VACCINES - WHY THE VOLATILITY?

Whenever this topic is raised, the supporters of vaccination become almost rabid in their defence of the drugs as if to not vaccinate and have a choice about that is somehow the most dangerous, irresponsible thing imaginable.

It truly isn’t.

What is asserted by the media, the medical establishment and particularly the pharmaceutical industry itself is the following:

1.     Vaccines are safe - they have been rigorously tested

2.     Vaccines do not cause autism

3.     Vaccination, when up around 95%+ uptake confers “herd immunity”

4.     Unvaccinated kids pose a threat to vaccinated kids

5.     To not vaccinate your children is akin to giving them a death sentence

6.     Vaccines eradicated polio and smallpox

7.     The establishment (and the pharmaceutical industry) would not lie about vaccines - that would be unethical

8.     Mercury has been removed from all vaccines

9.     The anti-vaccination movement is a recent and dangerous fad peopled by uninformed, hysterical pseudoscientists and hippies who get their bogus information from the internet and social media

1. Vaccines are safe.

Very hard to make this claim empirically when no vaccine has ever been subjected to a double blind inert placebo safety trial. They simply have not been tested in this way. As modern vaccines were originally developed in a fast-track mode to “combat” the threat of biological warfare, they were conveniently reclassified from the status of drugs to “biologics” thereby bypassing the need for long-term (years-long) safety trials as is mandatory with all other drugs. Vaccines can go from lab to pharmacy in as little as weeks with no double-blind inert placebo testing whatsoever. The establishment will tell you that it is unethical to withhold “life-saving” drugs from the public and children in particular or to run trials where measles is tested, however, they have no problem issuing drugs to market that have not been safety tested on any study group whatsoever with no way of knowing or predicting the potential harm. Studies are regularly yet meaninglessly done using a previous version of a vaccine as a baseline for the new vaccine - that is not recognised science - that is junk science and would be rejected in peer review for any drug other than vaccines. Many pro-vaccine articles and blogs etc. do, however, attempt to debunk the statement that vaccines do not undergo double-blind inert placebo safety trials and cite links to so-called double blind inert placebo studies, but when investigated, 99% of them are, in fact controlled vaccine v vaccine studies, which proves nothing without an inceptual baseline on the first vaccine, which has never been done. That’s the point.

Therefore there is no scientifically documented risk profile for a single commercial vaccine

The DTP vaccine (in clinical trials - vaccinated v unvaccinated) returned a 10 times greater risk of death in infants who were vaccinated (from other causes) than the unvaccinated cohort.

According to the CDC website, children who were born prior to 1989 (when the vaccine schedule was dramatically ramped up) have only a 12% chance of contracting a chronic illness (as listed on the vaccine inserts and their website) whereas, children born after 1989 who were subjected to the new increased schedule, have a 54% chance of contracting one of these chronic illnesses. (But nothing to do with the vaccines, even though these illnesses are all listed as adverse reactions to the vaccines.)

Since the advent of the vaccine injury compensation fund in 1986 (and even though vaccine makers are exempt from prosecution regardless of the lack of safety or how serious the damage the vaccine may cause - even death) over $4billion has been paid out to victims of vaccine injury, many of these listed as ASD injuries. Startlingly, however, since doctors and hospitals derive huge financial benefits from Big Pharma, less than 5% of true vaccine injuries are actually formally recorded as such. If they were, the cases and payouts would be off the charts - ergo, the stats and the factual reality is grossly downplayed.

Vaccines can and do cause serious chronic adverse side-effects including ASD (autism) and other permanent neurological disabilities and death as well as a host of autoimmune diseases, cancer, development disorders, allergies, asthma - the list is extensive. The place that you will see the statistics of current chronic ailments afflicting US children is on the CDC website. The other place you will find this exact same list is in the vaccine inserts. Coincidence? Extremely unlikely.

The reported incidence of cervical cancer in young women and girls through the administering of the HPV vaccine, is shockingly high yet is downplayed in the media for obvious reasons. This vaccine is regularly and tragically destroying young women’s lives quite unnecessarily. [3]

The flu vaccine is ineffective and while the package inserts state that the vaccine will not give you flu, the side effects are listed as: headaches, nausea, coughing, runny nose, joint pains - in fact, all the symptoms of flu - fancy that. But it’s not flu - just feels like it. Oh, and many of the flu vaccines still have mercury in them.

2. Vaccines do not cause autism

Vaccines can and do cause a range of ASD’s and the vaccine makers assert as much in their package inserts so the populist platitude by the establishment that vaccines definitely do not cause autism is as bogus as the safety claims. The makers of the drugs even admit this. Doctors and/or the media and/or the government and/or the regulators either don’t know what they’re talking about, which is of extreme concern or they do and they are blatantly lying to the public, which is an even bigger concern.

The Vaccine Court has paid out numerous vaccine injury cases where autism was listed as the injury sustained. Ergo, the legal system has also ruled that vaccines can and do cause autism.

3. Vaccination, when up around 95%+ uptake confers “herd immunity”

This is patently and provably false. Many studies and reported events have demonstrated that vaccinated cohorts of the population where the uptake is as high as 98% does not automatically confer a so-called herd-immunity to the rest of the cohort. In fact, it is very often the case that the vaccinated members of the group contract the illnesses against which they have been vaccinated. This is particularly prevalent with measles and mumps but seldom, if ever, reported in the mainstream media.

Even entirely vaccinated cohorts (such was the case recently on a US naval vessel - the USS Fort McHenry) contract the diseases against which they have been vaccinated - in the case in point - mumps, where the ship could not put into harbour for several weeks until the epidemic had passed. [1]

What is, however, unarguable, is the fact that non-vaccinated kids who contract measles and/or other diseases naturally, will, once the illness has been dealt with by the body’s immune system, enjoy lifelong immunity from the contracted disease. Conversely, once a chemical vaccine has been administered, the body is reliant on frequent booster shots throughout one’s lifetime to maintain so-called immunity from the disease.

