A recent MJA (Medical Journal of Australia) article titled “No Jab, No Pay and vaccine refusal in Australia: the jury is out” has been shared a lot lately, and many have found it heartening that the author appears to disagree with NJNP legislation. This article, I feel, is worse than the mainstream media’s witch hunts and vile abuse (and no, I’m not adding links to that garbage.). At least the media attacks are honest about wanting to take away our rights. The MJA article is the ultimate wolf in sheep’s clothing.
There are many things in this article worth discussing, but I think the standout is the idea that vaccine refusers shouldn’t be hit with NJNP legislation because there are so few of them. Hmmm. Apparently, whilst ‘vaccine refusers’ remain small in number, their basic human rights should be honoured. You know, the right to informed consent without coercion and all those high-minded ideas that crazy anti-vaxxers continually agitate about. However, should the number of vaccine refusers increase, then their human rights should not be honoured and all bets are off. Any method necessary to ensure compliance will be enforced.
There are some telling quotes in the article. “The proportion of the overall population strongly opposed to vaccination is small, with little evidence that it is increasing”. I find this almost humorous.
If there are so few of us and we are a static population, why was Polly Tommey recently banned from Australia?
And Kent Heckenlively? Kent didn’t even get to set foot on Australian soil, but his book sales have gone through the roof. Marketing genius. Methinks the government doth protest too much.
Having admitted that the powers that be have essentially given up on ‘vaccine refusers’ (well until vaccination at gunpoint becomes policy, watch this space), ‘vaccine-hesitant’ parents are well and truly in their sights. “Vaccine hesitant parents can be influenced by appropriate clinician communication reducing the chance of hesitancy becoming refusal”. Decoded, this means doctors have carte blanc to lie, bully, manipulate and coerce parents into vaccinating. Scare them. Intimidate them.
This is what happened to the Bundy family when they tried to question their doctor about their son’s 4-month vaccines. And for those who don’t have time to watch, the Bundy’s 4-month-old son was killed by the vaccines.
The most recent step taken by Australian authorities is to stomp on any Doctors who don’t toe the party line on vaccinations. Dr Piesse is the most well-known example.
“Levels of vaccine hesitancy in the population should be closely monitored to allow early detection of significant increases”. Right. So, vaccine hesitancy must be closely monitored but vaccine side effects can rage unchecked. If only vaccine reactions were monitored closely, perhaps Saba Button could have been spared from lifelong injury from a vaccine.
The vaccine that injured her had already taken the life of Ashley Epapara. And the same vaccine was erroneously given to a young boy the next year with awful consequences. Was that doctor hauled before a hearing and disqualified? No.
I’m surprised that the authors of this article think that the retracted Lancet paper is the most widely known example of a vaccine safety scare. They obviously haven’t heard about Dr William Thompson and the alleged fraud at the CDC (actually I think the authors HAVE heard about it, and it seems very remiss of them not to include that information.)
Having mentioned the Lancet paper, the authors then mislead the reader about its contents, stating “the subsequently retracted Lancet study that linked the measles-mumps-rubella (MMR) vaccine with autism”. The study, Illeal-lymphoid-nodular hyperplasia non-specific colitis and pervasive developmental disorder in children actually concluded that:
“We did not prove an association between measles, mumps and rubella vaccine and the syndrome described. Virological studies are underway that may help to resolve this issue”.
Does the research budget of the authors not extend to actually reading the study in question? I found it in a few seconds with Google for goodness sake. Not. That. Difficult.
What does the MJA article finally conclude with? Vaccination rates will be increased “from well structured research and evaluation of new interventions to overcome vaccine refusal and hesitancy.” Basically, whatever psychological manipulation techniques that they can think of. And if that doesn’t work, punitive measures will be implemented. Starve out the vaccine refusers. Reduce them to poverty. Make talking about vaccines illegal. Send refusers to re-education camps.
Fine them. Jail them. Do whatever has to be done to them. But do not, at any point, address any of their concerns about vaccine safety and efficacy. That is not allowed under any circumstance.
Do not even entertain the idea of a vaccinated versus unvaccinated study. Do not research vaccine ingredients. And above all, deny every single case of reported vaccine injury as vehemently as you can. After all, how else will we possibly hang onto all those hesitant parents?
I wonder why?
Please note: Blog posts are opinion pieces which represent the views of the authors. They do not necessarily represent the viewpoints of the AVN. 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.