Vaccine Refusers: Tribunal and Taskforce
Vaccine Refusers: Tribunal and Taskforce
A wonderful summary of childhood vaccination nonsense and discrimination.
In this Substack journey, I’ve come across a NSW mother of two boys who woke up to childhood vaccination 18 years ago, and I’ve been blessed with the information and wisdoms, learnt over those 18 years, that she continues to share with me, that I am sharing with you. She, like me, prefers her privacy, so I’ll describe her simply by an alias: Amelia.
Amelia authored the submission to the VIC government, about No Jab No Pay, that I shared with you here:
But it turns out that Amelia authored an earlier submission that was submitted but not published on the government website. I think the sarcasm in the submission was a bit too much for the bureaucrats. So, this original submission never saw the light of day. Which is why, in her words she “toned down subsequent submissions”.
In my opinion, it’s an even better document than the second submission, with an excellent summary of the many viruses and their vaccines that make up the childhood vaccine schedule. It’s a crash course on discrimination, flawed and nonsense logic, viruses, and vaccines, with 20 references. If you are a curious questioning newbie to the subject of childhood vaccination, then this is an excellent speed introduction.
She kindly has shared it with me and now I am sharing it with you, with some added commentary.
Thank you Amelia.
NO JAB NO PAY legislation
‘All child care subsidies and support will remain linked to immunisation requirements which from 1 January 2016 will be strengthened under the Government’s ‘no jab, no pay’ policy. The only exemption to this policy will be on medical grounds.’
Introduction
It has always been obvious that the proposed ‘no jab no pay’ legislation is discriminatory. The Prime Minister of New Zealand said he wouldn’t introduce no jab no pay legislation “It would be an unjustifiable breach of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act”. I assume that ’no jab no pay’ legislation has the full support of every elected Australian politician, the Australian Human Rights Commission and the Australian Medical Association regardless of the fact that it is so obviously discriminatory as it appears that none of them have made public statements to point out the immediately obvious flaws in this legislation or that they have concerns.
I hope that the public servants tasked with reporting to politicians on this proposed legislation will do the right thing for all Australian people and inform the politicians that ‘no jab no pay’ legislation is discriminatory, cannot be implemented effectively and should be abandoned. However as so many politicians appear to support it, I fear that this proposed legislation may become law. In which case I would like to point out ways of modifying the legislation to ensure that it is not discriminatory and to suggest ways in which this legislation could be modified to make implementation effective. And as background I include a brief summary of some of the reasons that lead parents to do as Tony Abbott’s did: to refuse vaccines that they don’t think are appropriate for their children.
How to avoid introducing discriminatory ‘no jab no pay’ legislation
How would you feel if the government imposed financial penalties on you because you did not want to have an annual flu vaccine? Or because you were not up-do-date with vaccine booster shots for diphtheria, tetanus, hepatitis b, rubella and other diseases? The Department of Health recommends annual flu shots for everyone over the age of six months, regular diphtheria shots for all adults, regular tetanus shots for adults over fifty, rubella shots for women of child bearing age, hepatitis b shots for adults considered at risk (e.g. prostitutes, men who have anal sex, intravenous drug users) etc. If it is right to impose financial penalties on parents who refuse to follow recommendations for vaccination of children surely it is right for the government to impose financial penalties on adults who refuse to follow recommendations for vaccination of adults? From a public health perspective there is no difference between an adult who hasn’t had booster shots and a child who isn’t vaccinated; adults can catch and pass on contagious diseases just as easily as children can if the adults refuse the recommended booster shots.
Remember, this was written in 2015. The point was as right then as it is now, because right is right, no matter what level of verbal and logical gymnastics you do to try and rationalise it. In the end “the government to [did] impose financial penalties on adults who refuse to follow recommendations for vaccination of adults”.
If you now feel indignant that you lost your job, a “financial penalty”, due to government/employer jab mandates, you should feel that absolutely same indignation for the “financial penalty” imposed on parents who chose not to jab their children with liquids loaded with aluminium.