4. Unvaccinated kids pose a threat to vaccinated kids

If vaccines are effective in protecting those who receive them, there should be no logical reason whatsoever why an unvaccinated person should pose any form of threat to the vaccinated.

If however, as statistics have shown, the vaccinated still contract the diseases against which they have been vaccinated, then the infected vaccinated members of the group pose as much if not more of a threat to the group as the unvaccinated arguably might do.

Having said that, multiple studies measuring general health and wellbeing between vaccinated and unvaccinated cohorts of the community, repeatedly show that the unvaccinated are by far healthier than the unvaccinated and far less likely to fall prey to the previously mentioned chronic lifetime ailments that beset the vaccinated cohort of the community. Yet the governments refuse to conduct a mass vaccinated v unvaccinated study despite the fact that they have the database at their disposal with government mandated medical records. The results of this study would kill this debate once and for all. [2]

5. To not vaccinate your children is akin to giving them a death sentence

This is patently false as the general approach to vaccination has been to “prevent” innocuous childhood ailments such as measles, mumps, chickenpox, and the like, all of which, although highly infectious, are minor illnesses for which natural immunity is adequately equipped to address, besides which, as noted, natural contraction of these illnesses will (in most cases) confer lifetime immunity.

It is a statistical reality that sanitation and improved hygiene and living standards throughout the world, reduced (and virtually eradicated) most of these illnesses decades, if not centuries ago prior to the introduction of vaccines.

It is not necessary to vaccinate a newborn baby against hepatitis unless the mother is a carrier of the virus and then again, there is every likelihood that the child’s natural immune system will cope with the virus accordingly as has occurred since time immemorial.

6. Vaccines eradicated polio and smallpox

This has been assumed as empirical fact through forced repetition of the assertion, however, once again it is mere populist perception rather than fact and is patently and demonstrably false.

Aside from a raft of issues with the polio vaccine including contamination with simian virus and cancer-causing cells, the disease has never been eradicated, although its prevalence was on dramatic decline before the introduction of the vaccine. Currently in the western and the developing world, variant strains of (polio)myelitis are not uncommon, thus the disease still exists but has simply been renamed in the interests of perpetuating a false perception as to the efficacy of the original vaccine. [4]

The original case for vaccination - a cure for smallpox as promoted by the father of vaccines, Edward Jenner, occurred with no understanding of bacterial and viral infection, thus no vaccine science actually existed. It was all pure trial and error experimentation - but you have to start somewhere, right? The idea was to culture cowpox virus (it was rumoured that milkmaids who had been exposed to cowpox seemed less susceptible to smallpox) and inject small amounts of it into humans to assist them in building antibodies (which were unknown at that stage) to smallpox. In order to test the theory, on May 14, 1796, he removed some fluid from a dairy maid named Sarah (Nelmes) and then injected it into the arm of James Phipps, a healthy 8-year old boy. … Phipps contracted cowpox, and six weeks later Jenner injected him with smallpox, in which he took the fluid from an actual pock. When James did not come down with smallpox, Jenner concluded that cowpox protects the human constitution from the infection of smallpox. This indeed is the basis upon which the entire field of vaccination rests. What is seldom mentioned in the popular retelling of this story is that Jenner re-vaccinated James Phipps 20 times, and that Phipps died of tuberculosis when he was 20 years old. Jenner also vaccinated his 11-month-old son Edward at least twice. Young Edward Jenner was reported to have had a bad reaction to the smallpox vaccination his father gave him and shown signs of “mild mental retardation.” He also succumbed to tuberculosis when he was 21 years old. It is interesting to note that tuberculosis has been linked to the smallpox vaccine. Alexander Wilder, MD, professor of pathology and former editor of The New York Medical Times said in the 19th century: “Vaccination is the infusion of a contaminating element into the system, and after such contamination you can never be sure of regaining the former purity of the body. Consumption (tuberculosis) follows in the wake of vaccination as certainly as effect follows cause.”

Moreover, smallpox attained its maximum mortality after vaccination was introduced. The mean annual mortality to 10,000 population from 1850 to 1869 was at the rate of 2.04, whereas in 1871 the death rate was 10.24 and in 1872 the death rate was 8.33, and this after the most laudable efforts to extend vaccination by legislative enactments. The fairytale legend of a country doctor making a discovery that saved the world from the devastation of smallpox is a fundamental medical belief that continues to be echoed by indoctrinated and naïve doctors whenever vaccines are challenged. Smallpox vaccine, in the minds of medical professionals remains a pillar of their vaccine faith. But the true history shows us a different reality. [5]

7. The establishment (and the pharmaceutical industry) would not lie about vaccines - that would be unethical

They can and they do lie and it is indeed unethical, however, the majority of clinicians maintain a firm “belief” in vaccines despite a plethora of science and mounting physical evidence in the field that vaccines can and do cause incalculable harm to tens of thousands of people, impacting many of them for life and even causing death. As has been demonstrated, repetition of a false statement by authorities and media such as “vaccines are safe” merely makes the statement widely heard, not factual.

The establishment also goes to extreme lengths to shut down any debate on this issue through (all) media and refuses to engage scientists and medical experts in public debates on vaccination. One has to ask oneself - if the “science is settled” as is claimed, why would there be any need to refuse a public debate when this should surely shut up the vaccine skeptics once and for all? Could it be that the science is not settled and the establishment is afraid of the revelations that would become public knowledge?

Given that vaccines (especially in the cases of the minor childhood ailments so frequently at the centre of this issue: measles, mumps, rubella, chickenpox etc.) are demonstrably unnecessary for children when innate natural immunity is more than able to cope with these ailments, it would seem strange that such militant vehemence to “force” these drugs on the public is evident. This is exemplified by no-jab-no-school and no-jab-no-benefits policies in various countries where social/educational or financial punishment is threatened if parents refuse to vaccinate their children. This can only be described as medical tyranny - fascism - where the right to freedom of informed choice is removed from ordinary citizens, this on the pretext of being in the interest of public health, which is spurious in the extreme. It is in the interest of obscene profit and repeat business when vaccine-damaged victims are required to buy medication for life as a result of the chronic ailments suffered as the side-effects of vaccination.

