by Stephen Mocko
The vaccine debate is heating up in Australia, following the ‘No Jab, No Pay; No Jab, No Play’ legislation that was introduced on the first of January.
There are strong feelings on both sides of the matter—and understandably—the wellbeing of our most vulnerable citizens, the citizens we are responsible for and love dearly—our children, is at stake here.
If you fall in the group of parents who questions the safety of vaccines, you can rest at ease. You can stop the hours of researching that I’m sure you have been doing to make sure you are making the right decision.
Why? Well because in their January 9th article, ‘There is NO Debate’[i], the Herald Sun has told us exactly that: there is no debate when it comes to the safety of vaccines.
Of course, they must be right. They explain ‘[h]ow myths are being peddled to avoid the new “no jab, no play or pay” laws’.
Because of course the thousands of parents who are questioning the safety and efficacy of vaccines are not intelligent enough to separate mere myths from science in their minds.
They have somehow been duped and have not been able to see the light.
Not to mention the tens of thousands of parents who have seen their precious children succumb to vaccine injuries that have caused permanent disabilities and changed their lives forever.
Despite the fact that these children were developing perfectly until their shots, and began to show signs of regression—or worse—either immediately after, or in the days following their vaccinations, they are told it was a mere coincidence. There was absolutely no connection between the vaccines and the obvious change in their children, the doctors tell them.
We hear the same story over and over and over again.
So should we just accept what the Herald Sun is telling us? Are we wrong to question vaccines?
The article explains and ‘debunks’ seven ‘myths’ that these crazy anti-vaxxers are spreading about vaccinations, each in a matter of paragraphs.
Let’s take a closer look at each though, one by one, and see whether there is in fact ‘NO Debate’, or whether maybe, just maybe, the Herald Sun’s health editor, Grant McArthur, who penned the article, neglected to tell us the whole story.
In the interests of brevity, and due to time constraints, I will be addressing one or two points per ‘myth’. However, it should be stated that for every point made, there are so many more that indicate the benefits of allowing the body’s immune system to work naturally, and point to the dangers of vaccinations.
The body’s immune system can cope with infection without the help of vaccines.
The immune system is a collection of specialised cells and chemicals that fight infection. Each time a bacterium, fungus or virus (germ) is overcome, the immune system “remembers” how to defeat that infection. If the immune system comes into contact with that particular germ again, it can destroy it quickly, often before symptoms are even noticed.
Without causing infection, vaccines trick the immune system into responding as if the body is under attack from a specific bacterium or virus by introducing dead or weakened versions of the germ; inactivated toxins from germs; or molecules from the surface of the germ.
If the immune system encounters the live germ or toxin later, the immune system quickly recognises it and kills it.
Firstly, this doesn’t actually answer the question. It explains how the immune system works—something which most people who have studied vaccines have a good knowledge of anyway.
It then explains how vaccines work—also something which most people who have studied vaccines have a good knowledge of.
Vaccines do not work the same way that the immune system does in nature. When we come into contact with a pathogen in our environment, it is not injected straight into our bloodstream as vaccines are.
This means that the body deals with it differently than it would a disease we are exposed to naturally.
In nature, a pathogen that we come into contact with goes through a number of bodily systems that evoke an immune response. It is dealt with by the skin, the gut, mucous membranes, etc.
This is even common knowledge amongst medical practitioners! The Merck manual, which is a doctor’s bible, says the following about the body’s lines of defence:
‘The body has a series of defenses. Defenses include physical barriers, white blood cells, and antibodies and other chemical substances
Physical Barriers: The first line of defense against invaders is mechanical or physical barriers:
- The skin
- The cornea of the eyes
- Membranes lining the respiratory, digestive, urinary, and reproductive tracts
As long as these barriers remain unbroken, many invaders cannot enter the body. If a barrier is broken—for example, if extensive burns damage the skin—the risk of infection is increased. In addition, the barriers are defended by secretions containing enzymes that can destroy bacteria. Examples are sweat, tears in the eyes, mucus in the respiratory and digestive tracts…’
So in the words of the medical establishment, as long as the body is doing what it is supposed to be doing, you are unlikely to get sick!
