan of action – I will be changing this as I learn more and speak with others who are far cleverer than I am about this issue:

  • I will be making yet another appointment with my member of parliament to try and educate them about why it is wrong to discriminate against citizens in a democratic nation. I am going to take with me this wonderful document put together by someone on Facebook as well as reading the information on this page put together by the AVN.
  • I will be attending the No Jab No Pay/No Play Rally in Brisbane on May 28th and urge you all to make your very best effort to go to your nearest rally (and if there isn’t one, to organise one!). Here is a page with information on all currently-planned rallies. I am also looking into chartering buses to bring people from my area to Brisbane. Maybe you want to investigate the same thing where you live?
  • Wherever possible, I will be commenting on articles and talkback radio programs that are publishing or airing lies about this issue. I will make sure that my voice is heard as many in the community have no idea that this is not so much a matter of health as it is a matter of basic human rights.


How about you? Will you join me in taking action to protect yourselves and your families or will you just stay in the hot water?

 

 

 

Who’s REALLY picking cherries, Jane?

I got an email from my old ‘friend’, Jane Hansen this morning and really, it’s been far too long since we two have communicated. You know how it is. Life gets busy, kids are growing, places to go, people to see…

cherry cartoon

But Jane took the time to drop me a quick line and for that, I’m very grateful

I had just sent a copy of Dr Brian Martin’s latest article, News with a negative frame: a vaccination case study, to some social networking pages I follow and the email lists I help maintain. And darned if I didn’t forget to include Jane on that email – so sorry! But all’s well because she got the email anyway.

For those who haven’t yet read this article, I highly recommend you do! It concerns negative and biased coverage regarding Dr Judy Wilyman’s PhD from the University of Wollongong by Kylar Loussikian of the Australian newspaper in particular, and the Australian media in general.

You see, there are some journalists out there who apparently believe that those who hold a contrary position on scientific issues (such as vaccination) should not be able to obtain a PhD – nor, it seems, should they be allowed a voice in the public debate. Hard to imagine, I know!

And Jane, bless her little heart, appears to be one of those journalists too. Jane, we really do have to talk…

In her usual spontaneous style, Jane’s email to me was direct and straight to the point:

You’re the queen of twisting truth Meryl

Gardasil is one of the most heavily studies vaccines around and one of the most effective. To ignore the vast body of science on this is pure ignorance.

Now Jane, I really am trying to work with you on this – really! But I have searched Dr Martin’s article for even one mention of Gardasil and it might surprise you (or not) to know that it is not mentioned even once. There is a short mention of HPV – the virus that Gardasil is meant to protect against – but that mention is made, not to discuss the science behind HPV vaccination, but simply to quote a paragraph from the Australian newspaper article in question.

So, trying to be helpful because after all, I really ‘get’ you, I offered the following response:

Did you actually read the article, Jane? If so, what is your objection to what Dr Martin has said? Where has he gone wrong? Please feel free to share your insight on this article with either myself or Dr Martin.

He was most particularly NOT not talking about the science behind vaccination which is what leads me to believe that you did not read the article you are replying to. Dr Martin was speaking about how the media uses language to frame an argument in such a way that the truth of matters is ignored and instead, a particular barrow is pushed based purely on what it is the media wishes to propound.
Please read Dr Martin’s article and if you have any criticisms, I am sure he would be most happy to hear them and to respond to you.
Meryl
PS – why are you bringing up Gardasil? What did that have to do with Dr Martin’s article or Dr Wilyman’s PhD from the UOW? You seem to have strayed very far from the point, Jane.

Instead of thanking me for so kindly and politely pointing out the errors of your way, Jane, you instead sent me the following email:

I don’t engage with cherry pickers. Goodbye

Well! May I remind you, Jane, that you were the one who contacted me! So any engagement was totally and absolutely down to you.

Is this any way to carry on a conversation? You start talking and when someone gives a reasoned and civil reply, you attack them and storm off in a virtual huff? That’s neither mature nor is it productive.

These are Australia’s children we are talking about here, Jane. Their health, wellbeing and their very lives. Don’t they deserve better than what you are giving them?

Oh, forgive me! How silly.

I seem to have forgotten that you work for Murdoch.

Forget I said anything.

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.

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.

 

 

There are two sides to the vaccination issue – but only one gets heard

For the second time in as many months, a Herald Sun opinion piece writer has defamed the AVN and every parent who has taken the time and effort to research health issues before making a decision in an article she wrote for their opinion page (this same article ran in many of the Murdoch papers as well as on Mia Freedman’s web site – mamamia). Many of you would have read Mia Freedman’s article and my response to it earlier in the week (Celebrating Ignorance – Mia Freedman Says ‘Embrace Your Inner Moron) and I have published a selection of your letters to her on this blog and hope to publish more, time allowing.