What is even more staggering, is the fact that while vaccine injury can be (and very often is) proven through the onerous legal process, in the US, the manufacturers of the vaccines cannot be directly sued (they are legally exempt from liability) and no matter how serious the injury or how unsafe the product, they bear no responsibility. Not even when it comes to compensation. That is derived from a taxpayer funded budget - in other words, one gets to compensate oneself for the benefit of having been damaged by a drug company and that company gets off Scot free and has no incentive or compulsion to change the product that is causing the harm. This model would sit comfortably in the domain of organised crime (for that’s what this is) rather than in the public health sector where the Hippocratic Oath’s first tenet of Doing No Harm has fallen completely by the wayside.

The industry lies about these drugs to such a degree, employing pro-vaccine trolls and shills to promote the deception and shut down social media debates on the issue as well as shame any parent claiming a vaccine-injured child when under any circumstance other than vaccines, the doctor will take the word of the parent as the prime reference to infant health. One has to ask why this is? Is it perhaps that the vaccine business in the US alone grosses over $50 billion per annum and this is nothing compared with the treatment of the epidemic of chronic illnesses rife among the current American children (unknown prior to 1989 when the schedule was ramped up) which exceeds $500 billion per annum - mostly an annuity income for the industry for every victim’s life. The amounts are absolutely staggering. And if that is not worth lying and cheating for, I guess nothing is - even though they’re supposed to be doing this for public health not private profit.

8. Mercury has been removed from all vaccines

After years of debate around (unbelievably) the toxicity of mercury (as if this is somehow surprising), the pharmaceutical industry, for the most part, removed Thimerosal (the mercury-based preservative) from most of the childhood vaccines. But not from all of the flu shots. One has to ask why? Mercury is one of the most powerful neurotoxins known to man and yet for decades it was used in vaccines in quantities far in excess of any EPA listed safety levels. And these were being injected into day-old babies willy-nilly. [8]

Although they continued to claim that ethyl-mercury was “harmless’ manufacturers began voluntarily removing Thimerosal from pediatric vaccines around 2000. It is assumed that most pediatric vaccines containing Thimerosal were “off the shelves” by 2003. (No vaccines were recalled.) Even so, most infants are still routinely given Thimerosal-containing influenza vaccine even though there are Thimerosal-free and vaccines with trace amounts of Thimerosal. Infants receiving a Thimerosal-containing influenza vaccine are dosed at 6 months with 12.5 mcg of ethyl mercury and at 7 months with an additional 12.5 mcg. Adult Thimerosal-containing vaccines contain roughly 25mcg. All of these Thimerosal-containing version exceed federal safety guidelines [7]

It was deemed unsafe for pregnant mothers to eat mercury-rich tuna fish where the mercury content was far below that of the childhood vaccines, yet it was okay for the latter to be injected into newborn babies. In defence of this, Paul Offit (US Professor of vaccinology, owner of multiple vaccine patents and vocal defender of vaccinology) was heard to say that Thimerosal was the “safe” mercury and this type of mercury left the body safely within a week of vaccination. While it is true it say that no traces of mercury were found in the excreta, urine, blood, sweat, hair or nails of the recently vaccinated babies tested, further independent tests on lab animals (similarly injected) found the mercury had not left the body at all - it had merely gone to the brain where, when synthesising to organic mercury compound, it caused devastating and irreversible harm and mental retardation. This was what was also happening to the babies. Yet Offit was firm in his “belief” in the good old vaccines, even going as far as to say that babies’ immune systems could easily withstand 10,000 vaccine shots at any one time. He actually said this. And he’s The vaccine boss so no arguing with Paul. [6]

9. The anti-vaccination movement is a recent and dangerous fad peopled by uninformed, hysterical pseudoscientists and hippies who get their bogus information from the internet and social media

False on every count. The anti-vaccination movement has been live and well since the time of Edward Jenner when he first launched his questionable “preventative modality” on the public.

The science, while being far from “settled” as the mainstream would have one believe, is solidly tilted in favour of those who question vaccine safety. It is also more accurate to say that many people active in this safer vaccine campaign were, more often than is credited, once pro-vaccine and had their children on the current vaccine schedule and as the result of their own negative experiences with vaccines or further research, have opted to question the safety associated with vaccines as the information that is provided through the mainstream is, unarguably inaccurate at best and downright misleading in many cases. So not everyone can nor should they be tagged with this hysterical pejorative anti-vax title when, in fact they are simply pro-safe-vaccines.

Contrary to media-fuelled populist perception, many (if not most) people who been directly exposed to the dangers of vaccines and/or vaccine injury, are driven to research the topic and find out the background that is not being publicised by the establishment, the government or the media. RFK Jr’s website Children’s Health Defense.org (Facebook will not allow the link to be shared here as part of their censorship against vaccine truth but you’ll find it easily enough if you care to look) was not established by this prominent environmental lawyer as a means to raise controversy - it was established through his efforts to eradicate environmental toxicity from the US, toxicity that was irresponsibly being perpetuated by greedy industrialists and the prime focus (initially) was on mercury from coal-fired power and other industrial plants but through these endeavours, he found a plethora of women (mothers mostly) who asked him, if his focus was on mercury, to look at vaccines and the potential dangers they posed. Most of these women had experienced debilitating injury suffered by their children as a result of vaccines. The demand for this investigation resulted in RFK Jr expanding his campaign against environmental toxicity to vaccines and the more he dug into the science, the more frightening were the revelations, especially the lack of safety. So the populist notion that anti-vaxx groups are uninformed hippies and airheads is beyond ridiculous and wholly inaccurate.