There is no issue with children developing their immune system by exposure to their environment—children are forever putting things in their mouths, and perhaps this is nature’s way of helping them to develop a strong immune system.
Another point that the article doesn’t explain is the benefits that some childhood illnesses have on the immune system long term. It doesn’t explain that those who have the Measles as a child, as well as developing a lifelong immunity to the disease itself, also develop lifelong immunity to degenerative bone and cartilage disease, sebaceous skin diseases, and certain tumours.[ii] This includes health problems such as dust mite allergies,[iii] along with other common allergies[iv]. The Measles vaccine does not provide this protection, while the wild Measles virus does.
The immune systems of babies are protected through the placenta and breastfeeding, so they don’t need vaccination.
Babies are exposed to many germs as part of the normal birthing process, including those from the vaginal canal, faeces and breastmilk. Although their immune systems can meet these challenges, the immune system in an infant is still developing and needs to become active to protect against a range of bacteria and viruses.
An infant will receive some natural protection against diseases transferred from the placenta, but the level of protection depends on the mother’s exposure to disease either by illness or vaccination. Breastmilk is also valuable for protection, but the protection is mainly for germs that infect the gut. The protection received from the placenta and breastmilk can be weak and only lasts for a few months.
This paragraph is an insult to all breastfeeding mothers and the power of breast milk’s ability to protect and nourish an infant!
Not only does it protect from germs that infect the gut, as the article states, but from a range of other pathogens to which the mother or baby are exposed.
There is a plethora of studies which have clearly demonstrated the superior health that breast-fed babies in general experience compared to their formula-fed counterparts. Try telling me that this is ‘weak’ protection!
If you thought that was amazing, get this: when mother breast feeds, not only does she pass on to her baby antibodies she has developed to illnesses during her lifetime, but also creates new antibodies in response to pathogens the baby is exposed to! When a breastfeeding baby has come into contact with a virus or bacteria, the baby’s saliva sends cues to the mother through her skin as the baby is feeding.
During the next few hours following this, the mother’s body makes targeted antibodies which the baby then receives throughout its next few feeds, to help the baby fight that pathogen.[v] So to say that the protection is ‘weak’ shows a lack of understanding of how the body works in this regard.
Breast milk contains antibodies for far longer than ‘a few months’, though it is true that the milk’s ability to perform this function is at its strongest in the months after birth. Both the World Health Organization and UNICEF advise that babies be
breastfed for ‘two years and beyond’ because of the numerous benefits it provides to infants.
Another issue that the article does not address is the fact that babies are not born with a fully-developed immune system. They do not produce antibodies of their own (the most commonly-produced being IgG) until AT LEAST a few weeks, but more commonly, several months following the birth of the baby. (See graph below).[vi]
Why is it, then, that one of the first things we do is insist that a newborn is jabbed with a Hepatitis B vaccine, followed by vaccinations for 9 diseases at 2 months of age?[vii]
This is ludicrous, considering that the medical profession itself admits that it is generally only from 2-3 months of age that a baby’s immune system is even remotely mature enough to give an immune response that would enable the vaccine to work effectively!
Combining two or three vaccines into one injection may put a baby’s immune system under considerable strain. Vaccines should be separated and given at six-monthly or yearly intervals.
Delaying vaccines would leave children vulnerable to catching diseases. Vaccines do not reduce a child’s immunity. Combining vaccines reduces the number of injections that babies and children need to receive.
Vaccine preparations don’t cause infection, so an “all-out” immune response is not triggered. In addition, the immune system is designed to handle multiple attacks, because in nature germs don’t attack the body one at a time.
Each vaccine is carefully researched and produced so that it is suitable to be given at the earliest possible time to provide the best level of effectiveness and protection.
Here I want to point out something that few people are aware of, but which needs to be publicised.
When we vaccinate our children, we place trust in the vaccine manufacturers. We assume that they have conducted thorough research on their product before releasing it to the public. To put it bluntly, although we SHOULD be safe in making that assumption, we are NOT.
Anyone who has studied any science, even at a basic high school level, knows that if a study were to be conducted on the safety of a vaccine, it should involve a large sample size of people randomly split into two groups, to exclude other extraneous variables having an effect on results.
