The fundamental problem with the recent Health Committee report, was that it was an “INQUIRY INTO IMPROVING RATES OF CHILDHOOD IMMUNISATION”. Parents told the committee members of their own horror stories and questioned the efficacy of the drugs injected into their children. Unfortunately all of it was irrelevant in this forum because the committee member’s brief was quite clear. They were to look for ways to improve vaccination rates in children. Period. Concerned parents can only hope for the day when those in government have the courage to hold an honest, independent "INQUIRY INTO THE ADVERSE EFFECTS OF VACCINATIONS ON OUR CHILDREN". I suspect some of the actual committee members would secretly share the same sentiments.

May 2011

The full health committee report can be read here and in the Pro Vaccine column below. The committee was chaired by National MP, Dr Paul Hutchinson with assistance from, amongst others, Prime Minister John Key’s personal Science Advisor, Professor Sir Peter Gluckman. This position of personal science advisor also raises serious questions but we’ll leave that for another day. The committee asked the director of the Immunisation Advisory Centre (IMAC), Dr Nikki Turner to review their report. IMAC of course is government funded and still possibly funded by the same drug companies[1] that manufacture the vaccines. Dr Turner also privately submitted her “Six Star Plan” to the committee. Although the report outlines 30 recommendations, recommendation # 4, proposes that the government implements Dr Turner’s Six Star Plan where possible. This could substantially increase the number of recommendations, which in itself, isn't an issue. What is interesting, is that nearly all of the health committee recommendations can be found in Dr Nikki Turner’s Six Star Plan. This will lead some to wonder why the health committee was even formed, when the government could simply employ Dr Turner as another personal science advisor to the Prime Minister alongside Professor Gluckman. The answer of course, is that, as justice must be seen to be done, so too must the democratic political machine be seen to seek the views of the people.

Their premise of course is that vaccines are safe. This automatically limits the discussion to how much vaccination coverage is required and how it can be achieved. The multi-million dollar publicity machine will make sure this message is heard every day from every medium. Through repetition this premise will eventually be accepted as truth. However, as with everything, if the premise is flawed, then every point after, no matter how logical it may be...is irrelevant. Nor does it make a blind bit of difference how many academics are recruited to promote their cause...the entire exercise is flawed.

An analysis of both the report and the Six Star Plan can be found in the Pro Choice column below. I will however make the following points:

On page 11 the report claims “Approximately five percent of New Zealand parents oppose immunisation, so the target of 95 percent coverage represents the children of those who do not oppose it.” A quick skim over that sentence could easily lead parents to skip along to their local doctor with child in tow to be vaccinated without a second thought. But there are some very important points overlooked here. The most important being the use of the word “immunisation” both in the title of the report and in the sentence above. In this context it implies that immunisation and vaccination are the same thing which isn’t necessarily true. Immunisation is the general term used for when the body acquires immunity to a disease. Throughout the millions of years of human existence, in our various stages, immunisation has occurred naturally. Vaccination however, is the act of artificially inducing an immunity (supposedly), via an injection of viruses and chemicals, some of which are highly toxic. According to the Ministry of Health, this method only started 83 years ago here.[2]

No one in their right mind would be against natural immunisation as it is something that happens without any conscious effort. As natural as our beating hearts or breathing, our immune system quietly works away to protects us. It is simply the body doing what it is designed to do. Vaccination, the act of injecting toxic chemicals into children, is what many parents have a specific objection to. It is the opinion of this author at least, that using the term immunisation in the context of the above statement and the title of the report is grossly misleading.

Another point is, that without reference to any specific survey or nationwide study of all New Zealand parents, one must question the accuracy of the rest of that statement. We are told on page 14 about the National Immunisation Register (NIR), the statistics of which you or I are not privy to, but the government and its authorised minions are.

The problem here is that the NIR came into existence in 2005 and began registering all newborns thereafter. Children born prior to the establishment of the NIR made it onto the register if they were vaccinated during the meningococcal B programme of that same period. There are potentially thousands of children over six years of age and were not part of the meningococcal B programme, that did not make it onto the NIR. Not to mention the many parents who initially approved of vaccinations then opposed it after dealing (and in many cases still are) with the adverse effects it had on their child. Add to this list those who will accept some vaccines but decline others. It’s fair to say that the “5% decliners” figure could be hugely understated and therefore the 95% figure, of parents who do not oppose immunisation vaccination, would by default be grossly overstated. Whatever the real figures are, a more accurate description for the "decliners" would be "thinkers" as they're the only ones that actually do further research.

Education occurs when all views are presented for robust discussions and vigorous debates. In a free and just society this is to be encouraged. It is in this environment, that lies and liars are exposed for all to see...in fact without such debates, we cannot have a free and just society. What we will have... is tyranny.

Page 32 of the report, under Contractual/legislative aspects, it proposes ways to safeguard against doctors who may wish to speak out. And to help things along doctors will be offered financial incentives to maintain the policy of government indoctrination (page 32 Contractual/legislative aspects). To sweeten the deal for parents they too are offered a cash incentive of $20 (page 34 responsibilities/support for parents). Parents with government benefits may be forced to conform to the national vaccination policy or risk losing some or all of that income (recommendation #12). The government will always argue that despite all their policies you still have the freedom to choose. This of course is an insult to the intelligence of anyone with even half a brain. Choices made under duress or false dilemma, is not freedom at all.

Also in the report they claim one of the benefits in a highly vaccinated community is “herd immunity” (page 11). The theory here is that when enough people are vaccinated against a particular disease, then that disease is eradicated sparing all those who were not vaccinated. To achieve vaccinated herd immunity, the coverage rate we are told is...wait for it...95%! Remember their earlier claim? “...95 percent coverage represents the children of those who do not oppose it.” Just what are the odds of that?! That the herd immunity target is the exact same percentage of parents who don’t oppose vaccinations? Wow...how convenient!

