And so the debate rages on. I am clear on my position, and I am tired of the debate, so I will not got there again, nor do I wish to persuade anyone in either direction. What disturbs me however is that, whenever The State promotes a particular policy or ideology over another, permission is effectively given to the general populace to persecute those with dissident views. Although it may seem like a step far removed from our own form of democracy, there are countless historical examples of where this leads. Here, to cite a recent example, is an article on the rise in gay deaths in Russia since Putin's recent, actively homophobic stance.
I do not think the Australian government's coercive pro-vaccine policy augurs well, indeed such decisions have often preceded the slippery slope towards a more autocratic form of government. Although I am thankful to have not been on the receiving end of a pro-vaccine rant from a reactionary, Herd Theory-spouting ignoramus, recently (indeed there has only ever been respect for each other's decisions from within our own school community) I fear that pro-vaccination parents, who already feel entitled to shame and make pariahs of conscientious objectors (whose beliefs may came from a different yet well-considered paradigm) and their otherwise healthy children, will interpret the move as giving them even more license to conduct a scare-mongering conversion drive. I get that parents just want to protect their children, truly I do. I just don't agree on how they sometimes go about it.
The analogy I draw is this: A region of Australia is subject to bushfires. Emergency Services persuades the community that, in order to escape the likelihood of a fire, a minimum of 90% of people will need to be pre-emptively airlifted out of the danger zone of predicted widespread fires that Summer and parachuted down to safety. Despite the obvious cost and complicated logistics of such an intervention, the community defers to Emergency Services, assuming that it is the leading authority in such things. 'Stay and defend' is no longer an option and people will be fined if they do not submit to the airlift. This is also welcome news to the parachute manufacturer, which unbeknown to most, has links to the chief of Emergency Services, and whose subsequent advertising campaign perpetuates the fear of a major bushfire. It is also known that, given the large numbers, 1% of parachutes will fail to open, and a further 1% will get snagged on trees, rooves and other obstacles on the way down. They do not disclose this predicted failure rate to the public however, and the project goes ahead, even though a known number of people will die and be injured anyway, albeit not from a bushfire. Furthermore, to speed up the implementation of the project, the parachutes are made from an inferior silk from a batch that has been idling away in storage, and are not thoroughly or rigorously tested before leaving the factory. They are distributed purely on the basis that the manufacturer, the pilot and the chief of Emergency Services deem them 'safe'. In fact, there are no major bushfires that year. The predicted wind patterns and conditions do not prevail. The valley is saved, but several lives are lost in the pre-emptive rescue mission.
It's a ridiculous premise to suggest, isn't it? And yet, isn't this effectively what we are doing in unquestioningly accepting vaccine theory without peering closely at the actual multiple toxic substances being injected into small bodies (expedient for the manufacturers and those administering them only) in quick succession?
There is currently no vaccine damage agency or path of recompense in Australia. Such agencies as VAERS, however, exist in the USA and other countries, which is tantamount to an acknowledgement that a A KNOWN % OF VACCINE RECIPIENTS WILL SICKEN OR DIE, YET VACCINES ARE MADE MANDATORY.
How can any mass medical intervention be taken truly seriously, unless it demonstrates that there will be a casualty rate of zero, and that it upholds the Hippocratic Oath under which doctors pledge to 'first do no harm'? How is it that the state can blithely decide that some individuals are expendable, in the course of supposedly providing immunity to a majority? And due to the negligible onus on vaccine manufacturers to provide adequate proof of the efficacy and long term harmlessness of vaccines, we simply do not know what the implications will be down the track, of mass vaccination. Even respectable scientists such as epigeneticists, the doyens of a balanced nature-nurture hypothesis, counsel caution in messing around with our genes and our bodies natural defences, precisely because of these unforeseeable effects.
I find the stepping up of attacks (dare I say the witch hunt) on vaccine information providers and whistle blowers, such as Meryl Dorey of the AVN, abhorrent. I find Isaac Golden's writing and research on the subject pretty compelling. Predictably, Golden is also currently receiving a slagging in the press, from the AMA and other threatened quarters, despite his rather moderate position. This includes persuasive evidence and statistics from homeopathic trials conducted overseas, where vaccination is prohibitively expensive and homeopathy better-known. In countries such as Brazil and Cuba, medical doctors are often also registered homeopaths. There is also a growing mountain of credible anecdotal evidence, and a growing personal faith and experience in a more holistic, less barbaric health paradigm.
And just to link the gay and vaccine issues, go here for a bizarrely homophobic extrapolation about the dangers of vaccines from some nutter of an Italian doctor, that I reckon we can all do without!
.jpg)