How would you feel if you went to Bali for a week and on your return, customs found you hadn’t had the recommended vaccines for travel to Bali and the government then imposed financial penalties on you even though you came home from Bali healthy? The Department of Health makes recommendations for Australians who travel overseas. If it’s right to impose financial penalties on parents who refuse to follow recommendations for vaccination of children surely it is right to impose financial penalties on Australians who holiday overseas and refuse to follow recommendations for travel vaccines? From a public health perspective surely holiday makers who refuse to have travel vaccines are a worse threat to society than children who aren’t vaccinated? The holiday makers could return carrying diseases which they could pass on to Australians at home, couldn’t they?
Yes, indeed they can. A good point well made.
The line between “recommend” and “require” is thin, and as we now know, government, business and society are oh so ready, willing and in fact, under the right circumstances, even eager to cross it.
The simple way to avoid introducing discriminatory legislation would be to extend ‘no jab no pay’ legislation, impose financial penalties on everyone who refuses to follow all the vaccine recommendations made by the Department of Health that apply to them due to their age, sex, lifestyle or travel habits. Make every Australian, from one day old to 110 years old follow the Department of Health vaccine recommendations or suffers financial penalties.
It’s a fact that all the diseases that children are vaccinated against can be caught and passed on by adults as well as children.
It’s a fact that protective effects of all vaccines wear off.
It’s a fact that without regular booster shots adults have no vaccine protection from these diseases.
It’s a fact that adults and Australians of any age who holiday overseas who don’t follow the Department of Health vaccine recommendations are exactly the same as unvaccinated children.
If the government were to impose financial penalties on every Australian resident who doesn’t follow Department of Health vaccine recommendations that apply to them due to their age, health, race or lifestyle and ‘no jab no pay’ legislation would no longer be discriminatory.
How to ensure that this legislation is implemented effectively.
Make ‘no jab no pay’ legislation apply to high as well as low income earners. It is obvious this proposed legislation would affect low income families to a far greater extent than high income families. We are told that the majority of parents who refuse to follow the Department of Health recommendations for childhood vaccinations live in suburbs like Point Piper in Sydney and Toorak in Melbourne. They are likely to be wealthy and would therefore be not affected by this legislation. The only way to implement this legislation effectively would be to impose financial penalties on a sliding scale, so the richer you are the greater the financial penalty. As the same sliding scale of penalties would apply to adults who refuse to follow the vaccine recommendations for adults and for Australians of all ages who travel overseas and refuse to follow the vaccine recommendations for travellers the government could turn ‘no jab no pay’ legislation into an enormous revenue earner.
Also, let’s not forget that as I write here, it’s the No Jab, No Play that is the greatest “financial penalty”:
No Jab, No Play: You need to think about this for a moment, the “play” is deceptive. It suggests it’s about kids playing with other kids, and for sure there is a component of that, but it’s not the 80% pareto of the subject. It should be called No Jab, No Job.
If you are a two-income family, as the majority of the country is now, and you have a child that you cannot send to child-care or day-care, because they have not been injected with aluminium, then who is going to look after that child so the mother and/or the father can go to work and make a living? If one of them, most typically the mother, is FORCED to stay at home, then she is FORCED to leave her JOB. So, No Jab just became No Job, which fits in perfectly with the above government definition “preventing the person from working”.
The impact of not being able to earn that second household income is an inconvenience for wealthy families and entirely destructive to almost everyone else. The degree of the financial penalty is absolutely regressive. It is life changing for everybody but the “wealthy”, let’s say the top 10%.
Make it apply to partially vaccinated children. The government recommends that Australian children have around 40 doses of vaccine by the time they are four years old and additional vaccines before they reach adulthood.
What will happen if parents accept 39, 38, 37, 36, 35.... doses for their child but not all 40? At what point is their child vaccinated or unvaccinated according to ‘no jab no pay’ legislation? Obviously, parents will now think twice before signing conscientious objector forms and those who have signed them may say they’ve changed their minds.
