“Refusing to vaccinate is akin to child abuse” – Yes, they really did say that!
By General Maddox.
Another so called “Journalist” from the Daily Telegraph, a Murdoch propaganda rag, has written a deplorable story attacking parents who support freedom of choice when it comes to vaccination.
This time instead of calling parents “baby killers” and “terrorists” like the Daily Telegraph’s Claire Harvey did, Maria Billias shoots from the hip and calls freedom of choice supporters “child abusers”. Her article has no supporting evidence or links for readers to visit for any facts whatsoever. It’s merely an opinion piece aimed at fomenting hatred and division amongst the anti-vaccination/freedom of choice crowd and the pro-vax crowd.
The article also states that parents whom choose not to inject toxic substances into the bloodstream of their children are also guilty of neglecting their safety. It makes you wonder if this woman has any idea what are in the vaccines she’s so eager for everyone to have. Even most GP’s and nurses can’t tell you what’s in them.
In my research, what I can confirm is that it’s the parents of unvaccinated children who can tell you what the vaccine ingredients are AND what damage said substances do to the adult human body as well as infants.
People such as this Maria Billias can only attack the anti-vax parents because they lack the ability to produce any factual information to back up their claims. They resort to ad hominem attacks and name calling. Such as…
crackpot vaccination conspiracists
a bunch of imbeciles
Feel free to see it for yourselves in the article linked to above. The quotes aren’t taken out of context either. This is apparently what passes for journalism these days.
This is a clear and often used tactic of the Murdoch propaganda machine. Below is a great documentary to watch on the subject.
Another noteworthy point to mention is the comment section of the aforementioned article. There is major censorship happening on behalf of the comment moderators. Not due to bad language or inappropriate comments but due to an overwhelming response of the anti-vax groups posting rebuttals to every point made by the article author.
Many of these rebuttals contain links to back up what the commentor is eloquently saying yet we see many abusive pro-vax comments easily making their way passed the moderators. How do we know this? Because the commentors are saving their responses and sharing them among the anti-vax social media groups and exposing the fact that any information that seeks to contradict the status quo will not be tollerated by Murdoch’s censor goons.
Below are two rebuttals that may not make it through the censorship net but need to be expressed. Please take the time to read them as the information is excellent:
Here is my comment on this horrible article – one in a string of horrible articles. I doubt very much that it will be approved, but you never know…
This journalist appears to be as misinformed about the law as she is about the scientific evidence behind vaccination. She states that NSW passed a No Jab No Play law. They did not. In fact, the NSW Parliament during debate on proposed legislation that is similar to what was eventually passed in Victoria, stated that bringing these laws in would leave the government open to anti-discrimination lawsuits. And they were right. And hopefully, those lawsuits will be starting up in Victoria shortly.
The Australian Vaccination-Skeptics Network is currently awaiting a barrister’s advice regarding the possibility of taking a case to the High Court of Australia to overturn No Jab No Pay legislation that discriminates against loving and well-informed parents who have made informed choices not to follow the government’s full vaccination schedule. Visit avn.org.au to find out more about this effort.
The fact is – there is no such thing as vaccine-induced herd immunity. Our vaccination rates have never been higher and our rate of pertussis (whooping cough) has been higher per capita in the last few years than it was before mass vaccination was introduced to Australia in 1953. Lack of vaccination is not the reason – the vaccine itself apparently increases susceptibility to b. parapertussis – a different form of the bacteria that causes whooping cough. In addition, it appears to have been responsible for causing the pertussis bacteria to mutate to the point where today, 87% of pertussis cases in Australia are being caused by a strain of the bacteria that is not contained in the vaccine. Yet the ignorant media is blaming the unvaccinated!
And when the measles vaccine was introduced in the US in 1963, doctors said the disease would be wiped out within a decade. More than 50 years later, with a vaccination rate of well over 90%, measles is still with us – and it is affecting the fully-vaccinated.
You talk about the 6 month old baby who was hospitalised with measles. Prior to measles vaccination, the disease was nearly unheard of in infants because unvaccinated parents who had contracted measles as children were able to pass on very strong measles protection to their unborn children in the womb. This protection lasted for between 15 and 18 months after birth meaning that young babies – who were the most at risk of serious problems from measles should they contract it during this time – would not do so until they were older. Then, they would also get lifelong protection from measles (a benefit the vaccine cannot provide) and they could pass this same protection on to their own children.