[1] https://tinyurl.com/y5nbxyyc

[2] https://tinyurl.com/yxdkldku

[3] https://tinyurl.com/y6l5l8cw

[4] https://tinyurl.com/y2ka4eor

[5] https://tinyurl.com/y58m4rul

[6] https://tinyurl.com/y27s69s5

[7] https://tinyurl.com/asknl

[8] https://tinyurl.com/yxeuemre

-->

HOW BATMAN ALMOST DESTROYED MY MARRIAGE

It’s apparent to me, through experience, (and,of course, various partner-initiated Cosmopolitan surveys over the decades) that foreplay can range from subtle stimulation of the erogenous zones to more vigorous ministrations of these regions accompanied by tender cooing of verbal romanticisms to downright rude, crude “I’m gonna take my..........and ram it...........you filthy.......” and every iteration in between. And in our case, very often, there will be an obscure observation made, usually by my wife (and this will have nothing to do with the impending act or the equipment involved, organic or otherwise) resulting in infectious, howling, tearful, rib-aching laughter. Only Billy Connolly and my wife can induce such intense amusement, however, in the case of the former, it has never led to us engaging in the horizontal bop - as far as I can recall, in any event. 

But seldom have I heard, as is the case in a well-weathered relationship such as ours, foreplay comprising pre-coitus pillowtalk ranging from such diverse topics as domestic building renovations to mechanical servicing options on one’s spouse’s car and, inevitably, (in my case) vignettes from TV and film productions that may (and in many cases) may not have any relevance on the impending carnal activity.

It was just such an occasion that almost ruined my marriage - the advent of a total misconstruance (is there such a word? Well there is now and you know what I mean.) 

The scene had been set and, once the six-pack of cats had been conspiratorially removed from the bed to provide a libidinously more conducive landscape, the conversation assumed its usual mundane tone and weather, shopping, the potential rescue of a reportedly traumatised parakeet (the wife still does animal rescue volunteering) was discussed and naturally, our sexual juices were flowing with this ribald and raunchy discourse.

Somewhere in the throes of conversational convolution (I think it may have been associated with sexual promiscuity) I had occasion to recall something from the inceptual Batman TV series where the nylon-clad caped-crusader in his oversized bat mask hove into view. I could picture the actor’s face but unusually for me, I couldn’t for the life of me remember his name. Burt Ward played Dick Grayson aka Robin, Boy Wonder, Cesar Romero was the pantomime Joker but who the fuck had played Batman? He was reputedly a Casanova of some standing, or so it was claimed by the surviving Burt Ward, who’d been party to some of the shared escapades but - nah, it still wasn’t coming and neither was I, by now having assumed the position and merrily thrusting away like a good ‘un and judging by the reciprocal sensual utterings from my partner, it was having the desired effect.

It ran on in its usual manner, escalating toward the inevitable climax and that infernal eyebrow-painted bat-mask was all I could see in my mind’s eye at this point, my eyes screwed tight, sweat beading my brow as I tried to maintain rhythm and unsuccessfully suppress the looming vision of the caricature comic book hero from my formative years. 

And then it happened - yes, the orgasm of course - synchronised (which is always the most satisfying) but no, not that - I remembered - just as I was hitting the ultimate stroke - I remembered the actor’s name. And that was when my marriage almost ended. As I was peaking in orgasmic ecstasy, I cried out at the point of no return “Ah yes - ADAM WEST! ADAM WEST!” which, as you may imagine, did not have the effect on a mid-coital partner, no less, one’s wife of two decades that one might expect as she is twitching in sexual climax herself.

“Huh, say what? Adam who? Huh? Who the fuck is Adam West?”

There’s really no coming back from that, if you’ll pardon the pun.

Suffice to say, this required a degree of explanation when our dignity had been restored and normal marital service had been resumed.

When I did eventually explain myself and the comedic nature of the situation unfolded, oh how we laughed. 

We are going shopping later as well - there’s a very good costume store not too far away that specialises in superhero outfits, I’m told. They may have an original Batman rig. I just want to see the shop assistant’s face when I ask if it can be adjusted to accommodate a crotchless modification as we now officially like to role play. I haven’t revealed this idea to my wife and never will because, after twenty years of getting to know each other, I fear the bat signal I fantasise setting up, will end up displaying the message: GET BREAD AND CHEESE and the sight of me leaping off a wardrobe in cut-away Batman tights will most decidedly end up with some 1960’s put downs and a lot of SMACK, KRAKAPOW, SPLOOT and BIFF sound-effects in the Bat Cave - er - bedroom.

Namaste, mothersuckers. Keep those utility belts handy- you never know when you may have to punch a rubber shark in the snoot! 

AUSTRALIA’S FAILING ANIMAL AND ENVIRONMENT LEGISLATION

Having enthusiastically moved to this country in 2014 from South Africa I fully expected to embrace a culture of civilised equanimity where laws are fair, ethical and protect the community, individuals, the environment and, not least Australia’s animals - all of them. 

Imagine my surprise and dismay where the “fair go” ethos is oftentimes little more than a governmental marketing mantra and certainly doesn’t extend to Australia’s animals.

This inevitably leads one to examine the laws of the land - laws that should be protecting Australia’s animals, an area where this is failing. Great tracts of forested Australia are being cut down unnecessarily to make way for the fossil-fuel mines and coal-fired power plant polluters when taxpayer dollars could be more effectively employed in the development of sustainable and renewable energy plants, which are, in fact cheaper and quicker to build than fossil-fuel fired equivalents, the dollar per kW to the door is cheaper and the environmental impact is nonexistent following completion. Employment, the old chestnut that’s hauled out whenever one is critical of coal mines or associated power stations, would be maintained in renewable development and other career paths would open up as a result, not to mention the distribution infrastructure business that would follow.

So natural fauna habitat is diminished and ecosystems are placed under threat while we pursue these hopelessly shortsighted and unsustainable “goals”. 

Strike 1 - failing to protect our wild fauna.

The only degree of ethical empathy we seem to harbour is toward our pets -cats, dogs etc. all lovingly cared for and protected through the Prevention Of Cruelty To Animals Act(the Act) but the animals Australians love to consume, incredibly do not enjoy the same legal protection that should extend to all animals. Again, surely modern Australia cannot morally condone the known abuse and trauma that is rife within the livestock industry, this having been revealed time and again by concerned animal rights whistleblowers?