What if parents agree to accept every vaccine for contagious diseases but not for tetanus which is not contagious? Would financial penalties be imposed on them even though there is absolutely no public health justification for demanding babies be vaccinated against a disease that is not contagious?
The truthful simplicity of this point is unassailable. Even if you accept the claim of a risk to “public health” for all the other diseases, that argument collapses with tetanus. At most, you are a risk to yourself, if that. But this is where the “combo” vaccines come in handy, the T in DTP is just thrown in for good measure, you cannot separate it.
What if parents follow Tony Abbott’s example and refuse the HPV vaccine offered to their children, perhaps when they have accepted every previous vaccine? HPV is transmitted through sex. 12 and 13 year olds are under the age at which sexual intercourse is legally allowed. Will parents be allowed to refuse the HPV vaccine and say they will let their child make his/her decision when old enough to legally have sex or will they suffer financial penalties?
It would be straightforward for the government to withhold childcare subsidies from all but fully vaccinated children, but how would it affect their tax bill if a family has one fully vaccinated child, one partially vaccinated child and one unvaccinated child? There are many variations on this theme, will the government publish rates and tables for the different scenarios on numbers of children in a family and how many are unvaccinated or partially vaccinated and how this affects the financial penalties imposed?
Good point! I would love to see that table.
I don’t have answers to these obvious questions. No doubt the government already has answers to them all. No doubt the government and opposition supporters of this legislation have already thought of these obvious questions and come up with answers which they simply haven’t yet explained to the public, as politicians wouldn’t support legislation that they can immediately see raises unanswerable questions and that cannot be implemented fairly.
Prepare for attempts to abuse the system. A parent of a partially vaccinated child who is put on a ‘catch up’ programme of vaccinations may never get around to getting their child vaccinated according to the catch up programme but may keep assuring the government that they will one day do so. I would like to suggest a solution: the government could go through the records of every school aged child’s vaccinations before the start of every school year to ensure that every child is offered catch up vaccinations for vaccines they have missed. And then the government would have to obtain proof that every child does have their catch up vaccinations. And then the government would have to ensure that the parents of children who don’t follow their catch up programme have a reasonable excuse. Perhaps those parents who are slow to follow orders but keep making promises would have to face a Vaccine Refusers Tribunal? Perhaps the government could set one up in every State and Territory to enable the government to hear the excuses of parents and to impose legally binding orders on them? These Tribunals would of course have to investigate the excuses of adults and travellers who refuse to follow vaccine recommendations that apply to them if my suggestions on discrimination are adopted. So not only would ‘no jab no pay’ legislation become a major money earner for the government, it would also become a major new source of employment for public servants and a major new source of income for lawyers through the work of State and Territory Vaccine Refuser Tribunals.
I love the idea of a Vaccine Refusers Tribunal. It is not inconceivable that we will ultimately end up with such a “kangaroo court”.
I think Ken Mubongi especially would approve of such a “societal service”. We do need a broader structure and mechanism to consequence all “refusers”.
Prepare for tax evasion from people who believe that a democratic government should not use financial penalties to coerce people to accept drugs they don’t need or want, drugs that contain toxic ingredients, drugs that can kill. A doctor who believes that it is a person’s fundamental human right to decide which drugs to accept without being coerced might be willing to sign vaccine acceptance forms that show the government that a child is up-do-date with vaccinations when no vaccines have been given to the child. A doctor might even inject the child with a placebo so that the child can’t innocently reveal that he/she hasn’t had ‘jabs’. To ensure that this doesn’t happen the government could establish a ‘Vaccine Refusers Taskforce’ which would make sudden unannounced visits to schools, put them into lock down (the army could assist to ensure that no children escape), take blood samples from every child present and have them tested for mercury (present in flu vaccines), aluminium (present in most vaccines) and other toxic chemicals that would demonstrate that the children have actually had all the vaccines their records state they have had. This would generate yet more employment: for Taskforce and lab staff.
Wow. Amelia used the language of “lockdown” and army “assistance” in 2015!