Vaccinated parents give birth to babies who are unprotected – even if the parents themselves contracted measles after vaccination – leading to measles becoming more common in infancy for the first time in recorded history.
If vaccines worked – if they truly provided the protection they promise – the vaccinated would not have to be concerned about contracting illnesses they had been vaccinated against. And since the stated vaccine effectiveness (if you can believe statistics promulgated by the drug companies that manufacture and profit from these products) is between 17% (for last year’s flu vaccine) and 80% and this supposed protection lasts from 6 months to 10 years, please explain how vaccination could EVER claim to provide herd immunity when most of those who were vaccinated are not and never were immune to disease. True immunity means lifelong protection. No vaccine can give you that. Only contracting the illness and recovering from it – something the human race has done for millennia – can make you immune.
If a vaccinated child gets sick with something they were vaccinated against, that is a case of vaccine failure – nothing more and nothing less. If vaccines only protect you up to the point where you are exposed to the virus or bacteria – then they haven’t protected you at all.
The title of this article should have been – refusing to obey the orders of the Murdoch media can get you charged with child abuse – because that is far closer to the truth in this matter. The government passes legislation – not based on fact or need – but based on pressure from the media that is incredibly reliant on pharmaceutical advertising money. Is this a conspiracy theory? No! This is a conspiracy – but there is nothing theoretical about it.
As I send this comment, I know that it will be followed by a slew of posts from anti-freedom campaigners attacking me personally. This is a serious subject however and it deserves serious discussion with both sides given a voice and all available evidence presented to those seeking to make an informed decision. Personal attacks have no place in this debate.
One of the ostensible purposes of vaccination is to protect those who can’t be vaccinated because they’re immunocompromised – like, say, a cancer patient, or others with severe, chronic disorders. Last week the USCDC offered the public an online quiz, which provided you with a list of vaccines you need, based on the answers to the health questions asked. The questions were few: age; sex; and one which asked you to choose from a list of disorders which ones you may have. As a test of the espoused tenet that the immunocompromised can’t be vaccinated, I checked the boxes for heart disease, diabetes, chronic lung disease, cancer and HIV with CD4 count greater than or equal to 200. Surely I wouldn’t be advised to vaccinate…
Based on my response, I was told I need the Hep A, Hep B, flu, meningitis, pneumococcal and Tdap vaccines.
It would be funny, if it weren’t such blatant evidence of the falsity of the vaccination paradigm. Everything we’re told in the mainstream about vaccination, from the threat of the associated diseases to the extent of severe vaccine injury to the effectiveness of the vaccines, is false. As blatantly, articles such as this are terribly misleading, in that there’s no mention of the thousands of cases of severe, sometimes fatal, reactions to vaccines. The equation’s simple, really: once you’re aware that your child can be permanently disabled, brain damaged or killed by a vaccine, with no way to accurately predict the probability on an individual by individual, shot by shot basis, you must look seriously at the associated diseases, to assess whether they’re actually a threat.
Measles: in 1960 in the U.S., before the advent of the vaccine, the complications rate for measles was around 1 in 1,000 cases, the mortality rate, 1 in 10,000. That’s a textbook definition of a benign disease; one in which complications aren’t expected, and complete recovery is usual. Critically, parents must consider that when 9,999 out of 10,000 measles patients recover, there’s more involved in the one death than just the measles virus; that there’s serious immune system weakness involved, whether from malnutrition or other cause; that complications and death don’t follow the virus or bacterium, they follow the person; that in well fed and housed populations, the vaccine associated diseases are simply not a threat.
Beware. The lion’s share of vaccine injuries occur well after the withdrawal of the syringe needle. If they occurred, instead, as the needle was withdrawn, no doctor would dare suggest vaccinating.
The proposal set forth in this article is draconian, based on misinformation and a trust in supposed health authorities who even a modicum of research outside the mainstream box – and yes, outside of Google – shows are not trustworthy.