One group should then be injected with the vaccine being studied, and the other with a saline solution.
Nobody taking part should be aware of which group they are in. This methodology is called a double blind placebo study.
It is the best and most sound methodology to use for a scientific study, as it eliminates the most variables.
If you assumed that that is the method that vaccine manufacturers use when researching the safety of their products, you are wrong.
No, what they do (and it is explained on the package insert of each vaccine how the study was conducted but how many people take the time to read that? How many people’s doctors have told them that they have the right to read this insert, which includes information such as possible adverse side effects, vaccine ingredients and research methodology in studying the vaccine’s safety) is they give one group of participants the vaccine they are studying, while another is given an alternative vaccine, or an injection of a solution of the same vaccine, just with no virus in it[viii].
The control, therefore, still contains all the adjuvants—the aluminium, formaldehyde, polysorbate-80, etc.
All this tells us is whether any adverse reactions experienced are different from or similar to those of other vaccines—it does not tell us whether vaccines themselves are safe, or whether the particular vaccine being studied is safe.
There has been very few studies conducted comparing vaccinated children to those who are unvaccinated, as it is claimed that it is unethical to withhold vaccines from a group of children for the purposes of a study.
This is nonsense, as we know that there are parents all around the world whose children are not vaccinated, and who would be all too pleased to participate in a study comparing the health of their children to that of the vaccinated.
I would have thought that if vaccine manufacturers were so sure of the safety and efficacy of their vaccines, they would jump at the chance to prove to anti-vaxxers that their concerns are unfounded.
The few studies that have been conducted comparing vaccinated children to the unvaccinated (including a New Zealand and a German study) have actually found that the unvaccinated are, in many ways, healthier than the vaccinated, with fewer cases of health problems such as eczema, hay fever, allergies, asthma, ear infections, warts, diabetes, epilepsy, dyslexia, celiac disease, GERD, and infection such as tonsillitis.[ix]
Where is the media coverage of this? What have vaccine manufacturers done in response to this?
So, Grant McArthur of the Herald Sun, don’t try to tell me that vaccines are ‘carefully researched’ to ensure the best level of protection and effectiveness, because that is a downright lie.
Reactions to combined vaccines do occur and are still occurring. (Keep reading to see my point later about the connection between the MMR vaccine and Autism, which was admitted by a CDC scientist). Vaccines CAN cause infection (keep reading to see my point later about virus shedding). Vaccines CAN overload the immune system.
Profit-hungry pharmaceutical companies — “big pharma” — are behind the push to vaccinate.
The strongest advocates for vaccines are government and not-for-profit health organisations, such as the World Health Organisation (WHO) and Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, rather than commercial companies, according to immunologist Prof Andrew Lew, from the Walter and Eliza Hall Institute of Medical Research.
“This is because vaccines are extremely cost-effective against disease,” he said. “As an example, every $1 spent on Hib leads to a saving of $5 to the health budget.
“Some vaccines are not particularly profitable but are good for the community. An example is the flu vaccine made by CSL, Australia’s largest vaccine company, which is made in close collaboration and stewardship from the WHO.”
People forget that pharmaceutical companies are just that—COMPANIES. A company’s aim, first and foremost, is to make money. It stands to reason, then, that it is NOT in the best interests of the pharmaceutical companies to get us all well—they make more money if we are sick. It also stands to reason that pharmaceutical companies are going to try their hardest to push their vaccines, as this results in profit for them!
Don’t try to tell me, Grant McArthur, that vaccines do not generate much profit—in 2015, the CDC spent $4 BILLION on vaccines—that’s in one year alone![x] As if, after making such a purchase, they are not going to be making an effort to push vaccines onto the public! While this is in the USA and not Australia, the principle is the same. The pharmaceutical companies and the government are tied together.
Just one of many examples—in July, 2013, a study which was commissioned and funded by the US Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) was published, stated that vaccines ‘are very safe’.[xi]
However, the public was NOT told that the study was designed and peer-reviewed by high-level officials from the CDC, including the CDC’s Director of Immunisation Safety![xii]
And we are expected to believe that there is ‘nothing in it’ for the pharmaceutical companies or the government!