Reconcile ‘no jab no pay’ legislation with Australia’s position on internationally recognised human rights treaties and conventions. Unlike New Zealand, Australia does not have a Bill of Rights. But past Australian governments have signed internationally recognised human rights treaties and conventions which would be breached if this legislation is enacted as currently drafted. The simplest solution is for this government to formally withdraw Australia’s support for all human rights treaties and conventions. As the Labor Party stated its support for this discriminatory legislation and the Green Party and the Australian Human Rights Commission have remained silent this shouldn’t pose a problem and it would be far easier than trying to present a logical argument on why it is acceptable to discriminate against children but that all other human rights must be protected. If this were done there would be another money saving opportunity: closing down the Australian Human Rights Commission.
If you are wondering which internationally recognised human rights are breached, giving informed consent to all medical procedures, including vaccination, is an internationally recognised human right. The first rule on informed consent is that consent must not be obtained through deceit or coercion. The ‘no jab no pay’ legislation would break the first rule on obtaining informed consent. Imposing financial penalties of many thousands of dollars per child per year on parents for refusing to follow Department of Health ‘recommendations’ is coercion.
If the government believes that some human rights must be protected, but that it is acceptable to coerce parents into accepting on behalf of their children unnecessary toxic drugs that could kill them, it would have to formally reword its support for international human rights treaties and conventions on informed consent to make it clear that Australia coerces parents into having their children vaccinated. Many documents issued by the Federal and State Health Departments, the Australian Medical Association, Medical Board of Australia etc include clear instructions for doctors and nurses on informed consent such as: ‘For consent to be legally valid, the following elements must be present: It must be given voluntarily, in the absence of undue pressure, coercion or manipulation’. All these documents would have to be carefully edited to ensure that statements about informed consent include the caveat that it is acceptable to coerce patients into accepting vaccines for their children. And here is yet another job creation opportunity through ‘no jab no pay’ legislation: for proof readers, website designers and printers.
What kind of person would refuse to follow Department of Health vaccine recommendations, are they all ill-informed and irresponsible?
Prime Minister Tony Abbott, when he was Health Minister, said: “I won’t be rushing out to get my daughters vaccinated (against Human Papilloma Virus), maybe that’s because I’m a cruel, callow, callous, heartless bastard but, look, I won’t be”. I think a Federal Health Minister would be capable of making responsible decisions on vaccines on behalf of his/her children. I think a Health Minister would know a lot more than the average mum or dad about a brand new vaccine if while he/she were Health Minister the ‘independent’ committee of scientific experts which chooses which drugs are put on the Australian pharmaceutical benefits scheme refused to put the vaccine in question on the scheme. (This decision was overruled by Prime Minister Howard.) I wonder whether now, with the benefit of hindsight, Tony Abbott thinks he made the right decision on behalf of his daughters back when he was Health Minister. The Japanese government last year withdrew its recommendation for the HPV vaccine because of an unacceptably high rate of very serious side effects. In 2014, Dr. Dalbergue a Merck employed doctor in France, said in an interview (journal: Santé Principe – health principles) about Merck’s HPV vaccine Gardasil: ‘I predict that Gardasil will become the greatest medical scandal of all times because at some point in time the evidence will add up to prove that this vaccine, technical and scientific feat that it may be, has absolutely no effect on cervical cancer and that all the very many adverse effects which destroy lives and even kill, serve no other purpose than to generate profit for the manufacturer.’
Why do parents think that the risks of vaccination outweigh the benefits?
Here are some basic facts about vaccines. It is your legal right to be told the facts that ‘a reasonable person would want to know’ before you accept vaccines. If you think these facts are important and if your GP didn’t give them to you before you accepted vaccines, you did not give ‘informed consent’. If you or your child suffered harm from vaccines you accepted without giving ‘informed consent’ you could sue your GP for financial compensation due to their failure to obtain your ‘informed consent’.