A somewhat lame effort has been implemented to try and curtail “live” export of animals, which, by rights, if Australia had any moral conscience at all, should never have been a thing in the first place.

And if one asks, as Australia has already done in a 2019 report commissioned by the federal Department of Agriculture and Water Resources entitled: Australia’s Shifting Mindset on Animal Welfare https://tinyurl.com/y5csnoo5, it finds that the majority of Australians do care about animal welfare. The report found 95% of respondents viewed farm animal welfare with concern and 91% wanted reform to address it. In other words, current legislation is, in the opinion of Australia’s citizens, failing as well. 

Similarly, in 2016, a Productivity Commission reportindicated the current process used to set standards for farm animal welfare is entirely inadequate, concluding that greater improvement would be realisable through the creation of a statutory agency mandated to utilise rigorous science and evidence-based community values to achieve this.

Coupled with this, it should be mandatory for the Actto be extended to protect farm animals as they enjoy the same and oftentimes (certainly in the case of pigs) a higher degree of sentience (evidence-based studies support this: https://tinyurl.com/y285l3c6and many countries now legally recognise this fact: New Zealand, European Union, Canada, to name a few) and as such, experience enormous trauma as a result of the current Australian farming practices. In simple terms, one would not subject one’s dog to the abuse and cruelty experienced daily by pigs in the industry regardless of their “roles” in our lives and the studies done support this sentiment yet the government, despite public feelings, refuse to enact legislation to even marginally improve the short lives of these animals. The treatment under current law, of your affectionately dubbed “chooks” also does not permit them to get anything near a fair-go - they are treated atrociously. Visit any contemporary chicken farm and you’ll see this for yourself - better yet:

At the very least, CCTV cameras should be mandatory in all modern farms of a certain size and with changes in legislation, the lot of the farm animal could be vastly improved as is the desire of the ordinary Australian consumer and our legislation in this area is unarguably behind the global curve recognising holistic animal sentience and all that implies.

It simply isn’t good enough and certainly doesn’t speak to the modern, fair, ethical, conscientious and civilised Australia I thought I had immigrated to. 

The Australian government requires to reconsider these issues and enact legislation that extends rights to animals across the board. It is the correct and ethical thing to do and more to the point, it’s what the Australian people want and have a right to demand. Sadly, the animals cannot ask for themselves and the current laws disavow anyone asking for these rights on their behalf. 

It is the right thing to do.

And when one realises just how dramatically so-called protection legislation is failing with regard to animals, the environment inevitably comes under similar scrutiny and returns similar and even broader failings.

Sure there may be strict policies around decontamination of environments in the interest of public health when asbestos is found, however, the laws do not extend to the more insidious and widespread intoxication of local communities insofar as polluting water and air with dangerously toxic chemicals from mines and coal-fired power stations go. Just local to my own home (Central Coast NSW) with a cursory enquiry, one finds there’s 800 hectares (8 square kilometres or 8 million square metres) of coal ash dams leaching toxins into the Lake Macquarie waterway which is having a devastating impact on flora, fauna and the local population. Couple to this, the fact that air pollution from the local power plants are churning mercury laden vapours into the atmosphere at a rate that’s DOUBLE the rate (metric tonnes per-capita) of China, the latter considered to be the heaviest polluter on the planet! https://tinyurl.com/yxr6vq7o 

In simple terms: China may be ahead in terms of sheer volume given their population, however, Australia is, in fact the heavier polluter by far and even were we to have the same population as China, we would be pumping twice as much greenhouse and toxic pollutants into the atmosphere than them which empirically demonstrates that our environment laws and regulators are failing at every turn. And this is supported by the fact that not a single legal action against any of these polluters has ever forced them to clean up their act. In short - they’re legally permitted to poison local populations and environments at this egregious rate as the laws/regulators are powerless to stop them. It’s common knowledge that these emissions can be reduced right now by as much as 85% but as there is no legal requirement compelling operators to do so, they simply don’t. The system is failing the local fair-go Aussie, I’m afraid.  Surely this cannot be the desire of modern Australia? To condone this form of industrial pollution at the expense of public and environmental health.

Strike 2 - failure to protect the environment.

As we career down this suicidal path, I don’t know if we will have the benefit of a Strike 3 

And yet...

We don’t trust authority or industrial corporations yet we trust Big Pharma.... really?

We don’t trust authority or industrial corporations yet we trust Big Pharma.... really?

Repeating the claim that vaccines do not cause autism, doesn't make it factual and the attempt by the mainstream to continue to do so without unpacking both sides of this issue, is disingenuous to say the least. The usual culprit that’s defended to the death is the MMR vaccine - measles, mumps, rubella in combi with the focus being on measles - nobody speaks about the mumps and there’s a reason for that.
First and foremost, one has to consider the danger of measles, which is very low indeed. It's an innocuous childhood ailment and to drum up all this dramatic hype around it has everything to do with vaccines sales and zero to do with public health risks from measles.

Second, I'd draw your attention to the fact that although the CDC (US Centers for Disease Control and prevention) does indeed make the claim that vaccines (plural - i.e. ALL vaccines do not cause autism) that claim is made on their website and the CDC is reputed to be the foremost authority on vaccines certainly in the US and some would say, arguably - the world. But here's the problem. The CDC website references the citation for this claim as a 2011 study (linked back on their own website) which does no such thing - the study does, in fact state that they cannot conclude whether there is a causal link or not. So there is an outright spurious claim in the first place. The first lie - the source material. That should raise a little red flag wouldn't you say?

If you dig a little further and look at the DeStefano study done within the CDC (a vaccine industry sponsored organisation for the record where employees receive payments for vaccines that are registered on the schedule thereby introducing huge conflicts of interests which would be deemed fraud in the private sector), the chief vaccine researcher in that study Dr William Thompson (still at the CDC today) blew the whistle at the time and provided around 10,000 documents verifying that the CDC had conducted scientific fraud during that study as they demonstrated that African American boys who were given the MMR vaccine according to the schedule, were 3.36 times more likely (that's a 336% higher risk) to present with autism than other race/gender groups. When that data was discovered, it was deliberately and fraudulently quashed and removed from the study. Thompson has volunteered to testify before congress confirming this fraud and outline the details but that little endeavour has been shut down by the CDC and the vaccine lobbyists in Washington DC for very obvious reasons. There’s a YouTube video clip of senator Bill Posey confirming this data before congress and that’s where it’s stalled...