In addition to this, there are cases where government bodies such as the US’s DHHS are given money from pharmaceutical companies to fast-track the use of vaccines[xiii] and work in partnership with such companies to develop and share the profits generated from the sale of vaccines[xiv].
Government bodies should never have this sort of relationship with a pharmaceutical company.
There have been numerous examples of vaccine manufacturers, such as Merck, openly funding studies designed to convince the public of the safety of vaccines,[xv] and only recently, pharmaceutical giant GlaxoSmithKline was caught bribing Chinese doctors to endorse and distribute their products.[xvi]
A 1997 report by the American Academy of Pediatrics found that, ‘[o]f the $1.4 billion that fund US vaccine research and development annually, 46% comes from vaccine sales, 36% from taxpayers, ad 18% from risk capital’.
Did you get that? Nearly half the money used to fund vaccine research COMES FROM THE SALE OF VACCINES![xvii]
Do the words ‘conflict of interest’ spring to your mind too, or is it just me being cynical?
There is a long history of conflicts of interests in the pharmaceutical industry[xviii] and there needs to be more transparency before we can start trusting either our governments or the vaccine manufacturers.
The fact that in the US, the vaccine manufacturers have no accountability whatsoever for the consequences of their vaccines and cannot be sued is a perfect example of just how powerful the pharmaceutical companies are!
Vaccinations can cause certain disorders, such as autism and diabetes, or contribute to the risk of sudden unexpected death in infancy (SUDI), which includes sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS) and fatal sleep accidents.
These theories have been extensively investigated and dismissed. Immunisation reactions are generally mild and resolve by themselves without needing medical treatment. Reactions may include fever and soreness at the injection site. Serious immunisation reactions are exceptionally rare.
This is laughable. These ‘theories’ have been far from dismissed! There is a long list of doctors—highly educated individuals who are above falling gullibly for myths surrounding vaccines—who are concerned about the safety of vaccines.[xix]
|Nicola Antonucci, MD||Isaac Golden, ND||Amber Passini, MD|
|David Ayoub, MD||Gary Goldman, PhD||Ronald Peters, MD, MPH|
|Nancy Turner Banks, MD||Garry Gordon, MD, DO, MD(H)||Jean Pilette, MD|
|Timur Baruti, MD||Doug Graham, DC||Pat Rattigan, ND|
|Danny Beard, DC||Boyd Haley, PhD||Zoltan Rona, MD, MSc|
|Françoise Berthoud, MD||Gayl Hamilton, MD||Chaim Rosenthal, MD|
|Russell Blaylock, MD||Linda Hegstrand, MD, PhD||Robert Rowen, MD|
|Fred Bloem, MD||James Howenstine, MD||Máximo Sandín, PhD|
|Laura Bridgman, FNP, ND||Suzanne Humphries, MD||Len Saputo, MD|
|Kelly Brogan, MD||Belén Igual Diaz, MD||Michael Schachter, MD|
|Sarah Buckley, MD||Philip Incao, MD||Viera Scheibner, PhD|
|Rashid Buttar, DO||Joyce Johnson, ND||Penelope Shar, MD|
|Harold Buttram, MD||A. Majid Katme, MBBCh, DPM||Bruce Shelton, MD, MD(H)|
|Lisa Cantrell, RN||Tedd Koren, DC||Debbi Silverman, MD|
|Lua Català Ferrer, MD||Alexander Kotok, MD, PhD||Kenneth “KP” Stoller, MD|
|Jennifer Craig, PhD, BSN, MA||Eneko Landaburu, MD||Terri Su, MD|
|Robert Davidson, MD, PhD||Luc Lemaire, DC||Didier Tarte, MD|
|Ana de Leo, MD||Janet Levatin, MD||Leigh Ann Tatnall, RN|
|Carlos de Quero Kops, MD||Thomas Levy, MD, JD||Adiel Tel-Oren, MD, DC|
|Carolyn Dean, MD, ND||Stephen L’Hommedieu, DC||Sherri Tenpenny, DO|
|Mayer Eisenstein, MD, JD, MPH||Paul Maher, MD, MPH||Renee Tocco, DC|
|Todd M. Elsner, DC||Andrew Maniotis, PhD||Demetra Vagias, MD, ND|
|Jorge Esteves, MD||Steve Marini, PhD, DC||Franco Verzella, MD|
|Edward “Ted” Fogarty, MD||Juan Manuel Martínez Méndez, MD||Julian Whitaker, MD|
|Jack Forbush, DO||Sue McIntosh, MD||Ronald Whitmont, MD|
|Milani Gabriele, CRNA, RN||Richard Moskowitz, MD||Betty Wood, MD|
|Sheila Gibson, MD, BSc||Sheri Nakken, RN, MA||Eduardo Ángel Yahbes, MD|
|Mike Godfrey, MBBS||Christiane Northrup, MD|
And this is just SOME of MANY doctors who feel the same.