Herd immunity cannot be achieved through mass vaccination of only children because:
Australians of all ages can catch and pass on the contagious diseases children are vaccinated against, not just children, our human herd consists of people from one minute old to 110 years old,
the protective effect of all vaccines always wears off, hence the need for booster shots,
the vast majority of adults are not required to get booster shots regularly until they die against all the diseases children are vaccinated against,
so even if 100% of Australian children were fully vaccinated, 70% of Australians, the adults, would still be walking around sneezing, shaking hands, sharing plates, kissing, etc with no vaccine protection because they don’t get booster shots and would therefore be able to spread those diseases.
If the Department of Health and Australian Medical Association seriously want to reduce the risk of the diseases that children are vaccinated against spreading through the Australian population why don’t they recommend that every Australian be vaccinated against all these diseases and that every Australian get booster shots regularly until they die? Who benefits from tax payers spending hundreds of millions of dollars vaccinating just children when adults can still spread these diseases?
Vaccines have limited benefits:
not only do vaccines last for a limited period, they are effective against only specific strains of virus, so if you get vaccinated you can still catch the disease if you are exposed to a strain of it that the vaccine doesn’t protect you against,
vaccines don’t work perfectly in every individual, so if you get vaccinated you may still catch a strain of virus that the vaccine is designed to protect you against,
some diseases cause more complications if you catch them when you are an adult than if you catch them when you are a child, so by following Department of Health recommendations people have vaccine protection against these diseases when they are at least risk of complications (during childhood) and have no vaccine protection when they are at greatest risk of complications (during adulthood),
some of the diseases children are vaccinated against are incredibly rare or non-existent in Australia and tetanus isn’t even contagious.
‘Immuno-compromised’ people who are particularly vulnerable to contagious diseases (due to having chemotherapy for example) are vulnerable to thousands of viruses and bacteria. Vaccinating 100% of children against a dozen diseases will leave immuno-compromised people still at risk from thousands of viruses and diseases for which there are no vaccines and still at risk of catching the dozen diseases children are vaccinated against from all the adults they come into contact with who do not have regular booster shots.
This excellent short video by Forrest Maready “shows” you this point. It debunks one of the primary blanks of mandatory vaccination, that of “protecting the vulnerable”:
Chickenpox. It is typically a mild disease in childhood and causes more serious complications in adults.(1) Mass vaccination of children shifts the age at which people get chickenpox from childhood to adulthood and increases the number of adults who develop shingles, a far more serious disease.(1) The number of shingles cases in adults has risen in Australia and the USA since the introduction of the chickenpox vaccine, e.g. in Australia from 1,180 in 2006 to 5,468 in 2014.(2) So vaccinating children puts them at greater risk of harm from both chickenpox and shingles when they become adults. These consequences were predicted, the UK government did not introduce the chickenpox vaccine, the number of adults suffering shingles in the UK has not risen.
Diphtheria. It is a rare disease that can do harm to people at any age. 8 cases have been reported in Australia in the last 10 years (2) despite the fact that few adults have protection against it because few get booster shots (recommended every 10 years). There have been only a few outbreaks in developed countries in recent decades. ‘Socioeconomic factors played an important role in a Swedish epidemic between 1984 and 1986, which mainly affected users of drugs and alcohol. An epidemic of diphtheria that occurred in the US in the early 1970s mainly affected adults who were heavy alcohol users from low socioeconomic groups.’(3)
Flu (influenza). Around 200 viruses cause flu like symptoms. The Cochrane Collaboration, (scientists from 130 countries working together free from commercial sponsorship and other conflicts of interest) evaluated all the available data on flu vaccines and estimated that only 10% of known flu viruses are covered by the vaccines. They also reported: ‘Vaccination (against flu) shows no appreciable effect on working days lost or hospitalisation’.(4)
Hepatitis b. It is transmitted by exchange of body fluids, saliva, blood, semen etc. Adults considered at risk include healthcare workers, prostitutes, people who have anal sex and people who share injection needles. A child is only considered at risk only if a primary carer or sibling has the virus. Babies can be get hepatitis b from their mothers during child birth, pregnant women are routinely tested for the virus and are informed if they have it and around five children are diagnosed with hepatitis b in Australia every year. How long the protective effect lasts when the vaccine is given to babies is not known, it is possible that they will have worn off before the baby grows up and is old enough to engage in high risk activities. The US Center for Disease Control has written: ‘Among vaccinated cohorts who initiated Hepatitis B vaccination at birth, long-term follow-up studies are ongoing to determine the duration of vaccine-induced immunity.’
