Home Australia Mother of EIGHT had Six of her Babies Vaccinated but Refused to...

Mother of EIGHT had Six of her Babies Vaccinated but Refused to Immunise her Two Youngest


In the State of Victoria (Australia) health and education departments have begun drafting new laws so the Andrews Government can enforce its no jab, no play policy in 2016. Parents will face a childcare centre ban if immunisations are not up to date and they refuse to be counselled by a doctor. (report in the Herald Sun here)

When Tasha David first became a Mum, she never questioned getting her children vaccinated.


David’s first six children were vaccinated and all have health problems. After doing her research, she refused to vaccinate her last two children, and they have no health issues (report on dailymail.co.uk here). Maybe the Andrew’s government should read her storyTasha David (her words):

“It was just what you did when you have children – you do what your doctor tells you, because they know best. My husband and I had never been told that there could be any adverse reactions, only a bit of redness and swelling at the injection site. So as each of our six eldest children got progressively sicker after each vaccination, we never made that connection.

Out of our six vaccinated children, our 16, 12 and 10-year-old have moderate to severe Autism, our 25-year-old has ADHD, our 14-year-old has a severe language disorder, and our 20-year-old has severe mood swings.  They also suffered from chronic ear infections, bronchiolitis, asthma, eczema, psoriasis, urinary infections, gastrointestinal and autoimmune disorders, allergies, chemical sensitivities and intolerances.

We tried genetic testing to look for answers, but no reason was found for our children’s afflictions. So I started looking for answers on my own. I read books, went to seminars, read all the scientific studies I could get my hands on and that’s when I discovered that our family was not the only one.”

This realization led us to not vaccinate our five and eight-year-old old and they have thrived because of it. Out of all their siblings they should have been the most susceptible to genetic problems considering that I was in my late thirties when I had them and was overweight.

Yet our two youngest never had to suffer through the many illnesses that their brothers and sisters did. Not because they had never been exposed to illness because like all preschool and school children, they had been. But they had a resilience that had been taken from their siblings.

They have never had or needed an antibiotic in their lives, but more importantly they had none of their sibling’s disorders.

This was an especially bitter sweet realisation for me, as I looked at them and realised just how much my other children had lost because of me.

I had to come to terms with the fact that my ignorance about what I allowed to be put in to my children’s bodies had caused at least two (possibly three) of my children to NEVER be able to have the chance to be independent, fall in love and have a family. That when I die, they face the possibility of living with strangers who don’t love them the way they deserve to be loved.”

Is it all about protecting the “herd”?



  1. Is vaccination a racket or not? It’s the old problem-solving question of Cui Bono?

    Think of the current global happening of a crashed plane, then reflect on basics: This immediate pointing the finger makes one suspicious that it is important to plant in people’s mind certain ‘facts’. And of course immediately we know they are trying to hide something.
    1. One black box only found ? Would it not be better to find the second one as well ?
    2. A couple of days after the accident they already know the cause ? I thought it normally would take at least weeks ?
    3. Who exactly tested the black box – are the voices genuine ?
    4. Who releases all this information? A public prosecutor from Marseilles?
    5. Yesterday it was the New York Times first off with the suicide narrative – no word from the second pilot – automatically it is stated it was suicide. Could he have passed out, or any other reason?
    6. Who benefits if it was not an accident? Cui Bono?

    • Oh, now I have trancribed what Andrew Wakefiled said. I added it as a comment to my Dec 6, 2014 Gumshoe article, which reviewed the book, “Plague,” and will put it here, too:

      “Matthew Downing was a little boy in California. At the age of five and a half months he received eight vaccines on the same day, Hep-B, Hep-A, DPT, polio, and several others. His behaviour changed immediately, he became fractious, he became irritable and that lasted for 48 hours and then he died.

      For those of you who have concerns on vaccine safety that will reinforce your position. For those of you who trust in the CDC and pharmaceutical industry to look after your best interests, you will say that that was a coincidence, or that that death was acceptable collateral in the war on infectious diseases. Let me put one thing to bed immediately: the medical history confirmed that it was not coincidence, that his immunisation and his death were a continuum linked by his change in behaviour, it was not a coincidence.
      Here is the real problem at the heart of it. Never in the history of this planet has there ever been any safety study of that combination of vaccines. But there’s a problem. The doctor refused that the death caused by a nurse in his office was a vaccine injury, therefore it never went down in the records as a vaccine injury, thereby contributing to our continued ignorance about vaccine safety.
      Not only that, because it was not in the opinion of the doctor a medical injury, a vaccine injury, the parents were put on a high risk register, whether they knew it or not, for potentially dangerous and violent parents. [See medicalkidnap.com.]

      So here’s the irony: Crystal Downing, Matthews mother, is pregnant again and if these bills pass in California, when that child is born she will have no choice, zero choice but to expose her new child to the vaccines that killed her previous child. That is the dilemma she faces, and if she refuses which she should rightfully do, for medical reasons, her child will be taken away from her, particularly because she is already on a high risk register for abusive or potentially abusive parents and she will never see that child again, except perhaps his ashes in an urn.”

      The above came from Wakefield’s Youtube on Texas legislation.
      [Note: Wakefield lost his UK medical license, but his Sydney-born colleague John Walker-Smith did not. In 1988 they wrote a well-reasoned “case series” that the Lancet ‘retracted’ under political pressure. Pity doctors don’t complain about that!]

  2. There seems to be a hiccup. Dr Andrew Wakefield gave a very strong statement from the Steps of the Texas Legislature,
    and it was uploaded to Youtube on March 25, 2015. I tried twice below to link its url, but up pops a short video of a child instead.
    Please watch that for a minute and then it swithces to the correct one (which is 4.5 minutes).

  3. Would medical corporations knowingly poison us in the hope of creating generations of people dependent on ongoing, expensive (mostly useless) medical treatments that they can then in turn sell us for as long as we happen to survive? Are they sabotaging the future of humanity in the hope of a quick buck (shekel?) today? People bogged down in medical dramas also don’t find much time to question the world around them. Is the death of effective future dissent also a by-product of this project?

C'mon Leave a Reply, Debate and Add to the Discussion