They feel this way because, despite what the Herald Sun tells us, they have looked at the SCIENCE surrounding vaccine safety, and found it to be wanting.
The pro-vaccine movement wants to tell us that those who are against vaccines are ignorant and misinformed. They neglect to mention that more and more doctors and other highly-educated individuals are questioning it.
It is actually the complete opposite—the areas in which vaccination levels are lowest are the more affluent areas (in Melbourne, places such as Toorak and South Yarra, and in Sydney, places such as Manley), where residents are likely to be highly educated.[xx]
They also forgot to mention that in August 2014, a senior scientist at the Centre for Disease Control (CDC) in the USA became a whistleblower, admitting that a 2004 CDC study included falsified data to hide the link between the MMR vaccine and autism in African American males.
The scientist, Dr William Thompson, stated, ‘I regret that my coauthors and I omitted statistically significant information in our 2004 article published in the Journal “Pediatrics”’.[xxi]
The omitted data found that there was a 240% increase of autism amongst African American males and a 69% increase in all male children who were given the MMR vaccine before the age of 36 months.[xxii]
This is big news! A scientist from the CDC, one of the most respected scientific institutions in the USA, has come out and admitted that there is a link between autism and the MMR vaccine, yet the Herald Sun tells us that this is a ‘myth’ that has been ‘debunked’.
Doesn’t it make you wonder how many other studies have been published with altered data, in order to hide such links?
As for SIDS, the situation in Japan bears mentioning.
Between the years of 1970 and 1974, there were 37 infant deaths in Japan, all following vaccination.
In response to this, a group of Japanese doctors boycotted vaccines, and for two months, none were administered.
After this time, the vaccination schedule was resumed, but the decision was made to delay all infant vaccinations in Japan until 2 years—i.e. no Japanese child received any vaccinations until after they had turned two years old.
Immediately following this decision, Japan went from being ranked 17th in the world for child mortality, to the LOWEST ranking in the world, and SIDS disappeared from the country.
In 1988, the vaccination rate in Japan was once again lowered, this time with children receiving their first vaccination at three months of age.
So I’m sorry, Herald Sun, but this myth is far from debunked.
Lastly on this point, if adverse reactions to vaccinations are so rare, why is it that since it began in 1988, the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP) in the USA has paid out around 3.18 BILLION DOLLARS in compensation to those damaged by vaccines?[xxv]
If you don’t know much about the VICP, here’s a little background: in 1986, the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act was signed into law by the then-president Ronald Reagan.
It effectively allowed vaccine manufacturers to be completely free from any consequences of their vaccines, and any damages they may cause to those to whom they are administered.
Prior to this time, anyone damaged as a result of a vaccination they received was able to seek compensation via the USA’s court system, and the manufacturers themselves were responsible for paying out that compensation should they be found culpable.
That is no longer the case—from 1988 onwards, anyone with injuries that the judges on the VICP panel deem to be caused by vaccines are compensated from money from a fund that is managed by the US government.
Each time a vaccine is purchased, a small amount of the purchase cost includes a surcharge. This surcharge goes into a Congressional fund which, as aforementioned, is dipped into each time it is decided that compensation is required.
Keep in mind that not all vaccine-injured people seek compensation—some do not want the stress of going through the process, which in some cases can take up to ten years, some do not even know of the existence of the VICP—and many are refused compensation as it is decided that there is not adequate evidence to demonstrate a strong link between a vaccination received and injuries sustained.