Human papilloma virus. Approximately 150 strains of HPV virus have been identified. They are spread through direct skin-to-skin contact during vaginal, anal and oral sex. Cervical cancer is already controlled by women getting regular pap smear tests which are 100% safe. ‘Seven countries approved the (HPV) vaccine and established related immunization programs exceptionally quickly even though there still exist many uncertainties as to the vaccine’s long-term effectiveness, cost-effectiveness and safety.(5) The manufacturers were not obliged to prove that the vaccine prevents cervical cancer. Instead it was demonstrated to prevent ‘pre-cancerous lesions’ and was developed to protect against only a few of the 150 strains of the virus. Around 70% of pre-cancerous lesions disappear within three years anyway.(6) So the Australian government wants to impose financial penalties on parents who follow Tony Abbott’s lead and refuse to accept the HPV vaccine for their children despite the fact that the vaccine has not been proven to prevent cervical cancer and despite the fact that their daughters can already have free, 100% safe and effective pap smears.
Invasive bacterial disease caused by haemophilus influenza b (Hib), pneumococcal and meningococcal bacteria. Hundreds of strains of bacteria can exist in the human body for decades without causing harm. For as yet unknown reasons these bacteria can suddenly invade body parts in which they are not usually found and cause harm. This can happen to people of any age. The vaccines protect against only a few specific strains. For example, the Hib vaccine protects against b strains of haemophilus influenza, but not a, c, d, e, f or non-capsulated strains. The pneumococcal 13 vaccine protects against 13 of the 90 known strains of pneumococcal bacteria. Streptococcus bacteria, against which there are no vaccines, can also cause invasive bacterial disease. ‘The vaccines have been found to reduce incidence of invasive disease due to the targeted strains. But other strains have emerged as significant causes of invasive bacterial disease, for example Hia has caused increasing numbers of cases of severe infection in young children with a high fatality rate over the 10 years to 2013.’(7) According to the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control, in both 2010 and 2011 the highest notification rate for haemophilus influenza invasive disease among infants were for non-capsulated strains, also not covered by the Hib vaccine. So it appears that when conditions occur in a vaccinated adult or child that enable bacteria to cause invasive disease many other strains that are present and can take the place of the few strains removed by vaccines.
Measles. It is usually a mild disease. It can cause complications at any age. In a recent outbreak in France (22,000 reported cases) 11% had complications (including pneumonia, ear infections, hepatitis, pancreatitis and diarrhoea), 10 people died, of whom 7 were ‘immuno-deficient’ through having a medical condition, most who died were over 30 years old.(8) Researchers predicted that introduction of the measles vaccine would eventually lead to large outbreaks of measles.(9) Other researchers stated: ‘We predict that after a long disease-free period, the introduction of infection will lead to far larger epidemics’(10) Measles outbreaks regularly occur in highly vaccinated populations, Dr. Poland, Professor of Medicine and leader of Mayo Clinic's Vaccine Research Group, stated: ‘measles outbreaks also occur even among highly vaccinated populations because of primary and secondary vaccine failure, which results in gradually larger pools of susceptible persons and outbreaks once measles is introduced. This leads to a paradoxical situation whereby measles in highly immunized societies occurs primarily among those previously immunized.’(11) Vitamin A has been used to reduce rates of complications, one study reported that giving large doses of vitamin A to patients hospitalised with measles reduced the death rate by 60% overall and by 90% in infants.(12) There is also evidence that indicates that having measles protects a person from allergic illnesses and autoimmune and degenerative diseases later in life.(13)
Mumps. It is usually a mild disease, more complications can occur in adulthood than in childhood: men can become sterile, foetuses of pregnant women can be harmed. If children receive this vaccine they become vulnerable to mumps when they reach adulthood the period of greatest vulnerability because the vaccine’s protective effects wear off. Outbreaks occur in young adults.(14)
Pertussis (whooping cough). Young infants are particularly vulnerable to this disease. The vaccine protects people only against specific strains. In Australia large outbreaks have occurred in recent years in which 84% of cases have been caused by strains not covered by the vaccine.(15) The same has occurred in other countries, eg the Netherlands.(16) Outbreaks of pertussis occur in the USA and researchers investigating one outbreak found the highest level of disease was in fully vaccinated 8-12 year olds. Unvaccinated and undervaccinated children did not contribute significantly to the outbreak. They estimated that the vaccine’s protective effect wears off after only 3 years.(17) Infants who get pertussis are often infected by older siblings, parents or caregivers. A recent study in which baboons were deliberately infected with pertussis found that recently vaccinated individuals can carry the bacteria and infect others while not developing symptoms.(18) So recommending that close relatives of newborn babies be vaccinated against pertussis could lead them to unknowingly infect the baby.