Ergo: vaccines (some of them) can and do cause autism. The CDC have proven this to be the case - oh and then covered it up and lied about it. The authority - the regulator - the public health protector. Ergo: we cannot trust their assertions.
 If you trawl into the actual manufacturer's inserts, they themselves list encephalopathy and autism as an adverse event/reaction to vaccines.
 The Merck MMR insert reads (in part for just the nervous system adverse reactions that have been reported):
 "Post-Marketing Experience
 The following adverse events have been identified during post-approval use of either the components of ProQuad or ProQuad. Because the events are in some cases described in the literature or reported voluntarily from a population of uncertain size, it is not always possible to reliably estimate their frequency or establish a causal relationship to vaccine exposure.
 Nervous system disorders
Measles inclusion body encephalitis [see Contraindications (4.2)], acute disseminated
encephalomyelitis, transverse myelitis, cerebrovascular accident, encephalopathy (see below), Guillain-Barré syndrome, optic neuritis, Bell’s palsy, polyneuropathy, ataxia, hypersomnia, afebrile convulsions or seizures, febrile seizure, headache, syncope, dizziness, tremor, paraesthesia."
These conditions are synonymous with autism spectrum disorder symptoms but the word is carefully masked for obvious reasons.

So this mantra of simply repeating over and over again that studies prove no link is, I'm afraid, total bullshit.
And the question one might ask whether such mainstream articles are designed to confuse - I would readily answer, yes, of course. When the vaccine industry in the US alone has gone from a $1 billion per annum business to a $44 billion product line in the space of 30 years, I'd say there is a very strong incentive to make sure that no controversy or criticism can be levelled at vaccines. If you think that is cynical, let me ask this question: why would you trust the medical authorities and/or the state on this issue absolutely when they have shown over and over again that they lie to the public about all manner of issues and only (sometimes) ever come clean and usually when they are caught?
We are being lied to by our governments about the cost per kW/hr of delivered coal-fired electricity because they have vested interests in that industry and skew the figures by hiding the true cost to produce a kW of power minus subsidies and tax breaks. And the toxic train rumbles on while the deception is maintained. Now, that’s cynical.

We are also being lied to by the global telecommunications industry about 5G and the fact that they have done absolutely no definitive safety studies on the effects of millimetre EMF on human tissue over a protracted period of time - again there are state and government investments in this trillion dollar industry so the safety aspects are being downplayed in favour of profit. Several privately funded studies have all returned very disturbing results from 5G exposure even in a limited area so the suburban inundation that is required to have 5G attain the requisite coverage, is absolutely terrifying to contemplate. As our devices get “smarter” we, by contrast seem to get dumber and dumber...
Ergo: money is placed ahead of public health every single time.
Here in Central Coast NSW, coal-fired power stations (such as Vales Point) have been un-mothballed to produce power without the producer being forced to clean up the emissions from the plant which could be reduced using catalytic filtration by as much as 85%. There is no forced legislation to impose this restriction so the company, Delta gets away with pumping dangerously toxic gas and liquid pollutants into the air and surrounding lakes at their will and the long term consequences on the local population is ignored because Delta employ a few hundred people in the region. Again - profit before health.

You must have seen the recent coverage of the Monsanto/Bayer lawsuits where they are liable for multiple billions of dollars payouts to ordinary citizens who were poisoned and contracted cancer from the use of Monsanto’s "safety-tested" (sic) weedkiller RoundUp (glyphosate). But hey, it went through the FDA 90 day safety trial and none of the lab rats got cancer. Ergo: it is safe. Ergo: people only eat food for 90 days then stop, right?
 No, the safety studies are completely bogus and when independent studies were conducted, they repeatedly showed that the lab animals ALL contracted cancerous tumours after continued exposure to glyphosate beyond the stupid 90 day trial period.
 But the regulator said it was okay - that it was safe.
 There are around 11,000 additional lawsuits waiting in the wings and Bayer's share price has plummeted. I only hope they last long enough to compensate (sic) the people they have poisoned then they can shrivel up and die as far as I am concerned. It’s more than they deserve.
 You see a pattern here, right? Inadequate safety studies, lies to the public and repeated assurances that everything is safe and hunky dory.
 And yet the public accepts without question that the media-driven information on vaccines is above reproach or scrutiny. Surely that suggests a profound naivety?

The Danish study that I was responding to cited in an article posted /https://www.nhs.uk/news/medication/no-link-between-mmr-and-autism-major-study-finds/
where they are claiming the science is settled - vaccines don’t cause autism - the study conclusively proves this apparently and is being cited everywhere as the final nail in the vaccines-cause-autism coffin - it’s also questionable, however, the premise of the claim as per above, that vaccines do not cause autism is readily refutable so the detail of that study is academic. It’s particularly paradoxical when Merck itself states that the MMR does, in fact cause autistic symptoms in its vaccine insert adverse reactions listing - see above. So the guys who make the drug state it DOES potentially cause autism but the Danish study seemingly refutes this and informs Merck that they don’t know what they’re talking about... interesting.
 However, there is some even more interesting reading here in contrast to the supposedly unimpeachable Danish study:   http://ugeskriftet.dk/dmj/danish-mmr-vaccination-coverage-considerably-higher-reported