If everyone who deserved compensation was given it, the figure would most definitely be far more than 3.18 billion dollars.
Considering this, should we really believe the Herald Sun when they tell us that vaccine injuries are rare? Heck, it was only today I was reading of 100 seniors who died of the flu shot![xxvi] Of course, that’s not something the Melbourne Harold Sun covers, though!
Immunisation for childhood infectious disease is riskier than the disease.
Childhood diseases such as measles and whooping cough (pertussis) are serious and potentially fatal. The risk of complications from disease is much higher than the risks of complications from immunisation.
If vaccination levels fall too low, epidemics can re-appear. People with little first-hand experience of such disease can underestimate the effects and complications.
Some parents worry that the measles mumps rubella (MMR) vaccine can cause brain inflammation (encephalitis), but this risk for the vaccine is around one in one million. On the other hand, one in every 1000 children who catch measles will experience encephalitis. Of these, one in 10 will die and four in 10 will have permanent brain damage.
Deaths and complications from diseases such as Measles and Chicken Pox are quite rare in developed nations where appropriate medical care is available and the patient is receiving adequate nutrition—in fact, complications from the vaccines are far more common.
Funnily enough, it has only been since vaccines have been introduced for them that we began to be told that diseases such as Measles and Chicken Pox are serious—prior to vaccines, they were considered to be mild childhood illnesses—see the image, taken from the Australian Women’s Weekly in 1980, for a first-hand example.
What the Herald Sun does not tell you is that in the US in the past 10 years, there have been ZERO deaths from Measles, yet 108 deaths due to the Measles vaccine[xxvii].
If that doesn’t tell you that ‘the immune system can cope with infection without the help of vaccines’, I don’t know what does!
Another thing that the Herald Sun does not tell you is that for every vaccine injury that is reported, there are far more that are not.
The FDA recently acknowledged that ’90 percent of doctors do not report vaccine reactions’[xxviii]!
That is a staggering number! We can only assume that the numbers are similar here in Australia.
If, therefore, there are around 3,000 reported cases of adverse vaccine reactions reported in a year in Australia[xxix], we know that in reality that is far, far more.
The article says that ‘[i]f vaccination levels fall too low, epidemics can re-appear.’ This is the old ‘herd immunity’ argument.
Herd immunity is a phenomenon that DOES occur in nature.
However, it occurs in a community following large numbers within that community becoming infected with a particular disease.
Those people then naturally acquire a lifelong immunity to that disease.
The proponents of vaccines claim that when 95-100% of the population is vaccinated, the same phenomenon occurs, and through this same herd immunity, diseases can be prevented.
However, naturally-acquired immunity is NOT the same as vaccine-induced herd immunity.
The flaw lies in the fact that vaccine-induced immunity only lasts for a short period of time—ranging from 2-10 years.
It is for this reason that boosters are encouraged. However, these boosters do not last long either—many merely two years or even less.
Neurosurgeon Dr Russell Blaylock, in his article ‘The Deadly Impossibility of Herd Immunity Through Vaccination’[xxx], addresses a critical point: it was only discovered in recent years that vaccines did not, in fact, remain effective for a lifetime. For a period of around 70 years, it was thought that they did.
The implication that this has is that the baby boomers generation had, for many years, absolutely NO immunity against any of the diseases against which they were vaccinated as a child.
They thought they were immune, but since we now know that vaccine-induced immunity only lasts a number of years, they were not.
Most, unless they have since got boosters for all vaccines, probably still have no immunity.
Given this, and given the hysteria about the necessity to vaccinate in order to prevent the whole community from becoming sick, you would think that this would have resulted in a resurgence in a range of diseases in the 1960s to the 1980s.
After all, this would have meant that far fewer than the required 95-100% of the population was protected by vaccines, as is necessary according to the vaccine-induced herd immunity theory.
However, there was no resurgence of these diseases.
Herd immunity is merely a means of attempting to guilt those who question vaccines into vaccinating themselves or their children, and make them appear selfish if they will not.
It gives those who have not studied the issue at all some ammunition with which to aim fire at those who question whether vaccinating their children is the best thing to do by them, and evokes a very emotive response in people.