We saw this same phenomenon with Covid jabs, they suppressed symptoms even as viral load was rising in the jabbed, and genuinely creating “asymptomatic spreaders”.
Polio. Australia and the USA have been free of polio for over 30 years despite the fact that adults have no vaccine protection (booster shots are only recommended for ‘at risk’ adults, eg lab workers who could handle infected samples). As the disease is transmitted by the faecal-oral route (you have to eat the poo of an infected person to catch it) good water purification and sewage treatment protects us all. So the government thinks the negligible risk of catching polio in Australia (99% of people who catch it suffer no symptoms or very mild symptoms) justifies vaccinating every child but not every adult.
Rotavirus. Rotavirus is one of many viruses and bacteria that cause gastroenteritis. A complication of any bout of gastroenteritis that affects young children is dehydration. If parents are taught simple methods to prevent dehydration in children and are taught to recognise the symptoms of dehydration children would be protected from gastroenteritis induced dehydration regardless of the bacteria or virus involved. The government thinks vaccinating all children against one cause of gastroenteritis dehydration is justified when education could protect children from all causes of gastroenteritis dehydration.
Rubella. It is a mild disease, it can cause harm to foetuses so women of childbearing age are recommended the vaccine. The Cochrane Collaboration has not been able to identify any research that assesses the effectiveness of the rubella component of the MMR vaccine.(19) The primary benefit of vaccinating children is they won’t infect pregnant women who have not had (and have perhaps themselves refused to have) the vaccine and who can still catch rubella from adults who are not required to have booster shots. If a child catches rubella it will give him/her lifelong immunity, is vaccinating children to protect pregnant women who have chosen not to have the vaccine justified?
Where have we heard this one before. Using children as human shields to protect adults?
Tetanus. It is not a contagious disease. It is unlikely to occur in children who have a healthy blood supply because tetanus bacteria only produce toxins in tissue that is anaerobic. For this reason elderly people and diabetics are at greatest risk. The vaccine has not been tested to modern standards: ‘The medical establishment chooses to turn a blind eye to the lack of solid scientific evidence to substantiate our faith in the tetanus shot’.(20) There is no public health justification for vaccinating children against a disease which is not contagious.
Conclusion: those are some for the reasons that could lead parents to conclude that vaccines recommended for children have limited benefits for their children and for society. These parents also know that the 40 odd doses of vaccine the Department of Health recommends for children by the time they are four years old all contain toxic ingredients and that the combined effect of so many doses has NEVER been tested. Nowhere in the world has a retrospective or prospective cohort study comparing vaccinated and unvaccinated children been done. This is the only definitive way of testing the effect of multiple vaccines. Why do you think that governments that support mass vaccination of children have never commissioned a study that would prove whether or not having so many vaccine doses causes significant harm to some children? If they are so confident that the benefits outweigh the risks why wouldn’t governments want to commission a study that would prove whether there is a relationship between having 40 doses of vaccine and autoimmune diseases, food allergies or autism?