Just as it happened the first time around back in February, when I contacted the paper to complain about the one-sided and insulting article, I was invited to write my own opinion piece giving the AVN’s side of the story as a way of ensuring our right our reply (The Herald Sun Does Not Care About Balance or Fairness). Once again however, the paper said that my opinion piece will not be running and no information was provided as to why that was. It seems that the vaccination issue is one of those ‘special cases’ where balance and fairness are not required.

But at least this time, what I wrote will be used as a letter to the editor though in a severely cut-down form. Below, is my original opinion piece and under that, is the letter to the editor that will supposedly be running tomorrow morning in the Herald Sun. As you can see, much of the information was removed. I understand that many of our members and supporters had letters published in the Herald Sun letters page on Thursday and Friday this week in response to Mia Freedman’s article and that is truly excellent! I will try and find the letters and publish them on this blog for all to see.

Keep on writing and keep on being active on this issue. We ARE having an effect!

Ignorance is not bliss!

Opinion Piece – Ignorance is not bliss!

Nobody ever told me that I had a choice when it came to vaccination. I thought vaccines were compulsory and that I would lose out on government entitlements were I not to give my child his shots. That was and still is incorrect.

Nobody ever told me that for some children, the risks of childhood shots could outweigh the benefits. Nobody ever told me that I should be checking the manufacturer’s information for the list of ingredients, side effects and contraindications before I allowed my child to have his shots.

Like most Australian parents, I was never given any information about the safety or effectiveness of vaccination and, had my own child not reacted to his shots, I probably never would have looked twice at this issue. But he did react – first to his DTP / Oral polio at 2 months of age and later, to his MMR, at 18 months.

It was only after seeing my own child suffer that I decided to start looking into this issue and truly, I wish I had known then what I know now!

In my son’s preschool class of 18, there were 3 children who were vaccine injured – one of whom died before his 5th birthday as a result of vaccine-associated seizures. My son and I attended his funeral.

Mia Freedman states that we should trust the doctors’ expertise on medical subjects but time and time again, we have seen doctors getting it completely wrong. From recommendations that pregnant women take thalidomide for morning sickness, to prescriptions for Vioxx, Avandia and other medications which, over time, have been shown to be more dangerous then the conditions they were meant to treat.

We shop around and test drive cars before buying them. Were we NOT to do this first, we would be considered both foolish and crazy.

Why then is medicine any different?

Do we need to be doctors in order to understand information from medical sources? And are all doctors supportive of every vaccine for every individual? Ms Freedman seems to think so but that is simply not correct.

There are thousands of doctors worldwide who believe that vaccinations should only be administered after the individuals have been fully informed of both the benefits and the risks. They also believe that not every person can or should be vaccinated safely and therefore, both the government and the medical community owe Australian citizens a duty of care to ensure that those who should be excluded from vaccinations are protected.

The fear shown by Ms Freedman towards those who have made informed choices not to vaccinate is neither logical nor correct. If her vaccinated children are at risk from exposure to healthy unvaccinated kids, then vaccines are not protecting.

That is exactly the situation Australia currently finds itself in. Today, we are in the fifth year of a record-breaking epidemic of pertussis (whooping cough) despite increased vaccination. We have gone from approximately 71% of our children vaccinated in 1991 to over 95% vaccinated in 2008 and over that time period, we have seen the reported number of cases go from just over 300 per year to almost 40,000 per year – the highest incidence per capita since before the pertussis vaccine was added to Australia’s childhood schedule in 1953.

It is the unvaccinated who are being blamed for this epidemic despite the government’s own data showing that 75% of those under 5 who get whooping cough are fully vaccinated against it and a further 14% are partially vaccinated.

Mia Freedman claims that the Australian Vaccination Network was found to be misleading by the Health Care Complaints Commission (HCCC). Yet she is ignorant of the fact that the NSW Supreme Court found the HCCC acted outside of its jurisdiction in either investigating our organisation or issuing a warning against us. Both the investigation and warning are now null and void. If Ms Freedman had done her research, she would have known about that just as she would have known about the risks of childhood shots and the fact that many doctors question mass vaccination.

There are many valid scientific concerns about vaccination and the one study that would give parents the confidence to vaccinate has never been done. That is an independent study comparing the overall health of the fully vaccinated compared with the fully unvaccinated.