Besides, at what point do we EVER make someone undergo a medical procedure—for that is EXACTLY what a vaccination is—for the good of others?
The idea of sacrificing the individual good for the good of society is a socialistic idea that was espoused by the likes of Hitler! In fact, it was Hitler who said, ‘Society’s needs come before the individual’s needs.’
Informed consent is a basic human right which the ‘No Jab, No Pay; No Jab, No Play’ legislation violates.
And don’t tell me that it is still optional, because while many who choose to forego the government payments and keep their children vaccine-free, can survive without welfare payments (particularly since many who don’t vaccinate are in affluent areas) there are others who, for financial reasons, will have no choice but to vaccinate their children, against their wishes.
The article positions readers to see mothers who have concerns over the vaccine schedule and the impact it will have on their child as selfish, but if anything DID happen to that child, would the doctors or the government be there to give that child all the support they needed?
No, in these kinds of situations it falls to the parents to spend the rest of their lives taking care of that child and picking up the pieces.
Compensation might help a little, but it doesn’t change the fact that that child’s life, and the life of the child’s family has been changed forever.
So parents SHOULD be selfish! They SHOULD care more about the welfare of their own child than about little Johnny down the road. What kind of parents would they be if they didn’t?
It is not worth immunising children because vaccines don’t work.
It is true that some people still catch a disease even though they have been vaccinated against it. In some cases, symptoms can be far less severe if they have been vaccinated. No vaccine can offer complete immunity.
Examples of vaccine effectiveness include:
DIPHTHERIA: 84 out of every 100 people vaccinated will be completely immune.
HIB: 95 out of every 100 people vaccinated will be completely immune.
MEASLES, MUMPS, RUBELLA: 95 out of every 100 people vaccinated completely immune.
WHOOPING COUGH: 85 out of every 100 people vaccinated will be completely immune.
POLIO: 95 out of every 100 people vaccinated will be completely immune.
CHICKEN POX: 85 out of every 100 people vaccinated will be completely immune.
Listening to all the media hype, one could be forgiven for thinking that vaccines don’t work—after all, if they are as effective as we are told, what’s the big fuss about vaccinated children coming into contact with those who are unvaccinated?
They act as if unvaccinated children walk around with Chicken Pox, Measles, Whooping Cough and other illnesses in their bodies, just waiting to infect everyone.
They act as if every baby were born with these diseases, and only vaccines can eliminate them.
The fact is, vaccinated children are often putting other vaccinated children AND unvaccinated children at risk.
When live virus vaccines are injected into the human body, it moves through the body and can exit in a number of ways—in the faeces or urine, via saliva in the mouth, through droplets in the nose, or through breast milk, skin lesions or blood.
This has been a big problem with the polio vaccine, with law suits and compensation being paid out to parents who contracted polio after being infected with the virus when changing their child’s nappy.[xxxi]
For, although the virus is weakened before it is used in vaccines, in some circumstances, once it is in a host (your child), it can regain strength and infect your child or those with whom your child is in contact with the very disease against which the vaccine is supposed to offer protection.
Secondary transmission, as this is called, is not uncommon with live virus vaccines, particularly the Influenza and Oral Polio vaccines.
However, it can also occur with the MMR, Chicken Pox and Shingles vaccines, which can shed for weeks, or sometimes even months after a person has received them.[xxxii]
This is why the package insert of such vaccines advise those who are newly-vaccinated to avoid contact with the immune-compromised.
This is a well-documented but little-talked-about area of science that the pro-vaccine groups conveniently neglect to talk about.
And while the Herald Sun talks about statistics for successful immunity to diseases following vaccinations, what they have overlooked is how quickly any immunity acquired by vaccination wears off. As I mentioned above, though once it was thought that a vaccination would last for life, it is now widely accepted in the scientific community that vaccine-induced immunity lasts only between 2 and 10 years.
The statistics that the Herald Sun gives, therefore, on immunity rates, relies on the assumption that everyone is up-to-date on their shots—and while the majority of young children are, how many adults do you know who get boosters for every vaccine every few years?
The Herald Sun does not give mention to other ingredients that are contained in vaccines that enter our children’s bodies every time they have a vaccination or a booster—which they are required to do every few years if they want full immunity from vaccine-preventable diseases.