I would urge people to also do a good search through RFK Jr's Childrens Health Defense website, (more here about Childrens Health Defense: https://childrenshealthdefense.org )  something that grew out of his original campaign against environmental poisoners and polluters that morphed into the vaccine topic by default, Childrens Health Defensgiven the fact that there are so many environmental and dangerous toxins in vaccines. He got there through his research into mercury poisoning and the thimerosal link. He doesn’t need the money or the bad publicity, believe me - but the wealth of data that damns vaccine safety is irrefutable. Yet, somehow for RFK Jr to question this makes him a pariah within his own family and the Democratic Party and wrong about vaccines. The man has argued science in environmental toxin cases for over three decades - he knows what he’s talking about and his purpose isn’t fame - it’s the protection of America’s children and their environment - you need both to be healthy for any sustainable future to be possible. And yet the most vaccinated developed country on the planet has the sickest generation of children in that country’s history. But it can’t be the vaccines. Then what the fuck is it? Instead of just saying these drugs are safe - the authorities need to prove it - they have failed to do so and RFKJ has fought and won that particular battle against the DHHS (Department of Health and Human Services) where they were found to have failed to provide any meaningful form of vaccine safety testing whatsoever.
Here: https://www.naturalnews.com/2018-11-11-rfk-jr-wins-case-us-government-vaccine-safety-violations.html


 Do your own digging and see if you can find the facts behind the fast-tracking of vaccine approvals back in the 1980's to ensure a fully "immunised" US military (the primary objective at the time). This opened up a gap for the drug industry to drive in a wedge. In order to make vaccines quicker-to-market, they could not (and never have had to) go through the rigorous 4-5 year double blind inert placebo safety trials like other drugs at the FDA so they simply recategorised them from being drugs to becoming "biologics" and the safety trial issue went away. Many vaccines are "trialed" (sic) for as little as 3-4 days and NOT ONE SINGLE VACCINE HAS EVER UNDERGONE A DOUBLE BLIND INERT PLACEBO SAFETY TRIAL. Not one. So there is no known risk profile associated with any vaccines other than to trial them on the population at large - millions of lab rats at Big Pharma's beck and call. That would be you and your kids. This isn’t ringing any alarm bells yet? This is far more dangerous than measles, mumps or rubella, I can assure you.

The national payout for vaccine injury to date in the US - $4 billion and climbing. That's not just some collateral casualties, that is an epidemic that far surpasses any measles outbreak.
 Vaccine deaths are significantly higher than any measles deaths and that has nothing to do with the vaccine uptake either. The vaccinated are demonstrably susceptible to contracting the disease. Which should lead any rational person to conclude that they don’t really work then.
 Do some research on the mumps portion of the MMR too which in plain speak - also doesn't work - a full complement of US Navy troops on a warship (USS Fort McHenry) recently had to be quarantined at sea for weeks on end as the fully MMR-vaccinated crew all had mumps and couldn't come ashore. But you didn't read that anywhere in the MSM.
 You can read about it here though: https://childrenshealthdefense.org/news/vaccines/mmr-vaccines-poison-pill-mumps-after-puberty-reduced-testosterone-and-sperm-counts/

The CDC and the US medical establishment (DHHS & NIH) has access to the national database of population medical records and despite numerous requests, they have signally failed to conduct any form of statistical analysis on the vaccinated versus unvaccinated cohorts of the population. You have to ask yourself why that is. I will tell you - all studies that have been done (and there have been a few independent ones) show in every case that the unvaccinated cohort of the study are significantly healthier and less prone to chronic ailments than the vaccinated cohort. Every single time.
 A case in point was found in Mississippi which has the highest vaccination uptake of any state in the US and yet statistically they have the worst health in the country.
Here: https://childrenshealthdefense.org/news/the-unhealthiest-state-in-america-has-the-best-vaccination-rate/

Additionally, the lazy old references to the vaccine-devil himself Andrew Wakefield are just so much unresearched inaccuracies that the throwaway remarks are now seen as fact although they are truly just populist opinion yet again.
 If you want the background to the true Wakefield saga - I have done the research and wrote an article about it in 2016 here: http://pgmurray.blogspot.com/2016/09/to-wakefield-or-not-to-wakefield_42.html
 The findings from the so-called debunked paper, in fact still stand and many other peer-reviewed studies have found the same causal link - that is between chronic bowel disease and the children in the study who had presented with autism. Yet once again, all of that is skewed out of context by suggesting that Wakefield 's study was about linking the MMR vaccine to autism - it wasn't then and it isn't now. His colleague and senior researcher, Walker-Smith was exonerated, the findings stand but the media continue to flog this dead horse without updating the facts.

 That the so-called regulators are in Big Pharma's pocket and profit individually and collectively from the vaccine industry should give anyone pause.
 That all major vaccine makers (and I do mean ALL) are convicted felons who have been shown to have deceived the public for the sake of profit is a plain fact.
So forgive me if I don’t swallow the repeated assertion that vaccines don’t cause autism – they can and they do.
They are not the only cause, obviously, but until the CDC or any other so-called regulator undertakes a proper vaccinated versus unvaccinated study and compels the drug manufacturers (that’s what they are – drugs not “biologics” – they are drugs) to do proper double-blind inert placebo safety trials, there is nobody on the planet who can make the claim that the science has been done or settled on this issue as there is no gold standard comparison (other than the public at large) for the safety of any vaccine.

And the bald reality is – they won’t do it because they know what the outcome will be and the $44 billion dollars on the balance sheet will disappear overnight.

Japan reversed their stance on the MMR and the mandatory approach to vaccines and they have implemented a protracted and voluntary vaccine schedule – their adverse events and autism incidence has dropped dramatically since – but hey…must be coincidence, right...
This has nothing whatsoever to do with public health – it’s about profit at the end of a syringe being held to the public head like a loaded gun. And you still trust them...

MISREPRESENTATION OF CONCERNED PARENTS

Sydney Morning Herald article Mullumbimby antivaxx town

The danger of simply shutting down debate is exemplified in this article where the empiricism is automatically assumed.
I wrote to them (below) but the comment was never published. What was published however, was a bunch of comments supporting their narrative or sufficiently toothless to raise little or no debate. The SMH is a closed shop.  Surprise, surprise.