Parents of Australia, you are your child’s advocates. You will always love them more than any doctor will. You will always be the experts on how they are progressing, feeding, and learning. Doctors are advisers and good ones – but your vaccination decision must be made with full information from many sources including your own research and advice from health practitioners including from GPs and natural healthcare providers. Do your research carefully and make your choice an informed one.

You owe it to your family to get a second opinion and to know both your rights and the information on this important health issue.

Below is the letter that ran in the Herald Sun this morning:(click on the image to open in full size)

 

Enhanced by Zemanta

Can we see justice at last for Wakefield and Walker Smith?

The following letter was written by Jackie Fletcher of the British vaccine injury support group, JABS  (Justice, Awareness and Basic Support) to the British Medical Journal.  A shortened version was posted as a Rapid Response to the article, Wakefield Sues BMJ over MMR articles. I felt it was very important for you to be able to read the complete letter. Here’s hoping that there will be real justice for both Drs Wakefield and Walker-Smith and that Brian Deer, Fiona Godlee, the BMJ and the General Medical Council (GMC) will all be held accountable for their actions in these cases.

Starting in February, there will be an appeal against the GMC ruling by Professor John Walker Smith at the High Court in London and then a US Court appearance for Mr Deer, BMJ Editor-in-Chief Dr Godlee and the BMJ representatives to defend a libel action brought by Dr Wakefield sometime later this year (or maybe next). I trust that all claims/counter claims can be thoroughly tested with all the appropriate evidence being heard and supported by witnesses. I hope that these legal proceedings will help to expose those responsible at the highest level for one of the biggest medical scandals in history and those fighting the rearguard action to defend the MMR vaccine will be found out. The hounding of the co-authors of The Lancet paper has been a very disturbing but clever diversion which, in my opinion, was designed to distract attention from the main issue, the MMR disaster.

I just wish Mr Deer had used his considerable talents to hound the committee responsible for introducing a vaccine, brands of which had already been withdrawn in other countries for causing neurological problems. I wish Mr Deer had used his time and energy to expose the people responsible for allowing the continued use of MMR vaccines when children were reported to have suffered problems in the opening weeks of the MMR campaign back in 1988. I wish he had used his efforts to expose the inadequacies of the Government’s yellow card scheme which has been ineffective since it began. Mr Deer was informed of these points and much more but for some reason chose to investigate the one team of doctors who had raised a flag over the MMR and possible side effects.
I would like to remind/inform your readers that the problems with MMR were known about by the UK Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation at least eight months before they sanctioned its use in the UK. (1) This was way back in 1988, ten years before The Lancet case series early report was published.
From the minutes of the JCVI Working Party On The Introduction of Measles, Mumps and Rubella Vaccine (11 February 1988):
‘…5. MMR Vaccination In Canada
Members read a report of cases of mumps encephalitis which had been associated with MMR vaccine containing the URABE strain of the mumps virus. The Canadian authorities has suspended the licences of MMR vaccines containing the URABE strain but Dr Salisbury considered that the data on which the decision had been based was slender. It was agreed that North Hertfordshire would use the Jeryl-Lyn vaccine, if it was available from MSD, to obtain comparative data. A statement would be prepared in anticipation of any adverse publicity which might arise.’
The Government clearly was aware of the risks involved with the URABE containing vaccines (Pluserix and Immravax) before they were introduced and had the audacity to prepare an adverse publicity statement in readiness for what was potentially to come.
Problems with MMR vaccine began in the opening weeks/months of the new campaign starting in October 1988 as subsequently reported in the UK Daily Mail: ‘MMR killed my daughter’ 18th May 2004 (2) and the Sunday Express: ‘Were all of these children killed by the triple MMR jab? by Lucy Johnston 13/1/02 (3)

In October 1997, four months before The Lancet publication, a meeting was held with the Health Minister and the Chief Medical Officer, Principal Medical Officer and other senior officers. The Health Minister was presented with details of some 1200 children and asked to instigate a clinical investigation into their ill health or death following MMR or MR vaccinations. This was never done. Most of the children had started with symptoms within the incubation period of the vaccines; symptoms that were recognised by the vaccine manufacturers and then they developed long term problems also recognised by the vaccine manufacturers within their product information sheets. The parents had reported to JABS that no treating physician had been able to determine any alternative medical explanation for the child’s decline. Much money, time and effort has been spent on not studying these children. I think that those accusing Dr Wakefield should look long and hard at their own role in protecting government officials who indemnified vaccine manufacturers against any action for serious damage and deaths of children. That is the fraud.

This is not an MMR scare as has been widely claimed, this is, I repeat, an MMR disaster and there should be nowhere to hide for those responsible.

JABS is a UK support group for parents of vaccine damaged children.