It does not talk about the aluminium, a known neurotoxin. Nor does it talk about what the vaccines are cultured on—including human foetal cells or the cells of animals such as chickens or cows. It neglects to discuss the polysorbate-80 which is in most vaccines, an ingredient which has been linked with infertility. It also fails to mention the formaldehyde or the MSG.
Each time these are injected into the body, they affect it in some way.
Let’s look at polysorbate-80 as just one example. I could talk in more detail about all the other ingredients mentioned above, but it could take a while! In any case, the information is all there on the internet for anyone who wants to find out more about any of these vaccine ingredients.
Paediatrician, Dr. Lawrence Palevsky, wrote an article titled ‘Aluminum and Vaccine Ingredients: What Do We Know? What Don’t We Know?’ In this, he explains that polysorbate-80, when used in vaccines, may allow other ingredients to enter the brain directly. He explains that,“Polysorbate-80 is used in pharmacology to assist in the delivery of certain drugs or chemotherapeutic agents across the blood-brain-barrier.”[xxxiii]
This means that polysorbate-80 allows all the other harmful vaccine ingredients to reach the brain of the child (or adult, for that matter!) being injected more-easily than they otherwise would be able to, and do more damage than they otherwise would be able to.
Furthermore, when this used in vaccines, numerous studies[xxxiv] show that polysorbate-80 can increase cell permeability, damage and bursting.
After it is injected, it can quickly break down into sorbitol and ethylene oxide. The sorbitol[xxxv]has been shown to increase the risk of diabetes and cell death, mitochondrial failure, and DNA fragmentation.
According to The Hazardous Substances Data Bank of the US National Library of Medicine,sorbitol “is not to be injected.” Yet twenty times more ethylene oxide than sorbitol is produced, and it’s even more toxic.[xxxvi]
So while a newly-vaccinated person MIGHT have an 84% chance of immunity to Diphtheria, the Herald Sun does not tell its readers that this immunity lasts only a matter of years, and with each booster a person receives to maintain this immunity, the body pays the price.
Imagine how much of each of these ingredients (and that is not an exhaustive list) a person’s body would accumulate over a lifetime if they were up-to-date with their vaccinations from birth to death.
As it is, in Australia, from birth until a child’s teenage years, they receive AT LEAST 43 doses of vaccines in total, not including the annual flu shot. That’s before they are even adults!
So, Grant McArthur of the Herald Sun, there IS a debate.
Don’t tell us that just because we haven’t got a framed certificate on the wall, a white coat and a stethoscope around our necks that we can’t understand the issue.
Don’t patronise us like that—all the evidence is there at our fingertips thanks to the internet. Anyone who does their research can find the facts—and find that there ARE, in fact, two sides to the vaccine debate.
Don’t you think we owe it to our children to look into this issue before sticking needles in their arms? I most assuredly do.
–Stephen Mocko started Eureka Wellness in a small quaint town in Montana, high in the mountainous region where the springs and rivers are unadulterated. This herbalist is now based in Melbourne, Australia.
[ii] Ronne T. 1985. Measles virus infection without rash in childhood is related to diseases in adult life. Lancet; 5 Jan:1-5
[iii]Sheheen et al. 1996. Measles and atopy in Guineea-Bissau. Lancet;347:1792-1796
[v] Cantini, A. (2008) Pediatric Allergy, Asthma, and Immunology. Heidelburg, N.Y. Springer.
[xi] DHHS. AHRQ Evidence Report/Technology Assessment: Safety of Vaccines Used for Routine Immunization in the United States.July 2014.
[xiii] NVIC. Merck’s Gardasil Vaccine Not Proven Safety for Little Girls. NVIC Press Release Jun 27, 2006.
[xiv] Federal Register. Government-Owned Inventions: Availability for Licensing (vaccine licensing). Accessed Aug. 28, 2014.
[xvii] PEDIATRICS (ISSN 0031 4005). Copyright © 1997 by the American Academy of Pediatrics.
[xxiv] Cherry et al (1988), Pediatrics 81:6 Part 11 (June 1988) Supplement pp 936-984