Thanks for reading this submission.
References
(1) P.Welsby, ‘Chickenpox, chickenpox vaccination, and shingles’ Postgraduate Medical Journal, 2006. AND Goldman & King ‘Review of the United States universal varicella vaccination program: Herpes zoster incidence rates, cost-effectiveness, and vaccine efficacy based primarily on the Antelope Valley Varicella Active Surveillance Project data’, Journal Vaccine, 2012
(2) Australian National Notifiable Diseases Surveillance System: number of notified cases of ‘vaccine preventable diseases’ in Australia
(3) Eurosurveillance, ‘Why do adults contract diphtheria?’ 1997
(4) The Cochrane Collaboration, V.Demicheli et al, ‘Vaccines to prevent influenza in healthy adults’ 2014
(5) M.Haas et al, ‘Drugs sex money and power: an HPV vaccine case study’, Health Policy Journal, 2009
(6) Tomljenovic L et al, ‘Human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccines as an option for preventing cervical malignancies: (how) effective and safe?’ Journal: Current Pharmaceutical Design, 2013
(7) M.Ulanova, ‘Global Epidemiology of Invasive Haemophilus influenza Type a Disease: Do We Need a New Vaccine?’ Journal of Vaccines, 2013
(8) D.Antona et al. ‘Measles Elimination Efforts and 2008–2011 Outbreak, France’ US CDC Journal: Emerging Infectious Diseases, 2013
(9) Dr David Levy, ‘The future of measles in highly immunized populations: a modelling approach’ American Journal of Epidemiology, 1984
(10) J.Heffernan and M.Keeling, ‘Implications of vaccination and waning immunity’ Journal Proceedings of the Royal Society, 2009
(11) Dr Poland Editorial ‘The re-emergence of measles in developed countries: Time to develop the next-generation measles vaccines?’ Journal Vaccine, 2012
(12) W.Wafaie et al ‘Vitamin A supplementation and child mortality: a meta-analysis’ Journal of the American Medical Association, 1993
(13) Rosenlund et al ‘Allergic disease and atopic sensitization in children in relation to measles vaccination and measles infection.’ Journal: Paediatrics, 2009
(14) USA Today, Feb 8, 2015 ‘Mumps outbreak in Idaho (University of Idaho) spreads to Washington state’
(15) R.Lan et al ‘New pertussis strain responsible for Australian epidemic’, Journal: Medical Observer, 2012
(16) Mooi et al. ‘Polymorphism in the Bordetella pertussis Virulence Factors P.69/Pertactin and Pertussis Toxin in The Netherlands: Temporal Trends and Evidence for Vaccine-Driven Evolution Journal Infection and Immunity 1998
(17) Witt et al. ‘Unexpected limited durability of immunity following acellular pertussis vaccination in pre-adolescents in a North America outbreak’ Journal of Clinical Infectious Diseases, 2012
(18) J.Warfel et al ‘Acellular pertussis vaccines protect against disease but fail to prevent infection and transmission in a nonhuman primate model’ Journal: Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, 2013
(19) V.Demicheli et al, ‘Using the combined vaccine for protection of children against measles, mumps and rubella’ Cochrane Collaboration 2012
(20) T.Obukhanych, Immunologist, ‘Tetanus shot: how do we know that it works?’ vaccinationcouncil.org 2014
Thank you for reading this Substack.
Please consider a small paid subscription (donation). The money goes to a good cause.
I am always looking for good, personal GMC or childhood vaccination stories. Shared stories help others.
In the comments, please let me know what’s on your mind.
You can write to me privately: unbekoming@outlook.com
If you are Covid-jab injured, consider the FLCCC Post-Vaccine Treatment
Wow, 2015 ?! Thank you, your commentary fits well and compliments the main piece. I read the "Sadam" one too, I like how you structure your SS and, you're
always a great read. I hope there's more to come 😊