The term “Herd Immunity” originated in the 1930’s to explain a natural phenomenon. The researcher, Dr Hendrich noted that measles epidemic subsided when 68% of children had developed a natural immunity after having measles, or being exposed to it. This was decades before any vaccine for measles![4] This phenomenon only applied to natural immunity. The vaccinators adopted the concept, rebranded it as “community immunity”[5] (good idea, "herd" sounds like you’re part of a group of dumb animals) and raised the threshold to 95%. The drug companies promote their products, but for us to reap the benefits of herd immunity the government is tasked with pushing for 95% coverage. A huge part, if not all of the budget to push for 95% national coverage will of course come from the tax paying herd. From a marketing perspective this is pure genius. But then we strike a problem with all this promotion. Communities with very high vaccinations coverage and even 100% coverage, continue to have outbreaks of diseases they were all supposedly immunised against![6] This makes a complete mockery of the vaccinated herd immunity theory.[7] So in terms of immunisation, what appears to occur naturally cannot be replicated artificially. Whether an individual vaccinates or not is no one else’s business. It is a personal choice and almost everyone would agree with that. But the propaganda of herd immunity serves to undermine individual rights by shifting the focus to the perceived benefits for the group. Directing anger and resentment to those who choose not to vaccinate, by calling them "irresponsible" and "selfish", is nothing short of emotional blackmail. This line of thinking has been the justification by every tyrannical government in history... individual freedoms must be sacrificed for the greater good. Of course it is the tyrant who decides what is “the greater good”.

The real tragedy in all this, is that too many parents still blindly accepts government policy as gospel. They gladly offer up their children as sacrificial lambs to be injected with toxic chemicals that are known to be carcinogenic[8], cause autism[9] and other developmental problems[10] and possibly even death[11]. For so many parents to do this to their children without question...can only be described as, herd stupidity.

One last point on this magic 95% figure...amongst the people I questioned who approved of vaccinations... many of them opposed mandatory vaccinations. In fact some of the responses were very interesting with some saying that they opposed it because they weren’t sure what they were being forced to take...this of course, after they had just admitted to supporting voluntary vaccinations! Many opposed on the grounds that it was a "personal choice" but even they became suspicious. They weren’t bothered about the chemicals or the motives of the government when it was voluntary, but make it mandatory and all of a sudden the vaccine supporters are prompted to ask some very pertinent questions! Questions government prefer we don't ask. We can rattle off as many irrelevant questions we want...just stay away from the questions that matter.

There will always be those amongst us who, for whatever reason, will refuse toxic chemicals in their bodies, as well as those who will refuse anything that is mandated. For those reasons there will never be 100% national coverage of voluntary vaccination. But 95% voluntary vaccination coverage keeps the government and the drug companies right on the edge of the safety margin where most people will not question their information or motives. This can be maintained for years, until such time when the conditions (level of public apathy and fear) are right to introduce mandatory vaccinations. Enter the Health Committee report and the Six Star Plan. Even if only a couple of the more insidious recommendations are implemented, it will be a huge coup for centralised government as it further undermines the parent’s right to parent. When this happens the 5% “decliners”, most of whom are your average kiwi mums, will be reclassified as “criminals”. It is the maternal instincts of these mums that compels them to protect their children from all threats...even from their own government. As difficult as it may be, the government can still deal with only 5% "thinkers"...but God help them when the other 95% begin to think for themselves and see through the lies.

Take a break....then make yourself comfortable before reading on.

==========================================

You decide which doctors take their oath seriously and which have simply become well trained government/corporate "spin doctors".

References:

  [1] http://www.guerillamedia.co.nz/content/nzs-independent-immunisation-advisory-centre-imac-corrupted-vaccine-company-sponsorship-unce Biotherapies; GlaxoSmithKline; Merck, Sharp and Dohme (MSD); Sanofi Aventis and Wyeth Vaccines. These companies were originally listed on IMAC website but have been removed.

[2] http://www.moh.govt.nz/moh.nsf/pagesmh/4617/$File/2006-appendix.pdf

[3] Pediatrics Vol 97, No6, June 1996

[4] (MONTHLY ESTIMATES OF THE CHILD POPULATION "SUSCEPTIBLE' TO MEASLES, 1900-1931, BALTIMORE, MD, AW HEDRICH, American Journal of Epidemiology, May 1933 - Oxford University Press).

[5] Immunisation facts Compiled by Dr Osman Mansoor, Vaccine Effectiveness http://www.immune.org.nz/site_resources/Parents/FAQs%20PDFS/Facts_Immunisation_Facts_updated_june_2003.pdf

[6] Dr Baylock explains the myth of vaccinated induced herd immunity http://www.theepochtimes.com/n2/health/forced-vaccinations-government-and-the-public-interest-27045.html

[7] Susan Claridge 2006: Investigate Before You Vaccinate, Vaccine Efficacy, p. 59

[8] Susan Claridge 2006: Investigate Before You Vaccinate, Vaccine Manufacture, p.42

[9] United States Court of Federal Claims, 2007, Bailey Banks v. Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services. Special Master Richard Abell concludes “The Court found that Bailey would not have suffered this delay (Pervasive Developmental Delay) but for the administration of the MMR vaccine...” http://www.ageofautism.com/2009/02/why-is-the-media-ignoring-the-bailey-banks-autism-vaccine-decision.html

[10] http://gaia-health.com/articles351/000374-wakefield.pdf

[11] http://www.offtheradar.co.nz/vaccines/108-gardasil-killed-my-daughter-rhonda-renata.html