There's more to the vaccination story than is touted in this article or, in fact, in the populist version of its history, which, is vastly misrepresented by the mainstream narrative. To look behind this doesn't by default make someone an idiot or a conspiracy theorist, it merely makes them desirous of information in an effort to make an informed choice, regardless of what is being proclaimed by the majority. As much as correlation doesn't equate to causation, the majority opinion doesn't by default equal factual correctness either - it merely makes it populist and "accepted." And the dismissive language employed (as is the case in this article too) "incontrovertible" to cite one example, is so readily employed to paint anyone who counters the accepted stance on vaccination as dangerous and by default, uninformed - there is usually a caveat that all of these stupid anti-vaxxers (a deliberately pejorative term) have gleaned their information from cursory internet research (sic) and as such, are a hazard not only to themselves but to their kids and society at large. This doesn't even begin to tell the story though and is at best inaccurate.
What is seldom, if ever spoken about, in the mainstream press is the unassailable fact that so many of these so-called anti-vaxxers (I'd go as far as to say - often the majority in many communities) are actually ex-vaxxers - in other words, sane, cogent, rational people who subscribed to the same narrative posited in this article and by the medical establishment that vaccines were the way to go and they were safe. No problem.
That is until their child received a vaccine (or a bunch of them) and suddenly the normally developing child had a serious adverse reaction to the vaccine and regressed developmentally to such a degree that the child was irreversibly altered and incapacitated from that point onward. Simultaneously, the former sane, rational, parents are suddenly portrayed as neurotic nutjobs and the medical establishment does everything in its power to point anywhere but at the vaccines. And yet there are hundreds of thousands of incidents like these occurring annually in the US and other countries. And unless the doctor deigns to list the event as a vaccine-related injury, these cases remain (to use a disingenuous euphemism) anecdotal therefore are not worthy of any valid statistical analysis or status and the whole situation is incorrectly downplayed. The VAERS system (Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System) used to record such injuries/events in the US is acknowledged by its creators and users to be severely flawed and by extension inaccurate to a very high degree. Couple to this the obvious unwillingness of paediatricians to admit their administering of a vaccine has seriously injured a child and it is up to the parents to drive the incident and the potential claim forward. It is scant wonder that there are so many contentious debates over the issues when there are always reputations and a great deal of money at stake. Or is it wrong to say that doctors and pharmaceutical companies are businesses too?
So while we are on the topic of the efficacy and safety of vaccines, what, if not vaccines administered in the most vaccinated population in the world (US) is resulting in a generation of the sickest kids in the history of that country? 1 in 6 children there has a chronic condition of some type related to allergies, learning disabilities, childhood diabetes, ASD and on and on. Why, with the claimed efficacy and safety of vaccines and the extremely high uptake, do we not have a much healthier population of children? If one looks at the verifiable statistics in that country, the vaccine adverse event incidence is much more relatable to an epidemic than any one of the minor childhood conditions against which the vaccines are purportedly protecting the children.
And why are vaccines not subjected to the same rigorous safety trialling as standard drugs? On the one hand, it is claimed that it would be unethical to withhold this medication from children to simply conduct a proper double-blind inert placebo trial (as with all other drugs) as the cohort in question could be prevented from contracting a disease by the administering of a vaccine and yet with this logic, not one single laboratory can thus claim that they can scientifically document the risk profile of that vaccine as it has never been tested other than (in some cases) against cohorts receiving another type of vaccine, the latter vaccine also never having undergone double blind testing. It's a principle based on a pyramid type ersatz safety model than has no foundation in solid science whatsoever.
Why is it such a cardinal sin to question this and request safer vaccines when it is common knowledge that they have never been tested like normal drugs?
And why, when in every other case, the physician would take the word of the parents (and particularly mothers) as to the wellbeing of their child and accept that they connected a specific food or drug to an adverse reaction - except when it comes to vaccines?
These drugs/vaccines are the same ones in Australia as they are in the US where the controversy is even more vocal - they are produced by international manufacturers so the safety issues are universal. Australia doesn't suddenly run new tests when the Merck or the Pfizer or the GSK meds arrive on the doorstep - no, they use them as every other country does assuming the safety and risk profiles are available when, in fact, they are not. And given the fact that the US found it necessary to establish a vaccine injury law and taxpayer driven compensation fund, it too is common knowledge that the incidence of vaccine injury was sufficiently high for this to be a national requirement. That in and of itself should tell the public that there is a problem.
The point I am making here is simply that to dismiss the thousands of parents as delusional, unlucky or hysterical when they report these events, is egregious behaviour on the part of the medical establishment and the community at large. And to say that it's just bad luck that their kid got injured and a degree of collateral damage is bound to occur - that is even more pernicious. It wouldn't be so readily dismissed if it was your child that regressed after vaccination and now has to spend the rest of their life in nappies requiring 24/7 medical support and never becoming a contributing member of society, which is so often the case.
These are not imagined events and they are having a severe impact on the health of the children they are supposed to be protecting - in many instances certainly a more profound and longer lasting adverse effect than any of the innocuous childhood ailments that they may be at risk from.
The other illogical premise whereby the vaccinated cohort of the population cry foul is that unvaccinated kids pose a risk to the vaccinated cohort of the community. How is that possible with effective vaccines? If they work, there should be no risk from unvaccinated children whatsoever. In fact there have been many reported cases where the vaccinated population were infecting themselves with the diseases against which they had been vaccinated.
Make them safer - do proper safety tests, (this can be done to a large degree by utilising the available data in the US government database gauging the health of vaccinated against unvaccinated children without any risk to anyone - it's a matter of comparing medical records - and yet that study has inexplicably never been done) and spread out their scheduling which has been shown repeatedly to be a safer practice.
Take a leaf out of Japan's vaccine policy which has been adapted to do just that, also making vaccines optional rather than forcibly and punitively compulsory and the results there speak for themselves.
Similar comparisons can be done as a case in point with the Mullimbimby unvaccinated cohort versus the local vaccinated cohort. It might be small but it would be very meaningful as a study.
It is not, in my research "incontrovertible" as claimed and the topic needs much deeper scientific debate but the establishment simply closes the door on this when most people (ex-vaxxers and nervous-almost-vaxxers not necessarily just anti-vaxxers) are demanding (as is their right) safer vaccines for all.